GAO Reviews of Food Stamp Program

There are 13 major Federal domestic programs that provide food-related assistance to needy Americans. The large and accelerating costs of the programs and their piecemeal authorization and administration point to a need to examine the programs' interrelationships and effectiveness. Substantial savings would be possible by eliminating the overlap between the food stamp and school lunch subsidies. Some low-income families participate simultaneously in as many as six different Federal programs providing food assistance. This multiple participation is sanctioned in the legislation authorizing most food programs. Some needy households could receive more in food benefits than the average amounts American families of comparable size spend for food. Alternative approaches could be used to eliminate these overlapping benefits using offsets in either the food stamp or school lunch programs. The legislation and regulations governing the various Federal food assistance programs contain major differences in basic eligibility criteria and procedures. Potential savings could be gained by the use of individualized food stamp benefits. The Department of Agriculture has not taken any action on a GAO recommendation to establish demonstration projects to evaluate the increased administrative cost and error that could result from an individualized system of food stamp allotments. To deal with fraud and overissuances, the Food Stamp Act of 1977 should be revised to permit longer disqualification periods for recipients administratively found guilty of fraud and to permit States to retain a portion of all overissuances recovered instead of only those involving recipient fraud recoveries as is now the case. For fiscal year 1980, households containing a striker received about $37 million in food coupons. The use of photo identification cards and the calculation of eligibility on the basis of income in a prior period would be the preferred new administrative procedure. GAO advocated improved program management of the program's workfare requirement. Some of the categories of recipients who are exempted from the program's workfare participation could be eliminated, the time allowed for a job search shortened, and sanctions for workfare noncompliance strengthened. Delays in modifying obvious program defects should not be allowed to continue.