This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-388 
entitled 'Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data 
Needed to Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves' which 
was released on March 12, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Requesters:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



March 2003:



Food Stamp Employment and Training Program:



Better Data Needed to Understand Who Is Served and What the Program 

Achieves:



GAO-03-388:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-388, a report to Congressional Requesters.



Why GAO Did This Report:



Since the late 1990s, many funding changes have been made to the

Food Stamp E&T Program. In 1997, legislation required states to

spend 80 percent of their funds on participants who lose their food

stamp benefits if they do not meet work requirements within a limited

time frame. The legislation also increased funds by $131 million to

help states serve these participants. But spending rates for the 

program declined until, in 2001, states spent only about 30 percent of 

the federal allocation. In 2002, the Congress reduced federal funds to 

$110 million a year. While it is too soon to know the impact of these

changes, GAO was asked to determine whom the program

serves, what services are provided, and what is known about program

outcomes and effectiveness.



What GAO Found:



Food Stamp Employment and Training (E&T) participants are a small

proportion of the food stamp population and do not usually receive cash

assistance from other programs. While the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) does not collect nationwide data on the number and 

characteristics of Food Stamp E&T participants, program officials in 

the 15 states GAO contacted described the population as generally hard 

to employ because they have little education and a limited work 
history.



States may provide program participants with a range of employment and

training activities that qualify them for food stamp benefits. USDA 

data show that, in fiscal year 2001, job search accounted for about 

half of all participant activities. Work experience—whereby 

participants receive food stamp benefits in exchange for work—accounted 

for about 25 percent. Food Stamp E&T services are delivered through a 

variety of local entities, such as welfare offices or one-stop centers—

sites designed to streamline the services of many federal employment 
and 

training programs. While all but 1 of the 15 states delivered at least 

some of their Food Stamp E&T services at the one-stops, Food Stamp E&T 

participants do not usually engage in intensive services provided by 

other programs at the one-stops. Program officials from most of the 15 

states noted that Food Stamp E&T participants generally lack basic 

skills that allow them to use other program services successfully.



No nationwide data exist on whether the Food Stamp E&T Program helps

participants get a job. While some outcome data exist at the state 

level, it is not clear the outcomes were the result of program 

participation. USDA has no plans to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the program nor have the Departments of Labor or Health and Human 

Services included Food Stamp E&T participants in their studies of 

the hardest-to-employ.



What GAO Recommends:



GAO is recommending that USDA collect nationwide data on program

participants, require states to collect outcome measures, and

work with other agencies on a research agenda that will allow for

an effectiveness evaluation.



In comments on a draft of GAO’s report, Food and Nutrition Service

officials agreed with the benefits of obtaining more information on

whom the program is serving and what it is achieving. However, they

expressed concern over the costs of implementing GAO’s

recommendations, particularly GAO’s recommendation related to

outcome data.



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-388.

To view the full report, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at

202-512-7215 or nilsens@gas.gov.



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



Most States Provide Case Management Services and a Range of Employment 

and Training Activities:



Services Are Delivered through a Variety of Local Entities and Are Not 

Necessarily Linked to Other Employment and Training Programs:



Little Is Known about What the Program Achieves:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Executive Action:



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



Appendix I: Percent of Participants in the Food Stamp and Food Stamp 
E&T 

Program by Age in Five States, Fiscal

Year 2001:



Appendix II: Percent of Food Stamp E&T Activities Provided to Program 

Participants, Fiscal Year 2001:



Appendix III: Food Stamp E&T Expenditures and Allocations, by State, 

Fiscal Years 2001 and 2003:



Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



Staff Acknowledgments:



Related GAO Products:



Table:



Table 1: Work Requirements for Nonexempt Food Stamp Recipients:



Figures:



Figure 1: States’ Spending Levels for Food Stamp E&T Program, Fiscal 

Year 2001:



Figure 2: Funding Structure for Food Stamp E&T Program:



Figure 3: Food Stamp Recipients Subject to and Exempt from Work 

Requirements, Fiscal Year 2001:



Figure 4: Number of States by Proportion of Food Stamp Recipients 

Subject to Work Requirements and Who Are Required to Participate in the 

Food Stamp E&T Program, Fiscal Year 2001:



Figure 5: Percent of Women in the Food Stamp Program and Food Stamp E&T 

Program in Eight States, Fiscal Year 2001:



Figure 6: Proportion of ABAWDs in the Food Stamp E&T Program in Eight 

States, Fiscal Year 2001:



Figure 7: Proportion of Activities Engaged in by Food Stamp E&T 

Participants, Fiscal Year 2001:



Figure 8: Proportion of Job Search Activities Provided by States, 

Fiscal Year 2001:



Figure 9: Proportion of Work Experience Activities Provided by States, 

Fiscal Year 2001:



Figure 10: Proportion of Education and Training Activities Provided by 

States, Fiscal Year 2001:



Abbreviations:



ABAWDs: able-bodied adults without dependents:



BBA: Balanced Budget Act:



E&T: Employment and Training:



FNS: Food and Nutrition Service:



GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:



HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:



PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

 Reconciliation Act:



TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:



USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:



WIA: Workforce Investment Act:



This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright 

protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 

in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain 

copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the 

copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.



March 12, 2003:



The Honorable Tom Harkin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

United States Senate:



The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

United States Senate:



The Honorable Richard Lugar

United States Senate:



In 1985, the Food Security Act established the Food Stamp Employment 

and Training (E&T) Program, administered by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), to assist food stamp recipients who are able-bodied 

gain skills to help them obtain employment. Since that time, many 

changes have been made to the program. In 1996, as part of welfare 

reform, the Congress created the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) block grant to replace the previous welfare program and 

help welfare recipients’ transition into employment. Welfare reform 

also changed the Food Stamp E&T Program by limiting one group of 

program participants--able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)--

to 3 months of food stamp benefits within a 36-month period unless they 

comply with work requirements. Legislation 1 year later required states 

to spend most of their federal funding on ABAWDs and increased funds by 

$131 million in fiscal year 1998 in order to help serve this group. 

After these changes, however, spending rates for the program declined 

until, in fiscal year 2001, states spent only about 30 percent of the 

federal allocation--raising questions about whom the program was 

serving and what the program was achieving. Most recently, the Congress 

passed the 2002 Food Security and Rural Investment Act (the Farm Bill), 

reducing federal funds to $110 million a year and removing the 

requirement that states spend most of their federal funds on ABAWDs. It 

is unclear, however, what impact these changes will have on the 

program’s focus, services, or outcomes.



While it is too soon to know the impact of recent legislative changes 

on how the program operates, you asked us to provide you with 

information on current program participants, services, and outcomes. 

Specifically, you asked us to determine (1) the characteristics of Food 

Stamp E&T participants, (2) the services states are providing to Food 

Stamp E&T participants, (3) where services are delivered, and 4) what 

is currently known about program outcomes and effectiveness.



To answer these questions, we analyzed the limited state and federal 

data available on the characteristics of food stamp recipients and the 

outcomes achieved in the Food Stamp E&T Program. To better understand 

how the program operates, we conducted comprehensive site visits in 5 

states and interviewed state and local food stamp and workforce 

development officials in 10 more states.[Footnote 1] In addition, we 

interviewed officials at USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and 

reviewed documents, including state Food Stamp E&T Program plans for 

the 15 states for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. We conducted our 

work from March 2002 to February 2003, in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards.



Results in Brief:



Food Stamp Employment and Training participants are a small proportion-

-less than 9 percent--of the food stamp population and they do not 

usually receive cash assistance from other programs. In addition, 

according to state and local program officials, Food Stamp E&T 

participants have characteristics that make them hard to employ. While 

USDA collects some nationwide data on the food stamp population for 

quality control purposes, it does not collect the information in a way 

that allows the agency to distinguish food stamp recipients 

participating in the Food Stamp E&T Program from recipients who are 

participating in other employment and training programs. However, the 

proportion of food stamp recipients served by the Food Stamp E&T 

Program is small because most food stamp recipients are exempt from 

food stamp work requirements due to their age or health. While 

nationwide data on the number and characteristics of Food Stamp E&T 

participants are not available, state and local officials in the 15 

states we reviewed described the population as generally hard to employ 

because they have little education, a limited work history, and are 

prone to substance abuse problems and homelessness. The officials also 

noted that many of these characteristics are more prevalent among 

ABAWDs than among other Food Stamp E&T participants and that this group 

is the most difficult to serve and employ.



Almost all states nationwide provide individualized case management 

services to Food Stamp E&T participants and offer some support 

services, according to USDA officials. While states may provide program 

participants with a range of employment and training activities that 

qualify them for food stamp benefits, states most often provide job 

search or work experience activities--whereby participants receive food 

stamp benefits in exchange for work in either the public or private 

sector. While USDA does not require states to report individual 

participant activities, it does collect data on the number of 

participants placed in each activity. USDA’s data show that, in fiscal 

year 2001, job search accounted for about half of all participant 

activities; work experience accounted for about 25 percent; and basic 

education and training to improve reading, math, and language skills 

or to obtain a high school equivalency degree accounted for about 8 

percent.



In 13 of the 15 states we contacted, the agency that administers the 

TANF block grant also oversees the Food Stamp E&T Program, but services 

are delivered through a variety of local entities, such as welfare 

offices or one-stop centers--sites designed to streamline the delivery 

of services for many federal employment and training programs. While 

all but 1 of the 15 states we contacted delivered at least some of 
their 

Food Stamp E&T services at the one-stops, the extent to which states 
use 

the one-stops to deliver these services varies considerably. Even 
though 

Food Stamp E&T participants may receive job search services at the one-

stops, they do not usually participate in other employment and training 

programs available there, according to local officials from most of the 

states we contacted. Officials from over half of the states we 
contacted 

suggested that because Food Stamp E&T participants may be difficult to 

employ, local one-stop staff might be reluctant to provide intensive 

services through other employment and training programs, such as the 

Workforce Investment Act Adult Program, out of concern that they would 

adversely affect the program’s performance measures. In addition, 

officials from 12 states said Food Stamp E&T participants generally are 

not ready for many program services, such as training classes offered 

by programs at the one-stops because they lack basic skills, such as 

reading and computer literacy, that would allow them to use those 

services successfully. Despite these concerns, officials from all 15 

states said it could be advantageous to colocate the Food Stamp E&T 

Program at the one-stops where there would be a broader array of 

services and the potential for sharing program and staff resources.



No nationwide data exist on whether the Food Stamp E&T Program is 

effective in helping participants get and keep employment. Although 

USDA does not require states to collect such information, about half of 

the 15 states we contacted collected data on the number of participants 

who got a job--ranging from 15 percent in one state to 62 percent in 

another--and a few states collected data on starting wages. While some 

states collect outcome data, it remains unclear whether the outcomes 

were the direct result of program participation. In 1988, USDA 

commissioned a study to examine the program’s effectiveness and found 

that those who were required to enroll in the Food Stamp E&T Program 

did not fare any better in terms of employment or wages than those food 

stamp recipients who were excluded from participating. No study has 

been conducted since that time, and USDA has no plans to do another 

study, nor have the Departments of Labor or Health and Human Services 

specifically included Food Stamp E&T participants in their studies of 

the hardest-to-employ.



In order to better understand the population that the Food Stamp E&T 

Program is serving, we are recommending that USDA collect the food 

stamp quality control data in a way that will allow the department to 

estimate the number and characteristics of those individuals 

participating. In addition, we are recommending that USDA require 

states to report on program outcomes and work with the Departments of 

Labor and Health and Human Services on a research agenda that will 

allow for an evaluation of the effectiveness of this program. While FNS 

generally agreed with the benefit of collecting more data on the Food 

Stamp E&T program, the agency had concerns that the potential benefits 

of such data may not be worth the effort or cost.



Background:



Since the 1970s, a variety of work requirements have been tied to the 

receipt of food stamp benefits, including participation in the Food 

Stamp E&T Program. Funding for the program has been provided through a 

combination of federal grants to states, state funds, and federal 

matching funds. Under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, 

services for many other federally funded employment and training 

programs were coordinated through a single system--called the one-stop 

center system--but the Food Stamp E&T Program was not required to be 

part of this system.



Food Stamp Program and Work Requirements:



The Food Stamp Program, administered at the federal level by USDA, 

helps low-income individuals and families obtain a more nutritious diet 

by supplementing their income with food stamp benefits. The states and 

FNS jointly administer the Food Stamp Program. The federal government 

pays the cost of food stamp benefits and 50 percent of the states’ 

administrative costs. The states administer the program by determining 

whether households meet the program’s income and asset requirements, 

calculating monthly benefits for qualified households and issuing 

benefits to participants. In fiscal year 2001, the Food Stamp Program 

served an average of 17.3 million people per month and provided an 

average monthly benefit of $75 per person.



Throughout the history of the Food Stamp Program, a variety of 

employment and training requirements have been tied to the receipt of 

food stamp benefits. The Food Stamp Program requires all recipients, 

unless exempted by law, to register for work at the appropriate 

employment office, participate in an employment and training program if 

assigned by a state agency, and accept an offer of suitable 

employment.[Footnote 2] Food stamp recipients are exempted from 

registering for work and engaging in employment and training activities 

if they are under age 16 or over age 59 or physically or mentally unfit 

for employment. In addition, they are exempted if they are caring for a 

child under the age of 

6, employed 30 hours a week, or subject to and complying with work 

requirements for other programs, such as those required by TANF. Still 

others are exempted because they are receiving unemployment insurance 

compensation, participating in a drug or alcohol treatment and 

rehabilitation program, or are students enrolled at least half time.



The Food Stamp Employment and Training Program:



The Food Security Act of 1985 created the Food Stamp E&T Program to 

help participants gain skills, training, or experience that will 

increase their ability to obtain regular employment. The act requires 

each state to operate a Food Stamp E&T Program with one or more of the 

following employment and training activities: job search, job search 

training, education, vocational training, or work experience. While the 

act mandates that all nonexempt food stamp recipients register for 

work, states have the flexibility to determine which local areas will 

operate a Food Stamp E&T Program and, based on their own criteria, 

whether or not it is appropriate to refer these individuals to the Food 

Stamp E&T Program.[Footnote 3]



Since passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, food stamp recipients aged 

18-49, who are “able-bodied” and not responsible for a dependent child-

-termed able-bodied adults without dependents or ABAWDs--have a time 

limit for the receipt of food stamp benefits and specific work 

requirements. PRWORA marked the first time that federal legislation 

imposed a time limit on the receipt of benefits for any category of 

food stamp recipients. Under PRWORA, ABAWDs are limited to 3 months of 

food stamp benefits in a 36-month period unless they meet one of the 

following ABAWD work requirements: participate in a qualifying work 

activity 20 hours per week, work 20 hours per week, engage in any 

combination of qualifying activities for a total of 20 hours per week, 

or participate in a work experience program.[Footnote 4] Qualifying 

activities include education, vocational training, or work experience. 

ABAWDs may engage in job search or job search training activities 

within the first month of participation in a work experience program. 

In addition, ABAWDs can engage in job search activities as part of 

their work requirements as long as job search does not account for more 

than half of the time they spend engaged in qualified activities.



At the request of states, FNS may waive ABAWDs from the 3-out of 

36-month requirement and the ABAWD work requirement if they live in an 

area where the unemployment rate is over 10 percent or where the state 

can document that there are not a sufficient number of jobs to provide 

employment for these individuals. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 

1997 allowed states to exempt an additional 15 percent of ABAWDs, also 

from the time limit and ABAWD work requirements, based on criteria 

developed by the state, such as participants in remote counties. 

However, ABAWDs are still required to comply with Food Stamp Program 

requirements, such as registering for work at an appropriate employment 

office.



Food Stamp E&T participants other than ABAWDs--including 16-or 

17-year-old heads of households, individuals age 50-60, and individuals 

age 18-49 who are responsible for a dependant age 6-17--must comply 

with any Food Stamp E&T work requirement established by the state where 

they reside. Some states maintain the same work requirements for these 

participants as they do for ABAWDs. Other states may impose less 

rigorous requirements, such as engaging in job search activities a few 

hours a week. (See table 1.):



Table 1: Work Requirements for Nonexempt Food Stamp Recipients:



Characteristics; ABAWDs: Able-bodied adult without dependents, aged 18-

49.; Other mandatory work registrants: Head of household age 16 or 17, 

age 50-60, age 18-49 taking care of child over age 6..



Benefits time limit; ABAWDs: May only receive food stamp benefits for 3 

months out of 36 months if not complying with ABAWD work 

requirements.[A]; Other mandatory work registrants: May receive food 

stamp benefits as long as they remain eligible and comply with program 

requirements..



Food Stamp E&T work requirement; ABAWDs: 20 hours per week of a 

qualifying activity, working 20 hours per week, any combination of 

working and participating in a qualifying activity 20 hours per week, 

or participating in work experience activities.; Other mandatory work 

registrants: As assigned by state..



Qualifying activities; ABAWDs: Work experience activities, education 

programs that directly enhance employability, state or local programs 

aimed at accomplishing the same goals as the Food Stamp E&T Program, 

participating in a WIA-funded program, self-employment or training for 

self-employment. Job search in some circumstances, such as within the 

first month of participation in a work experience activity.; Other 

mandatory work registrants: Same as for ABAWDs, but also including job 

search and job search training..



[End of table]



Source: USDA.



[A] ABAWDs who have used their 3 months of benefits may regain 

subsequent eligibility by meeting ABAWD work requirements in a 30-day 

period. If they fail again to meet work requirements, they receive 3 

months of consecutive food stamp benefits and are then no longer 

eligible for benefits within the 36-month time frame.



Program Funding:



Funding for the Food Stamp E&T Program has been provided through a 

combination of federal grants to states, state funds, and federal 

matching funds. USDA provides matching funds by reimbursing states 50 

percent for their program administrative costs. The agency also 

reimbursed states for 50 percent of support services--such as 

participant transportation--up to $12.50 per participant per 

month.[Footnote 5] While this basic funding structure is still in 

place, several changes have been made since the late 1990s. In response 

to concerns over the ability of ABAWDs to meet the work requirements 

imposed by PRWORA, the Balanced Budget Act authorized additional 

federal grant funding each year between 1998 and 2002 for the Food 

Stamp E&T Program. The additional funding ranged from $31 million in 

1999 to $131 million in 1998 and 2001.[Footnote 6] In order to access 

this additional funding, the legislation required that states spend the 

same amount of state funds on their Food Stamp E&T Program that they 

did in 1996--referred to as a state’s maintenance-of-effort. In 

addition, the legislation required that states spend at least 80 

percent of their total federal grant funds on work activities for 

ABAWDs.



States had the option to expend only 20 percent of their federal funds 

if they chose not to focus services on ABAWDs. Between 1998 and 

2001, states spent 40 percent or less of the federal allocation. In 

2001, over half of the states spent 25 percent or less of their federal 

grant allocation while only eight states spent more than three-fourths 

of their allocation. (See fig. 1.) These low spending rates may reflect 

both the rapid decline in the number of ABAWDs participating in the 

Food Stamp Program, as well as states’ decisions about how to structure 

their programs.[Footnote 7]



Figure 1: States’ Spending Levels for Food Stamp E&T Program, Fiscal 

Year 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis based on USDA data.





The 2002 Farm Bill repealed some of the funding provisions enacted by 

the Balanced Budget Act. The bill eliminated the additional BBA funds 

for 2002 and provided $90 million for each year between 2002-2007. In 

addition, the bill provided an additional $20 million in each of these 

years for states that provide a work activity to every ABAWD who would 

otherwise be subject to the 3-out of 36-month time limit. Fiscal year 

2001 and unspent prior year funds were rescinded, unless states already 

had obligated them. The Farm Bill also repealed the requirement that 

states meet their maintenance-of-effort requirement. In addition, 

states no longer have to spend 80 percent of federal grant funds on 

work activities for ABAWDs. However, the Farm Bill did not eliminate 

the 3-out of 

36-month time limit for benefits or alter the work requirements for 

ABAWDs. States continue to receive the 50-percent matching federal 

funds for program administrative costs, and the Farm Bill eliminated 

the cap on reimbursements to states for support services, such as 

transportation, allowing states to be reimbursed for 50 percent of all 

support service expenses. (See fig. 2.):



Figure 2: Funding Structure for Food Stamp E&T Program:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



The Workforce Investment System:



The Workforce Investment Act, which was passed in 1998, requires states 

and localities to coordinate many federally funded employment and 

training services through a single system, called the one-stop center 

system. Through one-stop centers, individuals can access a range of 

services, including job search activities and employment-related 

activities. WIA mandated that 17 categories of federal employment and 

training programs across four federal agencies be coordinated through 

the one-stop system, including three WIA-funded programs--WIA Adult, 

WIA Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth.[Footnote 8] These programs 

provide three tiers, or levels, of service for adults and dislocated 

workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services include basic 

services such as job searches and labor market information and are 

available to anyone coming into a one-stop center. These activities may 

be self-service or require some staff assistance. Intensive services 

include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case 

management--activities that require greater staff involvement. 

Training services include such activities as occupational skills or on-

the-job training.



Coordination between the 17 programs generally takes one of two forms: 

colocation, whereby clients access employment and training services at 

a local one-stop, or through referrals and electronic linkages to off-

site programs. While other employment and training programs, such as 

TANF and the Food Stamp E&T Program, are not required to be a part of 

the one-stop system, some states have required localities to include 

these programs in the one-stop system.



Food Stamp E&T Participants Usually Are Not Served by Other Programs 

and Have Characteristics That Make Obtaining Employment Difficult:



The Food Stamp E&T Program serves a small proportion of the food stamp 

population who do not usually receive assistance from other programs 

and who, according to state and local program officials, have 

characteristics that make them hard to employ. While USDA collects some 

nationwide data on the food stamp population for quality control 

purposes, it does not collect the information in a way that allows the 

agency to distinguish food stamp recipients participating in the Food 

Stamp E&T Program from recipients who are participating in other 

employment and training programs, such as TANF or WIA. However, because 

most food stamp recipients are exempt from food stamp work requirements 

due to their age or health, the proportion of food stamp recipients 

potentially served by the Food Stamp E&T Program is small. While 

nationwide data on the number of and characteristics of Food Stamp E&T 

participants are not available, state and local officials in the 

15 states we reviewed described the population as generally hard to 

employ because they have little education, a limited work history, and 

are prone to substance abuse problems and homelessness. The officials 

also noted that many of these characteristics are more prevalent among 

ABAWDs and that this group is the most difficult to serve and employ.



Food Stamp E&T Participants Are a Small Proportion of the Food Stamp 

Population and Usually Receive Benefits Only from the Food Stamp 

Program:



Food Stamp E&T participants comprise less than 9 percent of the food 

stamp population because most food stamp recipients are exempted from 

work requirements, such as registering for work or participating in the 

Food Stamp E&T Program. In fiscal year 2001, 91 percent of food stamp 

recipients were not required to meet work requirements. Over 60 percent 

were exempted due to their age--most were under 18 or over 59 (see fig. 

3). Another 30 percent of food stamp recipients--working age adults--

were exempted, over 40 percent of whom were disabled. Other working age 

adults were exempted because they were caring for a dependent child 

under age 6 or because they were working at least 30 hours per week. 

Working age adults may also have been exempted because they were 

already complying with work requirements of other programs, such as 

TANF. Food stamp recipients who participate in key federal cash 

assistance programs--such as TANF, Supplemental Security 

Income,[Footnote 9] or Unemployment Insurance Program--are exempt from 

the Food Stamp E&T Program. As a result, those who participate in the 

Food Stamp E&T Program generally do not receive any federal public cash 

assistance other than food stamps.



Figure 3: Food Stamp Recipients Subject to and Exempt from Work 

Requirements, Fiscal Year 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of USDA data. Data excluded for food stamp 

recipients whose age and work requirement status was unknown. Percents 

may not add to 100% due to rounding.



[A] Exempt from work requirements due to age.



[B] “Other” category includes working age adults exempted from work 

requirements because they were complying with work requirements for 

another program, such as TANF, or were enrolled at least part time in 

school or a training program.





Not all food stamp recipients subject to work requirements participate 

in the Food Stamp E&T Program. States have the flexibility to establish 

their own criteria for selecting which food stamp recipients are 

referred to the program. As a result of this flexibility, in 17 of the 

50 states, according to USDA data, over 80 percent of food stamp 

recipients who were subject to work requirements--including ABAWDs and 

other mandatory work registrants--were required to participate in the 

program. However, 

8 states required 20 percent or less to participate. (See fig. 4.):



Figure 4: Number of States by Proportion of Food Stamp Recipients 

Subject to Work Requirements and Who Are Required to Participate in the 

Food Stamp E&T Program, Fiscal Year 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of USDA data.



No National Data Exist, but Officials Said Food Stamp E&T Participants 

Have Many Characteristics That Make Employment Difficult:



While USDA collects nationwide data on the food stamp population for 

quality control purposes, the agency does not collect the information 

in a way that identifies the specific employment and training program 

in which food stamp recipients are participating.[Footnote 10] Although 

data from the fiscal year 2001 quality control survey indicate that 8 

percent of food stamp recipients are participating as mandatory 

participants in an employment and training program, USDA officials said 

questions in this survey regarding program participation do not specify 

a particular program. Rather, questions are general and could refer to 

the Food Stamp E&T Program or other employment and training programs 

such as TANF and WIA-funded programs. As a result, the agency is unable 

to identify food stamp recipients active in the Food Stamp E&T Program 

from food stamp recipients active in other employment and training 

programs. This prevents the agency from using the quality control 

survey to estimate the number or provide characteristics of Food Stamp 

E&T participants.



While there are no nationwide data on the characteristics of Food Stamp 

E&T participants, state and local officials we spoke with in all 15 

states said their Food Stamp E&T participants have multiple 

characteristics that make them hard to employ. Officials noted that 

Food Stamp E&T participants generally have limited education; often 

they have not completed high school. They also said that program 

participants frequently have a limited work history and few work 

skills. They noted that Food Stamp E&T participants often depend on 

seasonal employment such as tourism-related jobs, and at least one 

official said that many of their participants rarely hold a job for 

more than 3 months. Program officials also told us that participants, 

particularly those in rural settings, often lack transportation, making 

their continued employment difficult. Finally, officials identified 

mental health issues, substance abuse, and homelessness as additional 

characteristics making participants hard to employ. Officials from 

Colorado estimated, for example, that at least 

40 percent of their Food Stamp E&T participants had substance abuse 

problems and 40 percent were homeless.



In addition to providing anecdotal information on Food Stamp E&T 

participants, some states were able to provide quantitative data on a 

limited number of participant characteristics. While not required to 

collect or report these data to USDA, 8 of 15 states we contacted 

collected data on the gender, age, or income of Food Stamp E&T 

participants. In 6 of the 8 states, Food Stamp E&T participants were 

predominantly women--as were the majority of Food Stamp recipients--

(see fig. 5) and data from 

5 states show that most of their participants are between the ages of 

18 and 40. (See app. I for a comparison of food stamp recipients and 

Food Stamp E&T participants by age.) Similar to all food stamp 

recipients, Food Stamp E&T participants generally have very low 

incomes. Three states provided us with data on participant incomes. 

Officials from California said the majority of their participants had 

incomes less than $800 per month, and officials from Colorado and 

Illinois said most participants have incomes less than $200 per month.



Figure 5: Percent of Women in the Food Stamp Program and Food Stamp E&T 

Program in Eight States, Fiscal Year 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of USDA and state data.



[A] We were unable to obtain unduplicated data for fiscal year 2001 

from Florida. To accommodate our request, Florida submitted data for 

January and July of fiscal year 2001. These months were selected in 

order to control for seasonal variations. Data from the 2 months were 

used to project for the entire fiscal year.



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

and Employ:



According to officials from 8 of the 15 states we contacted, ABAWDs--

who comprised 4 percent of the food stamp population nationwide in 

fiscal year 2001--have characteristics that make them the most 

difficult to serve and employ of all Food Stamp E&T participants. While 

a nationwide estimate of the number of ABAWDs participating in the Food 

Stamp E&T Program is not known, 8 states were able to provide data on 

the proportion of participants who were ABAWDs. The proportion varied 

greatly from 1 percent in New Mexico to 100 percent in Florida and 

Illinois. (See fig. 6.) Program officials said that ABAWDs--who are 

most often men--are more likely to lack basic skills such as reading, 

writing, and basic mathematics than other food stamp participants. In 

addition, officials said mental health issues, substance abuse, and 

homelessness are more prevalent among ABAWDs than other participants. A 

recent report cites these three characteristics as among the most 

common barriers to serving ABAWDs.[Footnote 11] The report also 

concludes that ABAWDs have less income--earned and unearned--than other 

food stamp recipients age 

18 to 49.



Figure 6: Proportion of ABAWDs in the Food Stamp E&T Program in Eight 

States, Fiscal Year 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[A] We were unable to obtain unduplicated data for fiscal year 2001 

from Missouri. To accommodate our request, Missouri submitted data for 

January and July of fiscal year 2001. These months were selected in 

order to control for seasonal variations. Data from the 2 months were 

used to project for the entire year.

:



While the characteristics that make Food Stamp E&T participants hard to 

employ are more pronounced among ABAWDs, this group also presents 

unique challenges that add to the difficulties of serving them. First, 

ABAWDS are usually transient and, as a result, often only participate 

in the program for short durations. Moreover, officials also said 

ABAWDs are often unwilling to participate and frequently fail to show 

up for appointments. Some officials suggested that this unwillingness 

to participate stems partly from ABAWDs’ perception that their benefit 

level--an average of $118 of food stamp benefits per month--is too low 

to warrant participation in the program.



Officials we spoke with and a recent report[Footnote 12] note that 

monitoring the activities of ABAWDs has been difficult due to the 

complexities of program requirements. For example, in order to 

determine whether ABAWDs may continue to receive food stamp benefits, 

states track ABAWDs to ensure that they are engaged in a qualifying 

work activity. ABAWDs may only receive benefits for 3 out of 36 months 

if they are not engaged in a qualifying work activity. Program 

officials said these requirements, in combination with ABAWDs’ sporadic 

participation in the program and reluctance to participate, discourage 

states from using their Food Stamp E&T resources to serve these 

individuals. In 2001, 25 states spent 20 percent or less of their 

federal grant allocation. Eight of the 

25 states chose not to serve ABAWDs and as a result, were limited to 

spending only 20 percent of their federal grant funds. The other 17 

states also spent 20 percent or less but may have served ABAWDs as well 

as other mandatory participants. While the 2002 Farm Bill removed the 

requirement that states spend 80 percent of federal grant funds on work 

activities for ABAWDs, states must still track ABAWD compliance with 

the 3-out of 36-month time limit.



Most States Provide Case Management Services and a Range of Employment 

and Training Activities:



States provide Food Stamp E&T participants with case management 

services and offer some support services, such as transportation 

assistance. While states may provide participants with a range of 

employment and training activities, in 2001, states most often placed 

participants in job search and work experience. Other programs that 

serve low-income populations, such as TANF and the WIA Adult Program, 

provide similar activities. Legislative changes in the 2002 Farm Bill, 

however, may affect services that states provide to Food Stamp E&T 

participants.



Most States Provide Case Management and Some Support Services:



According to USDA officials, most states provide Food Stamp E&T 

participants with case management services. Case management services 

may include assessing a participant’s needs, developing an employment 

plan, or helping participants’ access services provided by other 

programs. For example, one state official told us that case managers 

work with participants and local housing organizations to help find 

shelter for the participants or get mental health services so they are 

ready to go to work. Case managers also work with Food Stamp E&T 

participants to help them access support services--services that 

provide assistance with transportation and work or education-related 

expenses. USDA data show that in fiscal year 2001 45 states provided 

transportation funds to Food Stamp E&T participants.[Footnote 13]



In addition to basic transportation and other services paid for in part 

with federal grant funds, program officials told us some local Food 

Stamp E&T Programs provide participants with additional support 

services. Some local programs use state funds or coordinate with 

community-based organizations to obtain other services for 

participants. For example, one local Food Stamp E&T Program provides 

bicycles donated by a community-based organization to some participants 

who need transportation to get to work, while another provides basic 

hygiene products, such as soap and shampoo, because food stamp 

recipients may not use food stamp benefits to buy these products.



States Assign Participants to a Range of Employment and Training 

Activities:



While most Food Stamp E&T participants receive case management 

services, they also may engage in a range of employment and training 

activities to qualify for food stamp benefits. These include job 

search, job search training, work experience, education, and vocational 

training. Participants may also enroll in WIA or a Trade Adjustment 

Act-funded program.[Footnote 14] Job search activities may include 

self-directed or staff-assisted activities. Job search training 

activities include job skills assessment and participation in job 

clubs, wherein participants meet with other job seekers and local 

employers to obtain information on the jobs available in the area and 

assistance in marketing their skills. Participants engaged in work 

experience activities are required to work without pay in exchange for 

food stamp benefits. Education activities may include literacy 

training, high school equivalency programs, or postsecondary education, 

while vocational training provides skill-related training.



While USDA does not require states to report individual participant 

activities, it does collect data on the number of participants placed 

in each activity. In fiscal year 2001, 40 of the 50 states provided 

data to USDA for participant employment and training 

activities.[Footnote 15] The data show that case managers most 

frequently assigned Food Stamp E&T participants to job search 

activities, including job search and job search training. (See fig. 7.) 

However, while job search accounted for about 49 percent of participant 

activities, the extent to which states provided job search activities 

varied. (See fig. 8.) For example, 2 states did not report offering any 

job search activities to participants, while in 11 of the 40 states, 

job search activities accounted for almost all of participant 

activities. (See app. II for a complete listing of the percent of 

program activities provided to participants.):



Figure 7: Proportion of Activities Engaged in by Food Stamp E&T 

Participants, Fiscal Year 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of data provided by 40 states to USDA.



Figure 8: Proportion of Job Search Activities Provided by States, 

Fiscal Year 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of data provided by 40 states to USDA.

:



Work experience activities accounted for about a quarter of all Food 

Stamp E&T activities in fiscal year 2001. In six states, work 

experience activities accounted for over half of all activities. (See 

fig. 9.) Participants may engage in work experience activities with 

either public or private employers. In Texas, all work experience 

positions were with public employers--city, county, or state 

government. In Colorado, participants had the option of working with 

either a private nonprofit or public employer. Thirteen states did not 

offer any work experience activities to participants.



Figure 9: Proportion of Work Experience Activities Provided by States, 

Fiscal Year 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of data provided by 40 states to USDA.



Food Stamp E&T participants are engaged in education and training 

activities much less often than in job search or work experience 

activities. In fiscal year 2001, education and training activities 

accounted for about 

8 percent of participant activities. Education and training activities 

for Food Stamp E&T participants include vocational education classes, 

adult basic education classes, English as a second language classes, 

high school equivalency preparation, or participation in a WIA-funded 

program. The extent to which states provided education and training 

activities varied across states. In Pennsylvania, for example, 

education and training activities accounted for almost half of Food 

Stamp E&T participants’ activities, while in 13 states, participants 

did not receive any of these activities (see fig. 10).



Figure 10: Proportion of Education and Training Activities Provided by 

States, Fiscal Year 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of data provided by 40 states to USDA.

:



State and local officials we spoke with had a range of views on which 

activities were more likely to help Food Stamp E&T participants get 

jobs. Officials from five states told us that participants in their 

program are more likely to find jobs while enrolled in job search, 

while officials from eight states told us that in their experience, 

participants who receive a combination of services tailored to their 

individual needs are more likely to find jobs. However, officials in 

two states told us Food Stamp E&T participants may be reluctant to 

enroll in education and training activities because they want to get a 

job immediately and are not interested in training. In addition, a few 

officials told us they would like to offer more education and training 

options to participants but lacked the funding to support it.



Other programs that serve low-income individuals and families also 

offer education and training activities, in addition to services 

similar to those provided by the Food Stamp E&T Program. For example, 

in fiscal year 2000, almost half of TANF participants were enrolled in 

work experience activities, over 40 percent were enrolled in job search 

activities,[Footnote 16] and over 20 percent were enrolled in education 

and training activities.[Footnote 17] Some of the WIA Adult Program’s 

core services are the same as those provided to Food Stamp E&T 

participants, such as job search. However, services offered under WIA 

Adult intensive and training tiers involve greater staff involvement 

and provide more comprehensive activities than those provided under the 

core tier. Fifty-five percent of participants enrolled in the WIA Adult 

Program in program year 2000 (July 2000 to June 2001) participated in 

intensive and training activities. Other WIA Adult participants 

receiving intensive and training services may be receiving skills 

assessment, individualized counseling and case management, and short-

term prevocational services, such as computer training.



Legislative Changes May Affect Services Provided to Participants:



Legislative changes enacted by the 2002 Farm Bill may affect the 

services that states provide to program participants by reducing the 

total amount of Food Stamp E&T federal funds available to states to 

$110 million--or $274 million lower than funds they had available in 

fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 18] As a result, most states will receive 

a smaller allocation in 2003 than they received in 2001, although 4 

states will receive a greater allocation, in part due to changes in 

USDA’s funding formula.[Footnote 19] However, this funding decrease 

may have a greater impact on some states than others because not all 

states have been spending a large proportion of their federal grant 

allocation. For example, in 2001, more than half of the states spent 

less than 25 percent of their allocation, while only 8 states spent 

more than 75 percent. As a result of the funding decrease and states’ 

varied spending rates, about one-third of the states will receive a 

smaller allocation in 2003 than they spent in 2001. (See app. III for 

a comparison of what states spent in fiscal year 2001 and their 

allocations in fiscal years 2001 and 2003.) However, because the Farm 

Bill also eliminated the requirement that states reserve 80 percent of 

federal grant funds for activities for ABAWDs, states may choose to 

spend as much of their federal allocation as they did before the 

requirement became effective in 1998. For example, in 1997, 46 states 

spent more than 75 percent of their allocation, with states spending 94 

percent of the total federal allocation.



Services Are Delivered through a Variety of Local Entities and Are Not 

Necessarily Linked to Other Employment and Training Programs:



In 13 of the 15 states we contacted, the agency that administers the 

TANF block grant also oversees the Food Stamp E&T Program; in the 2 

other states, the Food Stamp E&T Program is administered by the 

workforce development system. However, services are provided through a 

variety of local entities, including welfare offices and one-stop 

centers. While all but 1 of the states we contacted delivered at least 

some of their Food Stamp E&T services at the one-stops, the extent to 

which states use the one-stops to deliver these services varies 

considerably. For example, in Virginia, only two Food Stamp E&T 

Programs are colocated at the one-stops. In other counties, services 

are delivered at welfare offices. In Colorado, about one-third of the 

counties that provide Food Stamp E&T services--primarily the larger 

counties--deliver their Food Stamp E&T services through the one-stops. 

Other counties in Colorado deliver services through local welfare 

agencies or community-based organizations, such as Goodwill Industries. 

In Texas, the state’s workforce commission administers the Food Stamp 

E&T Program, and all program services statewide are delivered through 

the one-stop system.



Food Stamp E&T participants may receive job search services through the 

one-stop centers, but according to many local program officials, few 

participants receive other services from employment and training 

programs available at the centers, such as the WIA Adult Program. In 

Pennsylvania, Food Stamp E&T participants are referred to the one-stops 

for job search activities,[Footnote 20] and in Vermont, almost all 

participants receive WIA-funded core services through the one-stop 

system. These services may include job search activities but may also 

include a preliminary assessment of skills and needs. Most state 

officials told us that they did not collect data on how many Food Stamp 

E&T participants were referred to or received services from other 

employment and training programs at the one-stops. However, local 

officials in 10 of the 15 states told us that few, if any Food Stamp 

E&T participants actually receive services from other employment and 

training programs at the one-stops, and a few provided estimates. For 

example, a local official in New Mexico estimated that his office 

referred about one-fourth of its Food Stamp E&T participants to the WIA 

Adult Program in any given year, but less than half of these are 

actually enrolled in the program. Local officials in Idaho, by 

comparison, said that while about one-third of their Food Stamp E&T 

participants are referred in any given year, only about 2 percent are 

enrolled in WIA-funded intensive or training services.[Footnote 21] A 

Food Stamp E&T administrator in Michigan told us that, even though the 

Food Stamp E&T Program is colocated at a one-stop center in his county, 

the center served only three or four clients a year.



Program officials cited several reasons that Food Stamp E&T 

participants may not receive services from other employment and 

training programs. Officials from eight of the states we spoke with 

suggested that local WIA staff might be reluctant to provide WIA-funded 

intensive and training services to a population less likely to get and 

keep a job--such as those in the Food Stamp E&T Program--out of concern 

that they would adversely affect their performance as measured under 

WIA. While job seekers who receive core services that are self-service 

in nature are not included in these performance measures, participants 

enrolled in WIA-funded intensive or training programs are tracked in 

areas such as job placement, retention, and earnings change. WIA 

established these performance measures, and states are held accountable 

by the U.S. Department of Labor for their performance in these areas. 

If states fail to meet their expected performance levels, they may 

suffer financial sanctions; if states meet or exceed their levels, they 

may be eligible to receive additional funds.



While employment and training programs at the one-stops offer some of 

the activities that Food Stamp E&T participants need, officials from 12 

of the 15 states we contacted told us that most participants are not 

ready for these activities, in part, because they lack basic skills 

(such as reading and computer literacy) that would allow them to 

successfully participate. Officials from 5 states also noted that 

mental health problems often prevent Food Stamp E&T participants from 

participating in other more intensive employment and training programs 

at the one-stops. Program officials told us participants often need 

specialized case management services that might not be available from 

other program staff.



Despite concerns about performance measures and the skill level of Food 

Stamp E&T participants, program officials from all 15 states we 

contacted cited advantages to colocating the Food Stamp E&T Program at 

the one-stops. The most frequently cited advantage was that Food Stamp 

E&T participants would benefit from having access to a broader array of 

employment and training services. In addition, officials from 9 of the 

states noted that colocation would provide a better use of program 

resources and staff, and program officials from 8 states said that the 

one-stops offer a more positive environment--one focused more on work 

and training than might be found in local welfare offices. Finally, 

officials from 7 states said that for those who may lack 

transportation, colocation of services would be advantageous.



Little Is Known about What the Program Achieves:



Little information is available about whether the Food Stamp E&T 

Program is effective in helping participants get and keep a job. 

Although USDA does not require the reporting of outcome data, 7 of the 

15 states we contacted collected data in fiscal year 2001 on job 

placements, and 2 of these states also collected data on wages. Their 

job placement rates ranged from 15 percent in one state to 62 percent 

in another,[Footnote 22] and the average starting wages reported by the 

2 states was about $7.00 per hour or about $1.91 above the federal 

minimum wage.



In the late 1980s, USDA developed outcome measures for the Food Stamp 

E&T Program, but these measures were not implemented because of 

concerns among state and federal officials regarding the feasibility of 

collecting outcome data. In 1988, the Hunger Prevention Act directed 

the Secretary of Agriculture to work with states and other federal 

agencies to develop outcome-based performance standards for the 

program. The proposed measures included a targeted job placement rate 

(25 percent of those completing Food Stamp E&T activities) and a 

targeted average starting wage of $4.45--about the same as the minimum 

wage in the early 1990s.[Footnote 23] FNS published the proposed 

performance standards in 1991. According to USDA officials, reaction to 

implementing the proposed standards was overwhelmingly negative, with a 

consensus among state and federal officials that data collection would 

impose an unreasonable burden on state agencies and that the costs 

associated with collecting the data would be disproportionate relative 

to the program’s funding. The mandate to collect outcome data was 

subsequently removed from the legislation in 1996.



Outcome measures became a much greater factor in how agencies assess 

the effectiveness of their programs with the passage of the 1993 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA shifted the focus 

of accountability for federal programs from inputs, such as staffing 

and activity levels, to outcomes. GPRA requires that each federal 

agency develop a multiyear strategic plan identifying the agency’s 

mission and long-term goals and connecting these goals to program 

activities. In addition, the President’s 2004 Budget contains increased 

emphasis on performance and management assessments, including a focus 

on short-term and long-term performance goals and the need to track 

performance data in order to assess a program’s achievements. For 

example, the Office of Management and Budget expects agencies to submit 

performance-based budgets in 2005 and is requiring that many adult 

employment and training programs (25) collect performance data in four 

areas-job placements, job retention, earnings gained, and program cost 

per job placement. This focus may lend new urgency for programs to 

collect outcome data.



While outcome measures are an important component of program management 

in that they assess whether a participant is achieving an intended 

outcome--such as obtaining employment--they cannot measure whether the 

outcome is a direct result of program participation. Other influences, 

such as the state of the local economy, may affect an individual’s 

ability to find a job as much or more than participation in an 

employment and training program. Many researchers consider impact 

evaluations to be the best method for determining the effectiveness of 

a program--that is, whether the program itself rather than other 

factors leads to participant outcomes.[Footnote 24]



In 1988, USDA commissioned an impact study to determine the 

effectiveness of the Food Stamp E&T Program and found that those 

required to enroll in the program did not fare any better, in terms of 

employment or wages, than those excluded from participating. While the 

study found that those required to enroll in the program increased 

their employment and earnings during the 12 months after certification 

for food stamp benefits, it found no difference between that group and 

those not required to participate. The study notes, however, that only 

43 percent of those required to participate actually received 

employment and training activities in 1988 and that the services 

received by the program participants consisted primarily of referrals 

to job search activities.[Footnote 25]



According to USDA officials, the agency has no plans to conduct another 

effectiveness evaluation of the Food Stamp E&T Program. They noted that 

the program is not a research priority for the agency’s food and 

nutrition area, and no mention of the program is noted in FNS’s 

strategic plan. They also noted that the cost of an evaluation might 

not be warranted, given the limited funding for the program.[Footnote 

26] Federal funding for the program (including reimbursements for 

administrative costs) is small compared with other programs--averaging 

about $172 million per year between 1994 and 2001--compared to about 

$3.8 billion for WIA programs in fiscal year 2001. However, the federal 

government and the states have spent over $2 billion since 1994 on the 

Food Stamp E&T Program without any nationwide data documenting whether 

the program is helping its participants.



While impact evaluations may be expensive and complex to administer, 

they are being used to assess the effectiveness of some federal 

programs. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) is conducting evaluation studies on early childhood programs, and 

the Department of Labor recently evaluated the impact of the Job Corps 

program on student employment outcomes.[Footnote 27] In addition, both 

of these agencies are conducting research over the next 5 years that 

focuses on strategies to assist the hardest-to-serve, but they do not 

include the Food Stamp E&T population. HHS is commissioning an 

evaluation of programs that serve the hard-to-employ low-income 

parents, in part, to determine the effects of such programs on 

employment and earnings. And, Labor has plans to examine the most 

effective strategies for addressing employment barriers such as 

substance abuse and homelessness.



Conclusions:



The Food Stamp E&T Program was established to help some food stamp 

recipients get a job and reduce their dependence on food stamps. For 

many Food Stamp E&T participants--who often lack the skills to be 

successful in other employment and training programs and who usually 

are not eligible for most other federal assistance programs--this 

program is the only one focused on helping them enter the workforce. 

But little is known at any level--federal, state, or local--about 

whether the program is achieving this goal. Little nationwide data 

exist to tell us who is participating or if they are getting a job. 

Even less is known about whether the services provided by the program 

make a difference in program outcomes. With limited knowledge of whom 

the program is serving, what outcomes the program is achieving, or 

whether program services are making a difference, it is difficult to 

make informed decisions about where to place limited employment and 

training resources. Given recent legislative changes that reduce most 

states’ funds, while allowing more discretion as to whom they serve, it 

may be even more essential to understand what works and what does not. 

While the Food Stamp E&T Program is small relative to other federal 

employment and training programs, wise investment of these resources 

could help reduce long-term spending on food stamp benefits.



Recommendations for Executive Action:



To help USDA better understand who the Food Stamp E&T Program is 

serving, what the program is achieving, and whether the program is 

effective, we recommend that USDA do the following:



* Use its quality control survey to collect nationwide estimates on the 

number of food stamp recipients participating in the Food Stamp E&T 

Program and their characteristics, such as age and gender. To do so, 

USDA should clarify its instructions for reporting the data so that 

states clearly identify which food stamp recipients are in the Food 

Stamp E&T Program.



* Establish uniform outcome measures for the Food Stamp E&T Program and 

require states to collect and report them.



* Work with the Department of Labor and/or the Department of Health and 

Human Services on a research agenda that will allow for an evaluation 

of the effectiveness of the Food Stamp E&T Program.



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



We provided a draft of this report to USDA for comment. While FNS did 

not provide written comments, FNS officials provided us with oral 

comments on the draft, including technical changes, which we 

incorporated where appropriate.



FNS generally agreed with the benefit of collecting more data on the 

Food Stamp E&T Program; however, the agency had concerns that the 

potential benefits of more data may not be worth the effort or cost. 

Regarding our recommendation for more data on whom the program is 

serving, FNS said that because the Food Stamp Quality Control survey 

collects information from only a sample of food stamp households--and 

that individuals participating in the Food Stamp E&T Program would 

comprise a small percentage of those included in the sample--the data 

collected would be of limited use at the state level. While we agree 

that characteristic data gathered from the survey may not be useful at 

the state level, the survey could provide a cost-effective means to 

obtain nationwide data that are currently not available and would allow 

FNS to better understand the population that the program is serving.



While FNS agreed with the need to assess what the Food Stamp E&T 

Program is achieving, agency officials expressed concerns regarding the 

cost of implementing our recommendation related to outcome data. 

Specifically, the officials are concerned that states will find it 

overly burdensome to collect outcome data given the limited funding for 

this program and that costs associated with collecting these data might 

reduce funding available for program participants. The officials noted 

that other employment and training programs that collect outcome data, 

such as WIA-funded programs, are funded at much higher levels than the 

Food Stamp E&T Program and that costs associated with collecting data 

for these programs might not be as onerous as for the Food Stamp E&T 

Program.



We considered the costs associated with collecting outcome data and 

while we agree that collecting data will entail additional 

administrative costs for the states, we believe that the benefits of 

collecting uniform outcome measures outweigh the costs to states. 

Having some measures of what the program is achieving is necessary for 

FNS and state administrators as they strive to improve program 

services--about half of the states we contacted already collect some 

data on program performance. In addition, outcome data provide the 

Congress with key information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness 

of federal employment and training programs. Many federal employment 

and training programs, including ones that have funding levels similar 

to the Food Stamp E&T Program, have integrated outcome measures into 

the administration of their programs. The emphasis on performance 

evaluation is reflected in the President’s 2004 Budget and the Office 

of Management and Budget’s requirement that agencies submit 

performance-based budgets and that employment and training programs 

collect uniform performance data.



Finally, FNS reiterated that given its limited research funds and other 

high-priority research areas, evaluation of the Food Stamp E&T Program 

is not a research priority for the agency at this time. However, 

regarding our recommendation concerning the feasibility of an 

effectiveness evaluation, FNS acknowledged the usefulness and cost-

effectiveness of working with other agencies that are evaluating 

employment and training services for hard-to-serve populations.



We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture, 

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 

the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at:



http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your 

staff have any questions about this report. Other major contributors to 

this report are listed in appendix IV.



Signed by Sigurd R. Nilsen:



Sigurd R. Nilsen

Director, Education, Workforce,

 Income Security Issues:



[End of section]



Appendix I: Percent of Participants in the Food Stamp and Food Stamp 
E&T 

Program by Age in Five States, Fiscal Year 2001:



State: California; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 22; 18-40 years: 

Food Stamp

E&T participants: 79; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 7; 

41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 14; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years: 

Food Stamp recipients: 3; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 

6.



State: Colorado; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 26; 18-40 years: 

Food Stamp

E&T participants: 67; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 9; 

41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 24; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years: 

Food Stamp recipients: 6; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 

9.



State: Idaho; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 29; 18-40 years: Food 

Stamp

E&T participants: 76; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 7; 

41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 18; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years: 

Food Stamp recipients: 6; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 

6.



State: Pennsylvania; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 27; 18-40 

years: Food Stamp

E&T participants: 62; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 10; 

41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 23; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years: 

Food Stamp recipients: 7; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 

15.



State: Texas; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 25; 18-40 years: Food 

Stamp

E&T participants: 63; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 6; 

41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 29; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years: 

Food Stamp recipients: 4; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 

8.



[End of table]



Source: USDA and state data.



Note: GAO analysis of USDA and state data.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Percent of Food Stamp E&T Activities Provided to Program 

Participants, Fiscal Year 2001:



State: Alabama; Job search: Job search: 54.2%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 43.5%; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 2.4%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: Alaska[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Arizona; Job search: Job search: 46.8%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 49.5%; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 3.6%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: Arkansas; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

100.0%.



State: California; Job search: Job search: 35.2%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 59.0%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 0.4%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: 3.2%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 2.2%.



State: Colorado; Job search: Job search: 12.3%; Job search: Job 

training: 1.9%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 74.3%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 11.5%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Connecticut[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Delaware; Job search: Job search: 40.0%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 33.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: 26.5%; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Florida; Job search: Job search: 64.1%; Job search: Job 

training: 17.8%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 13.4%; Work 

experience: Workfare: 4.7%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Georgia[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Hawaii[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Idaho[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Illinois; Job search: Job search: 33.7%; Job search: Job 

training: 0.4%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 12.8%; Work 

experience: Workfare: 53.1%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Indiana[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Iowa; Job search: Job search: 96.0%; Job search: Job training: 

[Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; Work 

experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 4.0%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: Kansas; Job search: Job search: 60.7%; Job search: Job training: 

21.4%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 3.4%; Work 

experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 11.2%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: 3.4%; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Kentucky[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Louisiana; Job search: Job search: 84.5%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 11.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 3.0%; Education/training: WIA: 1.2%; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: Maine; Job search: Job search: 19.4%; Job search: Job training: 

[Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 4.7%; Work 

experience: Workfare: 0.6%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: 5.3%; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

70.0%.



State: Maryland; Job search: Job search: 47.1%; Job search: Job 

training: 19.3%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 23.3%; Work 

experience: Workfare: 9.6%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: 0.7%; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Massachusetts; Job search: Job search: 100.0%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Michigan; Job search: Job search: 49.1%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 1.2%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: 3.1%; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 46.6%.



State: Minnesota; Job search: Job search: 95.1%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 0.1%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: 4.9%; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Mississippi[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Missouri; Job search: Job search: 70.4%; Job search: Job 

training: 23.2%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 6.4%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: Montana; Job search: Job search: 30.7%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 69.3%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Nebraska; Job search: Job search: 100.0%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Nevada[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: New Hampshire; Job search: Job search: 57.4%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 36.5%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 6.1%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: New Jersey; Job search: Job search: 80.5%; Job search: Job 

training: 1.1%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 14.4%; Work 

experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: 4.0%; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: New Mexico; Job search: Job search: 54.9%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 8.7%; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 12.1%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: 5.4%; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

18.9%.



State: New York; Job search: Job search: 25.9%; Job search: Job 

training: 21.9%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 49.6%; Work 

experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 0.0%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: 0.7%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: North Carolina; Job search: Job search: 97.5%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 1.7%; Education/training: WIA: 0.8%; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: North Dakota; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: 100.0%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Ohio; Job search: Job search: 16.0%; Job search: Job training: 

10.2%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; Work 

experience: Workfare: 73.7%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Oklahoma; Job search: Job search: 95.3%; Job search: Job 

training: 1.6%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 3.2%.



State: Oregon; Job search: Job search: 82.0%; Job search: Job training: 

7.2%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; Work 

experience: Workfare: 5.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: 1.2%; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 4.3%.



State: Pennsylvania; Job search: Job search: 29.3%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 2.9%; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: 24.3%; Education/training: GED[A]: 

16.5%; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 27.0%.



State: Rhode Island; Job search: Job search: 100.0%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: South Carolina[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: 

Job training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 

[Empty]; Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/

training: Basic education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; 

Education/training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: 

GED[A]: [Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; 

Other[C]: [Empty].



State: South Dakota; Job search: Job search: 89.7%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 4.9%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 4.8%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 0.6%.



State: Tennessee; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 91.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 6.2%; Education/training: WIA: 1.7%; Education/training: 

Vocational education: 0.2%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 0.6%.



State: Texas; Job search: Job search: 69.0%; Job search: Job training: 

0.7%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 0.7%; Work experience: 

Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic education: 

[Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: 0.4%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 29.2%.



State: Utah; Job search: Job search: 53.1%; Job search: Job training: 

46.9%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; Work 

experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Vermont; Job search: Job search: 67.3%; Job search: Job 

training: 3.8%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 2.1%; Work 

experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 18.5%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



State: Virginia; Job search: Job search: 76.1%; Job search: Job 

training: 11.0%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 5.9%; Work 

experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 7.0%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: Washington; Job search: Job search: 80.4%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: 17.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 2.2%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].



State: West Virginia; Job search: Job search: 79.2%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 11.5%; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: 5.0%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training: 

Vocational education: 4.0%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty]; 

Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 0.3%.



State: Wisconsin; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job 

training: 1.5%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: 26.3%; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: 4.2%; [Empty]; Other[C]: 68.0%.



State: Wyoming; Job search: Job search: 100.0%; Job search: Job 

training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; 

Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic 

education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/

training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: 

[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 

[Empty].



[End of table]



Source: USDA.



[A] High school equivalency preparation.



[B] English as a second language class.



[C] State or local programs, or post-secondary education.



[D] Data not provided by state to USDA.



[End of section]



Appendix III: Food Stamp E&T Expenditures and Allocations, by State, 

Fiscal Years 2001 and 2003:



States: Alabama; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$10,034,322; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,207,314; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 12%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $2,376,356; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($7,657,966); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 49%.



States: Alaska; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $122,836; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $75,362; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 61%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$376,570; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

$253,734; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 80%.



States: Arizona; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$2,702,908; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $531,585; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 20%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $2,500,167; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($202,741); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and 

FY03 allocation: 79%.



States: Arkansas; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$1,800,456; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $156,089; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 9%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $2,866,326; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: $1,065,870; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and 

FY03 allocation: 95%.



States: California; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$31,392,037; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $31,392,037; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 100%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $7,113,981; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($24,278,056); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -341%.



States: Colorado; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$1,922,995; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,485,235; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 77%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $883,485; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($1,039,510); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -68%.



States: Connecticut; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$7,303,021; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $530,019; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 7%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $1,360,403; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($5,942,618); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 61%.



States: Delaware; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $675,060; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $125,418; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 19%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$430,834; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($244,226); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 71%.



States: Florida; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$14,090,723; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $5,269,877; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 37%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $4,714,894; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($9,375,829); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -12%.



States: Georgia; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$13,514,401; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,533,012; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 11%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $2,304,569; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($11,209,832); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 33%.



States: Hawaii; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $2,283,025; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $865,599; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 38%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$431,163; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($1,851,862); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: -101%.



States: Idaho; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $623,864; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $155,822; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 25%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$359,623; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($264,241); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 57%.



States: Illinois; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$13,514,991; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $11,811,556; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 87%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $5,431,414; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($8,083,577); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -117%.



States: Indiana; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$8,475,166; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,241,437; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 26%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $1,839,092; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($6,636,074); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -22%.



States: Iowa; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $2,932,944; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $628,740; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 21%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$527,708; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($2,405,236); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: -19%.



States: Kansas; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $1,078,510; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $215,702; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 20%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$613,691; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($464,819); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 65%.



States: Kentucky; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$1,350,998; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $338,803; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 25%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $3,143,729; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: $1,792,731; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and 

FY03 allocation: 89%.



States: Louisiana; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$7,260,021; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,092,506; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 15%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: 3,546,976; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($3,713,045); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 69%.



States: Maine; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $4,662,038; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $318,251; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 7%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$359,380; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($4,302,658); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 11%.



States: Maryland; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$5,233,404; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $449,287; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 9%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $1,114,743; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($4,118,661); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 60%.



States: Massachusetts; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$2,260,884; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $694,564; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 31%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $680,346; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($1,580,538); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -2%.



States: Michigan; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$39,667,524; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $6,909,189; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 17%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $6,830,663; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($32,836,861); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -1%.



States: Minnesota; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$5,098,070; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $975,406; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 19%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $1,247,911; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($3,850,159); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 22%.



States: Mississippi; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$6,503,087; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,401,446; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 22%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $1,523,416; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($4,979,671); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 8%.



States: Missouri; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$13,394,447; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,093,205; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 8%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $1,803,099; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($11,591,348); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 39%.



States: Montana; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $726,007; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $637,280; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 88%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$313,204; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($412,803); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: -103%.



States: Nebraska; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$1,276,662; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $303,506; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 24%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $506,145; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($770,517); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and 

FY03 allocation: 40%.



States: Nevada; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $1,034,942; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $158,750; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 15%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$444,404; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($590,538); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 64%.



States: New Hampshire; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$231,704; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $152,593; Fiscal year 2001: 

Percent expended: 66%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $217,301; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($14,403); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and 

FY03 allocation: 30%.



States: New Jersey; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$17,354,702; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $12,843,910; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 74%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $2,014,694; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($15,340,008); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -538%.



States: New Mexico; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$4,342,711; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $298,661; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 7%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $637,470; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($3,705,241); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 53%.



States: New York; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$34,489,209; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $6,577,761; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 19%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $13,197,206; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($21,292,003); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 50%.



States: North Carolina; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$15,044,030; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $361,647; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 2%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $1,906,854; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($13,137,176); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 81%.



States: North Dakota; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$933,130; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $176,691; Fiscal year 2001: 

Percent expended: 19%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $154,219; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($778,911); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and 

FY03 allocation: -15%.



States: Ohio; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $7,615,703; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $3,060,191; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 40%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$4,510,842; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($3,104,861); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 32%.



States: Oklahoma; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$3,326,401; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $108,516; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 3%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $832,154; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($2,494,247); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 87%.



States: Oregon; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $8,090,978; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $6,602,696; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 82%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$1,861,250; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($6,229,728); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: -255%.



States: Pennsylvania; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$33,135,858; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $8,014,047; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 24%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $5,177,268; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($27,958,590); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -55%.



States: Rhode Island; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$287,367; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $35,385; Fiscal year 2001: 

Percent expended: 12%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $327,237; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: $39,870; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and 

FY03 allocation: 89%.



States: South Carolina; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$2,758,508; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,634,781; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 96%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $1,389,975; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($1,368,533); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -90%.



States: South Dakota; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$348,290; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $348,290; Fiscal year 2001: 

Percent expended: 100%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $413,225; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: $64,935; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and 

FY03 allocation: 16%.



States: Tennessee; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$8,074,246; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,672,860; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 33%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $3,019,575; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($5,054,671); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 11%.



States: Texas; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $15,099,704; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $4,156,416; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 28%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$9,512,763; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($5,586,941); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 56%.



States: Utah; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $1,112,283; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $526,397; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 47%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$611,950; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($500,333); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 14%.



States: Vermont; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$1,583,154; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $166,826; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 11%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $228,246; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($1,354,908); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 27%.



States: Virginia; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$11,819,154; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,375,349; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 20%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $1,948,464; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($9,870,690); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: -22%.



States: Washington; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$2,816,412; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,265,290; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 80%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $2,375,751; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($440,661); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and 

FY03 allocation: 5%.



States: West Virginia; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$4,730,286; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $211,767; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 4%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $2,274,490; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($2,455,796); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 91%.



States: Wisconsin; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: 

$4,006,050; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $707,649; Fiscal year 

2001: Percent expended: 18%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant 

allocation: $710,462; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 

allocation: ($3,295,588); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure 

and FY03 allocation: 0%.



States: Wyoming; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $391,196; 

Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $78,239; Fiscal year 2001: Percent 

expended: 20%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation: 

$117,765; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation: 

($273,431); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03 

allocation: 34%.



[End of table]



Source: USDA.



Note: GAO analysis of USDA data.



[End of section]



Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



Dianne Blank (202) 512-5654

Elizabeth Morrison (202) 512-9641:



Staff Acknowledgments:



Elspeth Grindstaff and Angela Miles made significant contributions to 

this report. In addition, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, Marc 

Molino provided graphic design assistance, and Susan Bernstein provided 

writing assistance.



[End of section]



Related GAO Products:



Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job 

Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other 

Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.



Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp 

Program: Work Provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and Food Stamp Provisions of the 

Balanced Budget Act of 1997. GAO-02-874R. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 

2002.



Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate 

Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective 

Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.



Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures 

to Provide a More Accurate Picture of Wiz’s Effectiveness. GAO-02-275. 

Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.



Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns 

Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.



Food Stamp Program: Implementation of the Employment and Training 

Program for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents. GAO-01-391R. 

Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2001.



Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp 

Program--Food Stamp Provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. GAO/

OGC-99-66. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 1999.



Food Stamp Program: Information on Employment and Training Activities. 

GAO/RCED-99-40. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 1998.



FOOTNOTES



[1] We chose states for our site visits and telephone interviews based 

on criteria such as how much federal funding the state was allocated in 

fiscal year 2001, what proportion of the federal funding states 

expended, the number of people served in a state, and the state’s 

geographic location. We selected our states to give us a range of 

funding levels, expenditure rates, and participants served. States we 

visited were California, Colorado, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. 

We conducted telephone interviews with state and local officials in 

Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, 

New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.



[2] In addition, food stamp recipients who are not exempt are required 

to provide information, if requested by the state agency, regarding 

employment status or availability for work, and are to report to an 

employer identified by the state agency. 



[3] Food stamp recipients also may volunteer to participate in the Food 

Stamp E&T Program.



[4] ABAWDs may work less than 20 hours per week if engaged in a work 

experience program whereby they are only required to work in exchange 

for food stamp benefits. By law, the number of hours of participation 

in a work experience activity is limited to the household’s food stamp 

benefit divided by a federal or state minimum wage--whichever one is 

higher. 



[5] States provide participants with support to help pay for dependent 

care. The federal government reimburses state Food Stamp E&T Programs 

for 50 percent of dependent care costs, and states are required to 

provide dependent care services to eligible participants. However, 

mandatory Food Stamp E&T participants may be exempted from 

participating in the program if their work-related monthly expenses 

exceed the allowable reimbursement amount.



[6] Although the BBA originally provided for $131 million each year, a 

subsequent provision changed the amount for fiscal year 1999 to $31 

million and to $86 million for fiscal year 2000.



[7] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: 

Implementation of the Employment and Training Program for Able-Bodied 

Adults Without Dependents, GAO-01-391R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 

2001).



[8] The WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth programs 

replaced those previously funded under the Job Training Partnership 

Act. The other programs include Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser), 

Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs, Veterans’ Employment and Training 

Programs, Unemployment Insurance, Job Corps, Welfare-to-Work Grant-

Funded Programs, Senior Community Service Employment Program, 

Employment and Training for Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers, 

Employment and Training for Native Americans, Vocational Rehabilitation 

Program, Adult Education and Literacy, Vocational Education (Perkins 

Act), Community Services Block Grant, and HUD-Administered Employment 

and Training. 



[9] Supplemental Security Income provides income assistance for aged, 

blind, or disabled individuals whose income and resources fall below a 

certain threshold. Unemployment Insurance provides temporary cash 

benefits to workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own 

and requires recipients to enroll in employment services or a job-

training program as a condition of eligibility. 



[10] USDA’s Quality Control survey is a nationally representative 

sample of food stamp households selected for review as part of the Food 

Stamp Program Quality Control System. Data gathered from the quality 

control survey are used to determine if households are eligible to 

participate or are receiving the correct benefit amount and if 

household participation is correctly denied or terminated. The survey 

also provides detailed demographic and economic information on food 

stamp participants sampled in each month and is published in FNS’ 

annual report, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households. 



[11] USDA report submitted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

Imposing a Time Limit on Food Stamp Receipt: Implementation of the 

Provisions and Effects on Food Stamp Program Participation, Volume I, 

Final Report, (Sept. 4, 2001).



[12] Ibid. 



[13] In addition, in fiscal year 2001, 34 states did not spend any 

money on dependent care. Of the remaining 16 states, all but 2 spent 

less than $150,000. 



[14] The WIA or Trade Adjustment Assistance programs may provide 

classroom training in occupational skills, on-the-job training in 

subsidized employment, worker training, or adult education classes. The 

Trade Adjustment Assistance Program provides worker training and 

readjustment assistance to workers who have become unemployed due to 

plant closings. 



[15] While federal regulations require states to provide USDA with the 

number of participants placed in each employment and training component 

offered by the state, USDA reported that only 40 states provided these 

data in fiscal year 2001. A USDA official noted that the agency plans 

to work with states to ensure the data are reported.



[16] Unsubsidized work counts as a qualifying activity for TANF 

participants. Food Stamp participants engaged in unsubsidized work at 

least 30 hours per week are exempt from participating in the Food Stamp 

E&T Program. In order to compare similar subsets of the Food Stamp E&T 

and the TANF activities, we excluded unsubsidized work activities for 

TANF participants and calculated percentages based on the remaining 

activities.



[17] Participants may be enrolled in more than one activity.



[18] In fiscal year 2001, $88 million in federal grants, about $126 

million in BBA funds, and about $170 million in carryover funds from 

prior years were available to the states. The 2002 Farm Bill rescinded 

carryover funds from any fiscal year before fiscal year 2002, unless 

obligated by a state agency before that date. 



[19] USDA allocated fiscal year 2001 federal grant funds based on the 

number of ABAWDs in a state, as determined by 1996 quality control 

data--adjusted over time for caseload changes. USDA allocated fiscal 

year 2003 federal grant funds based on the number of ABAWDs in a state 

as determined by the 2001 Mathematica study; the number of work 

registrants determined by fiscal year 2001 quality control data; and 

the number of work registrants in fiscal year 2001 based on state data 

submitted to USDA. USDA fiscal year 2003 allocations assume full 

funding for the Food Stamp E&T Program. 



[20] In addition to one-stop centers, Pennsylvania has job service 

centers that provide job search services but have not yet been 

certified as one-stop centers. 



[21] WIA intensive services include such activities as comprehensive 

assessment, case management, creation of an individual employment plan, 

and short-term prevocational services that prepare individuals for 

employment or training. Training services include such activities as 

occupational skill, on-the-job training, and literacy classes. 



[22] We calculated job placement rates in these seven states based on 

data provided to us by the states or data contained in a state’s 2002 

Food Stamp E&T plan. For five states, job placements included those 

individuals entering full-time and part-time employment. In another 

state, job placements were collected monthly, but state officials told 

us that individuals could be counted in more than one month. In order 

to minimize counting job placement of individuals more than once, we 

estimated job placements based on 

2 months--January and July. These months were selected in order to 

control of seasonal variations. And, one state only provided data for 

three-quarters of fiscal year 2001.



[23] See Office of Technology Assessment, Performance Standards for the 

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program, Office of Technology 

Assessment, OTA-ITE-526, (Washington, D.C.: Feb.1992) for a 

comprehensive discussion of the proposed measures. 



[24] While GPRA does not require agencies to conduct formal program 

evaluations such as impact evaluations, it does require agencies to 

summarize the findings of program evaluations in their annual 

performance reports. 



[25] See Evaluation of the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: 

Abt Associates, Washington, D.C.: June 1990. The study compared 

outcomes for individuals randomly assigned either to a group required 

to enroll in the program or one that was excluded from participating in 

the program. The study did not control for the receipt of employment 

and training services from other programs for those not participating 

in the Food Stamp E&T Program. Thirty-one percent of those excluded 

from participating in the program received employment and training 

services from other programs. 



[26] Some types of evaluations tend to be less expensive and time-

consuming than others and still provide some indication of program 

impact. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Early Childhood Programs: 

The Use of Impact Evaluations to Asses Program Effects, GAO-01-542 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2001) for a discussion of different types 

of impact evaluations. Also, see OTA-ITE-526. 



[27] See Department of Labor report submitted by Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc., Does Job Corps Work? Summary of the National Job Corps 

Study, June 2001. 



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: