This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-346 
entitled 'Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase 
Participation of Working Families, but Better Tracking of Efforts Is 
Needed' which was released on March 05, 2004.

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.

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. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States General Accounting Office: 

GAO: 

March 2004: 

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: 

Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation of Working Families, 
but Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed: 

GAO-04-346: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-04-346, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Eligible working families are believed to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program at a lower rate than the eligible population as a whole. As a 
result, many federal, state, and local officials believe the program is 
not living up to its potential as a component of the nation’s work 
support system. This report examines: (1) what proportion of eligible 
working families participate in the program and what family 
characteristics are associated with a family’s participation; (2) what 
factors may be acting as impediments to a working family’s decision to 
participate in the program; and (3) what steps are being taken, or have 
been suggested, to help eligible low-income working families 
participate in the program while ensuring program integrity.	

What GAO Found: 

In 2001, an estimated 52 percent of eligible individuals in working 
families participated in the Food Stamp Program compared with about 70 
percent of eligible members of nonworking families. 

Participating working families are more likely to receive greater food 
stamp benefit amounts than those eligible working families that do not 
participate. Also, participating working families were more likely to 
participate in other government assistance programs and to rent rather 
than own their home. 

Factors that can impede an eligible working family’s participation in 
the program include whether the family is aware of the program’s 
existence and eligibility criteria and whether a family considers the 
program’s administrative process—including having to make frequent 
trips to a food stamp office during working hours and providing 
documentation of income—overly burdensome. However, there are some 
potentially significant benefits, including error and fraud prevention, 
to some of the administrative requirements. Evidence also suggests that 
some families weigh the perceived burdens of participation against the 
benefits of doing so and perceive a stigma attached to receiving food 
stamps. 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and several states and localities 
have taken or suggested steps to address the impediments to 
participation in the program for working families, while also 
considering ways to balance easier participation with program 
integrity. These efforts include increasing food stamp outreach, 
adopting new administrative processes to ease participation and reduce 
program error, developing tools to help families estimate food stamp 
benefit amount, and re-naming the program to reduce the stigma 
associated with food stamps. Compiling a complete picture of these 
steps was not possible, however, because FNS does not systematically 
track these efforts, and the outcomes of their use are still largely 
unknown. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
direct the Food and Nutrition Service to: (1) encourage states to 
collect and report on the results of their outreach and other efforts 
to increase participation among eligible working families and (2) 
disseminate the lessons learned from those efforts to other states and 
localities.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-346.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Kay Brown at (202) 
512-3674 or brownke@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Eligible Working Families Participate in the Food Stamp Program at a 
Lower Rate than Eligible Nonworking Families: 

Factors Related to a Family's Awareness and Perception of the Food 
Stamp Program Influence Their Participation: 

FNS and Some States and Localities Have Taken, or Suggested, Steps to 
Help Working Families Participate in the Program While Ensuring Program 
Integrity: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing Participating Working Families to 
Likely Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families: 

The Analysis Allows for Comparisons between Households with 
Participating and Nonparticipating Working Families: 

Appendix II: Summary of Farm Bill Provisions: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Characteristics That Are Associated with the Likelihood of 
Food Stamp Participation: 

Table 2: Recent FNS-Funded Outreach Activities Conducted by States, 
Local Government, or Community-Based Organizations: 

Table 3: Selected Results from Prescreening Tools Used by Community-
Based Organizations: 

Table 4: Characteristics of Eligible Households with Earnings Used as 
Factors to Predict Food Stamp Program Participation (Observed N=2,498; 
weighted N=4,911,252): 

Table 5: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Various Factors on Food 
Stamp Participation among Eligible Earning Households, from Bivariate 
and Multivariate Logistic Regression Models (Observed N=2,498; weighted 
N=4,911,252): 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Families Must Go through Several Steps to Receive Food 
Stamps: 

Figure 2: Food Stamp Recipiency Has Increased in the Last 2 Years, 
Following a Substantial Decline: 

Figure 3: More Food Stamp Recipients Now Live in Households with 
Earnings than Households on TANF: 

Figure 4: Participation Rates Are Lower for Working Families than for 
Nonworking Families: 

Figure 5: Estimated Food Stamp Benefits for a Single Mother with Two 
Children Based upon Varying Amounts of Monthly Income: 

Figure 6: Impediments to Participation Have the Potential to Impact 
Each Step of the Food Stamp Process: 

Abbreviations: 

CHIP: Children's Health Insurance Program: 

CPS: Current Population Survey: 

EBT: Electronic Benefits Transfer: 

EITC: Earned Income Tax Credit: 

FSP: Food Stamp Program: 

PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996: 

QC: quality control: 

SIPP: Survey of Income and Program Participation: 

SSI: Supplemental Security Income: 

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

WIC: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children: 

United States General Accounting Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

March 5, 2004: 

The Honorable Tom Harkin: 
Ranking Democratic Member: 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation: 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John M. Spratt, Jr.: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on the Budget: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Calvin M. Dooley: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and 
Forestry: 
Committee on Agriculture: 
House of Representatives: 

The federal Food Stamp Program, established in 1964 and administered by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is designed to provide basic 
nutrition to low-income individuals and families in the United States 
by supplementing their income with food stamp benefits; however, many 
individuals who are likely eligible to participate in the program do 
not. According to USDA data, while an average of almost 16 million 
Americans a month received food stamp benefits in fiscal year 2001, 
almost 11 million individuals who were likely eligible to receive food 
stamps in September of that year did not participate in the program. 
Overall, the program paid almost $16 billion in benefits in fiscal year 
2001.

Working families, defined here as those who live in households with 
earned income, that are eligible to receive food stamps participate in 
the program at a lower rate than the eligible population as a 
whole.[Footnote 1] As a result, many federal, state, and local 
officials believe that the Food Stamp Program is not living up to its 
potential as a component of the nation's work support system. Work 
support programs assist low-income working families by subsidizing some 
of the expenses associated with work outside the home as well as 
everyday necessities. These supports have grown in importance following 
1996's welfare reform legislation, which placed a priority on work and 
economic self-sufficiency. Although the Food Stamp Program's primary 
mission is to ensure that low-income Americans have access to a healthy 
diet, targeting food assistance to eligible low-income working families 
also helps adults enter and stay in the workforce by freeing up limited 
resources for other necessities.

USDA has made it a priority to increase working families' access to the 
nutrition assistance they need, while at the same time ensuring that 
only those who are eligible for benefits receive them. To better 
understand how the Food Stamp Program serves working families, you 
asked us to examine: (1) what proportion of eligible working families 
participate in the Food Stamp Program and what family characteristics 
are associated with a family's participation; (2) what factors may be 
acting as impediments to whether a working family participates in the 
Food Stamp Program; and (3) what steps are being taken, or have been 
suggested, to help eligible low-income working families participate in 
the Food Stamp Program while ensuring program integrity.

To answer these questions, we held discussions with program 
stakeholders, including officials at USDA's Food and Nutrition 
Service's (FNS) headquarters and regional offices,[Footnote 2] state 
food stamp officials, representatives of advocacy organizations, and 
other program experts. We also conducted a search of the literature to 
identify recent (1996 or later) studies that specifically addressed 
participation in the Food Stamp Program among eligible working 
families. In addition, we analyzed simulated data prepared by 
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., to produce program participation 
estimates for FNS. The simulated data are based on the most recently 
available public data primarily collected by USDA and the U.S. Census 
Bureau.[Footnote 3] Finally, we visited four states--Florida, 
Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon--with programs identified by 
federal officials, researchers, and other program stakeholders as 
having innovative approaches to encouraging participation in the Food 
Stamp Program among working families. During each of those site visits, 
we met with the state officials responsible for oversight of the Food 
Stamp Program, visited two local offices in different parts of the 
state, interviewed advocacy groups charged with doing formal and 
informal food stamp outreach for the state, and met with community-
based organizations that had frequent contact with food stamp 
recipients as well as likely eligible individuals who were not 
participating in the program. In addition, we reviewed documentation 
about the rationale for, and the implementation of, state-and local-
level strategies to increase participation in the four states we 
visited. We performed our work from May to November 2003 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief: 

About half of the individuals in working families who are eligible for 
food stamps participate in the program, and certain family 
characteristics, such as whether the family also receives other 
government benefits, are associated with the likelihood of 
participation. The rate of participation among the estimated universe 
of likely eligible working families has hovered around 50 percent since 
1997, and participation has consistently been much lower than the rate 
of participation among members of likely eligible nonworking families. 
For example, in 2001, an estimated 52 percent of eligible members of 
working families participated in the program, and almost 70 percent of 
eligible members of nonworking families did so. In 2002, participating 
working families received an average of $210, per household, a month in 
benefits, while participating nonworking families received an average 
of $159, per household, a month in benefits. This difference is in part 
because participating working families are, on average, larger than 
participating nonworking families. Several family characteristics are 
associated with the likelihood that working families participate in the 
Food Stamp Program. Working families that participate in the program 
are more likely to be eligible to receive greater food stamp benefit 
amounts than those that are eligible but do not participate. In 
addition, participating working families were more likely than 
nonparticipating families to receive other government assistance and 
were more likely to rent rather than own a home.

Several factors can act as impediments to a family's participation in 
the program, including whether family members are aware of the 
program's existence, their potential eligibility, and their perception 
of the program based on our fieldwork and other studies. For example, a 
program official in Oregon suggested that many working individuals in 
that state assume that, because they have a job, their family is not 
eligible for the program. In addition, some families choose not to 
participate because they consider the administrative process--
including having to make frequent trips to a food stamp office during 
working hours, completing the program application, and providing 
documentation of income--too burdensome. Evidence also suggests that, 
in deciding to participate, some families weigh the perceived burdens 
of participation against the benefits of doing so to determine if 
receiving food stamps is worth it given the size of the benefit and 
their level of need. However, some of the administrative requirements 
contribute to other priorities of the program, such as preventing fraud 
and lowering error rates and targeting benefits to need, and highlight 
the tension between the goals of increasing program access and reducing 
error rates. A working family's perception of the stigma attached to 
receiving food stamps is another factor influencing the decision to 
participate. For example, former program recipients in Florida said 
that some working families do not participate because they do not want 
to go to the assistance office.

To help families, including working families, participate in the 
program while ensuring program integrity, FNS and some states and 
localities have taken or suggested steps designed to inform the public 
about the program's existence and their potential eligibility, ease the 
administrative processes, demonstrate the value of the benefit, and 
reduce the stigma associated with food stamps. Compiling a complete 
picture of these steps was not possible because FNS does not 
systematically track these efforts, but our research identified several 
noteworthy efforts. For instance, to increase awareness of the program, 
FNS and some states and community-based organizations have advertised 
the program to working families and others and run hotlines to respond 
to questions about the program's rules. To help states ease the 
perceived administrative burden associated with their programs, FNS has 
provided guides that share with state and local offices some examples 
of known efforts to improve program access. One such practice, tried in 
California, was to extend office hours from 7: 00 a.m. to 9: 00 p.m. to 
allow working families to visit without missing work. However, FNS did 
not include in the guide any evidence that this effort was successful 
or any lessons learned from this or other efforts. To demonstrate the 
value of benefits to families, several states we visited used a Web-
based tool that allowed individuals to log on from personal computers 
and, guided by questions regarding family characteristics, determine 
potential eligibility and size of benefit. Other steps are being taken 
to reduce the stigma associated with the program. For example, in 
Miami, officials from a community-based organization gave presentations 
to low-income workers at their place of work on the value of food 
stamps as a work support. FNS officials have also discussed renaming 
the program nationally, in order to reduce the stigma associated with 
participation. At the same time states and localities are adopting 
practices to help families participate in the Food Stamp Program, 
officials also are mindful about their responsibility for ensuring 
program integrity. For example, many states have adopted program 
eligibility simplification options that have the potential to reduce 
program errors while also easing the administrative burden on states 
and working families. Finally, while the steps that have been taken or 
suggested may help families participate in the Food Stamp Program, not 
enough information on efforts underway or their outcomes is available 
to determine whether they are effective at increasing program 
participation.

To better target federal, state, and local outreach efforts; maximize 
the benefits of the available outreach dollars; and identify and 
eliminate impediments to food stamp participation, we recommend that 
the Secretary of Agriculture direct FNS to: (1) encourage states to 
collect and report on the results of their outreach and other efforts 
to increase participation among eligible working families and (2) 
disseminate the lessons learned from those efforts to other states and 
localities. In its comments, FNS generally agreed with our findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations.

Background: 

The federal Food Stamp Program is intended to help low-income 
individuals and families obtain a more nutritious diet by supplementing 
their income with benefits to purchase food. FNS pays the full cost of 
food stamp benefits and shares the states' administrative costs--with 
FNS usually paying 50 percent--and is responsible for promulgating 
program regulations and ensuring that state officials administer the 
program in compliance with program rules. 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, usually on an 
Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card. The program is usually 
administered out of an assistance office and, oftentimes, assistance 
offices also offer other benefits, including Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and child care assistance.[Footnote 4] 
Figure 1 outlines the general steps a household must take to 
participate in the Food Stamp Program and how each step occurs.

Figure 1: Families Must Go through Several Steps to Receive Food 
Stamps: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Eligibility for participation in the Food Stamp Program is based on the 
Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guideline for 
households. In most states, a household's gross income cannot exceed 
130 percent of the poverty guideline (or about $1,654 per month for a 
family of three living in the contiguous United States) and its net 
income cannot exceed 100 percent of the poverty guideline (or about 
$1,272 per month for a family of three living in the contiguous United 
States). In addition, most states place a limit of $2,000 on household 
assets, and basic program rules limit the value of vehicles an 
applicant can own and still be eligible for the program. Other factors 
affecting benefit levels include size of household, income level, 
shelter expenses, child care costs, and child support payments. 
(Eligibility requirements are less stringent for households with 
elderly or disabled members.) Participants must also periodically 
recertify by documenting their continued eligibility for program 
benefits.

In fiscal year 2003, the Food Stamp Program issued more than $21 
billion in benefits. In September 2003, more than 22.7 million 
individuals participated in the program. This is an increase from the 
same month in 2002, when the Food Stamp Program provided benefits to 
almost 19.8 million Americans. As shown in figure 2, the increase in 
the average monthly participation of food stamp recipients in 2003 
continues a recent upward trend in the number of people receiving 
benefits.

Figure 2: Food Stamp Recipiency Has Increased in the Last 2 Years, 
Following a Substantial Decline: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The decrease in number of recipients from 1996 to 2001 can be 
explained, in part, by the passage of the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which toughened eligibility 
criteria and made certain groups ineligible to receive benefits, and 
had the effect of un-tethering food stamps from cash assistance. In 
some cases, this caused participants to believe they were no longer 
eligible for food stamps when TANF benefits were ended.[Footnote 5] In 
addition, studies have suggested that the economic growth in the late 
1990s played a major role in the decrease of recipients. Since 2000, 
that downward trend has reversed, and stakeholders believe that the 
downturn in the U.S. economy, coupled with changes in the program's 
rules and administration, has led to an increase in the number of food 
stamp recipients. Although the total number of food stamp recipients is 
still below the 1996 level, since February 2001, the number of 
recipients has increased over 30 percent.

Despite this increase, it remains the goal of FNS and several states to 
increase participation in the program among eligible families, while 
maintaining program integrity. FNS's fiscal year 2000 strategic plan 
makes it a goal of the administration to improve the rate of food stamp 
participation among all eligible people to 68 percent by 2005.[Footnote 
6] According to FNS officials, eligible immigrants, elderly Americans, 
and members of working families are the major subgroups targeted to 
increase participation.

The administration has chosen to focus on participation among working 
families, in part, because of the increased emphasis placed on the need 
for work supports such as food stamps, the Earned Income Tax 
Credit[Footnote 7] (EITC), and child care and transportation subsidies-
-since PRWORA.

In addition, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 
2002 Farm Bill) included provisions intended to encourage participation 
among underserved groups, including working families, and simplify 
program administration.[Footnote 8] For example, the 2002 Farm Bill 
gave states the option to maintain food stamp benefits at a consistent 
level for a transition period for individuals who left TANF to go to 
work. The 2002 Farm Bill also made it possible for FNS to provide 
financial awards to states with higher or improved performance in 
program administration. In response, FNS has targeted improving program 
participation in addition to its existing focus on payment accuracy and 
lowering error rates. The food stamp error rate was 8.26 percent in 
fiscal year 2002, the lowest in the program's history.[Footnote 9]

In the last few years, working families have become a greater 
proportion of the overall food stamp participant population. As of 
fiscal year 2002, about 40 percent of those individuals receiving food 
stamps were members of households with earnings, up from about 33 
percent in 1997. As shown in figure 3, this increase occurred at the 
same time that the proportion of food stamp recipients receiving TANF 
declined dramatically. This can be explained, in part, by the fact that 
when TANF recipients leave that program, they may still be eligible for 
food stamp benefits. Thus, if TANF recipients leave that program 
because they have found employment, they can continue to receive food 
stamps until their income increases enough to disqualify them from the 
program or until they are no longer eligible for other reasons. Because 
of the increase in the proportion of food stamp participants who are 
living in households with earned income, serving low-income working 
families has taken on an increased importance for the Food Stamp 
Program in recent years.

Figure 3: More Food Stamp Recipients Now Live in Households with 
Earnings than Households on TANF: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: This figure depicts complementary trends in two groups of food 
stamp recipients that are not mutually exclusive. In other words, TANF 
recipients can also be employed and have earned income. In addition, 
other individuals who are neither working nor receiving TANF may 
receive food stamps as well, such as Social Security and unemployment 
compensation recipients.

[End of figure]

Eligible Working Families Participate in the Food Stamp Program at a 
Lower Rate than Eligible Nonworking Families: 

A lower percentage of food stamp-eligible individuals in working 
families received food stamp benefits than those in eligible nonworking 
families, and certain family characteristics are associated with the 
likelihood of participation. In September 2001, the most recent data 
available, the participation rate of likely food stamp-eligible 
individuals in households with earnings was estimated to be 
approximately 52 percent. At the same time, estimated participation 
among members of eligible nonworking families was almost 70 percent. 
Despite their lower participation rate, the average participating 
working family received a larger benefit than the average nonworking 
family. The amount of food stamps a working family is eligible for 
appears to be one of the major factors associated with the 
participation of working families, with those families eligible for 
larger food stamp benefits more likely to participate in the program. 
Other characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of food 
stamp receipt among working families include family size, amount spent 
on shelter, and the marital status of the head of household. Finally, 
working families that receive unearned income through other government 
assistance programs are more likely to receive food stamps than those 
with no unearned income.

Just Over Half of Members of Eligible Working Families Participated in 
the Food Stamp Program in 2001: 

In September 2001, an estimated 52 percent of individuals in eligible 
working families participated in the Food Stamp Program, according to 
an analysis done for FNS.[Footnote 10] In the same month, the 
participation rate among all eligible individuals was estimated by FNS 
to be 62 percent,[Footnote 11] and the rate among members of nonworking 
families was almost 70 percent. As shown in figure 4, the participation 
rate among working families has been relatively constant in recent 
years--hovering around 50 percent--and it has consistently been lower 
than the rate among nonworking families.

Figure 4: Participation Rates Are Lower for Working Families than for 
Nonworking Families: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Participating Working Families Receive Higher Monthly Benefits than 
Nonworking Families, and Benefit Amounts Vary Based on Family 
Characteristics: 

Among the families that receive food stamps, working families get 
larger benefits than nonworking families. In 2002, working families 
that participated in the Food Stamp Program received, on average, $210 
a month in food stamps per household, according to information 
collected by FNS.[Footnote 12] This amount is more than the $159 
average benefit received by households with no earned income. The fact 
that working families received more benefits, on average, than 
nonworking families is, in part, due to family size. In general, the 
larger the family size, the larger the family's benefit. Working food 
stamp families have an average of 3.2 persons per household, as opposed 
to nonworking families that receive benefits, which average fewer than 
two persons per household. In addition to household size, household 
income level also affects benefit level, as do other factors such as 
cost of shelter, child care costs, and child support payments.

While it is true that the amount of food stamp benefits that a working 
family is eligible for decreases as the family's gross income 
increases, there is not an immediate drop-off in benefit level as 
income increases, nor is there a one dollar drop in benefits for every 
additional dollar in income earned.

To demonstrate the effect of additional earned income on working 
families that receive food stamps, FNS provided us with an example of 
how earnings might impact a hypothetical family consisting of a single 
mother with two children. Figure 5 shows estimates of the amount of 
food stamps for which this family would be eligible given varying 
monthly income levels.

Figure 5: Estimated Food Stamp Benefits for a Single Mother with Two 
Children Based upon Varying Amounts of Monthly Income: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: To develop this estimate, FNS assumed that the mother worked; had 
no unearned income, dependent care, or child support deduction; and had 
a $300 a month shelter expense. FNS used the fiscal year 2002 Food 
Stamp Program rules, specifically the value of the maximum food stamp 
allotment for a family of three and the shelter deduction cap and other 
assumptions as appropriate. In fiscal year 2001, the average earned 
income for households with children was $351 per month so FNS used 
multiples of that amount, ranging from one-half to four times that 
amount to produce its estimates. The maximum allotment for a household 
with three persons was $356.

[End of figure]

Certain Family Characteristics Are Associated with the Likelihood of 
Participation: 

Our data analysis shows that there are several characteristics that are 
associated with an eligible working family's likelihood of 
participating in the Food Stamp Program. To determine the family 
characteristics that contribute to the likelihood of program 
participation for eligible working families, we analyzed a database 
produced by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., of likely eligible 
working families based on the March 2001 Current Population Survey 
(CPS).[Footnote 13] This is the most current data available. Table 1 
shows the differences between participating working families and those 
we estimate are eligible but not participating in 2000, the last year 
for which information was available.

Table 1: Characteristics That Are Associated with the Likelihood of 
Food Stamp Participation: 

Participating working families are more likely than eligible 
nonparticipating working families to: 
* Be eligible for higher monthly food stamp benefits; 
* Have lower shelter expenses; 
* Rent their home; 
* Not have an elderly member in the household; 
* Have a child under 5 in the household; 
* Have a head of household that is divorced, separated, or single; 
* Have citizen head of household; 
* Have unearned income; 
* Participate in other assistance programs (Women, Infants, and 
Children, Medicaid, energy assistance, school meals, or job training); 

Eligible nonparticipating working families are more likely than 
participating families to: 
* Be eligible for a lower amount of food stamp benefits; 
* Have higher shelter expenses; 
* Own their home; 
* Have an elderly individual in the household; 
* Not have a child under 5 in the household; 
* Have a married head of household; 
* Have noncitizen head of household; 
* Have no unearned income; 
* Not participate in other assistance programs.

Source: GAO: 

Note: The characteristics listed correspond to effects found 
significant at the 0.05 level in our statistical analysis. See appendix 
I for a complete discussion of this work.

[End of table]

Some characteristics are associated with the increased likelihood of 
participation. For instance, food stamp participation was more likely 
among working families that were eligible for a larger amount of food 
stamp benefits; specifically, each $100 increase in monthly benefits 
for which families were eligible increased the likelihood of 
participating in the program by approximately 30 percent. Working 
families with young children--under 5 years old--in the household were 
also more likely to participate than likely eligible working families 
without young children.

Other characteristics are associated with the reduced likelihood of 
participation. For example, working families with higher shelter 
expenses were less likely to participate; each $100 increase in monthly 
shelter expenses decreased the likelihood of participating by about 10 
percent. In addition, working families that owned rather than rented 
their dwellings, were less likely to participate in food stamps than 
other working families, by about 50 percent. Families with a noncitizen 
head of household, and families with elderly or married individuals in 
the household, were also only about half as likely to participate in 
the program.

Finally, families with any unearned income were more than 2 times as 
likely as those without any unearned income to participate in the Food 
Stamp Program. And, the likelihood of participating was almost 11 times 
higher for those families that received Medicaid benefits than for 
those who did not, over 6 times higher for those who received energy 
assistance and over 4 times higher for households in which someone 
received job training. Similarly, the likelihood of participating in 
the Food Stamp Program was about 3 times higher for working families 
participating in free or reduced school lunch program or in the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 
than for those eligible nonparticipating working families that did not 
participate in those programs.

In assessing the results of our analysis, it is worth noting that some 
of the characteristics that are associated with the participation by 
likely eligible working families also are likely to be associated with 
the participation of all eligible participants. For this study, 
however, the analysis focuses on how these characteristics are 
associated with working families. By focusing on the differing 
characteristics of participating and nonparticipating working 
families, it is possible to develop a better understanding of how 
working families that receive food stamps are different from likely 
eligible working families that do not receive benefits. This analysis 
does not, on its own, offer any explanation for why these families 
choose to participate, but it does help identify characteristics of 
those families who do and do not participate. The analysis also 
provides additional support for how certain impediments we identified 
can affect a working family's decision to apply for and receive food 
stamp benefits. The following section elaborates on those factors.

Factors Related to a Family's Awareness and Perception of the Food 
Stamp Program Influence Their Participation: 

Several factors may impede an eligible working family's participation 
in the Food Stamp Program, according to our fieldwork and literature on 
the subject. Among them are whether the family is aware of the 
program's existence and the family's possible eligibility, the family's 
willingness to deal with the program's administrative process, whether 
the family judges the amount of food stamp benefits received to be 
worth the effort and cost of participating in the program, and the 
extent to which the family associates a stigma with food stamp receipt. 
Figure 6 shows how these factors interact with the steps necessary for 
a working family to receive food stamps.

Figure 6: Impediments to Participation Have the Potential to Impact 
Each Step of the Food Stamp Process: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Participating in the Food Stamp Program Depends on a Family's Awareness 
of the Program and Eligibility Criteria: 

To receive food stamps, a family has to apply for the benefits, a step 
which is taken, generally, by a member of the family going to a local 
assistance office and filling out an application. Participation, 
therefore, is dependent on the family being aware of the program's 
existence and its possible eligibility. Yet, studies of participation 
in the program that we reviewed offer evidence that many eligible 
families lack such awareness. For example, a study done by Mathematica 
Policy Research, Inc., for FNS, based on interviews with likely 
eligible individuals that do not participate in the program, found that 
72 percent of those surveyed were not aware of their probable 
eligibility.[Footnote 14]

Program stakeholders, too, said that lack of information about the 
program and how it works plays a key role in nonparticipation for 
working families. For instance, according to officials in Florida, 
working families may not participate because they are uncertain about 
the program's rules and eligibility criteria and how to participate. A 
worker for a community-based organization in Florida who did outreach 
to working families said that many individuals are unfamiliar with the 
program's workings, making food stamp receipt difficult.

Program officials also suggested that many working individuals assume 
that their having a job makes their family ineligible for the program. 
As one official in Oregon said, she believes that some working people 
do not think of themselves as food stamp recipients, because they 
believe that food stamps are something for the very poor, and thus do 
not think they would be eligible given that they have jobs. Officials 
in Florida and Massachusetts agreed that some potentially eligible 
working families do not participate because they do not know that they 
are potentially eligible for food stamps.

Confusion about the relationship between food stamp eligibility rules 
and TANF eligibility rules can also contribute to working families 
wrongly believing that they are ineligible for food stamps, according 
to program officials that we talked with. An official for the New York 
Office of Transitional and Disability Assistance said that some people 
still believe that when one's TANF case closes, one's food stamp case 
closes as well. The official said that, despite New York's best effort 
to combat this false information, some people leave the Food Stamp 
Program when they leave TANF because they believe that they are no 
longer eligible for food stamps.

The Perception that the Food Stamp Program's Administrative Process Is 
Burdensome Can Deter Participation: 

Another factor influencing whether a family participates in the Food 
Stamp Program is how the food stamp administrative process is 
perceived. In other words, according to the literature we reviewed and 
the program officials we spoke with, if the administrative process is 
seen as being burdensome, families may not participate because of the 
effort required to apply for and receive food stamps. In addition, our 
analysis of CPS data demonstrates that, in 2000, working families that 
participate in the Food Stamp Program are more likely to receive other 
types of government assistance--such as Medicaid, WIC, and energy 
assistance--than nonparticipating working families. One possible 
explanation for this difference is that those that have a comfort level 
with the administrative process of applying for and receiving 
assistance might be more likely to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.

We identified certain administrative practices during our site visits 
to food stamp offices in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon, 
that could be considered burdensome by potential recipients who work 
and that might deter participation. Among the practices identified were 
multiple required office visits, food stamp office operating hours, 
food stamp applications, requirements for eligibility documentation and 
verification, finger imaging for program participants, and the 
requirement for workers to report changes in their income and hours 
worked. However, we found that not all of these practices that are 
potential impediments to participation were in place in every local 
office that we visited and that these practices are not in place in 
exactly the same fashion at each office. In addition, it is clear that 
there are potentially significant benefits--including fraud and error 
prevention, targeting benefits to need, and the provision of more cost-
effective service--to some of the administrative processes.

Among the practices that can influence whether a family participates in 
the Food Stamp Program are: 

* Required office visits. In some cases, potential recipients make a 
trip to the assistance office to fill out a food stamp application and 
a separate trip for the recipient to meet with a caseworker to 
determine eligibility. In addition, potential clients may have to 
return to the food stamp office if they do not bring all the required 
documentation to their first visit. This means that a family often has 
to make two or more trips to the office to participate in the program, 
which can be difficult for individuals who are working.

* Office hours. Assistance offices are often only open during regular 
working hours. For example, we visited an office that opened from 8: 30 
a.m. to 4: 30 p.m. from Monday to Friday. For working individuals, 
getting to a food stamp office during the work week can be difficult. A 
recent study by the Urban Institute supports the notion that a working 
families' participation status is influenced by the hours they work 
and, perhaps, by the hours a food stamp office is open.[Footnote 15] 
The study found that those who work so-called traditional hours are 
less likely to participate than those who work a less traditional 
schedule. However, offering longer hours of service can have cost 
implications such as additional personnel, utility, computer, and 
security costs.

* The food stamp application. During our site visits, program advocates 
said that applications, which often serve both food stamps and other 
assistance programs, such as Medicaid and TANF, are too complex. For 
instance, an advocate said that she believed that the food stamp 
application was too long and required a reading level that was too 
advanced for most potentially eligible individuals. State officials in 
Oregon, however, said that having a slightly longer food stamp 
application allows for better integration of assistance programs, which 
can benefit recipients, as well as a reduction of workload for 
caseworkers at assistance offices.

* Eligibility documentation and verification. Participating in the 
program requires proof of income level, residency, and family size, 
among other information. Providing such proof usually is done by 
bringing documentation to the food stamp office at the time of 
enrollment. This, however, can be perceived as being burdensome for 
potential clients. For example, current and former food stamp clients 
surveyed in an Oregon focus group reported that various documentation 
forms in that state are intrusive and often excessive. However, under 
current program rules, these requirements are an essential component of 
ensuring that food stamp applicants are eligible to receive food stamps 
and that they receive the proper benefit amount.

* The finger-imaging requirement. Four states in the country have 
requirements that new recipients of food stamps are finger-imaged at 
the assistance office before they receive their benefits.[Footnote 16] 
New York was the only state we visited that had such a requirement. 
Advocates in that state complained that being finger-imaged was a 
deterrent to participation, in that it potentially required them to 
make an additional trip to the food stamp office. However, quality 
control officials in that state believed that it was a vital way to 
prevent people from defrauding the Food Stamp Program by allowing 
officials to verify that the applicant did not already have a case open 
somewhere else in the state.

* Change reporting requirement. Participating in the program often 
requires families to report income changes, meaning that some working 
families would have to be in frequent contact with their caseworker as 
the amount of hours they worked or the wages they received fluctuated. 
The requirement has the potential to add to the burden of 
participation, and program officials said that the requirement was a 
potential deterrent for working families. However, doing so also 
ensures that food stamp recipients continue to receive the correct 
benefit amount. These income changes can result in either an increase 
or decrease of benefit levels.

Government officials we talked with acknowledged that the food stamp 
administrative process can be burdensome and that participating in the 
program is complex. However, officials spoke positively of many of the 
practices in their states, such as finger imaging and the requirement 
for multiple office visits. Many of the practices that might be 
perceived by potential recipients as causing burdens contribute to 
other priorities of the program, such as streamlining the eligibility 
process and keeping the program's error rate as low as 
possible.[Footnote 17] The perceived impediments associated with many 
of the administrative processes, and the justifiable reasons the 
processes exist, highlight the tradeoffs between the various program 
goals, including increasing program access and reducing error rates, 
that are inherent with the design of the Food Stamp Program. Some of 
these practices probably contribute to some eligible working families 
not participating in the program, but they also probably help to ensure 
that only eligible families receive benefits, which is vital to 
maintaining public support for the program.

Evidence Suggests that Food Stamp Participation Is Often Driven by 
Whether a Family Considers the Benefits Worth the Effort and Cost of 
Participating: 

Another factor influencing whether eligible working families 
participate in the Food Stamp Program is how much they value the food 
stamp benefit, according to evidence from available public data, the 
literature we reviewed, and visits to four states. Working families may 
make an informal cost-benefit analysis of whether their need for the 
benefits they would receive outweighs the effort and cost of 
participation. Costs can include taking time off from work and the 
transportation costs of getting to a food stamp office. Our analysis of 
2000 CPS data--which demonstrates that working families that receive 
other government assistance are more likely to participate in the Food 
Stamp Program--is consistent with that. Given that many assistance 
programs are administered at the same office and sometimes using the 
same application as food stamps, participating in other programs is 
likely to reduce the cost of food stamp participation, which makes a 
working family more likely to participate in food stamps.

Our analysis of the 2000 data also demonstrates that working families 
that are eligible for larger benefits are more likely to receive food 
stamps than those that are eligible for smaller benefit amounts. 
Program officials also cite the amount of benefits as a reason that 
some working families do not participate. An official in Massachusetts 
said that some working families may qualify only for a small dollar 
amount a month, which our evidence supports, and, because of that fact, 
some potential recipients believe that the effort associated with 
applying is not worth the small amount.

In addition, available research shows that whether a family is willing 
to participate in the program can also be influenced by the extent to 
which the family believes it needs the benefit. In a survey and focus 
groups Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., conducted for FNS, it found 
that many likely eligible working families did not participate because 
they believed that they could get by without food stamps and that 
others need them more.[Footnote 18] Such families seem to be placing a 
minimal value on their food stamp benefit. Moreover, research done by 
USDA's Economic Research Service suggests that families that are food 
insecure[Footnote 19] are more likely to participate than families that 
are food secure.[Footnote 20] Both of these research efforts suggest 
that a family's level of need plays a role in whether a working family 
participates in the Food Stamp Program. Those families believe that 
they do not need food stamps are less likely to bear the costs of 
participating in terms of lost time and inconvenience, while those 
families that are in need may be more likely to participate no matter 
what the benefit level is.

A study published by The Lewin Group reinforces the idea that need 
plays a role in the decision to participate.[Footnote 21] In a study 
using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation 
(SIPP),[Footnote 22] the authors found that likely eligible 
nonparticipating working households differed from participating 
working households in their income variability. Nonparticipating 
households were more likely to have experienced a short-term drop of 
income than participants and were more likely to have had recent past 
income that exceeded 100 percent of the federal poverty level. From 
these findings, the authors suggest that many nonparticipants have 
expectations of higher future income and do not see the need for food 
stamps, which helps to explain why they do not participate.

The Stigma Associated with the Food Stamp Program Can Cause Some 
Families Not to Participate: 

The stigma associated with the Food Stamp Program is one of the reasons 
some eligible families do not participate in the program, according to 
existing research and interviews with program stakeholders. Although 
the program's primary mission is nutrition assistance, program 
stakeholders believe the stigma associated with food stamps is largely 
related to the program's welfare connotations. Focus groups of current 
and former food stamp recipients, conducted by a community-based 
organization in Oregon, echoed that sentiment. A theme that ran through 
the focus group responses was that people were ashamed, or too proud, 
to receive food stamps. The focus group responses indicated that 
individuals can have personal shame about receiving food stamp benefits 
and may be worried about being looked down upon for receiving them.

For working families, the welfare stigma can be a particular deterrent 
toward food stamp participation. For example, program officials cited 
the occasional need to verify a food stamp recipient's wages and 
employment status with the recipient's employer as one stigma 
associated with food stamp receipt for working families. A related 
deterrent for working families is that to participate in the program, a 
family usually has to make a trip to the food stamp office, which is 
also the "welfare office." Advocacy groups said that this was a 
requirement that discouraged participation among working families. 
Former Florida food stamp recipients told us that caseworkers ask 
personal questions regarding how they manage their finances. For 
example, how one pays for hair care and laundry, which they considered 
intrusive and made them less likely to participate in the program. 
However, local officials in Florida said that these questions are an 
effective method to deter program fraud and ensure that food stamp 
benefit amounts were provided accurately.

Measuring the extent of stigma can be difficult, because stigma is 
often a personal matter. Many of the officials we spoke with said that 
the move toward EBT cards has helped alleviate the stigma of the 
program for working families and others by making food purchases by 
program recipients look more like ordinary food purchases, thus making 
it more difficult for other shoppers at grocery stores to identify food 
stamp recipients' purchases. Still, many of the same officials said 
that stigma remains an issue.

FNS and Some States and Localities Have Taken, or Suggested, Steps to 
Help Working Families Participate in the Program While Ensuring Program 
Integrity: 

FNS and the states and localities we visited have taken or suggested a 
variety of steps to address identified program impediments that may 
hinder the participation of working families in the Food Stamp Program. 
These efforts include informing the public about the availability of 
food stamps, easing the administrative processes, estimating 
eligibility and the potential size of benefits, and reducing the stigma 
associated with food stamps while also adopting strategies to ensure 
that serving working families does not jeopardize program integrity.

Several Efforts Are Underway to Better Inform the Public about Food 
Stamp Availability and the Program's Eligibility Criteria: 

Several federal, state, and local efforts are in place to make 
information about the Food Stamp Program available to potentially 
eligible working individuals. These include efforts to inform the 
public through outreach efforts, such as media campaigns, and to reach 
potential program participants in locations where they are likely to 
be, such as their places of employment. While officials we spoke with 
were hopeful about the ability of these efforts to reach the right 
audience, little outcome data are available to determine which outreach 
efforts are most effective.

FNS Outreach Grants and Guides: 

FNS has provided some specific grants to states and organizations to 
conduct food stamp outreach; however, FNS does not know the total 
amount of other funds states spend on outreach. In fiscal years 2001 
and 2002, FNS awarded 100 percent funded competitive outreach grants to 
state-and community-based organizations.[Footnote 23] Some of these 
grants specifically targeted working families while others targeted all 
low-income families. The impact of these grants are largely unknown to 
date, although FNS is conducting assessments. Because the grants are 
awarded to address local needs, FNS officials reported that they do not 
expect major findings on ways to improve service to working families, 
but do expect results to reveal potentially effective ways to do 
localized outreach. In addition, FNS also recently awarded competitive 
program participation grants made available by the 2002 Farm Bill to 
agencies or universities. The goal of these grants is to improve the 
food stamp application process and work to identify and eliminate 
barriers to participation. FNS will in addition, pay for half of any 
outreach effort funded by the states. Some of these efforts are 
formalized through an approved outreach plan, and the funds spent on 
them are reported separately. Other state outreach efforts, however, 
may be conducted without FNS's knowledge and claimed as an allowable 
administrative expense but not separately identified as outreach in the 
states' fiscal reports according to an FNS official. Table 2 provides 
more information about the known outreach efforts.

Table 2: Recent FNS-Funded Outreach Activities Conducted by States, 
Local Government, or Community-Based Organizations: 

Type of outreach effort: State outreach plan; 
Fiscal year: 2002; 
FNS percentage funding rate: 50; 
Number of states: 14; 
Total funding (dollars in millions): $8.8[A].

Type of outreach effort: Outreach grant; 
Fiscal year: 2002; 
FNS percentage funding rate: 100; 
Number of states: 19; 
Total funding (dollars in millions): 5.0.

Type of outreach effort: Program participation grant; 
Fiscal year: 2003[B]; 
FNS percentage funding rate: 100; 
Number of states: 5; 
Total funding (dollars in millions): 5.0.

Source: FNS.

[A] States or community-based organizations paid $4.4 million of this 
amount.

[B] The 2002 Farm Bill allows USDA to award up to $5 million per year 
for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to entities to carry out projects to 
simplify food stamp application and eligibility determination and to 
improve access to food stamp benefits.

[End of table]

FNS regional offices also conduct program access reviews of selected 
local offices in all states to determine whether state and/or local 
policies and procedures served to discourage individuals from applying 
for food stamps or whether local offices had adopted measures to 
improve customer service. Some of these measures are gathered into a 
periodic best practices guide published by FNS.[Footnote 24] The guide 
contains information about the goal of the practice being tried, the 
number of places where it is in use, and contact information for a 
person in these offices. For the most part, however, the guide does not 
include any evidence that these efforts were successful or any lessons 
learned from these or other efforts.[Footnote 25]

Efforts to Inform the Public: 

FNS is launching a $4 million, nationwide radio food stamp promotion 
campaign to raise awareness about the benefits of the Food Stamp 
Program. The goals of the campaign are to position the program as a 
nutrition assistance and work support program and improve the public's 
understanding of the program's purpose and who may be eligible, 
including working families. Transit ads and radio spots have been 
developed and will be placed in key locations throughout the nation, 
promoting the national or state toll-free Food Stamp Program numbers, 
as appropriate.

The ads will refer potential food stamp recipients to either FNS's or 
the state's telephone hotline to receive information about the Food 
Stamp Program. In 2003, the FNS bilingual (English and Spanish) hotline 
averaged about 1,900 calls per month according to FNS.[Footnote 26] 
Some states have also launched media campaigns. For example, in New 
York, as part of its approved outreach plan, efforts were underway to 
garner interest in the program in the form of a statewide, $300,000 
media campaign and a $500,000 media campaign for New York City. In 
addition, in each of the four states we visited, either the state-or a 
community-based organization had established a hotline to provide 
broader outreach to potential clients and to make them aware of program 
eligibility requirements and the documentation they need to apply for 
benefits. For example, from September 2001 to June 2003, the Community 
Food Resource Center in New York City fielded over 110,000 calls from 
59,000 individuals requesting food stamp assistance. The center 
reported that these calls resulted in 3,240 new food stamp cases. Other 
media outreach efforts, both statewide and local, included advertising 
on television and radio, posters, and shopping bags and in newspapers 
and direct-mail supplements. Many of these broad outreach efforts were 
not specifically targeted to working families, but since some working 
families may not believe they are eligible for food stamps, these 
efforts may help to make them aware of the eligibility requirements, 
promote the image of the Food Stamp Program as a nutrition assistance 
program, and inform families what they have to do to apply for 
benefits.

Efforts to Reach Eligible Working Families: 

Some efforts are made to reach working families specifically by making 
applications and informational materials available where eligible 
working families are likely to go, such as at tax preparation sites, 
health clinics, supermarkets, WIC centers, and food pantries. For 
example, FNS has partnered with H&R Block to promote food stamps to 
those families who qualify for the EITC, which can indicate eligibility 
for food stamps. FNS officials said this effort resulted in an 
increased number of calls to their hotline during the tax season. FNS 
plans to expand this type of partnership further to tax preparers at 
the Voluntary Income Tax Assistance Program.[Footnote 27] In Oregon, we 
spoke with a food stamp worker who is regularly stationed in a local 
food pantry. She noted that many working people are more comfortable 
coming to the food pantry to apply for food stamps because government 
food stamp offices can be off-putting to some people. She estimated in 
the last 2 years she has done 1,000 intakes at the food pantry. 
However, food stamp officials in all four states cited problems with 
tight state budgets resulting in staffing freezes or cuts. As a result, 
some offices have cut back on such resource-intensive practices.

Food stamp advocates have also worked with employers whose employees 
would likely be eligible for benefits. For example, in Miami, the Human 
Services Coalition of Dade County, as part of the Greater Miami 
Prosperity Campaign, is attempting to reach out to employers of low-
income workers to promote certain available work support programs for 
their employees. The goal is to convince employers that these work 
supports are a win for employees because they augment the wages of low-
income workers; they are a win for employers, because they bring 
stability to the life of their employees who, therefore, feel more 
loyalty to their employer; and, they are a win for the community at 
large, because more federal dollars are brought into the local economy 
through the spending of those who receive work supports. 
Representatives of the coalition and its partners are working with the 
Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and are making presentations to 
employers and their low wage employees and human resource manager 
associations around the region focusing on this message.[Footnote 28] 
The coalition representatives ask employers to take three actions to 
support the campaign: (1) send letters to employees about available 
work supports; (2) provide information about the EITC, children's 
health care, and food stamps when sending out copies of government 
documents such as Internal Revenue Service W-2 earning statements; and 
(3) allow coalition workers to pre-screen employees at the workplace. 
The prescreening allows the advocates to more fully explain the 
eligibility requirements and what steps applicants must take to qualify 
for benefits. As of August 2003, the advocates had convinced a large 
Miami-based cruise line to send out information about the work support 
programs with employees' W-2 forms and pay stubs, and they had also 
conducted on-site pre-screening for employees at several local 
businesses.

Some state and local programs we visited have also partnered with other 
assistance programs, such as the EITC, Medicaid, Head Start, school 
lunch program, and WIC, to make working and nonworking families aware 
of their potential eligibility for food stamps. Stakeholders spoke 
highly of such efforts, and as previously discussed, our analysis of 
simulated data show that the likelihood of working families 
participating in the Food Stamp Program was much higher if they 
participated in other assistance programs as well. Finally, our 
previous work also showed that 26 states are conducting food stamp 
eligibility interviews in at least some of their Workforce Investment 
Act one-stop centers.[Footnote 29]

In addition to the outreach efforts that have been tried, one local 
official suggested that food stamp outreach could be greatly expanded 
if the state used taxpayer records to identify potentially eligible 
working families. Adopting such a strategy, however, could be 
problematic because of the need for state human service agencies and 
departments of revenue to coordinate with one another, as well as 
privacy concerns over the use of tax data.

Several Efforts Are Underway to Simplify the Administrative Process: 

States and local offices we visited have adopted a number of different 
practices to make administrative processes less burdensome on potential 
participants. Among the efforts that resonated particularly with 
working families were those intended to save participants' time and 
allow them to fulfill program requirements to ensure only eligible 
families receive benefits in ways that minimize their need to miss 
work. While officials we spoke with were hopeful about these efforts, 
little outcome data are available to determine their effectiveness at 
easing administrative burdens.

Steps to Facilitate the Application Process: 

States and local offices we visited have adopted a number of different 
practices to facilitate the food stamp application process. Oregon and 
Florida have adopted a "no wrong door policy" that allows people to 
apply for benefits at any food stamp office, and states with Web sites 
have placed food stamp applications on the Web, which is a requirement 
of the 2002 Farm Bill.[Footnote 30] In addition, New York, Oregon, and 
Massachusetts shortened and simplified their food stamp applications. 
While well received, shortening the application has had some drawbacks. 
For example, New York officials told us that because their shortened 
application was for food stamps only, it limited the client's ability 
to apply for more than one assistance program at the same time. Also, 
local officials in Oregon told us that their shortened form required 
their already overburdened caseworkers to spend more time with clients 
gathering information previously captured on the longer application 
forms.

States are also facilitating the food stamp application process by 
adopting certain available administrative options that can simplify the 
application process. For example, when considering the value of a 
vehicle as an asset, states may choose to substitute the more generous 
asset rules from other assistance programs in place of Food Stamp 
Program rules thereby reducing the amount of documentation collected 
from individuals applying for more than one program. All four states we 
visited have adopted similar vehicle policy options. All four states 
have also adopted an option that allows certain families with incomes 
up to 200 percent of the poverty level to be automatically eligible for 
the Food Stamp Program.[Footnote 31]

Several states have experimented with alternative practices to 
requiring applicants to come to the food stamp office during 
traditional office hours. Three local offices we visited experimented 
with offering extended office hours during the week or on Saturdays. 
State and local officials reported mixed success with these options. 
For example, officials at one local office in Oregon said that adopting 
client friendly policies such as these has led to an increase in the 
caseload while local officials in New York and Massachusetts dropped 
these efforts after few potential clients took advantage of the 
extended hours. In addition, in an effort to help working families 
avoid missing work and overcome transportation impediments, 
Massachusetts adopted liberal rules allowing local offices to interview 
clients and take food stamp applications over the telephone or via the 
mail if coming to the office would be a hardship for them. Using this 
practice, clients still must submit the necessary documentation to 
ensure program integrity. In the period from November 2002 to June 
2003, over 5,000 food stamp applications were received through the 
mail.

Steps to Facilitate Continuing Program Participation: 

Some states have taken advantage of options to simplify on-going 
reporting requirements. Typically, working families were expected to 
report earned income changes. FNS was concerned that the increase in 
employment among food stamp households would result in larger and more 
frequent income fluctuations, which would increase the risk of payment 
errors and be burdensome for the working poor. As a result of these 
concerns, FNS established regulations in November 2000 that gave states 
the option to require working families to report changes in income 
between 6 month certification periods only when a change in their 
income made them ineligible for food stamps. All of the four states we 
visited chose this option.[Footnote 32] In addition, FNS continued to 
support efforts to further expand states' flexibility to streamline 
complex rules, simplify program administration, and help ease the 
transition from welfare to work through their support of the 2002 Farm 
Bill amendments. For example, the 2002 Farm Bill simplifies on-going 
reporting requirements by allowing states to disregard changes in 
certain amounts deducted for child care expenses, child support 
payments made, and medical expenses.[Footnote 33] One of our four 
states, New York, has chosen this option. Finally, Oregon has 
simplified on-going participation by allowing clients to recertify 
their program eligibility via the mail rather than by requiring face-
to-face interviews.

For families who are leaving cash assistance, the 2002 Farm Bill also 
allows states the option of facilitating continued program 
participation by providing 5 months of automatic transitional food 
stamp benefits when a family leaves the TANF program without requiring 
the family to reapply or submit any additional paperwork. Of our four 
states, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon have adopted this 
option.[Footnote 34]

Finally, because application and continuing program participation 
impediments can vary from state to state and from locality to locality, 
some states and localities have established working groups of program 
stakeholders to identify program impediments and to generate ideas on 
how to remove them. For example, the Oregon Hunger Relief Task Force 
established a committee of officials from the state Department of Human 
Services and other state agencies, community advocates, food bank 
representatives, local office workers, and former recipients to assess 
program access and participation issues. These efforts have opened the 
lines of communication and have been deemed successful by both the 
state officials and advocates we interviewed.

Efforts Are Underway to Estimate Eligibility and the Size of the 
Potential Food Stamp Benefit: 

Some program advocates and officials have taken steps to develop ways 
to reach people who may have the wrong impression about their 
eligibility and the size and value of food stamp benefits. While the 
usage of these tools shows promise where they have been put into place, 
the final outcomes of their use are still largely unknown.

Steps to Show People the Amount of Their Estimated Benefit: 

FNS's Web site has a pre-screening tool that allows individuals to log 
on from personal computers and, guided by questions regarding family 
characteristics, determine their potential food stamp eligibility and 
the size of their benefit. FNS, however, has not yet started to track 
how often this tool is used. Some experts we spoke with suggested that 
such Web-based tools are most effective when a third party, such as a 
program advocate, is available to help potential clients use them.

We visited three community-based organizations that had prescreening 
tools available to help individuals determine their eligibility and 
estimate their benefits. Project Bread, located in Massachusetts, uses 
a Web-based tool similar to FNS, while Florida Impact and the Community 
Food Resource Center in New York City send staff members with laptops 
to sites where likely eligible people are found--including emergency 
food programs or pantries, WIC centers, health clinics, hospital 
lobbies, unemployment offices, supermarkets, and senior centers--to 
prescreen potentially eligible clients. The Community Food Resource 
Center's prescreening tool collects client information, estimates their 
potential food stamp benefits, and prints out a document guide listing 
the documents necessary to apply. This estimated benefit information 
allows the client to decide whether the potential benefit would 
outweigh the perceived burden of following through with the application 
process. Table 3 has selected results from these efforts. Officials 
from these organizations have not studied why potentially eligible 
people chose not to apply for food stamps.

Table 3: Selected Results from Prescreening Tools Used by Community-
Based Organizations: 

Program: Florida Impact; 
Time period: 9/3/02--9/8/03; 
Number screened: 1,277; 
Number potentially eligible: 1,025[A]; 
Number applied for food stamps: 306; 
Number approved for food stamps: 284 average benefit-- $176.

Program: Mass. Project Bread; 
Time period: 1/15/02--8/11/03; 
Number screened: 46,505[B]; 
Number potentially eligible: 39,994; 
Number applied for food stamps: 170[C]; 
Number approved for food stamps: 120[D].

Program: New York City's Community Food Resource Center; 
Time period: 2002; 
Number screened: 12,107; 
Number potentially eligible: 9,504[E] estimated benefit--$166; 
Number applied for food stamps: [F]; 
Number approved for food stamps: [F]. 

Source: Community-based organizations visited.

[A] Number of potentially eligible individuals with earned income is 
not available.

[B] Fifty-five percent of those screened reported earned income.

[C] Project Bread officials did not know why so few potentially 
eligible individuals were counted as applying for food stamps but 
speculated that local offices may not have input the code on the 
application form that would identify Project Bread as the source of the 
application.

[D] For the period January 2002-June 2003.

[E] Thirty-two percent of the potentially eligible had earned income; 
the average was $1,022 per month.

[F] Information not available.

[End of table]

Steps to Demonstrate the Value of Food Stamp Participation: 

Because some working families believe that their food stamps benefits 
are likely to be too low to make participation worthwhile, some local 
offices have taken steps to promote the related benefits of food stamp 
participation, such as reduced utility bills in some states and 
categorical eligibility for school meals. While such efforts may 
convince potential participants of the value of food stamps, many of 
the stakeholders we interviewed believe that more people would 
participate in the program if the minimum food stamp benefit was raised 
from $10 to at least $25. Doing this, however, would increase program 
costs according to FNS.

Program Officials Have Taken Steps to Reduce the Stigma Associated with 
Food Stamps: 

Program stakeholders are taking steps to address the stigma associated 
with receiving food stamp benefits, trips to the "welfare office," and 
being a "food stamp recipient." Program officials and stakeholders 
noted changes that have already been made in the program to limit the 
stigma and suggested additional changes. While officials we spoke with 
were hopeful about these efforts, little outcome data are available to 
determine their effectiveness at easing administrative burdens.

Steps to Re-Brand the Program: 

PRWORA mandated that states replace food stamp coupons with the EBT 
card, a change that introduced a greater element of privacy during food 
purchases. Many of the stakeholders we spoke with believe the EBT card 
has helped to reduce the stigma associated with the use of food stamps. 
Use of the EBT card has also had the effect of reducing food stamp 
fraud. As of September 2003, 95 percent of all food stamp benefit 
issuance is provided via the EBT card. Some states and local outreach 
organizations have taken the additional step of re-branding, or 
renaming, their EBT cards. Oregon promotes its card as the Oregon Trail 
Card, and the Community Food Resource Center in New York City promotes 
the EBT card as "the Food Card.": 

Beyond renaming the card, many officials suggested that stigma could be 
reduced if the program's name was more suggestive of a nutrition 
program rather than a welfare program. Four states across the nation 
have already renamed their programs.[Footnote 35] For example, Michigan 
has changed the name of its Food Stamp Program to the "food assistance 
program." FNS is currently considering renaming the program and is 
consulting with its state partners on what the name should be.

Steps to Disassociate Food Stamps from Welfare: 

To corroborate the Food Stamp Program as a nutrition program and to 
eliminate trips to "the welfare office," some officials suggested 
moving the Food Stamp Program out of the state welfare office and 
placing it under the Health Department. However, because states decide 
where their various nutrition programs reside, this program change 
would be difficult to implement nationally.

New York State is testing a model that allows potential applicants to 
avoid the welfare office. The state has developed Transitional 
Opportunity Program centers for former TANF recipients who are working 
and who are still eligible for work supports, such as food stamps. The 
idea behind these centers is to provide benefits and case management 
for low-income workers in a friendlier, more positive environment where 
the focus is on helping low-income workers achieve self-sufficiency. To 
do so, caseworkers provide active case management, bank officials 
provide seminars on how to open and manage a bank account, tax 
preparers discuss the EITC, former welfare recipients discuss paths to 
success, childcare providers highlight strategies for childcare, and 
nutritionists discuss healthy eating habits. The case managers are also 
available to help if a rent or utility emergency arises.

Finally, some food stamp researchers have suggested a fundamental 
reshaping of the way the Food Stamp Program is administered and 
overseen.[Footnote 36] They suggested delivering program benefits to 
those who work regularly through the tax code, much like the EITC 
program. Such a change would eliminate the need for working individuals 
to go to the food stamp office. However, such a fundamental reshaping 
of the program from food assistance to cash assistance has significant 
implications for program mission and integrity, targeting intended 
beneficiaries, and administration and would require significant study 
and review.

Serving Working Families Need Not Jeopardize Program Integrity: 

State officials believe that food stamp cases with earned income are 
more complex and error prone than cases with no income. Food stamp 
quality control data show that in fiscal year 2001 cases with only 
earned income accounted for about twice the percentage of dollars 
attributed to errors as cases with no income. These cases are more 
complex because low-income working families' incomes tend to fluctuate 
as the numbers of hours they work rise and fall. Therefore, tracking 
eligibility status, proper benefit level, and accurate income level is 
more difficult. This is important to note because officials in three of 
the four states we visited were supportive of the goal of increasing 
the participation of working families but were also concerned about the 
impact these more complex cases could have on their program error 
rates. Data indicate, however, that the increase in the proportion of 
working recipients from fiscal years 1997 to 2001 did not unduly affect 
the program error rate. Food Stamp Program quality control data show 
that over this same period the percentage of dollar payments made in 
error to households with only earned income remained about the same 
while the overall program error rate declined. These data suggest that 
program integrity can be maintained as states strive to better serve 
working families.

The program simplification options that many states have adopted also 
have the potential to reduce program error while easing the 
administrative burden on states and on working families. Some of the 
options ease the administrative burdens on families by reducing the 
number of times they have to report changes in their cases, in turn 
reducing the number of potential errors that can occur responding to 
those changes. Other options ease program participation by simplifying 
the eligibility determination process. By adopting these options, 
states are hoping to reduce program errors while better serving working 
families.[Footnote 37]

Conclusions: 

Passage of the 1996 welfare reform law changed the safety net landscape 
for families by placing greater emphasis on work and self-sufficiency. 
In this new environment, the Food Stamp Program can play an important 
role in supporting low-income working families, either in their attempt 
to avoid receiving cash assistance or as they leave cash assistance and 
strive for self-sufficiency. Current efforts focus attention and 
resources on increasing participation among all eligible families, 
particularly working families. Yet, almost half of those working 
families that are likely eligible to receive benefits do not 
participate in the program. Many of the federal, state, and local 
officials we spoke with believe the program could do more to serve 
eligible working families, and FNS's goal is to make it easier for low-
income and working families to access the benefits to which they are 
entitled.

We observed a number of initiatives that show promise in addressing one 
or more of the reasons why working families do not participate in the 
program. Most of the initiatives we observed have only been tried on a 
small scale at various scattered locations. While we know many efforts 
are being undertaken, a complete picture is unavailable because FNS 
does not systematically track state activities, nor does it require 
that states collect and evaluate outcome data on their own efforts. 
Although FNS is beginning to assess the outcomes of some of the 
outreach grant efforts, not enough is currently known about all the 
practices being tried and whether they have achieved their goals. In 
addition, in those cases where initiatives have achieved positive 
outcomes, there is no systematic vehicle for disseminating lessons-
learned to other programs or community-based organizations interested 
in taking similar steps. Efforts to systematically collect and report 
simple outcome data on such initiatives could be a significant resource 
for other states that want to increase the food stamp participation 
among their eligible working families.

However, despite FNS's and states' best efforts, some eligible working 
families may continue to choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program and may have good reasons for making that choice. Other 
eligible families could benefit significantly if they did participate. 
Some of the factors that influence a family's decision about whether to 
apply for food stamps are unrelated to the program's design. Some 
families may make a personal decision that the effort and cost to them 
of applying for and receiving benefits, including complying with the 
measures in place to promote program integrity, is not worth the 
ultimate gain. This seems to be especially true for families with 
higher earnings. Each family must make its own personal calculation 
based on its unique circumstances, and some families will likely 
continue to opt out of receiving benefits.

Recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture: 

To better target federal, state, and local outreach efforts; maximize 
the benefits of the available outreach dollars; and identify and 
eliminate impediments to food stamp participation, we recommend that 
the Secretary of Agriculture direct FNS to: 

* encourage states to collect and report on the results of their 
outreach and other efforts to increase participation among eligible 
working families and: 

* disseminate the lessons learned from those efforts to other states 
and localities.

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture for review and comment. On February 9, 2004, we met with 
FNS officials, including the acting deputy administrator for the Food 
Stamp Program, to get their comments. The officials said that they 
generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 
FNS also provided us with technical comments, which we incorporated 
where appropriate.

The FNS officials reiterated their commitment to increase working 
families' participation in the Food Stamp Program and suggested that we 
provide a fuller recognition of their efforts to increase this 
participation. The officials said they believe their ongoing efforts to 
better inform the public about food stamp availability and the 
program's eligibility criteria are contributing significantly to the 
overall goal of increasing program participation. In addition, the 
officials highlighted their efforts to work with state and local food 
stamp agencies and other partners--such as nonprofit organizations, 
retailers, and employers--to assist in developing and implementing 
outreach strategies. The officials also cited their efforts to 
encourage the states to simplify the administrative process and adopt 
user friendly options. In addition, we were asked to highlight 
additional examples of FNS's efforts, and we did, where appropriate.

Agency officials agreed that our recommendation that FNS track outreach 
activities and collect outcome data could provide valuable information. 
However, the officials expressed concern that imposing additional data 
collection, reporting, and evaluation requirements could be seen as 
burdensome by states or local agencies and may discourage some from 
undertaking desirable, but optional, activities like outreach. We agree 
that requiring rigorous research and evaluation of all outreach efforts 
would be costly and difficult. However, we believe encouraging states 
to report simple and uniform outcome data on the results of USDA-funded 
efforts could be a cost-effective means of collecting information of 
value to others attempting to increase working families' participation 
in the program. For efforts that are funded locally, USDA could provide 
a suggested template of data to collect so that similar data elements 
would be gathered across various locations. For example, the sites we 
visited did not systematically collect similar information on the 
number of working families reached by different activities and the 
disposition of their cases. USDA could also use cost-effective means of 
sharing lessons-learned with states and localities by posting this 
information on its Web site.

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 
staffs have any questions about this report. Other major contributors 
to this report are listed in appendix III.

Signed by: 

Sigurd R. Nilsen: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing Participating Working Families to 
Likely Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families: 

Our analysis relied on simulated data produced by Mathematica Policy 
Research, Inc., based on the March 2001 Current Population Survey 
(CPS).

The simulated data were used to establish a universe of all working 
families that are likely eligible to receive food stamps for the 
purpose of comparing the characteristics of participating working 
families to likely eligible nonparticipating working families. 
Mathematica created this simulated data, in part, because comparisons 
between the CPS estimates of Food Stamp Program participation and 
administrative data from the program suggest that program participation 
is underreported in the CPS, and eligibility for program benefits 
cannot be directly observed or reported in existing survey data. To 
complete the simulation, Mathematica assigned individuals in each CPS 
household to one or more "food stamp units." For each food stamp unit, 
Mathematica used CPS data and information from other sources to assign 
simulated values for variables such as monthly shelter expenses and 
monthly earned income. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., then tested 
each food stamp unit to assign the unit as eligible or ineligible to 
receive food stamps.

The cumulative characteristics of all households with eligible food 
stamp units, as determined by Mathematica's simulated data, are shown 
in table 4, and include income-related and demographic factors 
associated with the households and variables that reflect whether 
anyone in the household was participating in other government 
assistance programs.

Table 4: Characteristics of Eligible Households with Earnings Used as 
Factors to Predict Food Stamp Program Participation (Observed N=2,498; 
weighted N=4,911,252): 

Factor: Monthly food stamp benefits*; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): $153.

Factor: Monthly shelter expenses*; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): $508.

Factor: Monthly earned income *; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): $956.

Factor: Any nonearned income*; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 37%.

Factor: Number of people; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 3.6.

Factor: Elderly; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 10%.

Factor: Under age 5; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 37%.

Factor: Married; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 42%.

Factor: All white - Non-Hispanic; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 42%.

Factor: All black (including black Hispanics); 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 24%.

Factor: All white Hispanic; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 26%.

Factor: Other/mixed race; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 8%.

Factor: Noncitizen; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 8%.

Factor: Own home; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 34%.

Factor: Multifamily; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 23%.

Factor: Job training; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 2%.

Factor: Free lunch; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 38%.

Factor: Energy assistance; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 8%.

Factor: Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC); 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 19%.

Factor: Medicaid; 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 43%.

Factor: Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 6%.

Factor: Supplemental Security Income*(SSI); 
Mean/percent (weighted estimates): 9%.

Source: GAO.

Note: Asterisks denote variables with simulated values that were 
developed by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. All estimated means in 
the table have sampling errors that, with 95 percent confidence, do not 
exceed 4 percent of the value of the estimated means. All estimated 
percentages in the table have sampling errors that do not exceed 3 
percentage points, with 95 percent confidence.

[End of table]

According to table 4, on average, the households with earnings--working 
families--that were deemed eligible to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program were eligible to receive $153 in food stamps per month. The 
monthly shelter expenses of these families averaged $508, and the 
monthly income for these families averaged $956. Slightly more than 
one-third (37 percent) of the families reported some nonearned income, 
and a similar percentage (34 percent) of the families involved had 
homes or dwellings that were owned rather than rented. The rest of the 
results can be discerned similarly.

The Analysis Allows for Comparisons between Households with 
Participating and Nonparticipating Working Families: 

In addition to assigning a determination of whether a unit within a 
household is eligible to receive food stamps, Mathematica Policy 
Research, Inc., made an assignment, based on its known participation 
patterns, as to whether eligible food stamp units were receiving food 
stamp benefits as of a fixed reference month. However, we could not use 
Mathematica's simulated variable that identifies units receiving food 
stamp benefits to conduct the substance of our analysis, which was 
primarily focused on the difference among participating and likely 
eligible nonparticipating food stamp units. This is because 
Mathematica's procedures were not amenable to multivariate procedures 
that would allow an estimate of the "net" effects of different factors 
on Food Stamp Program participation - for example, the effect that food 
stamp benefit amounts have on the likelihood of participating after the 
associations of benefit amounts and participation likelihoods with 
other potentially confounding factors are taken into account. Instead, 
to conduct this analysis, we relied on CPS estimates of participating 
working households and compared those households with those that were 
eligible, but not participating, based on Mathematica's work. Given 
that, it should be recognized that the results below are affected by 
our having chosen to use CPS's variable to identify participants and 
Mathematica's variable to identify eligibility. Among households with 
working families an estimated 26 percent of the households with an 
eligible unit (as defined by Mathematica) were identified as 
participating by CPS's variable. By contrast, an estimated 31 percent 
were identified as participating by Mathematica's simulated variable. 
This difference masks somewhat the extent of the discord between the 
two variables; an estimated 38 percent of all households that 
Mathematica's simulation indicates as participating were not coded as 
participating by CPS, and an estimated 2 percent of the households that 
Mathematica's simulation indicates as nonparticipating were coded as 
participating in CPS. Additionally, an estimated 30 percent of the 
households that CPS recorded as participating were deemed ineligible to 
participate by Mathematica's simulation process. Still, the work that 
went in to Mathematica's simulation gives us confidence that the 
results presented in table 5 are a reasonable approximation of the 
different characteristics between participating and nonparticipating 
eligible working families. It is worth noting that variations from the 
procedures produced by Mathematica for estimating eligibility could 
yield results that differ from our analysis since our work relies on 
Mathematica's simulation of eligibility.

To estimate the net effect of different factors affecting the 
likelihood of participating, we used logistic regression models that 
produce odds ratios to indicate how the odds on participating differed 
across different types of households, or across various levels of 
continuous variables (like income or the value of food stamp benefits 
that households were eligible for) that are associated with each unit. 
Overall, the odds on participating were 0.35; that is, 35 eligible 
households participated for every 100 that did not.[Footnote 38] These 
odds differed markedly across different households, however, and the 
odds ratios from bivariate models shown in table 5 indicate the 
bivariate effects of various factors on the odds on eligible food stamp 
working families participating in the Food Stamp Program, when each 
factor is considered in isolation, or independently, from every other 
factor. Model 1 and model 2 test for the effect of any characteristic 
using multivariate models, in order to control for other factors in 
measuring whether any single factor effects likelihood of 
participation.

Table 5: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Various Factors on Food 
Stamp Participation among Eligible Earning Households, from Bivariate 
and Multivariate Logistic Regression Models (Observed N=2,498; weighted 
N=4,911,252): 

Factor: Monthly food stamp benefits (in $100s); 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 1.310*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 1.367*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 1.316*.

Factor: Monthly shelter expenses (in $100s); 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.908*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 0.923*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.934*.

Factor: Monthly earned income (in $1000s); 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.869; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 1.128; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 1.113.

Factor: Any nonearned income; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 2.564*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 2.964*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 1.705*.

Factor: Number of people; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 1.101*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 1.027; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.877*.

Factor: Elderly; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.479*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 0.595*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.780.

Factor: Under age 5; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 1.875*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 1.533*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.989.

Factor: Married; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.566*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 0.563*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.678*.

Factor: All black (including black Hispanic); 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 1.775*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 1.311; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 1.327.

Factor: All white Hispanic; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.839; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 1.226; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.962.

Factor: Other/mixed race; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.861; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 0.995; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.818.

Factor: Noncitizen; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.489*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 0.516*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.624*.

Factor: Own home; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.446*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 0.575*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.704*.

Factor: Multifamily; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.978; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: 0.763; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.795.

Factor: Job training; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 4.268*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: [Empty]; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 2.868*.

Factor: Free lunch; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 2.930*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: [Empty]; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 2.346*.

Factor: Energy assistance; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 6.374*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: [Empty]; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 3.190*.

Factor: WIC; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 3.260*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: [Empty]; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 2.330*.

Factor: Medicaid; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 10.794*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: [Empty]; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 7.182*.

Factor: CHIP; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 0.993; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: [Empty]; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 0.332*.

Factor: SSI; 
Odds ratios: Bivariate model: 2.129*; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 1: [Empty]; 
Odds ratios: Multivariate models: Model 2: 1.260. 

Source: GAO.

Note: Asterisks denote estimated odds ratios which, with 95 percent 
confidence, are significantly different from 1. The logistic regression 
analyses used CPS weights and included information that provided 
approximate adjustments for the complex sample design of CPS.

[End of table]

These bivariate results demonstrate that, based on our estimates, food 
stamp participation was more likely in eligible households in which the 
benefits of participation were greater; that is, each $100 increase in 
monthly benefits for which household members were eligible increased 
the odds on participating by a factor of 1.31, or by 31 percent. Likely 
eligible households with higher shelter expenses were, at the same 
time, less likely to participate; each $100 increase in monthly shelter 
expenses decreased the odds on participating by a factor of 0.91. While 
households with higher incomes were not significantly different from 
households with lower incomes to participate, households with any 
nonearned income were 2.6 times as likely as those without any 
nonearned income to participate. Larger households were also more 
likely to participate than smaller ones (i.e., every additional person 
in the eligible household increases the odds on participating by a 
factor of 1.1). While the presence of elderly or married individuals in 
a household reduces the odds on participation by roughly half, the 
presence of young children (under age 5) in the household nearly 
doubles the odds of participating. Households consisting of all black 
members (including black Hispanics) were nearly twice as likely as 
families with all white (non-Hispanic) members to participate, though 
there were no significant differences between households consisting of 
other races and households that were all white. Households with any 
noncitizen unit head, and households involving owned rather than rented 
dwellings, were also less likely to be participating in food stamps 
than other households.

Participation in the Food Stamp Program was also greatly affected by 
whether the persons in the eligible household participate in other 
programs. That is, the odds of participating were over 10 times higher 
for those working households that received Medicaid benefits (than for 
those who do not), over six times higher for those who received energy 
assistance, and over four times higher for households in which someone 
was receiving job training. Similarly, the odds of participating in the 
Food Stamp Program were about three times higher for those working 
households participating in free lunch programs or in WIC than for 
those not participating in those programs, and they were roughly twice 
as great for those who received any SSI benefits.

The first multivariate model (Model 1) provides estimates of the 
effects of the various socioeconomic and demographic factors when they 
are estimated simultaneously, using a multivariate logistic regression 
model. While odds ratios estimating the different effect sizes change 
modestly in some cases, most of the factors that appeared significant 
when they were estimated from bivariate models remain significant when 
they are estimated in a multivariate context and the effects of other 
factors are controlled.

Model 2 of the multivariate analysis shows the estimates of the effects 
of participating in other programs, net of each other, and net of the 
effects of the socioeconomic and demographic factors. Here too, most of 
these effects remain consistent with what was found in the bivariate 
analyses, except that receiving SSI does not appear to affect Food 
Stamp Program participation net of the other factors and, when other 
factors are controlled, households involved in the Children's Health 
Insurance Program appear to be only a third as likely as households 
that do not receive food stamps. While our estimates of the effects of 
participating in other programs on food stamp participation are 
somewhat attenuated or diminished when they are estimated 
simultaneously, rather than independent of one another, it remains the 
case that households, including someone who receives Medicaid, energy 
assistance, or job training are the most likely to receive food stamps. 
We believe that, these multivariate estimates of the effects of program 
participation are, by virtue of being estimated simultaneously and 
while controlling for the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics 
of the eligible households, somewhat better estimates than those 
obtained in our bivariate analyses.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Summary of Farm Bill Provisions: 

Option/provision: Encouragement of payment of child support (option); 
Description: Treats legally obligated child support payments to a 
nonhousehold member as an income exclusion rather than a deduction.

Option/provision: Simplified definition of income (option); 
Description: Excludes types of income that are not used to determine 
eligibility for TANF or Medicaid, with some exceptions.

Option/provision: Simplified definition of resources (option); 
Description: Excludes certain types of resources that the state does 
not count for TANF or Medicaid.

Option/provision: Simplified determination of housing costs (option); 
Description: Allows states to use a standard deduction from income of 
$143 per month for homeless households with some shelter expenses.

Option/provision: Simplified determination of deductions (option); 
Description: Disregard reported changes in deductions during 
certification periods except for changes associated with a new 
residence or earned income until the next recertification.

Option/provision: State option to reduce reporting requirements 
(option) [1]; 
Description: Expand simplified/semiannual reporting systems to most 
households, not just those with earned income[1].

Option/provision: Transitional food stamps for families moving from 
welfare (option) [1]; 
Description: Continue food stamp benefits to households for up to 5 
months after they lose TANF cash assistance[1].

Option/provision: Simplified utility allowance (option); 
Description: Simplifies the Standard Utility Allowance to promote its 
use.

Option/provision: Alternative procedures for residents of certain group 
faculties; 
Description: Pilot project to assess feasibility of issuing 
standardized rather than individual benefits to certain residents of 
group homes.

Option/provision: Availability of food stamp program applications on 
the Internet[1]; 
Description: Require state agencies that have a Web site to post 
applications on these sites[1].

Option/provision: Grants for simple application and eligibility 
determination systems and improved access to benefits; 
Description: Authorizes up to $5 million annually to pay for projects 
to improve access for food stamp-eligible households or to develop and 
implement simplified application and eligibility systems.

Option/provision: Reform of quality control (QC) system[1]; 
Description: This provision makes substantial changes to the QC system 
that measures states' payment accuracy in issuing food stamp benefits. 
Only those states with persistently high error rates would face 
liabilities[1].

Option/provision: Bonuses for states that demonstrate high or most 
improved performance; 
Description: Creates a performance system that will award $48 million 
in bonuses each year to states with high or improved performance for 
actions taken to correct errors, reduce the rates of error, and improve 
eligibility determinations.

Option/provision: Partial restoration of benefits to legal immigrants; 
Description: This provision restores food stamp eligibility on certain 
dates to qualified aliens who are otherwise eligible and meet criteria 
laid out in the legislation. 

Source: Section-By-Section Summary of Provisions Affecting Food Stamp 
Provisions. Compiled by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service.

Note: 

[1] These provisions are those we identified as having the potential 
to have particularly positive impact on participation among working 
families.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Kay Brown, (202) 512-3674, brownke@gao.gov Kevin Kumanga, (202) 512-
4962, kumangak@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

Bob Kolasky and Thaddeus Hackworth also made significant contributions 
to this report. In addition, Paula Bonin, Robert DeRoy, Kevin Jackson, 
Beverly Ross, Sidney Schwartz, and Douglas Sloane produced our 
estimates of participation among working families, and Corinna Nicolaou 
assisted in the message and report development.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products: 

Welfare Reform: Information on Changing Labor Market and State Fiscal 
Conditions. GAO-03-977. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003.

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data Needed to 
Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves. GAO-03-388. 
Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2003.

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.

Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Services to Many Low-Income 
Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-564. Washington, 
D.C.: April 5, 2002.

Food Stamp Program: States' Use of Options and Waivers to Improve 
Program Administration and Promote Access. GAO-02-409. Washington, 
D.C.: February 22, 2002.

Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on 
Modernizing Information Systems. GAO-02-121. Washington, D.C.: January 
31, 2002.

Earned Income Tax Credit Eligibility and Participation. GAO-02-290R. 
Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2001.

Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome 
and Can Be Simplified. GAO-02-58. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2001.

Food Assistance: Options for Improving Nutrition for Older Americans. 
GAO/RCED-00-238. Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2000.

Food Stamp Program: Better Use of Electronic Data Could Result in 
Disqualifying More Recipients Who Traffic Benefits. GAO-RCED-00-61. 
Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2000.

Food Stamp Program: Various Factors Have Led to Declining 
Participation. GAO/RCED-99-185. Washington, D.C.: July, 1999.

Food Stamp Program: Storeowners Seldom Pay Financial Penalties Owed for 
Program Violations. GAO/RCED-99-91. Washington, D.C.: May 11, 1999: 

FOOTNOTES

[1] A food stamp household consists of individuals who live together 
and customarily purchase and prepare food in common.

[2] FNS oversees the program at the federal level, while each of the 50 
states--plus Washington, D.C., Guam, and the Virgin Islands--administer 
their own programs, either at the state or county level.

[3] See appendix I for a detailed explanation of the methodology we 
used to analyze public data.

[4] Food stamp applications can also be taken at other locations such 
as health clinics and one-stop centers established by the Workforce 
Investment Act to serve job seekers accessing employment and training 
services.

[5] As GAO and others have reported previously, following the passage 
of PRWORA, there is evidence that food stamp participation dropped as 
eligible recipients did not apply for food stamps because they 
incorrectly assumed that if they are ineligible for TANF, they are also 
ineligible for food stamps. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Food 
Stamp Program: Various Factors Have Led to Declining Participation, 
GAO/RCED-99-185 (Washington D.C.: July 1999) for more details.

[6] The strategic plan sets a baseline of 63 percent in 1997. 

[7] The EITC is a federal income tax credit for low-income workers who 
are eligible for and claim the credit. The credit reduces the amount of 
tax an individual owes and may be returned in the form of a refund.

[8] See appendix II for details on the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002.

[9] The food stamp error rate is calculated for the entire program, as 
well as every state, by adding overpayments to those who are eligible 
for smaller benefits, over payments to those who are not eligible for 
any benefit, and underpayments to those who do not get as many benefits 
as they should. In fiscal year 2002, the overpayment was 6.16 percent 
and the underpayment was 2.10 percent. The program also calculates a 
negative action error rate, defined as the rate of improper denials or 
terminations of benefits.

[10] K. Cunnyngham, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for The Food and 
Nutrition Service, Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation 
Rates: 1999 to 2001 (Alexandria, Va.: July 2003). This study identified 
an increase in the participation rate among people eligible for 
benefits in households with earnings from 47.3 percent in fiscal year 
1999 to 51.8 percent in fiscal year 2001.

[11] The participation rates reported are based on the actual number of 
individuals participating in the Food Stamp Program and estimates of 
the number of individuals eligible for food stamps. FNS contracts with 
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., to calculate participation rate data 
for the program. The participation rate figure is determined by 
dividing the actual number of individuals who participate by the 
estimated number of individuals who are eligible. The actual number of 
participants comes from Food Stamp Program operations data. The 
estimate of eligible individuals is derived from a model that uses 
March Current Population Survey data to simulate household 
characteristics. The Mathematica participation rate calculation is the 
generally accepted standard by USDA. Because of delays in the 
availability of needed survey data, a lag exists between actual 
participation numbers being available and the calculation of 
participation rates. 

[12] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Office 
of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp 
Households: Fiscal Year 2002 (Alexandria, Va.: December 2003).

[13] For a detailed description of the process, used to complete this 
analysis, see appendix I.

[14] Michael Ponza, et al., Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Customer 
Service in the Food Stamp Program (Princeton, NJ: July 1999).

[15] Signe-Mary McKernan, et al., The Urban Institute: Employment 
Factors Influencing Food Stamp Participation (Washington, D.C.: August 
2003).

[16] The four states with finger-imaging requirements are Arizona, 
California, New York, and Texas. 

[17] For more information on program integrity and participation 
challenges, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: 
Program Integrity and Participation Challenges, GAO-01-881T 
(Washington D.C.: June 27, 2001).

[18] Sheena McConnell, Michael Ponza, and Mathematica Policy Research, 
Inc., The Reaching the Working Poor and Poor Elderly Study: What We 
Learned and Recommendations for Future Research, (Washington, D.C.: 
December 1999).

[19] Food insecurity is defined as a family being, at some point during 
the previous year, uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough 
food to meet basic needs of all its members because they had 
insufficient money or other resources. 

[20] Mark Nord, et al., USDA Food Assistance & Nutrition Research 
Program, Household Food Security in the United States, 2001 
(Washington, D.C.: October 2002). 

[21] Mary Farrell, David Stapleton et al., The Lewin Group and Cornell 
Center for Policy Research The Relationship of Earnings and Income to 
Food Stamp Participation: A Longitudinal Analysis (Washington, D.C.: 
August 2003).

[22] The SIPP is conducted by the Census Bureau. It collects source and 
amount of income, labor force information, program participation and 
eligibility data, and general demographic characteristics to measure 
the effectiveness of existing federal, state, and local programs. This 
study followed a panel of households from 1996 over a 4-year period. 

[23] In fiscal year 2004, FNS hopes to gain new partners by awarding 
smaller grants for food stamp outreach to smaller-sized, community-
based and faith-based organizations, with the anticipation of obtaining 
new ideas for implementing outreach activities. One of the strategies 
promoted in the grant solicitation is the use of employers to 
facilitate the application process.

[24] State Best Practices Improving Food Stamp Program Access, USDA, 
FNS, (June 2002).

[25] Advocacy groups such as the American Public Human Services 
Association, the Food Research Action Center, and the Nutrition 
Consortium of New York State also make information available on food 
stamp outreach and access in best practices guides, on their Web sites, 
or through conferences.

[26] In fiscal year 2003, FNS also made a wide variety of free flyers, 
posters, and brochures available to state and local food stamp agencies 
and other interested organizations which can be downloaded or ordered 
online from the agency's Web site. These educational materials, which 
include "Food Stamps Make America Stronger," "Who Qualifies for Food 
Stamps?" and "A Small Reason to Find Out if You Qualify for Food 
Stamps," are available in English and Spanish and are targeted to the 
working poor, immigrants, and seniors, as well as the general low-
income population. 

[27] This program, sponsored by the Internal Revenue Service, provides 
voluntary assistance with federal income tax returns. FNS has also 
initiated additional new efforts to promote food stamps to low-income 
individuals through the tax filing process. VITA sites have been 
encouraged to display food stamp materials and refer their clients to 
the food stamp toll-free number. FNS plans to include an Internal 
Revenue Service publication on EITC along with the food stamp materials 
mailed to callers of the toll-free number.

[28] Since 2002, FNS has also presented information and provided 
training regarding the importance of food stamps as a work support at 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Annual Workforce Development Leadership 
Course. The course is designed to build the capacity of local chambers 
of commerce to support employers in the area of workforce training and 
development, with a focus on employers of low-wage workers and former 
welfare recipients. 

[29] U.S. General Accounting Office, 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 2002).

[30] Community-based organizations in Massachusetts and New York City 
have such efforts under development that would allow applications to be 
sent electronically to local food stamp offices, but the technology is 
not yet in place. 

[31] This option, called expanded categorical eligibility, helps 
simplify eligibility determination by eliminating the requirement to 
determine the value of assets and verifying family income up to 200 
percent of poverty. 

[32] All four states have also expanded the use of semiannual reporting 
to all households that can be asked to report periodically, a change 
allowed under the 2002 Farm Bill.

[33] This provision is known as simplified determination of deductions 
in the 2002 Farm Bill.

[34] For more information on the states' use of options and waivers see 
U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: States' Use of 
Options and Waivers to Improve Program Administration and Promote 
Access, GAO-02-409 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 22, 2002).

[35] The four states are Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington.

[36] Michael E. Fishman and Harold Beebout, Supports for Working Poor 
Families: A New Approach (Washington, D.C.: December 2001). Robert I. 
Lerman and Michael Wiseman, Restructuring Food Stamps for Working 
Families (Washington, D.C.: August 2002). These reports offered 
potential policy options for the Food Stamp Program, with an interest 
in spurring discussions about improving the delivery of benefits to and 
well being of low-income working families. We did not conduct a 
detailed review of the reports or make an assessment of the 
applicability or validity of any of the policy options offered by the 
authors. We selected this example to highlight some advantages and 
disadvantages of one alternative scenario for delivering food stamps. 

[37] States also have antifraud measures in place to ensure program 
integrity. The states we visited use automated data matches to search 
for unreported household income and assets. They match their food stamp 
caseloads against their wage reporting systems, new-hire data, Internal 
Revenue Service Form 1099 data, Social Security and Supplemental 
Security Income data, unemployment insurance data, etc. New York State 
also uses finger imaging to protect against clients maintaining 
duplicate food stamp cases.

[38] The odds on participating are somewhat different from, but related 
to, the percentage participating. The odds equal the percentage 
participating divided by the percentage not participating. In this 
sample of eligible households with earnings, as noted above, 26 percent 
of the households were participating in the Food Stamp Program. The 
overall odds of participating were 0.35, which equals 26/74, and 
implies that 0.35 households were participating for every one that was 
not, or that 35 were participating for every 100 that were not. While 
odds are somewhat less familiar than percentages, the use of odds and 
odds ratios to describe the effects of certain factors on the 
likelihood of participation involve certain desirable properties, not 
the least of which are that they are, unlike percentages and percentage 
differences, unaffected by whether we choose to look at the likelihood 
of participating rather than not participating, and by how likely or 
unlikely participating is across the subgroups we are comparing.

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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" 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: