Food Stamp Employment and Training Program
Better Data Needed to Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves Gao ID: GAO-03-388 March 12, 2003Since the late 1990s, many funding changes have been made to the Food Stamp E&T Program. In 1997, legislation required states to spend 80 percent of their funds on participants who lose their food stamp benefits if they do not meet work requirements within a limited time frame. The legislation also increased funds by $131 million to help states serve these participants. But spending rates for the program declined until, in 2001, states spent only about 30 percent of the federal allocation. In 2002, the Congress reduced federal funds to $110 million a year. While it is too soon to know the impact of these changes, GAO was asked to determine whom the program serves, what services are provided, and what is known about program outcomes and effectiveness.
Food Stamp Employment and Training (E&T) participants are a small proportion of the food stamp population and do not usually receive cash assistance from other programs. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not collect nationwide data on the number and characteristics of Food Stamp E&T participants, program officials in the 15 states GAO contacted described the population as generally hard to employ because they have little education and a limited work history. States may provide program participants with a range of employment and training activities that qualify them for food stamp benefits. USDA data show that, in fiscal year 2001, job search accounted for about half of all participant activities. Work experience--whereby participants receive food stamp benefits in exchange for work--accounted for about 25 percent. Food Stamp E&T services are delivered through a variety of local entities, such as welfare offices or one-stop centers--sites designed to streamline the services of many federal employment and training programs. While all but 1 of the 15 states delivered at least some of their Food Stamp E&T services at the one-stops, Food Stamp E&T participants do not usually engage in intensive services provided by other programs at the one-stops. Program officials from most of the 15 states noted that Food Stamp E&T participants generally lack basic skills that allow them to use other program services successfully. No nationwide data exist on whether the Food Stamp E&T Program helps participants get a job. While some outcome data exist at the state level, it is not clear the outcomes were the result of program participation. USDA has no plans to evaluate the effectiveness of the program nor have the Departments of Labor or Health and Human Services included Food Stamp E&T participants in their studies of the hardest-to-employ.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-388, Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data Needed to Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-388
entitled 'Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data
Needed to Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves' which
was released on March 12, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
March 2003:
Food Stamp Employment and Training Program:
Better Data Needed to Understand Who Is Served and What the Program
Achieves:
GAO-03-388:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-388, a report to Congressional Requesters.
Why GAO Did This Report:
Since the late 1990s, many funding changes have been made to the
Food Stamp E&T Program. In 1997, legislation required states to
spend 80 percent of their funds on participants who lose their food
stamp benefits if they do not meet work requirements within a limited
time frame. The legislation also increased funds by $131 million to
help states serve these participants. But spending rates for the
program declined until, in 2001, states spent only about 30 percent of
the federal allocation. In 2002, the Congress reduced federal funds to
$110 million a year. While it is too soon to know the impact of these
changes, GAO was asked to determine whom the program
serves, what services are provided, and what is known about program
outcomes and effectiveness.
What GAO Found:
Food Stamp Employment and Training (E&T) participants are a small
proportion of the food stamp population and do not usually receive cash
assistance from other programs. While the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) does not collect nationwide data on the number and
characteristics of Food Stamp E&T participants, program officials in
the 15 states GAO contacted described the population as generally hard
to employ because they have little education and a limited work
history.
States may provide program participants with a range of employment and
training activities that qualify them for food stamp benefits. USDA
data show that, in fiscal year 2001, job search accounted for about
half of all participant activities. Work experience”whereby
participants receive food stamp benefits in exchange for work”accounted
for about 25 percent. Food Stamp E&T services are delivered through a
variety of local entities, such as welfare offices or one-stop centers”
sites designed to streamline the services of many federal employment
and
training programs. While all but 1 of the 15 states delivered at least
some of their Food Stamp E&T services at the one-stops, Food Stamp E&T
participants do not usually engage in intensive services provided by
other programs at the one-stops. Program officials from most of the 15
states noted that Food Stamp E&T participants generally lack basic
skills that allow them to use other program services successfully.
No nationwide data exist on whether the Food Stamp E&T Program helps
participants get a job. While some outcome data exist at the state
level, it is not clear the outcomes were the result of program
participation. USDA has no plans to evaluate the effectiveness of
the program nor have the Departments of Labor or Health and Human
Services included Food Stamp E&T participants in their studies of
the hardest-to-employ.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that USDA collect nationwide data on program
participants, require states to collect outcome measures, and
work with other agencies on a research agenda that will allow for
an effectiveness evaluation.
In comments on a draft of GAO‘s report, Food and Nutrition Service
officials agreed with the benefits of obtaining more information on
whom the program is serving and what it is achieving. However, they
expressed concern over the costs of implementing GAO‘s
recommendations, particularly GAO‘s recommendation related to
outcome data.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-388.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at
202-512-7215 or nilsens@gas.gov.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most States Provide Case Management Services and a Range of Employment
and Training Activities:
Services Are Delivered through a Variety of Local Entities and Are Not
Necessarily Linked to Other Employment and Training Programs:
Little Is Known about What the Program Achieves:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Percent of Participants in the Food Stamp and Food Stamp
E&T
Program by Age in Five States, Fiscal
Year 2001:
Appendix II: Percent of Food Stamp E&T Activities Provided to Program
Participants, Fiscal Year 2001:
Appendix III: Food Stamp E&T Expenditures and Allocations, by State,
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2003:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Work Requirements for Nonexempt Food Stamp Recipients:
Figures:
Figure 1: States‘ Spending Levels for Food Stamp E&T Program, Fiscal
Year 2001:
Figure 2: Funding Structure for Food Stamp E&T Program:
Figure 3: Food Stamp Recipients Subject to and Exempt from Work
Requirements, Fiscal Year 2001:
Figure 4: Number of States by Proportion of Food Stamp Recipients
Subject to Work Requirements and Who Are Required to Participate in the
Food Stamp E&T Program, Fiscal Year 2001:
Figure 5: Percent of Women in the Food Stamp Program and Food Stamp E&T
Program in Eight States, Fiscal Year 2001:
Figure 6: Proportion of ABAWDs in the Food Stamp E&T Program in Eight
States, Fiscal Year 2001:
Figure 7: Proportion of Activities Engaged in by Food Stamp E&T
Participants, Fiscal Year 2001:
Figure 8: Proportion of Job Search Activities Provided by States,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Figure 9: Proportion of Work Experience Activities Provided by States,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Figure 10: Proportion of Education and Training Activities Provided by
States, Fiscal Year 2001:
Abbreviations:
ABAWDs: able-bodied adults without dependents:
BBA: Balanced Budget Act:
E&T: Employment and Training:
FNS: Food and Nutrition Service:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAO‘s product.
March 12, 2003:
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
United States Senate:
The Honorable Richard Lugar
United States Senate:
In 1985, the Food Security Act established the Food Stamp Employment
and Training (E&T) Program, administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), to assist food stamp recipients who are able-bodied
gain skills to help them obtain employment. Since that time, many
changes have been made to the program. In 1996, as part of welfare
reform, the Congress created the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant to replace the previous welfare program and
help welfare recipients‘ transition into employment. Welfare reform
also changed the Food Stamp E&T Program by limiting one group of
program participants--able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)--
to 3 months of food stamp benefits within a 36-month period unless they
comply with work requirements. Legislation 1 year later required states
to spend most of their federal funding on ABAWDs and increased funds by
$131 million in fiscal year 1998 in order to help serve this group.
After these changes, however, spending rates for the program declined
until, in fiscal year 2001, states spent only about 30 percent of the
federal allocation--raising questions about whom the program was
serving and what the program was achieving. Most recently, the Congress
passed the 2002 Food Security and Rural Investment Act (the Farm Bill),
reducing federal funds to $110 million a year and removing the
requirement that states spend most of their federal funds on ABAWDs. It
is unclear, however, what impact these changes will have on the
program‘s focus, services, or outcomes.
While it is too soon to know the impact of recent legislative changes
on how the program operates, you asked us to provide you with
information on current program participants, services, and outcomes.
Specifically, you asked us to determine (1) the characteristics of Food
Stamp E&T participants, (2) the services states are providing to Food
Stamp E&T participants, (3) where services are delivered, and 4) what
is currently known about program outcomes and effectiveness.
To answer these questions, we analyzed the limited state and federal
data available on the characteristics of food stamp recipients and the
outcomes achieved in the Food Stamp E&T Program. To better understand
how the program operates, we conducted comprehensive site visits in 5
states and interviewed state and local food stamp and workforce
development officials in 10 more states.[Footnote 1] In addition, we
interviewed officials at USDA‘s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and
reviewed documents, including state Food Stamp E&T Program plans for
the 15 states for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. We conducted our
work from March 2002 to February 2003, in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Food Stamp Employment and Training participants are a small proportion-
-less than 9 percent--of the food stamp population and they do not
usually receive cash assistance from other programs. In addition,
according to state and local program officials, Food Stamp E&T
participants have characteristics that make them hard to employ. While
USDA collects some nationwide data on the food stamp population for
quality control purposes, it does not collect the information in a way
that allows the agency to distinguish food stamp recipients
participating in the Food Stamp E&T Program from recipients who are
participating in other employment and training programs. However, the
proportion of food stamp recipients served by the Food Stamp E&T
Program is small because most food stamp recipients are exempt from
food stamp work requirements due to their age or health. While
nationwide data on the number and characteristics of Food Stamp E&T
participants are not available, state and local officials in the 15
states we reviewed described the population as generally hard to employ
because they have little education, a limited work history, and are
prone to substance abuse problems and homelessness. The officials also
noted that many of these characteristics are more prevalent among
ABAWDs than among other Food Stamp E&T participants and that this group
is the most difficult to serve and employ.
Almost all states nationwide provide individualized case management
services to Food Stamp E&T participants and offer some support
services, according to USDA officials. While states may provide program
participants with a range of employment and training activities that
qualify them for food stamp benefits, states most often provide job
search or work experience activities--whereby participants receive food
stamp benefits in exchange for work in either the public or private
sector. While USDA does not require states to report individual
participant activities, it does collect data on the number of
participants placed in each activity. USDA‘s data show that, in fiscal
year 2001, job search accounted for about half of all participant
activities; work experience accounted for about 25 percent; and basic
education and training to improve reading, math, and language skills
or to obtain a high school equivalency degree accounted for about 8
percent.
In 13 of the 15 states we contacted, the agency that administers the
TANF block grant also oversees the Food Stamp E&T Program, but services
are delivered through a variety of local entities, such as welfare
offices or one-stop centers--sites designed to streamline the delivery
of services for many federal employment and training programs. While
all but 1 of the 15 states we contacted delivered at least some of
their
Food Stamp E&T services at the one-stops, the extent to which states
use
the one-stops to deliver these services varies considerably. Even
though
Food Stamp E&T participants may receive job search services at the one-
stops, they do not usually participate in other employment and training
programs available there, according to local officials from most of the
states we contacted. Officials from over half of the states we
contacted
suggested that because Food Stamp E&T participants may be difficult to
employ, local one-stop staff might be reluctant to provide intensive
services through other employment and training programs, such as the
Workforce Investment Act Adult Program, out of concern that they would
adversely affect the program‘s performance measures. In addition,
officials from 12 states said Food Stamp E&T participants generally are
not ready for many program services, such as training classes offered
by programs at the one-stops because they lack basic skills, such as
reading and computer literacy, that would allow them to use those
services successfully. Despite these concerns, officials from all 15
states said it could be advantageous to colocate the Food Stamp E&T
Program at the one-stops where there would be a broader array of
services and the potential for sharing program and staff resources.
No nationwide data exist on whether the Food Stamp E&T Program is
effective in helping participants get and keep employment. Although
USDA does not require states to collect such information, about half of
the 15 states we contacted collected data on the number of participants
who got a job--ranging from 15 percent in one state to 62 percent in
another--and a few states collected data on starting wages. While some
states collect outcome data, it remains unclear whether the outcomes
were the direct result of program participation. In 1988, USDA
commissioned a study to examine the program‘s effectiveness and found
that those who were required to enroll in the Food Stamp E&T Program
did not fare any better in terms of employment or wages than those food
stamp recipients who were excluded from participating. No study has
been conducted since that time, and USDA has no plans to do another
study, nor have the Departments of Labor or Health and Human Services
specifically included Food Stamp E&T participants in their studies of
the hardest-to-employ.
In order to better understand the population that the Food Stamp E&T
Program is serving, we are recommending that USDA collect the food
stamp quality control data in a way that will allow the department to
estimate the number and characteristics of those individuals
participating. In addition, we are recommending that USDA require
states to report on program outcomes and work with the Departments of
Labor and Health and Human Services on a research agenda that will
allow for an evaluation of the effectiveness of this program. While FNS
generally agreed with the benefit of collecting more data on the Food
Stamp E&T program, the agency had concerns that the potential benefits
of such data may not be worth the effort or cost.
Background:
Since the 1970s, a variety of work requirements have been tied to the
receipt of food stamp benefits, including participation in the Food
Stamp E&T Program. Funding for the program has been provided through a
combination of federal grants to states, state funds, and federal
matching funds. Under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998,
services for many other federally funded employment and training
programs were coordinated through a single system--called the one-stop
center system--but the Food Stamp E&T Program was not required to be
part of this system.
Food Stamp Program and Work Requirements:
The Food Stamp Program, administered at the federal level by USDA,
helps low-income individuals and families obtain a more nutritious diet
by supplementing their income with food stamp benefits. The states and
FNS jointly administer the Food Stamp Program. The federal government
pays the cost of food stamp benefits and 50 percent of the states‘
administrative costs. The states administer the program by determining
whether households meet the program‘s income and asset requirements,
calculating monthly benefits for qualified households and issuing
benefits to participants. In fiscal year 2001, the Food Stamp Program
served an average of 17.3 million people per month and provided an
average monthly benefit of $75 per person.
Throughout the history of the Food Stamp Program, a variety of
employment and training requirements have been tied to the receipt of
food stamp benefits. The Food Stamp Program requires all recipients,
unless exempted by law, to register for work at the appropriate
employment office, participate in an employment and training program if
assigned by a state agency, and accept an offer of suitable
employment.[Footnote 2] Food stamp recipients are exempted from
registering for work and engaging in employment and training activities
if they are under age 16 or over age 59 or physically or mentally unfit
for employment. In addition, they are exempted if they are caring for a
child under the age of
6, employed 30 hours a week, or subject to and complying with work
requirements for other programs, such as those required by TANF. Still
others are exempted because they are receiving unemployment insurance
compensation, participating in a drug or alcohol treatment and
rehabilitation program, or are students enrolled at least half time.
The Food Stamp Employment and Training Program:
The Food Security Act of 1985 created the Food Stamp E&T Program to
help participants gain skills, training, or experience that will
increase their ability to obtain regular employment. The act requires
each state to operate a Food Stamp E&T Program with one or more of the
following employment and training activities: job search, job search
training, education, vocational training, or work experience. While the
act mandates that all nonexempt food stamp recipients register for
work, states have the flexibility to determine which local areas will
operate a Food Stamp E&T Program and, based on their own criteria,
whether or not it is appropriate to refer these individuals to the Food
Stamp E&T Program.[Footnote 3]
Since passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, food stamp recipients aged
18-49, who are ’able-bodied“ and not responsible for a dependent child-
-termed able-bodied adults without dependents or ABAWDs--have a time
limit for the receipt of food stamp benefits and specific work
requirements. PRWORA marked the first time that federal legislation
imposed a time limit on the receipt of benefits for any category of
food stamp recipients. Under PRWORA, ABAWDs are limited to 3 months of
food stamp benefits in a 36-month period unless they meet one of the
following ABAWD work requirements: participate in a qualifying work
activity 20 hours per week, work 20 hours per week, engage in any
combination of qualifying activities for a total of 20 hours per week,
or participate in a work experience program.[Footnote 4] Qualifying
activities include education, vocational training, or work experience.
ABAWDs may engage in job search or job search training activities
within the first month of participation in a work experience program.
In addition, ABAWDs can engage in job search activities as part of
their work requirements as long as job search does not account for more
than half of the time they spend engaged in qualified activities.
At the request of states, FNS may waive ABAWDs from the 3-out of
36-month requirement and the ABAWD work requirement if they live in an
area where the unemployment rate is over 10 percent or where the state
can document that there are not a sufficient number of jobs to provide
employment for these individuals. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of
1997 allowed states to exempt an additional 15 percent of ABAWDs, also
from the time limit and ABAWD work requirements, based on criteria
developed by the state, such as participants in remote counties.
However, ABAWDs are still required to comply with Food Stamp Program
requirements, such as registering for work at an appropriate employment
office.
Food Stamp E&T participants other than ABAWDs--including 16-or
17-year-old heads of households, individuals age 50-60, and individuals
age 18-49 who are responsible for a dependant age 6-17--must comply
with any Food Stamp E&T work requirement established by the state where
they reside. Some states maintain the same work requirements for these
participants as they do for ABAWDs. Other states may impose less
rigorous requirements, such as engaging in job search activities a few
hours a week. (See table 1.):
Table 1: Work Requirements for Nonexempt Food Stamp Recipients:
Characteristics; ABAWDs: Able-bodied adult without dependents, aged 18-
49.; Other mandatory work registrants: Head of household age 16 or 17,
age 50-60, age 18-49 taking care of child over age 6..
Benefits time limit; ABAWDs: May only receive food stamp benefits for 3
months out of 36 months if not complying with ABAWD work
requirements.[A]; Other mandatory work registrants: May receive food
stamp benefits as long as they remain eligible and comply with program
requirements..
Food Stamp E&T work requirement; ABAWDs: 20 hours per week of a
qualifying activity, working 20 hours per week, any combination of
working and participating in a qualifying activity 20 hours per week,
or participating in work experience activities.; Other mandatory work
registrants: As assigned by state..
Qualifying activities; ABAWDs: Work experience activities, education
programs that directly enhance employability, state or local programs
aimed at accomplishing the same goals as the Food Stamp E&T Program,
participating in a WIA-funded program, self-employment or training for
self-employment. Job search in some circumstances, such as within the
first month of participation in a work experience activity.; Other
mandatory work registrants: Same as for ABAWDs, but also including job
search and job search training..
[End of table]
Source: USDA.
[A] ABAWDs who have used their 3 months of benefits may regain
subsequent eligibility by meeting ABAWD work requirements in a 30-day
period. If they fail again to meet work requirements, they receive 3
months of consecutive food stamp benefits and are then no longer
eligible for benefits within the 36-month time frame.
Program Funding:
Funding for the Food Stamp E&T Program has been provided through a
combination of federal grants to states, state funds, and federal
matching funds. USDA provides matching funds by reimbursing states 50
percent for their program administrative costs. The agency also
reimbursed states for 50 percent of support services--such as
participant transportation--up to $12.50 per participant per
month.[Footnote 5] While this basic funding structure is still in
place, several changes have been made since the late 1990s. In response
to concerns over the ability of ABAWDs to meet the work requirements
imposed by PRWORA, the Balanced Budget Act authorized additional
federal grant funding each year between 1998 and 2002 for the Food
Stamp E&T Program. The additional funding ranged from $31 million in
1999 to $131 million in 1998 and 2001.[Footnote 6] In order to access
this additional funding, the legislation required that states spend the
same amount of state funds on their Food Stamp E&T Program that they
did in 1996--referred to as a state‘s maintenance-of-effort. In
addition, the legislation required that states spend at least 80
percent of their total federal grant funds on work activities for
ABAWDs.
States had the option to expend only 20 percent of their federal funds
if they chose not to focus services on ABAWDs. Between 1998 and
2001, states spent 40 percent or less of the federal allocation. In
2001, over half of the states spent 25 percent or less of their federal
grant allocation while only eight states spent more than three-fourths
of their allocation. (See fig. 1.) These low spending rates may reflect
both the rapid decline in the number of ABAWDs participating in the
Food Stamp Program, as well as states‘ decisions about how to structure
their programs.[Footnote 7]
Figure 1: States‘ Spending Levels for Food Stamp E&T Program, Fiscal
Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis based on USDA data.
The 2002 Farm Bill repealed some of the funding provisions enacted by
the Balanced Budget Act. The bill eliminated the additional BBA funds
for 2002 and provided $90 million for each year between 2002-2007. In
addition, the bill provided an additional $20 million in each of these
years for states that provide a work activity to every ABAWD who would
otherwise be subject to the 3-out of 36-month time limit. Fiscal year
2001 and unspent prior year funds were rescinded, unless states already
had obligated them. The Farm Bill also repealed the requirement that
states meet their maintenance-of-effort requirement. In addition,
states no longer have to spend 80 percent of federal grant funds on
work activities for ABAWDs. However, the Farm Bill did not eliminate
the 3-out of
36-month time limit for benefits or alter the work requirements for
ABAWDs. States continue to receive the 50-percent matching federal
funds for program administrative costs, and the Farm Bill eliminated
the cap on reimbursements to states for support services, such as
transportation, allowing states to be reimbursed for 50 percent of all
support service expenses. (See fig. 2.):
Figure 2: Funding Structure for Food Stamp E&T Program:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Workforce Investment System:
The Workforce Investment Act, which was passed in 1998, requires states
and localities to coordinate many federally funded employment and
training services through a single system, called the one-stop center
system. Through one-stop centers, individuals can access a range of
services, including job search activities and employment-related
activities. WIA mandated that 17 categories of federal employment and
training programs across four federal agencies be coordinated through
the one-stop system, including three WIA-funded programs--WIA Adult,
WIA Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth.[Footnote 8] These programs
provide three tiers, or levels, of service for adults and dislocated
workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services include basic
services such as job searches and labor market information and are
available to anyone coming into a one-stop center. These activities may
be self-service or require some staff assistance. Intensive services
include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case
management--activities that require greater staff involvement.
Training services include such activities as occupational skills or on-
the-job training.
Coordination between the 17 programs generally takes one of two forms:
colocation, whereby clients access employment and training services at
a local one-stop, or through referrals and electronic linkages to off-
site programs. While other employment and training programs, such as
TANF and the Food Stamp E&T Program, are not required to be a part of
the one-stop system, some states have required localities to include
these programs in the one-stop system.
Food Stamp E&T Participants Usually Are Not Served by Other Programs
and Have Characteristics That Make Obtaining Employment Difficult:
The Food Stamp E&T Program serves a small proportion of the food stamp
population who do not usually receive assistance from other programs
and who, according to state and local program officials, have
characteristics that make them hard to employ. While USDA collects some
nationwide data on the food stamp population for quality control
purposes, it does not collect the information in a way that allows the
agency to distinguish food stamp recipients participating in the Food
Stamp E&T Program from recipients who are participating in other
employment and training programs, such as TANF or WIA. However, because
most food stamp recipients are exempt from food stamp work requirements
due to their age or health, the proportion of food stamp recipients
potentially served by the Food Stamp E&T Program is small. While
nationwide data on the number of and characteristics of Food Stamp E&T
participants are not available, state and local officials in the
15 states we reviewed described the population as generally hard to
employ because they have little education, a limited work history, and
are prone to substance abuse problems and homelessness. The officials
also noted that many of these characteristics are more prevalent among
ABAWDs and that this group is the most difficult to serve and employ.
Food Stamp E&T Participants Are a Small Proportion of the Food Stamp
Population and Usually Receive Benefits Only from the Food Stamp
Program:
Food Stamp E&T participants comprise less than 9 percent of the food
stamp population because most food stamp recipients are exempted from
work requirements, such as registering for work or participating in the
Food Stamp E&T Program. In fiscal year 2001, 91 percent of food stamp
recipients were not required to meet work requirements. Over 60 percent
were exempted due to their age--most were under 18 or over 59 (see fig.
3). Another 30 percent of food stamp recipients--working age adults--
were exempted, over 40 percent of whom were disabled. Other working age
adults were exempted because they were caring for a dependent child
under age 6 or because they were working at least 30 hours per week.
Working age adults may also have been exempted because they were
already complying with work requirements of other programs, such as
TANF. Food stamp recipients who participate in key federal cash
assistance programs--such as TANF, Supplemental Security
Income,[Footnote 9] or Unemployment Insurance Program--are exempt from
the Food Stamp E&T Program. As a result, those who participate in the
Food Stamp E&T Program generally do not receive any federal public cash
assistance other than food stamps.
Figure 3: Food Stamp Recipients Subject to and Exempt from Work
Requirements, Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of USDA data. Data excluded for food stamp
recipients whose age and work requirement status was unknown. Percents
may not add to 100% due to rounding.
[A] Exempt from work requirements due to age.
[B] ’Other“ category includes working age adults exempted from work
requirements because they were complying with work requirements for
another program, such as TANF, or were enrolled at least part time in
school or a training program.
Not all food stamp recipients subject to work requirements participate
in the Food Stamp E&T Program. States have the flexibility to establish
their own criteria for selecting which food stamp recipients are
referred to the program. As a result of this flexibility, in 17 of the
50 states, according to USDA data, over 80 percent of food stamp
recipients who were subject to work requirements--including ABAWDs and
other mandatory work registrants--were required to participate in the
program. However,
8 states required 20 percent or less to participate. (See fig. 4.):
Figure 4: Number of States by Proportion of Food Stamp Recipients
Subject to Work Requirements and Who Are Required to Participate in the
Food Stamp E&T Program, Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of USDA data.
No National Data Exist, but Officials Said Food Stamp E&T Participants
Have Many Characteristics That Make Employment Difficult:
While USDA collects nationwide data on the food stamp population for
quality control purposes, the agency does not collect the information
in a way that identifies the specific employment and training program
in which food stamp recipients are participating.[Footnote 10] Although
data from the fiscal year 2001 quality control survey indicate that 8
percent of food stamp recipients are participating as mandatory
participants in an employment and training program, USDA officials said
questions in this survey regarding program participation do not specify
a particular program. Rather, questions are general and could refer to
the Food Stamp E&T Program or other employment and training programs
such as TANF and WIA-funded programs. As a result, the agency is unable
to identify food stamp recipients active in the Food Stamp E&T Program
from food stamp recipients active in other employment and training
programs. This prevents the agency from using the quality control
survey to estimate the number or provide characteristics of Food Stamp
E&T participants.
While there are no nationwide data on the characteristics of Food Stamp
E&T participants, state and local officials we spoke with in all 15
states said their Food Stamp E&T participants have multiple
characteristics that make them hard to employ. Officials noted that
Food Stamp E&T participants generally have limited education; often
they have not completed high school. They also said that program
participants frequently have a limited work history and few work
skills. They noted that Food Stamp E&T participants often depend on
seasonal employment such as tourism-related jobs, and at least one
official said that many of their participants rarely hold a job for
more than 3 months. Program officials also told us that participants,
particularly those in rural settings, often lack transportation, making
their continued employment difficult. Finally, officials identified
mental health issues, substance abuse, and homelessness as additional
characteristics making participants hard to employ. Officials from
Colorado estimated, for example, that at least
40 percent of their Food Stamp E&T participants had substance abuse
problems and 40 percent were homeless.
In addition to providing anecdotal information on Food Stamp E&T
participants, some states were able to provide quantitative data on a
limited number of participant characteristics. While not required to
collect or report these data to USDA, 8 of 15 states we contacted
collected data on the gender, age, or income of Food Stamp E&T
participants. In 6 of the 8 states, Food Stamp E&T participants were
predominantly women--as were the majority of Food Stamp recipients--
(see fig. 5) and data from
5 states show that most of their participants are between the ages of
18 and 40. (See app. I for a comparison of food stamp recipients and
Food Stamp E&T participants by age.) Similar to all food stamp
recipients, Food Stamp E&T participants generally have very low
incomes. Three states provided us with data on participant incomes.
Officials from California said the majority of their participants had
incomes less than $800 per month, and officials from Colorado and
Illinois said most participants have incomes less than $200 per month.
Figure 5: Percent of Women in the Food Stamp Program and Food Stamp E&T
Program in Eight States, Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of USDA and state data.
[A] We were unable to obtain unduplicated data for fiscal year 2001
from Florida. To accommodate our request, Florida submitted data for
January and July of fiscal year 2001. These months were selected in
order to control for seasonal variations. Data from the 2 months were
used to project for the entire fiscal year.
Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents Are Usually the Hardest to Serve
and Employ:
According to officials from 8 of the 15 states we contacted, ABAWDs--
who comprised 4 percent of the food stamp population nationwide in
fiscal year 2001--have characteristics that make them the most
difficult to serve and employ of all Food Stamp E&T participants. While
a nationwide estimate of the number of ABAWDs participating in the Food
Stamp E&T Program is not known, 8 states were able to provide data on
the proportion of participants who were ABAWDs. The proportion varied
greatly from 1 percent in New Mexico to 100 percent in Florida and
Illinois. (See fig. 6.) Program officials said that ABAWDs--who are
most often men--are more likely to lack basic skills such as reading,
writing, and basic mathematics than other food stamp participants. In
addition, officials said mental health issues, substance abuse, and
homelessness are more prevalent among ABAWDs than other participants. A
recent report cites these three characteristics as among the most
common barriers to serving ABAWDs.[Footnote 11] The report also
concludes that ABAWDs have less income--earned and unearned--than other
food stamp recipients age
18 to 49.
Figure 6: Proportion of ABAWDs in the Food Stamp E&T Program in Eight
States, Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[A] We were unable to obtain unduplicated data for fiscal year 2001
from Missouri. To accommodate our request, Missouri submitted data for
January and July of fiscal year 2001. These months were selected in
order to control for seasonal variations. Data from the 2 months were
used to project for the entire year.
:
While the characteristics that make Food Stamp E&T participants hard to
employ are more pronounced among ABAWDs, this group also presents
unique challenges that add to the difficulties of serving them. First,
ABAWDS are usually transient and, as a result, often only participate
in the program for short durations. Moreover, officials also said
ABAWDs are often unwilling to participate and frequently fail to show
up for appointments. Some officials suggested that this unwillingness
to participate stems partly from ABAWDs‘ perception that their benefit
level--an average of $118 of food stamp benefits per month--is too low
to warrant participation in the program.
Officials we spoke with and a recent report[Footnote 12] note that
monitoring the activities of ABAWDs has been difficult due to the
complexities of program requirements. For example, in order to
determine whether ABAWDs may continue to receive food stamp benefits,
states track ABAWDs to ensure that they are engaged in a qualifying
work activity. ABAWDs may only receive benefits for 3 out of 36 months
if they are not engaged in a qualifying work activity. Program
officials said these requirements, in combination with ABAWDs‘ sporadic
participation in the program and reluctance to participate, discourage
states from using their Food Stamp E&T resources to serve these
individuals. In 2001, 25 states spent 20 percent or less of their
federal grant allocation. Eight of the
25 states chose not to serve ABAWDs and as a result, were limited to
spending only 20 percent of their federal grant funds. The other 17
states also spent 20 percent or less but may have served ABAWDs as well
as other mandatory participants. While the 2002 Farm Bill removed the
requirement that states spend 80 percent of federal grant funds on work
activities for ABAWDs, states must still track ABAWD compliance with
the 3-out of 36-month time limit.
Most States Provide Case Management Services and a Range of Employment
and Training Activities:
States provide Food Stamp E&T participants with case management
services and offer some support services, such as transportation
assistance. While states may provide participants with a range of
employment and training activities, in 2001, states most often placed
participants in job search and work experience. Other programs that
serve low-income populations, such as TANF and the WIA Adult Program,
provide similar activities. Legislative changes in the 2002 Farm Bill,
however, may affect services that states provide to Food Stamp E&T
participants.
Most States Provide Case Management and Some Support Services:
According to USDA officials, most states provide Food Stamp E&T
participants with case management services. Case management services
may include assessing a participant‘s needs, developing an employment
plan, or helping participants‘ access services provided by other
programs. For example, one state official told us that case managers
work with participants and local housing organizations to help find
shelter for the participants or get mental health services so they are
ready to go to work. Case managers also work with Food Stamp E&T
participants to help them access support services--services that
provide assistance with transportation and work or education-related
expenses. USDA data show that in fiscal year 2001 45 states provided
transportation funds to Food Stamp E&T participants.[Footnote 13]
In addition to basic transportation and other services paid for in part
with federal grant funds, program officials told us some local Food
Stamp E&T Programs provide participants with additional support
services. Some local programs use state funds or coordinate with
community-based organizations to obtain other services for
participants. For example, one local Food Stamp E&T Program provides
bicycles donated by a community-based organization to some participants
who need transportation to get to work, while another provides basic
hygiene products, such as soap and shampoo, because food stamp
recipients may not use food stamp benefits to buy these products.
States Assign Participants to a Range of Employment and Training
Activities:
While most Food Stamp E&T participants receive case management
services, they also may engage in a range of employment and training
activities to qualify for food stamp benefits. These include job
search, job search training, work experience, education, and vocational
training. Participants may also enroll in WIA or a Trade Adjustment
Act-funded program.[Footnote 14] Job search activities may include
self-directed or staff-assisted activities. Job search training
activities include job skills assessment and participation in job
clubs, wherein participants meet with other job seekers and local
employers to obtain information on the jobs available in the area and
assistance in marketing their skills. Participants engaged in work
experience activities are required to work without pay in exchange for
food stamp benefits. Education activities may include literacy
training, high school equivalency programs, or postsecondary education,
while vocational training provides skill-related training.
While USDA does not require states to report individual participant
activities, it does collect data on the number of participants placed
in each activity. In fiscal year 2001, 40 of the 50 states provided
data to USDA for participant employment and training
activities.[Footnote 15] The data show that case managers most
frequently assigned Food Stamp E&T participants to job search
activities, including job search and job search training. (See fig. 7.)
However, while job search accounted for about 49 percent of participant
activities, the extent to which states provided job search activities
varied. (See fig. 8.) For example, 2 states did not report offering any
job search activities to participants, while in 11 of the 40 states,
job search activities accounted for almost all of participant
activities. (See app. II for a complete listing of the percent of
program activities provided to participants.):
Figure 7: Proportion of Activities Engaged in by Food Stamp E&T
Participants, Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of data provided by 40 states to USDA.
Figure 8: Proportion of Job Search Activities Provided by States,
Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of data provided by 40 states to USDA.
:
Work experience activities accounted for about a quarter of all Food
Stamp E&T activities in fiscal year 2001. In six states, work
experience activities accounted for over half of all activities. (See
fig. 9.) Participants may engage in work experience activities with
either public or private employers. In Texas, all work experience
positions were with public employers--city, county, or state
government. In Colorado, participants had the option of working with
either a private nonprofit or public employer. Thirteen states did not
offer any work experience activities to participants.
Figure 9: Proportion of Work Experience Activities Provided by States,
Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of data provided by 40 states to USDA.
Food Stamp E&T participants are engaged in education and training
activities much less often than in job search or work experience
activities. In fiscal year 2001, education and training activities
accounted for about
8 percent of participant activities. Education and training activities
for Food Stamp E&T participants include vocational education classes,
adult basic education classes, English as a second language classes,
high school equivalency preparation, or participation in a WIA-funded
program. The extent to which states provided education and training
activities varied across states. In Pennsylvania, for example,
education and training activities accounted for almost half of Food
Stamp E&T participants‘ activities, while in 13 states, participants
did not receive any of these activities (see fig. 10).
Figure 10: Proportion of Education and Training Activities Provided by
States, Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of data provided by 40 states to USDA.
:
State and local officials we spoke with had a range of views on which
activities were more likely to help Food Stamp E&T participants get
jobs. Officials from five states told us that participants in their
program are more likely to find jobs while enrolled in job search,
while officials from eight states told us that in their experience,
participants who receive a combination of services tailored to their
individual needs are more likely to find jobs. However, officials in
two states told us Food Stamp E&T participants may be reluctant to
enroll in education and training activities because they want to get a
job immediately and are not interested in training. In addition, a few
officials told us they would like to offer more education and training
options to participants but lacked the funding to support it.
Other programs that serve low-income individuals and families also
offer education and training activities, in addition to services
similar to those provided by the Food Stamp E&T Program. For example,
in fiscal year 2000, almost half of TANF participants were enrolled in
work experience activities, over 40 percent were enrolled in job search
activities,[Footnote 16] and over 20 percent were enrolled in education
and training activities.[Footnote 17] Some of the WIA Adult Program‘s
core services are the same as those provided to Food Stamp E&T
participants, such as job search. However, services offered under WIA
Adult intensive and training tiers involve greater staff involvement
and provide more comprehensive activities than those provided under the
core tier. Fifty-five percent of participants enrolled in the WIA Adult
Program in program year 2000 (July 2000 to June 2001) participated in
intensive and training activities. Other WIA Adult participants
receiving intensive and training services may be receiving skills
assessment, individualized counseling and case management, and short-
term prevocational services, such as computer training.
Legislative Changes May Affect Services Provided to Participants:
Legislative changes enacted by the 2002 Farm Bill may affect the
services that states provide to program participants by reducing the
total amount of Food Stamp E&T federal funds available to states to
$110 million--or $274 million lower than funds they had available in
fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 18] As a result, most states will receive
a smaller allocation in 2003 than they received in 2001, although 4
states will receive a greater allocation, in part due to changes in
USDA‘s funding formula.[Footnote 19] However, this funding decrease
may have a greater impact on some states than others because not all
states have been spending a large proportion of their federal grant
allocation. For example, in 2001, more than half of the states spent
less than 25 percent of their allocation, while only 8 states spent
more than 75 percent. As a result of the funding decrease and states‘
varied spending rates, about one-third of the states will receive a
smaller allocation in 2003 than they spent in 2001. (See app. III for
a comparison of what states spent in fiscal year 2001 and their
allocations in fiscal years 2001 and 2003.) However, because the Farm
Bill also eliminated the requirement that states reserve 80 percent of
federal grant funds for activities for ABAWDs, states may choose to
spend as much of their federal allocation as they did before the
requirement became effective in 1998. For example, in 1997, 46 states
spent more than 75 percent of their allocation, with states spending 94
percent of the total federal allocation.
Services Are Delivered through a Variety of Local Entities and Are Not
Necessarily Linked to Other Employment and Training Programs:
In 13 of the 15 states we contacted, the agency that administers the
TANF block grant also oversees the Food Stamp E&T Program; in the 2
other states, the Food Stamp E&T Program is administered by the
workforce development system. However, services are provided through a
variety of local entities, including welfare offices and one-stop
centers. While all but 1 of the states we contacted delivered at least
some of their Food Stamp E&T services at the one-stops, the extent to
which states use the one-stops to deliver these services varies
considerably. For example, in Virginia, only two Food Stamp E&T
Programs are colocated at the one-stops. In other counties, services
are delivered at welfare offices. In Colorado, about one-third of the
counties that provide Food Stamp E&T services--primarily the larger
counties--deliver their Food Stamp E&T services through the one-stops.
Other counties in Colorado deliver services through local welfare
agencies or community-based organizations, such as Goodwill Industries.
In Texas, the state‘s workforce commission administers the Food Stamp
E&T Program, and all program services statewide are delivered through
the one-stop system.
Food Stamp E&T participants may receive job search services through the
one-stop centers, but according to many local program officials, few
participants receive other services from employment and training
programs available at the centers, such as the WIA Adult Program. In
Pennsylvania, Food Stamp E&T participants are referred to the one-stops
for job search activities,[Footnote 20] and in Vermont, almost all
participants receive WIA-funded core services through the one-stop
system. These services may include job search activities but may also
include a preliminary assessment of skills and needs. Most state
officials told us that they did not collect data on how many Food Stamp
E&T participants were referred to or received services from other
employment and training programs at the one-stops. However, local
officials in 10 of the 15 states told us that few, if any Food Stamp
E&T participants actually receive services from other employment and
training programs at the one-stops, and a few provided estimates. For
example, a local official in New Mexico estimated that his office
referred about one-fourth of its Food Stamp E&T participants to the WIA
Adult Program in any given year, but less than half of these are
actually enrolled in the program. Local officials in Idaho, by
comparison, said that while about one-third of their Food Stamp E&T
participants are referred in any given year, only about 2 percent are
enrolled in WIA-funded intensive or training services.[Footnote 21] A
Food Stamp E&T administrator in Michigan told us that, even though the
Food Stamp E&T Program is colocated at a one-stop center in his county,
the center served only three or four clients a year.
Program officials cited several reasons that Food Stamp E&T
participants may not receive services from other employment and
training programs. Officials from eight of the states we spoke with
suggested that local WIA staff might be reluctant to provide WIA-funded
intensive and training services to a population less likely to get and
keep a job--such as those in the Food Stamp E&T Program--out of concern
that they would adversely affect their performance as measured under
WIA. While job seekers who receive core services that are self-service
in nature are not included in these performance measures, participants
enrolled in WIA-funded intensive or training programs are tracked in
areas such as job placement, retention, and earnings change. WIA
established these performance measures, and states are held accountable
by the U.S. Department of Labor for their performance in these areas.
If states fail to meet their expected performance levels, they may
suffer financial sanctions; if states meet or exceed their levels, they
may be eligible to receive additional funds.
While employment and training programs at the one-stops offer some of
the activities that Food Stamp E&T participants need, officials from 12
of the 15 states we contacted told us that most participants are not
ready for these activities, in part, because they lack basic skills
(such as reading and computer literacy) that would allow them to
successfully participate. Officials from 5 states also noted that
mental health problems often prevent Food Stamp E&T participants from
participating in other more intensive employment and training programs
at the one-stops. Program officials told us participants often need
specialized case management services that might not be available from
other program staff.
Despite concerns about performance measures and the skill level of Food
Stamp E&T participants, program officials from all 15 states we
contacted cited advantages to colocating the Food Stamp E&T Program at
the one-stops. The most frequently cited advantage was that Food Stamp
E&T participants would benefit from having access to a broader array of
employment and training services. In addition, officials from 9 of the
states noted that colocation would provide a better use of program
resources and staff, and program officials from 8 states said that the
one-stops offer a more positive environment--one focused more on work
and training than might be found in local welfare offices. Finally,
officials from 7 states said that for those who may lack
transportation, colocation of services would be advantageous.
Little Is Known about What the Program Achieves:
Little information is available about whether the Food Stamp E&T
Program is effective in helping participants get and keep a job.
Although USDA does not require the reporting of outcome data, 7 of the
15 states we contacted collected data in fiscal year 2001 on job
placements, and 2 of these states also collected data on wages. Their
job placement rates ranged from 15 percent in one state to 62 percent
in another,[Footnote 22] and the average starting wages reported by the
2 states was about $7.00 per hour or about $1.91 above the federal
minimum wage.
In the late 1980s, USDA developed outcome measures for the Food Stamp
E&T Program, but these measures were not implemented because of
concerns among state and federal officials regarding the feasibility of
collecting outcome data. In 1988, the Hunger Prevention Act directed
the Secretary of Agriculture to work with states and other federal
agencies to develop outcome-based performance standards for the
program. The proposed measures included a targeted job placement rate
(25 percent of those completing Food Stamp E&T activities) and a
targeted average starting wage of $4.45--about the same as the minimum
wage in the early 1990s.[Footnote 23] FNS published the proposed
performance standards in 1991. According to USDA officials, reaction to
implementing the proposed standards was overwhelmingly negative, with a
consensus among state and federal officials that data collection would
impose an unreasonable burden on state agencies and that the costs
associated with collecting the data would be disproportionate relative
to the program‘s funding. The mandate to collect outcome data was
subsequently removed from the legislation in 1996.
Outcome measures became a much greater factor in how agencies assess
the effectiveness of their programs with the passage of the 1993
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA shifted the focus
of accountability for federal programs from inputs, such as staffing
and activity levels, to outcomes. GPRA requires that each federal
agency develop a multiyear strategic plan identifying the agency‘s
mission and long-term goals and connecting these goals to program
activities. In addition, the President‘s 2004 Budget contains increased
emphasis on performance and management assessments, including a focus
on short-term and long-term performance goals and the need to track
performance data in order to assess a program‘s achievements. For
example, the Office of Management and Budget expects agencies to submit
performance-based budgets in 2005 and is requiring that many adult
employment and training programs (25) collect performance data in four
areas-job placements, job retention, earnings gained, and program cost
per job placement. This focus may lend new urgency for programs to
collect outcome data.
While outcome measures are an important component of program management
in that they assess whether a participant is achieving an intended
outcome--such as obtaining employment--they cannot measure whether the
outcome is a direct result of program participation. Other influences,
such as the state of the local economy, may affect an individual‘s
ability to find a job as much or more than participation in an
employment and training program. Many researchers consider impact
evaluations to be the best method for determining the effectiveness of
a program--that is, whether the program itself rather than other
factors leads to participant outcomes.[Footnote 24]
In 1988, USDA commissioned an impact study to determine the
effectiveness of the Food Stamp E&T Program and found that those
required to enroll in the program did not fare any better, in terms of
employment or wages, than those excluded from participating. While the
study found that those required to enroll in the program increased
their employment and earnings during the 12 months after certification
for food stamp benefits, it found no difference between that group and
those not required to participate. The study notes, however, that only
43 percent of those required to participate actually received
employment and training activities in 1988 and that the services
received by the program participants consisted primarily of referrals
to job search activities.[Footnote 25]
According to USDA officials, the agency has no plans to conduct another
effectiveness evaluation of the Food Stamp E&T Program. They noted that
the program is not a research priority for the agency‘s food and
nutrition area, and no mention of the program is noted in FNS‘s
strategic plan. They also noted that the cost of an evaluation might
not be warranted, given the limited funding for the program.[Footnote
26] Federal funding for the program (including reimbursements for
administrative costs) is small compared with other programs--averaging
about $172 million per year between 1994 and 2001--compared to about
$3.8 billion for WIA programs in fiscal year 2001. However, the federal
government and the states have spent over $2 billion since 1994 on the
Food Stamp E&T Program without any nationwide data documenting whether
the program is helping its participants.
While impact evaluations may be expensive and complex to administer,
they are being used to assess the effectiveness of some federal
programs. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) is conducting evaluation studies on early childhood programs, and
the Department of Labor recently evaluated the impact of the Job Corps
program on student employment outcomes.[Footnote 27] In addition, both
of these agencies are conducting research over the next 5 years that
focuses on strategies to assist the hardest-to-serve, but they do not
include the Food Stamp E&T population. HHS is commissioning an
evaluation of programs that serve the hard-to-employ low-income
parents, in part, to determine the effects of such programs on
employment and earnings. And, Labor has plans to examine the most
effective strategies for addressing employment barriers such as
substance abuse and homelessness.
Conclusions:
The Food Stamp E&T Program was established to help some food stamp
recipients get a job and reduce their dependence on food stamps. For
many Food Stamp E&T participants--who often lack the skills to be
successful in other employment and training programs and who usually
are not eligible for most other federal assistance programs--this
program is the only one focused on helping them enter the workforce.
But little is known at any level--federal, state, or local--about
whether the program is achieving this goal. Little nationwide data
exist to tell us who is participating or if they are getting a job.
Even less is known about whether the services provided by the program
make a difference in program outcomes. With limited knowledge of whom
the program is serving, what outcomes the program is achieving, or
whether program services are making a difference, it is difficult to
make informed decisions about where to place limited employment and
training resources. Given recent legislative changes that reduce most
states‘ funds, while allowing more discretion as to whom they serve, it
may be even more essential to understand what works and what does not.
While the Food Stamp E&T Program is small relative to other federal
employment and training programs, wise investment of these resources
could help reduce long-term spending on food stamp benefits.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help USDA better understand who the Food Stamp E&T Program is
serving, what the program is achieving, and whether the program is
effective, we recommend that USDA do the following:
* Use its quality control survey to collect nationwide estimates on the
number of food stamp recipients participating in the Food Stamp E&T
Program and their characteristics, such as age and gender. To do so,
USDA should clarify its instructions for reporting the data so that
states clearly identify which food stamp recipients are in the Food
Stamp E&T Program.
* Establish uniform outcome measures for the Food Stamp E&T Program and
require states to collect and report them.
* Work with the Department of Labor and/or the Department of Health and
Human Services on a research agenda that will allow for an evaluation
of the effectiveness of the Food Stamp E&T Program.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to USDA for comment. While FNS did
not provide written comments, FNS officials provided us with oral
comments on the draft, including technical changes, which we
incorporated where appropriate.
FNS generally agreed with the benefit of collecting more data on the
Food Stamp E&T Program; however, the agency had concerns that the
potential benefits of more data may not be worth the effort or cost.
Regarding our recommendation for more data on whom the program is
serving, FNS said that because the Food Stamp Quality Control survey
collects information from only a sample of food stamp households--and
that individuals participating in the Food Stamp E&T Program would
comprise a small percentage of those included in the sample--the data
collected would be of limited use at the state level. While we agree
that characteristic data gathered from the survey may not be useful at
the state level, the survey could provide a cost-effective means to
obtain nationwide data that are currently not available and would allow
FNS to better understand the population that the program is serving.
While FNS agreed with the need to assess what the Food Stamp E&T
Program is achieving, agency officials expressed concerns regarding the
cost of implementing our recommendation related to outcome data.
Specifically, the officials are concerned that states will find it
overly burdensome to collect outcome data given the limited funding for
this program and that costs associated with collecting these data might
reduce funding available for program participants. The officials noted
that other employment and training programs that collect outcome data,
such as WIA-funded programs, are funded at much higher levels than the
Food Stamp E&T Program and that costs associated with collecting data
for these programs might not be as onerous as for the Food Stamp E&T
Program.
We considered the costs associated with collecting outcome data and
while we agree that collecting data will entail additional
administrative costs for the states, we believe that the benefits of
collecting uniform outcome measures outweigh the costs to states.
Having some measures of what the program is achieving is necessary for
FNS and state administrators as they strive to improve program
services--about half of the states we contacted already collect some
data on program performance. In addition, outcome data provide the
Congress with key information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness
of federal employment and training programs. Many federal employment
and training programs, including ones that have funding levels similar
to the Food Stamp E&T Program, have integrated outcome measures into
the administration of their programs. The emphasis on performance
evaluation is reflected in the President‘s 2004 Budget and the Office
of Management and Budget‘s requirement that agencies submit
performance-based budgets and that employment and training programs
collect uniform performance data.
Finally, FNS reiterated that given its limited research funds and other
high-priority research areas, evaluation of the Food Stamp E&T Program
is not a research priority for the agency at this time. However,
regarding our recommendation concerning the feasibility of an
effectiveness evaluation, FNS acknowledged the usefulness and cost-
effectiveness of working with other agencies that are evaluating
employment and training services for hard-to-serve populations.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture,
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at:
http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your
staff have any questions about this report. Other major contributors to
this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Sigurd R. Nilsen
Director, Education, Workforce,
Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Percent of Participants in the Food Stamp and Food Stamp
E&T
Program by Age in Five States, Fiscal Year 2001:
State: California; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 22; 18-40 years:
Food Stamp
E&T participants: 79; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 7;
41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 14; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years:
Food Stamp recipients: 3; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants:
6.
State: Colorado; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 26; 18-40 years:
Food Stamp
E&T participants: 67; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 9;
41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 24; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years:
Food Stamp recipients: 6; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants:
9.
State: Idaho; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 29; 18-40 years: Food
Stamp
E&T participants: 76; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 7;
41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 18; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years:
Food Stamp recipients: 6; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants:
6.
State: Pennsylvania; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 27; 18-40
years: Food Stamp
E&T participants: 62; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 10;
41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 23; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years:
Food Stamp recipients: 7; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants:
15.
State: Texas; 18-40 years: Food Stamp recipients: 25; 18-40 years: Food
Stamp
E&T participants: 63; [Empty]; 41-50 years: Food Stamp recipients: 6;
41-50 years: Food Stamp E&T participants: 29; [Empty]; 51 - 60 years:
Food Stamp recipients: 4; 51 - 60 years: Food Stamp E&T participants:
8.
[End of table]
Source: USDA and state data.
Note: GAO analysis of USDA and state data.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Percent of Food Stamp E&T Activities Provided to Program
Participants, Fiscal Year 2001:
State: Alabama; Job search: Job search: 54.2%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 43.5%;
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 2.4%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: Alaska[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Arizona; Job search: Job search: 46.8%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 49.5%;
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 3.6%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: Arkansas; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
100.0%.
State: California; Job search: Job search: 35.2%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 59.0%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 0.4%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: 3.2%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 2.2%.
State: Colorado; Job search: Job search: 12.3%; Job search: Job
training: 1.9%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 74.3%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 11.5%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Connecticut[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Delaware; Job search: Job search: 40.0%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 33.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: 26.5%; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Florida; Job search: Job search: 64.1%; Job search: Job
training: 17.8%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 13.4%; Work
experience: Workfare: 4.7%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Georgia[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Hawaii[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Idaho[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Illinois; Job search: Job search: 33.7%; Job search: Job
training: 0.4%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 12.8%; Work
experience: Workfare: 53.1%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Indiana[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Iowa; Job search: Job search: 96.0%; Job search: Job training:
[Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; Work
experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 4.0%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: Kansas; Job search: Job search: 60.7%; Job search: Job training:
21.4%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 3.4%; Work
experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 11.2%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: 3.4%; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Kentucky[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Louisiana; Job search: Job search: 84.5%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 11.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 3.0%; Education/training: WIA: 1.2%; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: Maine; Job search: Job search: 19.4%; Job search: Job training:
[Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 4.7%; Work
experience: Workfare: 0.6%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: 5.3%; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
70.0%.
State: Maryland; Job search: Job search: 47.1%; Job search: Job
training: 19.3%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 23.3%; Work
experience: Workfare: 9.6%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: 0.7%; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Massachusetts; Job search: Job search: 100.0%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Michigan; Job search: Job search: 49.1%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 1.2%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: 3.1%; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 46.6%.
State: Minnesota; Job search: Job search: 95.1%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 0.1%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: 4.9%; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Mississippi[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Missouri; Job search: Job search: 70.4%; Job search: Job
training: 23.2%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 6.4%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: Montana; Job search: Job search: 30.7%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 69.3%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Nebraska; Job search: Job search: 100.0%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Nevada[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: New Hampshire; Job search: Job search: 57.4%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 36.5%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 6.1%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: New Jersey; Job search: Job search: 80.5%; Job search: Job
training: 1.1%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 14.4%; Work
experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: 4.0%; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: New Mexico; Job search: Job search: 54.9%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 8.7%;
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 12.1%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: 5.4%; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
18.9%.
State: New York; Job search: Job search: 25.9%; Job search: Job
training: 21.9%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 49.6%; Work
experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 0.0%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: 0.7%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: North Carolina; Job search: Job search: 97.5%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 1.7%; Education/training: WIA: 0.8%; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: North Dakota; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: 100.0%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Ohio; Job search: Job search: 16.0%; Job search: Job training:
10.2%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; Work
experience: Workfare: 73.7%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Oklahoma; Job search: Job search: 95.3%; Job search: Job
training: 1.6%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 3.2%.
State: Oregon; Job search: Job search: 82.0%; Job search: Job training:
7.2%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; Work
experience: Workfare: 5.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: 1.2%; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 4.3%.
State: Pennsylvania; Job search: Job search: 29.3%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 2.9%;
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: 24.3%; Education/training: GED[A]:
16.5%; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 27.0%.
State: Rhode Island; Job search: Job search: 100.0%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: South Carolina[D]; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search:
Job training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience:
[Empty]; Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/
training: Basic education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty];
Education/training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training:
GED[A]: [Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty];
Other[C]: [Empty].
State: South Dakota; Job search: Job search: 89.7%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 4.9%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 4.8%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 0.6%.
State: Tennessee; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 91.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 6.2%; Education/training: WIA: 1.7%; Education/training:
Vocational education: 0.2%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 0.6%.
State: Texas; Job search: Job search: 69.0%; Job search: Job training:
0.7%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 0.7%; Work experience:
Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic education:
[Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: 0.4%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 29.2%.
State: Utah; Job search: Job search: 53.1%; Job search: Job training:
46.9%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty]; Work
experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Vermont; Job search: Job search: 67.3%; Job search: Job
training: 3.8%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 2.1%; Work
experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 18.5%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
State: Virginia; Job search: Job search: 76.1%; Job search: Job
training: 11.0%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 5.9%; Work
experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 7.0%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: Washington; Job search: Job search: 80.4%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: 17.4%; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 2.2%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: [Empty].
State: West Virginia; Job search: Job search: 79.2%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: 11.5%;
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: 5.0%; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/training:
Vocational education: 4.0%; Education/training: GED[A]: [Empty];
Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]: 0.3%.
State: Wisconsin; Job search: Job search: [Empty]; Job search: Job
training: 1.5%; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: 26.3%; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: 4.2%; [Empty]; Other[C]: 68.0%.
State: Wyoming; Job search: Job search: 100.0%; Job search: Job
training: [Empty]; [Empty]; Work experience: Work experience: [Empty];
Work experience: Workfare: [Empty]; [Empty]; Education/training: Basic
education: [Empty]; Education/training: WIA: [Empty]; Education/
training: Vocational education: [Empty]; Education/training: GED[A]:
[Empty]; Education/training: ESL[B]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Other[C]:
[Empty].
[End of table]
Source: USDA.
[A] High school equivalency preparation.
[B] English as a second language class.
[C] State or local programs, or post-secondary education.
[D] Data not provided by state to USDA.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Food Stamp E&T Expenditures and Allocations, by State,
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2003:
States: Alabama; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$10,034,322; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,207,314; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 12%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $2,376,356; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($7,657,966); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 49%.
States: Alaska; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $122,836;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $75,362; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 61%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$376,570; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
$253,734; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 80%.
States: Arizona; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$2,702,908; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $531,585; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 20%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $2,500,167; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($202,741); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and
FY03 allocation: 79%.
States: Arkansas; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$1,800,456; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $156,089; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 9%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $2,866,326; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: $1,065,870; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and
FY03 allocation: 95%.
States: California; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$31,392,037; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $31,392,037; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 100%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $7,113,981; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($24,278,056); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -341%.
States: Colorado; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$1,922,995; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,485,235; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 77%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $883,485; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($1,039,510); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -68%.
States: Connecticut; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$7,303,021; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $530,019; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 7%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $1,360,403; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($5,942,618); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 61%.
States: Delaware; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $675,060;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $125,418; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 19%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$430,834; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($244,226); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 71%.
States: Florida; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$14,090,723; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $5,269,877; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 37%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $4,714,894; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($9,375,829); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -12%.
States: Georgia; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$13,514,401; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,533,012; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 11%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $2,304,569; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($11,209,832); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 33%.
States: Hawaii; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $2,283,025;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $865,599; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 38%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$431,163; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($1,851,862); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: -101%.
States: Idaho; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $623,864;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $155,822; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 25%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$359,623; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($264,241); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 57%.
States: Illinois; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$13,514,991; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $11,811,556; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 87%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $5,431,414; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($8,083,577); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -117%.
States: Indiana; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$8,475,166; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,241,437; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 26%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $1,839,092; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($6,636,074); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -22%.
States: Iowa; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $2,932,944;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $628,740; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 21%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$527,708; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($2,405,236); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: -19%.
States: Kansas; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $1,078,510;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $215,702; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 20%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$613,691; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($464,819); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 65%.
States: Kentucky; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$1,350,998; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $338,803; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 25%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $3,143,729; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: $1,792,731; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and
FY03 allocation: 89%.
States: Louisiana; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$7,260,021; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,092,506; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 15%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: 3,546,976; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($3,713,045); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 69%.
States: Maine; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $4,662,038;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $318,251; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 7%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$359,380; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($4,302,658); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 11%.
States: Maryland; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$5,233,404; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $449,287; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 9%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $1,114,743; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($4,118,661); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 60%.
States: Massachusetts; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$2,260,884; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $694,564; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 31%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $680,346; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($1,580,538); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -2%.
States: Michigan; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$39,667,524; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $6,909,189; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 17%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $6,830,663; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($32,836,861); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -1%.
States: Minnesota; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$5,098,070; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $975,406; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 19%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $1,247,911; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($3,850,159); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 22%.
States: Mississippi; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$6,503,087; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,401,446; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 22%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $1,523,416; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($4,979,671); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 8%.
States: Missouri; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$13,394,447; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $1,093,205; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 8%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $1,803,099; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($11,591,348); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 39%.
States: Montana; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $726,007;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $637,280; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 88%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$313,204; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($412,803); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: -103%.
States: Nebraska; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$1,276,662; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $303,506; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 24%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $506,145; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($770,517); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and
FY03 allocation: 40%.
States: Nevada; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $1,034,942;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $158,750; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 15%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$444,404; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($590,538); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 64%.
States: New Hampshire; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$231,704; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $152,593; Fiscal year 2001:
Percent expended: 66%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $217,301; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($14,403); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and
FY03 allocation: 30%.
States: New Jersey; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$17,354,702; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $12,843,910; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 74%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $2,014,694; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($15,340,008); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -538%.
States: New Mexico; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$4,342,711; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $298,661; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 7%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $637,470; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($3,705,241); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 53%.
States: New York; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$34,489,209; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $6,577,761; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 19%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $13,197,206; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($21,292,003); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 50%.
States: North Carolina; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$15,044,030; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $361,647; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 2%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $1,906,854; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($13,137,176); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 81%.
States: North Dakota; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$933,130; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $176,691; Fiscal year 2001:
Percent expended: 19%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $154,219; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($778,911); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and
FY03 allocation: -15%.
States: Ohio; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $7,615,703;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $3,060,191; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 40%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$4,510,842; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($3,104,861); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 32%.
States: Oklahoma; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$3,326,401; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $108,516; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 3%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $832,154; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($2,494,247); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 87%.
States: Oregon; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $8,090,978;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $6,602,696; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 82%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$1,861,250; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($6,229,728); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: -255%.
States: Pennsylvania; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$33,135,858; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $8,014,047; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 24%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $5,177,268; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($27,958,590); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -55%.
States: Rhode Island; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$287,367; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $35,385; Fiscal year 2001:
Percent expended: 12%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $327,237; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: $39,870; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and
FY03 allocation: 89%.
States: South Carolina; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$2,758,508; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,634,781; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 96%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $1,389,975; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($1,368,533); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -90%.
States: South Dakota; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$348,290; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $348,290; Fiscal year 2001:
Percent expended: 100%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $413,225; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: $64,935; Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and
FY03 allocation: 16%.
States: Tennessee; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$8,074,246; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,672,860; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 33%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $3,019,575; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($5,054,671); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 11%.
States: Texas; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $15,099,704;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $4,156,416; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 28%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$9,512,763; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($5,586,941); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 56%.
States: Utah; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $1,112,283;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $526,397; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 47%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$611,950; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($500,333); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 14%.
States: Vermont; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$1,583,154; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $166,826; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 11%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $228,246; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($1,354,908); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 27%.
States: Virginia; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$11,819,154; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,375,349; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 20%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $1,948,464; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($9,870,690); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: -22%.
States: Washington; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$2,816,412; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $2,265,290; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 80%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $2,375,751; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($440,661); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and
FY03 allocation: 5%.
States: West Virginia; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$4,730,286; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $211,767; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 4%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $2,274,490; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($2,455,796); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 91%.
States: Wisconsin; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation:
$4,006,050; Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $707,649; Fiscal year
2001: Percent expended: 18%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant
allocation: $710,462; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03
allocation: ($3,295,588); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure
and FY03 allocation: 0%.
States: Wyoming; Fiscal year 2001: Federal grant allocation: $391,196;
Fiscal year 2001: Total expended: $78,239; Fiscal year 2001: Percent
expended: 20%; [Empty]; Fiscal year 2003: Federal grant allocation:
$117,765; Difference between FY01 allocation and FY03 allocation:
($273,431); Percent difference between FY01 expenditure and FY03
allocation: 34%.
[End of table]
Source: USDA.
Note: GAO analysis of USDA data.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Dianne Blank (202) 512-5654
Elizabeth Morrison (202) 512-9641:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Elspeth Grindstaff and Angela Miles made significant contributions to
this report. In addition, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, Marc
Molino provided graphic design assistance, and Susan Bernstein provided
writing assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp
Program: Work Provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and Food Stamp Provisions of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. GAO-02-874R. Washington, D.C.: July 17,
2002.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of Wiz‘s Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Food Stamp Program: Implementation of the Employment and Training
Program for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents. GAO-01-391R.
Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2001.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp
Program--Food Stamp Provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. GAO/
OGC-99-66. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 1999.
Food Stamp Program: Information on Employment and Training Activities.
GAO/RCED-99-40. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 1998.
FOOTNOTES
[1] We chose states for our site visits and telephone interviews based
on criteria such as how much federal funding the state was allocated in
fiscal year 2001, what proportion of the federal funding states
expended, the number of people served in a state, and the state‘s
geographic location. We selected our states to give us a range of
funding levels, expenditure rates, and participants served. States we
visited were California, Colorado, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
We conducted telephone interviews with state and local officials in
Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
[2] In addition, food stamp recipients who are not exempt are required
to provide information, if requested by the state agency, regarding
employment status or availability for work, and are to report to an
employer identified by the state agency.
[3] Food stamp recipients also may volunteer to participate in the Food
Stamp E&T Program.
[4] ABAWDs may work less than 20 hours per week if engaged in a work
experience program whereby they are only required to work in exchange
for food stamp benefits. By law, the number of hours of participation
in a work experience activity is limited to the household‘s food stamp
benefit divided by a federal or state minimum wage--whichever one is
higher.
[5] States provide participants with support to help pay for dependent
care. The federal government reimburses state Food Stamp E&T Programs
for 50 percent of dependent care costs, and states are required to
provide dependent care services to eligible participants. However,
mandatory Food Stamp E&T participants may be exempted from
participating in the program if their work-related monthly expenses
exceed the allowable reimbursement amount.
[6] Although the BBA originally provided for $131 million each year, a
subsequent provision changed the amount for fiscal year 1999 to $31
million and to $86 million for fiscal year 2000.
[7] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program:
Implementation of the Employment and Training Program for Able-Bodied
Adults Without Dependents, GAO-01-391R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27,
2001).
[8] The WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth programs
replaced those previously funded under the Job Training Partnership
Act. The other programs include Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser),
Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs, Veterans‘ Employment and Training
Programs, Unemployment Insurance, Job Corps, Welfare-to-Work Grant-
Funded Programs, Senior Community Service Employment Program,
Employment and Training for Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers,
Employment and Training for Native Americans, Vocational Rehabilitation
Program, Adult Education and Literacy, Vocational Education (Perkins
Act), Community Services Block Grant, and HUD-Administered Employment
and Training.
[9] Supplemental Security Income provides income assistance for aged,
blind, or disabled individuals whose income and resources fall below a
certain threshold. Unemployment Insurance provides temporary cash
benefits to workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own
and requires recipients to enroll in employment services or a job-
training program as a condition of eligibility.
[10] USDA‘s Quality Control survey is a nationally representative
sample of food stamp households selected for review as part of the Food
Stamp Program Quality Control System. Data gathered from the quality
control survey are used to determine if households are eligible to
participate or are receiving the correct benefit amount and if
household participation is correctly denied or terminated. The survey
also provides detailed demographic and economic information on food
stamp participants sampled in each month and is published in FNS‘
annual report, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households.
[11] USDA report submitted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,
Imposing a Time Limit on Food Stamp Receipt: Implementation of the
Provisions and Effects on Food Stamp Program Participation, Volume I,
Final Report, (Sept. 4, 2001).
[12] Ibid.
[13] In addition, in fiscal year 2001, 34 states did not spend any
money on dependent care. Of the remaining 16 states, all but 2 spent
less than $150,000.
[14] The WIA or Trade Adjustment Assistance programs may provide
classroom training in occupational skills, on-the-job training in
subsidized employment, worker training, or adult education classes. The
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program provides worker training and
readjustment assistance to workers who have become unemployed due to
plant closings.
[15] While federal regulations require states to provide USDA with the
number of participants placed in each employment and training component
offered by the state, USDA reported that only 40 states provided these
data in fiscal year 2001. A USDA official noted that the agency plans
to work with states to ensure the data are reported.
[16] Unsubsidized work counts as a qualifying activity for TANF
participants. Food Stamp participants engaged in unsubsidized work at
least 30 hours per week are exempt from participating in the Food Stamp
E&T Program. In order to compare similar subsets of the Food Stamp E&T
and the TANF activities, we excluded unsubsidized work activities for
TANF participants and calculated percentages based on the remaining
activities.
[17] Participants may be enrolled in more than one activity.
[18] In fiscal year 2001, $88 million in federal grants, about $126
million in BBA funds, and about $170 million in carryover funds from
prior years were available to the states. The 2002 Farm Bill rescinded
carryover funds from any fiscal year before fiscal year 2002, unless
obligated by a state agency before that date.
[19] USDA allocated fiscal year 2001 federal grant funds based on the
number of ABAWDs in a state, as determined by 1996 quality control
data--adjusted over time for caseload changes. USDA allocated fiscal
year 2003 federal grant funds based on the number of ABAWDs in a state
as determined by the 2001 Mathematica study; the number of work
registrants determined by fiscal year 2001 quality control data; and
the number of work registrants in fiscal year 2001 based on state data
submitted to USDA. USDA fiscal year 2003 allocations assume full
funding for the Food Stamp E&T Program.
[20] In addition to one-stop centers, Pennsylvania has job service
centers that provide job search services but have not yet been
certified as one-stop centers.
[21] WIA intensive services include such activities as comprehensive
assessment, case management, creation of an individual employment plan,
and short-term prevocational services that prepare individuals for
employment or training. Training services include such activities as
occupational skill, on-the-job training, and literacy classes.
[22] We calculated job placement rates in these seven states based on
data provided to us by the states or data contained in a state‘s 2002
Food Stamp E&T plan. For five states, job placements included those
individuals entering full-time and part-time employment. In another
state, job placements were collected monthly, but state officials told
us that individuals could be counted in more than one month. In order
to minimize counting job placement of individuals more than once, we
estimated job placements based on
2 months--January and July. These months were selected in order to
control of seasonal variations. And, one state only provided data for
three-quarters of fiscal year 2001.
[23] See Office of Technology Assessment, Performance Standards for the
Food Stamp Employment and Training Program, Office of Technology
Assessment, OTA-ITE-526, (Washington, D.C.: Feb.1992) for a
comprehensive discussion of the proposed measures.
[24] While GPRA does not require agencies to conduct formal program
evaluations such as impact evaluations, it does require agencies to
summarize the findings of program evaluations in their annual
performance reports.
[25] See Evaluation of the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program:
Abt Associates, Washington, D.C.: June 1990. The study compared
outcomes for individuals randomly assigned either to a group required
to enroll in the program or one that was excluded from participating in
the program. The study did not control for the receipt of employment
and training services from other programs for those not participating
in the Food Stamp E&T Program. Thirty-one percent of those excluded
from participating in the program received employment and training
services from other programs.
[26] Some types of evaluations tend to be less expensive and time-
consuming than others and still provide some indication of program
impact. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Early Childhood Programs:
The Use of Impact Evaluations to Asses Program Effects, GAO-01-542
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2001) for a discussion of different types
of impact evaluations. Also, see OTA-ITE-526.
[27] See Department of Labor report submitted by Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc., Does Job Corps Work? Summary of the National Job Corps
Study, June 2001.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
