Welfare Reform
Implementation of Fugitive Felon Provisions Should Be Strengthened Gao ID: GAO-02-716 September 25, 2002In response to concerns that individuals wanted in connection with a felony or violating terms of their parole or probation could receive benefits from programs for the needy, Congress added provisions to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 that prohibit these individuals from receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamp benefits, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and make fugitive felon status ground for the termination of tenancy in federal housing assistance programs. In addition, the act directs these programs to provide law enforcement officers with information about program recipients for whom there are outstanding warrants to assist in their apprehension. Actions taken to implement the act's fugitive felon provisions have varied substantially by program. In implementing provisions to prohibit benefits to fugitive felons, all but housing assistance programs include, at a minimum, a question about fugitive felon status in their applications. SSI and some state Food Stamp and TANF programs also seek independent verification of fugitive felon status by using computer matching to compare arrest warrant and program recipient files. To date, 110,000 beneficiaries have been identified as fugitive felons and dropped from the SSI, Food Stamp, and TANF rolls, and many have been apprehended. Computerized file matching has been responsible for the identification of most of these fugitive felons. Aggressive implementation of the act's fugitive felon provisions poses a number of challenges for programs. First, centralized and complete national and statewide arrest warrant data for computer matching are not readily available. Second, because direct access to arrest warrants and criminal records is limited to law enforcement personnel, computer matching requires what many state TANF and Food Stamp officials view as a burdensome and complex negotiation process to obtain these records. Third, the absence of information and guidance about how to conduct file matching and overcome its logistical challenges has also hindered aggressive implementation of the law. Finally, there is evidence that individuals with outstanding warrants for felonies, or probation or parole violations, may continue to collect benefits because there may be differences in the interpretation of what constitutes a fugitive felon within the Food Stamp and TANF programs.
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-02-716, Welfare Reform: Implementation of Fugitive Felon Provisions Should Be Strengthened
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-716
entitled 'Welfare Reform: Implementation of Fugitive Felon
Provisions Should Be Strengthened' which was released on
September 25, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to the Honorable Rick Santorum:
U.S. Senate:
September 2002:
Welfare Reform:
Implementation of Fugitive Felon Provisions Should Be Strengthened:
GAO-02-716:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Programs Vary in How Aggressively They Implement PRWORA‘s Fugitive
Felon Provisions:
Since PRWORA, Thousands of Fugitive Felons Have Been Identified and
Denied Benefits, with Some Resulting Cost Savings and Arrests:
Aggressive Implementation of the Law Poses a Number of Challenges for
Programs:
Conclusions:
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: PRWORA‘s Amendments to Authorizing Legislation of SSI,
TANF, Food Stamp, and Housing Assistance Programs:
Appendix III: SSA‘s Computer Matching Process for Implementing PRWORA‘s
Fugitive Felon Provisions:
Appendix IV: Number of SSI Recipients in Fiscal Year 2001 Arrested by
Offense on Warrant:
Appendix V: Warrants Issued for Fugitive Felons Residing in Federally
Funded Housing:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Total Erroneous Payments Reported by Federal Agencies,
Benefits Paid, and Caseload by Program:
Table 2: Scope of Arrest Warrants Matched with Program Recipient
Databases in State Food Stamp and TANF Programs:
Table 3: Fugitive Felons Identified in the SSI Program and Estimated
Overpayments and Projected Savings, Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 4: Scope and Results of State Initiatives That Matched Automated
State Program Recipient and Warrant Files To Identify Fugitive Felons
on the Rolls:
Figures:
Figure 1: Law Enforcement Officers‘ Requests to SSA or Its OIG for
Information on SSI Recipients Who Are Fugitive Felons, Fiscal Years
1997-2001:
Figure 2: SSA‘s Process for Identifying and Terminating SSI Benefits to
Fugitive Felons and Providing Information about Them to Law Enforcement
Agencies:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
FNS: Food and Nutrition Service:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
ITC: International Technology Center:
NCIC: National Crime Investigation Center:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
SSI: Supplemental Security Income:
SSN: Social Security number:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 25, 2002:
The Honorable Rick Santorum:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Santorum:
In response to concerns that individuals wanted in connection with a
felony or violating terms of their parole or probation could receive
benefits from programs for the needy, the Congress added provisions to
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) of 1996 that prohibit these individuals from receiving
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamp benefits, and Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and make fugitive felon status
grounds for the termination of tenancy in federal housing assistance
programs. [Footnote 1] In addition, PRWORA directs these programs to
provide law enforcement officers with information about program
recipients for whom there are outstanding warrants to assist in their
apprehension.
In response to your request for information on the implementation and
impact of PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions, this report provides
information on: (1) what has been done in these four programs to
implement PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions, (2) the extent to which
their actions have resulted in the denial of benefits to fugitive
felons and their arrest, and (3) issues that keep programs from
aggressively implementing the provisions.
We used a number of data collection and analysis techniques to obtain
this information. Because Food Stamp and TANF programs are administered
at the state or county level, we conducted a telephone survey of state
TANF and food stamp officials in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia to learn how they were implementing the provisions and the
results of these efforts. We also conducted an e-mail survey of those
state programs that do not screen their rolls for fugitive felons by
conducting computerized file matches. Because we could find no data on
the extent to which fugitive felons participate in federal housing
programs, we compared Ohio and Tennessee arrest warrant records as of
January 2002 with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
data on federally subsidized housing tenants to determine the number
nationwide who may have been wanted for arrest from January 2001
through January 2002 in those two states. We chose Ohio and Tennessee
because their warrant files were readily available from the Social
Security Administration (SSA) and because they had prior experience in
matching warrant records with SSI, Food Stamp, and TANF recipient
files. We also visited with officials in Delaware‘s Department of
Health and Social Services, fraud unit, as well as law enforcement
officials from that state to discuss Delaware‘s initiatives for
implementing PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions in TANF and Food Stamp
programs. Finally, we reviewed existing regulations and agency policies
related to these provisions and interviewed officials from SSA, the
Department of Agriculture‘s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS),
the Department of Health and Human Services‘ (HHS) Administration for
Children and Families (ACF), and HUD”federal agencies that oversee the
SSI, Food Stamp, TANF, and federal housing programs, respectively. We
conducted our work between October 2001 and August 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I
provides details on our methodology. [Footnote 2]
Results in Brief:
Actions taken to implement PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions have
varied substantially by program. In implementing provisions to prohibit
benefits to fugitive felons, all but housing assistance programs
include, at a minimum, a question about fugitive felon status in their
applications. SSI and some state Food Stamp and TANF programs also seek
independent verification of fugitive felon status by using computer
matching to compare arrest warrant and program recipient files. In this
regard, SSA conducts the most comprehensive computerized matching
effort, comparing data from its entire file of applicants and
recipients on a monthly basis to warrant data it obtains from various
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Less than one-third
of the state agencies administering the TANF and Food Stamp programs
use periodic computer matching to varying degrees, while the housing
assistance programs do not use matching at all. With regard to PRWORA‘s
requirement that program officials provide law enforcement agencies
with information on program recipients when they request it, SSA and
USDA have issued guidance to program staff on how to respond. HHS and
HUD have issued no such guidance, although most of the state TANF
programs indicate that, in fact, they have issued written guidance.
Meanwhile, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in the SSI and Food
Stamp programs have frequently taken the lead in both responding to and
facilitating arrangements with law enforcement for file matches to
identify and apprehend fugitive felons.
To date, about 110,000 beneficiaries have been identified as fugitive
felons and dropped from the SSI, Food Stamp, and TANF rolls. Many have
been apprehended. Computerized file matching has been responsible for
the identification of most of these fugitive felons. About 80 percent
of all fugitive felons dropped from the SSI rolls, for example, were
identified when SSA began its computerized matching process in 2000.
While HUD has not attempted to match arrest warrants with its
nationwide tenant file, our own match turned up nearly 1,000 housing
assistance recipients for whom there were arrest warrants in Ohio and
Tennessee, alone. The passage of PRWORA and subsequent initiatives to
match files have also led to the reported arrest of some 18,678
fugitive felons”largely on the SSI, Food Stamp, and TANF rolls. This
figure may understate the actual number, because law enforcement
agencies do not always apprise program officials of arrests.
Aggressive implementation of PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions poses a
number of challenges for programs. First, centralized and complete
national and statewide arrest warrant data for computer matching are not
readily available. Even the most comprehensive database available
contains only about 30 percent of the state and local warrants issued
nationwide. Second, because direct access to arrest warrants and
criminal records is limited to law enforcement personnel, computer
matching requires what many state TANF and Food Stamp officials view as
a burdensome and complex negotiation process to obtain access to these
records. Third, the absence of information and guidance about how to
conduct file matching and overcome its logistical challenges has also
hindered aggressive implementation of the law. Finally, there is
evidence that individuals with outstanding warrants for felonies, or
probation or parole violations, may continue to collect benefits
because there may be differences in the interpretation of what
constitutes a fugitive felon within the Food Stamp and TANF programs.
In this report, we suggest that the Congress consider amending the
Housing Act of 1937 to explicitly make fugitive felons ineligible for
housing benefits. We also make a number of recommendations to HHS,
USDA, and HUD for actions to better implement PRWORA‘s fugitive felon
provisions, which include encouraging the use of computer matching.
USDA‘s FNS officials generally agreed with our recommendations, but
believed that a fuller discussion of the legal and procedural
complexities involved in implementing the law was needed. We added
information to the report to better reflect these complexities. HHS‘s
Administration for Children and Families acknowledged that the report
provided new and useful information. However, ACF did not concur with
our recommendations for a variety of reasons, including concern that
implementing the recommendations would infringe on the flexibility that
PRWORA granted states in administering TANF programs. After evaluating
ACF‘s comments, we continue to believe our recommendations are
warranted and can be implemented within PRWORA‘s framework. HUD
concurred with our recommendation to issue guidance on providing
information to law enforcement officers. HUD did not concur with our
recommendation that it test the feasibility and effectiveness of
matching its nationwide tenant file with arrest warrant data to
identify fugitive felons receiving housing assistance. HUD said that it
lacked the legal authority to do so. We believe HUD has such authority.
SSA reviewed the draft report and had no comments.
Background:
PRWORA amended the authorizing language in statutes governing SSI,
TANF, Food Stamp, and housing assistance programs by prohibiting
fugitive felons [Footnote 3] and probation and parole violators from
receiving benefits under these programs. To assist law enforcement
agencies in apprehending fugitive felons, PRWORA also amended the
authorizing legislation for each of these programs to require program
officials to disclose the information they maintain on individuals to
law enforcement officers when they request it.
Oversight and administration of the SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, and federal
housing assistance programs are the responsibility, respectively, of
four federal agencies: SSA, HHS, USDA, and HUD. Through the SSI
program, SSA oversees the provision of monthly cash payments to people
who are blind, disabled, or age 65 or older and have limited income and
resources. HHS oversees the TANF program, which provides cash
assistance and other work-related services to needy individuals. USDA
oversees the Food Stamp Program, which helps low-income individuals
purchase food. HUD provides housing assistance to low-income families,
including the elderly and persons with disabilities. PRWORA‘s fugitive
felon provisions apply to eligibility for HUD‘s public housing program
and to most Section 8 programs. [Footnote 4] The public housing program
provides housing units whose operation, maintenance, and modernization
is subsidized with federal funds. Section 8 programs provide needy
families with rental assistance through vouchers that can be used in
privately owned housing or by occupying government-subsidized housing
units.
While SSA directly administers the SSI program nationwide, the Food
Stamp and TANF programs are generally administered at the state or local
level, albeit with federal money in the case of the Food Stamp Program,
and a combination of federal and state funds in the case of TANF.
Depending on the state, the same staff at local offices may determine
eligibility and benefit levels for both Food Stamp and TANF programs.
HUD relies on local public housing agencies to administer its public
housing and Section 8 programs. [Footnote 5] Public housing agencies
manage and operate local public housing units and enforce tenant
compliance with the lease. [Footnote 6] Low-income individuals and
families often participate in more than one of the above public
programs. [Footnote 7]
The federal agencies that oversee these programs work with their OIG to
meet their responsibility to ensure program integrity. In addition to
helping to identify fraud, waste, and abuse in these programs, the OIGs
participate in federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies‘
pursuit and apprehension of individuals wanted for criminal offenses,
including felonies. State governments can also play a role in ensuring
the integrity of federal programs, particularly TANF and Food Stamp
because states or counties administer them. The governments do so
through fraud units in state human services departments and state
inspectors or auditors general. To illustrate the size of these
programs and their potential for fraud, waste, and abuse, table 1
compares the total benefits paid, erroneous payments, and caseload size
reported by federal agencies in a single year by program.
Table 1: Total Erroneous Payments Reported by Federal Agencies,
Benefits Paid, and Caseload by Program:
Program: SSI;
Program purpose: To provide income support to low-income people
who are 65 and older, blind, or disabled;
Total erroneous payments reported in FY 2000 (in billions): $1.64;
Total federal benefits paid (in billions): $30.8 in FY 2000;
Caseload, nationwide: 6.4 million recipients as of 12/01.
Program: TANF;
Program purpose: To provide temporary assistance to needy families. In
general, able-bodied TANF recipients must participate in work or work-
related activities after receiving assistance for a maximum of 24
months, and there is a 5-year time limit on federal assistance;
Total erroneous payments reported in FY 2000 (in billions): Not
available;
Total federal benefits paid (in billions): $15.7 in FY 2000;
Caseload, nationwide: 2.1 million families on average per month; 5.5
million recipients on average per month in FY 2001.
Program: Food Stamp[A];
Program purpose: To help needy households and those making the
transition from welfare to work buy the food they need for a
nutritionally adequate diet;
Total erroneous payments reported in FY 2000 (in billions): $1.1;
Total federal benefits paid (in billions): $15.0 in FY 2000;
Caseload, nationwide: 7.3 million households on average per month in FY
2000.
Program: Public housing and Section 8 housing assistance programs;
Program purpose: Public housing programs assist communities in
providing decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for low-income families.
It provides housing units whose operation, maintenance, and
modernization is subsidized with federal funds. Section 8 programs
provide needy families with rental assistance through vouchers that can
be used in privately owned housing or by occupying government-
subsidized housing units;
Total erroneous payments reported in FY 2000 (in billions): $1.25;
Total federal benefits paid (in billions): $22.0 in FY 1999;
Caseload, nationwide: 4.0 million renter households in FY 1999.
[A] According to USDA, in fiscal year 2001 the total erroneous payments
reported for the Food Stamp program were $1.0 billion; total federal
benefits paid were $15.5 billion; and caseload nationwide was 7.4
million households on average per month.
Source: Erroneous payment information for the Food Stamp program from
USDA. All other information prepared by GAO for its report Financial
Management: Improper Payments Reported in Fiscal Year 2000 Financial
Statements, GAO-02-131R, (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2, 2001).
[End of table]
Under PRWORA, the focus of the language affecting fugitive felons in
each programs‘ authorizing language differs somewhat. The use of
federal funds by fugitive felons is specifically prohibited in the SSI,
TANF, and Food Stamp programs. For the SSI and Food Stamp programs,
individuals identified as fugitive felons are ineligible for benefits
for any period in which they are considered to be a fugitive felon, or
probation or parole violator. For the TANF program, states are
prohibited from using any portion of their federal funding to assist
any individual considered to be a fugitive felon. [Footnote 8] For
public housing and Section 8 programs, PRWORA states that fugitive
felon and probation or parole violation status ’...shall be cause for
immediate termination of the tenancy...“
PRWORA‘s provisions also require the SSI, Food Stamp, and housing
assistance programs to disclose information about felons to law
enforcement. Upon request from any federal, state, or local law
enforcement officer, program officials must furnish the current address,
Social Security number (SSN), and photograph (if applicable) of any
benefit recipient. The officer must furnish the name of the recipient,
and other identifying information to establish the unique identity of
the recipient, and also attest that the request is made in conjunction
with the officer‘s official duties. For the TANF program, the law also
states that no ’safeguards“ a state has established ’...against
the—disclosure of information about applicants or recipients...“ are to
prevent the program from furnishing this information to law enforcement
officers. Appendix II provides the language by program of PRWORA‘s
provisions in the authorizing legislation with regard to the
eligibility of fugitive felons and probation and parole violators for
benefits and the release of recipient information to law enforcement
officers.
It is difficult to estimate the number of fugitive felons who could be
receiving SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, or housing assistance benefits, or the
amount of erroneous payments made to such individuals, because there is
no comprehensive data on the total number of people, nationwide, for
whom there are outstanding arrest warrants for felonies or probation or
parole violations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does
compile arrest warrant data from a number of sources, nationwide, in
its National Crime Investigation Center (NCIC) database. The NCIC is a
repository for arrest warrants that federal agencies and state and
local law enforcement authorities submit to it on a voluntary basis.
According to an FBI official, there were about 825,000 outstanding
warrants for felonies, serious misdemeanors, and parole and probation
violations filed in the NCIC database as of August 2002. NCIC does not
report the total number of warrants for felonies alone, nor does it
know if all the warrants in the database are outstanding. There is some
data available on the number of adults in the United States on
probation or parole. According to the Department of Justice, there were
3,839,500 on probation in December 2000 and another 725,500 on parole.
[Footnote 9]
Programs Vary in How Aggressively They Implement PRWORA‘s Fugitive Felon
Provisions:
The extent to which PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions have been
implemented in SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, and housing assistance programs
varies. To help ensure that fugitive felons do not receive benefits for
which they are ineligible, during the application and recertification
processes, most programs ask applicants about their fugitive felon
status. A number of programs also match recipient files and arrest
warrant data to identify and terminate benefits to fugitive felons who
are already on the rolls, but the scope and frequency of such matching
activity varies widely. All programs also are responding in some way to
PRWORA‘s requirement that they make information on recipients available
to law enforcement when requested. In the Food Stamp and SSI programs,
federal OIGs play a critical role in providing law enforcement agencies
with this information directly assisting them at times in the
apprehension of those fugitive felons on the rolls. HUD and HHS, on the
other hand, have done little to ensure their programs‘ disclosure of
information from recipient records to law enforcement agencies.
SSI and Most State TANF and Food Stamp Programs Require Applicants To
Certify That They Are Not Fugitive Felons:
Officials in 49 state TANF and 47 state Food Stamp programs reported
that they require applicants to answer questions about whether there is
a warrant outstanding for their arrest, although there is little
evidence available on the degree to which this practice deters fugitive
felons from applying for benefits or the number of applicants
identified as fugitive felons in this way. In 39 TANF and 43 Food Stamp
programs, recipients are also required to respond to these questions
when their continuing eligibility is assessed. [Footnote 10] Two state
TANF and 4 state Food Stamp programs reported doing nothing to
determine fugitive felon status at the time an individual applies for
benefits.
In the Food Stamp and SSI programs, procedures require staff to ask
individuals when they apply for benefits whether or not they are
fugitive felons. Staff also must ask recipients about their fugitive
felon status when their continuing eligibility for benefits is
reassessed. At the completion of the application interview, applicants
also are asked to sign the application form, which contains a statement
certifying that the information they provide is true and that they
understand that any misrepresentation of the truth may constitute a
crime. [Footnote 11]
In housing assistance programs, according to HUD officials, PRWORA‘s
provisions do not make fugitive felons who apply for assistance
ineligible. PRWORA states only that fugitive felon status shall be
cause for immediate termination of tenancy. To implement this
provision, HUD‘s regulations state that the lease must provide that the
public housing authority may terminate the tenancy during the term of
the lease if a tenant is a fugitive felon. Although HUD lacks
requirements for systematic methods to prevent fugitive felons from
successfully applying for assistance, the agency‘s regulations do state
that housing agencies have authority to screen out applicants they
determine to be unsuitable for admission under public housing authority
standards. [Footnote 12] Officials from HUD, however, indicated that
they were not aware of which, if any, housing agencies engage in
screening for fugitive felons.
SSA and Some State Programs Also Match Recipient and Arrest Warrant
Data:
In addition to the practice of asking applicants to report their
fugitive felon status when they apply for benefits, SSI and some state
Food Stamp and TANF programs identify and remove fugitive felons
already on the rolls by comparing entire recipient files with a law
enforcement agency‘s arrest warrant data. The scope and frequency of
computerized matching can vary. SSI and some state Food Stamp and TANF
programs use databases containing arrest warrants city or countywide,
statewide, or nationwide. The FBI‘s NCIC database, for example, is a
repository of arrest warrant information the FBI receives on a
voluntary basis from states and from local jurisdictions. [Footnote 13]
In 2002, the FBI expressed its willingness to compare state Food Stamp
and TANF recipient files with warrants in the NCIC database and
initiated an information campaign regarding its service.
Fifteen state Food Stamp and 15 state TANF programs reported that they
periodically matched their recipient files with arrest warrant data.
Most have done these matches on an ongoing basis”in most cases monthly,
but the scope of the matches varied by state and program. (See table 2)
Table 2: Scope of Arrest Warrants Matched with Program Recipient
Databases in State Food Stamp and TANF Programs:
Recipient database matched with: Local arrest warrants only;
Number of state Food Stamp programs: 1;
Number of state TANF programs: 1.
Recipient database matched with: Statewide arrest warrants only;
Number of state Food Stamp programs: 9;
Number of state TANF programs: 10.
Recipient database matched with: NCIC and statewide arrest warrants;
Number of state Food Stamp programs: 3;
Number of state TANF programs: 2.
Recipient database matched with: NCIC arrest warrants only;
Number of state Food Stamp programs: 2;
Number of state TANF programs: 2.
Recipient database matched with: Total;
Number of state Food Stamp programs: 15;
Number of state TANF programs: 15.
Note: Thirteen states reported conducting a match using both TANF and
Food Stamp recipients.
Source: GAO‘s survey of state Food Stamp and TANF programs.
[End of table]
SSA currently matches its nationwide SSI applicant and recipient file
with arrest warrant data from the FBI‘s NCIC database, the U.S. Marshals
Service, and 11 states, [Footnote 14] usually on a monthly basis.15
SSA‘s current matching process, which covers all SSI applicants and
recipients nationwide, has evolved from attempts by its OIG to verify
the fugitive felon status of SSI recipients on an ad hoc basis in
certain geographic areas. SSA officials said that systematic computer
matching of the SSI file and arrest warrant data, although a complex
process requiring considerable resources, is the most efficient and
comprehensive way to ensure that fugitive felons do not receive SSI
benefits. See appendix III for a detailed description of SSA‘s monthly
matching process.
HUD officials said that the agency has never matched its nationwide
database of housing assistance recipients with arrest warrant data from
any law enforcement agency to identify program participants who are
fugitive felons, even though PRWORA makes fugitive felon status grounds
for termination of tenancy. The agency has left the implementation of
this provision up to the individual public housing agencies, leaving it
to them to identify fugitive felons. HUD regulations give public
housing agencies and other landlords the option to evict those
identified as fugitive felons, but do not require them to do so.
However, HUD has not determined the extent to which public housing
agencies have implemented the fugitive felon provisions in accordance
with its regulations. In addition to its regulations, in July 2002,
[Footnote 15], HUD issued revised model lease language stating that the
tenancy of fugitive felons may be terminated.
All Programs Are Responding to Law Enforcement Agency Requests for
Assistance:
To help law enforcement officials apprehend fugitive felons, PRWORA
calls for programs to provide information from SSI, Food Stamp, TANF,
and housing assistance recipient records to law enforcement officers
under certain circumstances. Law enforcement agencies can request such
information directly from program staff, or indirectly from federal
OIGs. In the case of state Food Stamp and TANF programs, they can
request information from program officials, fraud units in state program
departments, or from auditors general in state government.
In the SSI and Food Stamp programs, there are written procedures that
must be followed when responding to these requests. USDA has issued
regulations for state Food Stamp programs that mirror the PRWORA
provisions and require states to provide household addresses, SSNs, and
photographs, if available, to law enforcement officials when they make a
request, and 44 state Food Stamp programs reported also having their
own written guidelines. In the absence of any guidance from HHS,
officials from 44 state TANF programs reported that their programs had
their own written guidelines for what program staff and others should
do, under PRWORA, when a request for information from recipient records
is received from law enforcement officers. Both SSA and its OIG have
comprehensive procedural guidelines for handling law enforcement
requests for information about SSI recipients. These guidelines include
specific instructions on confirming the identity of the person named on
an arrest warrant before information from recipient records can be
released. HUD, like HHS, has not issued guidance, thus they have left
it up to public housing agencies and other landlords to determine
whether and under what circumstances they will respond to such requests
from law enforcement officers. HUD has no information on how public
housing agencies are handling such requests.
OIGs and State Auditors Have Taken the Lead in Providing Law
Enforcement Agencies with Information about Program Recipients:
Because of their own law enforcement authority, federal OIGs and state
fraud units have often acted as intermediaries between outside law
enforcement agencies and program staff to facilitate the exchange of
recipient and arrest warrant information. Federal OIGs and state
auditors have also played a major role in assisting in law enforcement‘s
apprehension of fugitive felons on program rolls. Both USDA‘s and HHS‘s
OIG have conducted such efforts. In both cases, the OIG matched
recipient files and arrest warrant data and provided law enforcement
officials with the matches. USDA‘s efforts, known as Operation Talon,
began in 1997 in Kentucky, and expanded to include operations in 30
states and D.C. According to USDA‘s Inspector General, Operation Talon
activities slowed beginning in 2001 when OIG priorities shifted to other
areas. HHS‘s OIG conducted one initiative in a metropolitan area in
Nebraska that ended in the apprehension of a very small number of
fugitive felons.
SSA‘s OIG has also played a key role in the exchange of arrest warrant
and SSI recipient information. SSA‘s monthly matching process is not
only designed to identify and terminate benefits to fugitive felons on
the SSI rolls, but also to provide law enforcement agencies with
information from SSI recipients‘ records that will assist them in
apprehending fugitive felons. SSA and its OIG worked together to
negotiate agreements with federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies to provide them with arrest warrant information. Once SSA
staff match arrest warrants with the SSI file, the OIG helps ensure
that the law enforcement agencies that issued the warrants receive the
information from SSI records they need to apprehend those identified as
fugitive felons. Finally, the OIG tracks and compiles data on the
apprehension and termination of benefits to SSI recipients determined
to be fugitive felons. See appendix III for a detailed description of
SSA‘s monthly matching process.
In addition, SSA‘s OIG has assisted law enforcement officials in their
pursuit and arrest of SSI recipients who are fugitive felons. For
example, the OIG has participated in joint investigations with the New
York State Division of Parole, the New York State Welfare Inspector
General, and the New York City Department of Corrections to identify
and apprehend SSI recipients who were parole violators.
To assist law enforcement in locating criminals, HUD‘s OIG indicated
that it has responded to requests from law enforcement for information,
usually on a case-by-case basis. As with SSA‘s OIG, HUD‘s and USDA‘s
OIGs also have assisted law enforcement agencies in the pursuit and
arrest of fugitive felons.
Since PRWORA, Thousands of Fugitive Felons Have Been Identified and
Denied Benefits, with Some Resulting Cost Savings and Arrests:
The SSI, Food Stamp, and TANF programs have identified over 110,000
beneficiaries who are fugitive felons– largely through the matching
of warrant and enrollee files. When SSA and states have taken the
initiative or been in a position to match recipient and warrant data,
there have been a significant number of fugitive felons identified. The
results from our own comparison of arrest warrant from just two states
and the HUD nationwide tenant database suggest that many fugitives in
housing assistance programs go unidentified. Total cost savings to date
are hard to ascertain, however, in part, because not all state Food
Stamp and TANF programs keep records or make such calculations. SSA‘s
OIG has reported 5-year cumulative savings of more than $81 million in
overpayments and $133 million in projected future savings from the SSI
recipients identified as fugitive felons. Since passage of PRWORA, law
enforcement officials also have been making thousands of requests for
program information to help them apprehend fugitive felons, either for
specific case information or for file matches. At least 18,678 arrests
from this effort have occurred. This may be a conservative figure
because programs do not always receive feedback from law enforcement on
the outcome of cases.
Comprehensive Data Matching Accounts for Most Identifications; Program
Savings Have Also Been Realized:
Of the more than 110,000 beneficiaries identified as fugitive felons
across all programs since 1996, [Footnote 16] 45,000 have been
identified on the SSI rolls through matching. SSA‘s experience strongly
suggests that matching SSI and arrest warrant data produces better
results than less comprehensive methods of identifying fugitive felons
such as case-by-case inquiries. Also, the more comprehensive the
warrant database drawn from, the higher the yield. SSA‘s access to the
NCIC database together with its array of agreements with states and
municipalities has given the agency a large database of warrants
against which to compare its own national recipient file. Although SSA
efforts to identify fugitive felons on the rolls increased steadily
prior to 2000, the agency‘s identification process up until that time
was largely confined to manual checks for specific case inquiries and
onetime …sweeps‘ initiated by law enforcement, the OIG, or state fraud
units. In 2000, however, after SSA secured a memorandum of
understanding with the FBI to provide it with arrest warrant data, SSA
began performing monthly matches with its SSI file. This more
comprehensive approach resulted in some sharp yearly increases in the
numbers of fugitive felons identified. (See table 3.)
Table 3: Fugitive Felons Identified in the SSI Program and Estimated
Overpayments and Projected Savings, Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Estimates of: Fugitive felons identified;
1997: 23;
1998: 1,172;
1999: 7,421;
2000: 13,817;
2001: 22,638;
Total: 45,071.
Estimates of: Overpayments;
1997: $333,000;
1998: $1,360,000;
1999: $17,219,000;
2000: $20,895,000;
2001: $41,843,000;
Total: $81,650,000.
Estimates of: Projected savings[A];
1997: $450,000;
1998: $9,208,000;
1999: $27,087,000;
2000: $34,474,000;
2001: $61,727,000;
Total: $132,946,000.
Note: The volume of fugitives identified should increase as additional
agreements with state law enforcement agencies are negotiated.
[A] SSA calculates savings by multiplying the monthly SSI payment by 24
months.
Source: SSA and SSA‘s Office of Inspector General.
[End of table]
Increased savings accompanied the increases in the number of fugitive
felons identified. SSA estimates that since the passage of PRWORA, it
has identified more than $81 million in overpayments. It has projected
future savings on fugitive felons removed from the SSI rolls of about
$133 million. Table 3 shows substantial annual increases in those
savings beginning in 1999 with SSA‘s initial computer matching efforts.
State Food Stamp and TANF administrators have identified many fugitive
felons on their program rolls, as well. Based on the estimates we
received from state officials, in total, over 65,000 have been
identified in these programs across all states since 1997.
Identification strategies and results varied considerably across
states, but those state programs that identified large numbers of
felons usually did so by matching their automated recipient files and
files of arrest warrants nationwide and/or statewide. [Footnote 17] For
example, sizeable numbers of fugitive felons on TANF and Food Stamp
rolls in Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee were identified using large
warrant databases. (See table 4.)
Table 4: Scope and Results of State Initiatives That Matched Automated
State Program Recipient and Warrant Files To Identify Fugitive Felons
on the Rolls:
State and year of initiative: Tennessee (1998);
Benefit populations: Statewide TANF and Food Stamp rolls combined;
Scope of warrants: Statewide and NCIC;
Number of fugitive felons identified: 1,678;
Estimated amount of erroneous payments: $7,000,000[A].
State and year of initiative: Ohio (1999);
Benefit populations: Statewide TANF and Food Stamp rolls combined;
Scope of warrants: Statewide;
Number of fugitive felons identified: 1,082;
Estimated amount of erroneous payments: $1,056,028.
State and year of initiative: Missouri (2000);
Benefit populations: Statewide TANF and Food Stamp rolls combined;
Scope of warrants: Statewide;
Number of fugitive felons identified: 802;
Estimated amount of erroneous payments: $672,640.
[A] Amount includes estimated future payments.
Source: State auditors‘ reports from Missouri and Ohio and a state law
enforcement agency report from Tennessee.
[End of table]
Very few state TANF or Food Stamp programs could provide precise
estimates of cost savings, but the initiatives in Missouri, Ohio, and
Tennessee found that millions of dollars could be saved using matching
at the state-level.
GAO‘s Computerized Match of Arrest Warrants with HUD Tenant Files
Identified Nearly 1,000 Fugitive Felons in Housing Assistance Programs:
Because HUD has no data on the numbers of housing assistance recipients
whose tenancy could be subject to termination under PRWORA, we
conducted our own match of arrest warrants in two states”Ohio and
Tennessee”with HUD‘s national, tenant database. Nationally, we found
927 adults who were living in public housing or Section 8 housing
between January 2001 and January 2002 while there were outstanding
warrants for their arrests from those two states for felonies, or
parole or probation violations. [Footnote 18] These adults were wanted
for a wide range of crimes, including possession of or selling
dangerous drugs; larceny, such as bank robbery; and assault. (See app.
V.) About 65 percent were living in public housing or Section 8 housing
outside of Ohio and Tennessee. If the leases on the housing units where
these fugitive felons lived or the Section 8 voucher had been
terminated, we estimate HUD could have saved $4.2 million annually in
program costs – or made housing available to some of the 9 million
eligible families waiting for units nationwide. [Footnote 19] See
appendix I for a detailed description of our matching process.
Law Enforcement Agency Requests for Recipient Information Have Led to
Thousands of Arrests:
Law enforcement officers have requested information about thousands of
recipients since PRWROA gave them access to program information. With
the exception of SSA and a few state human service agencies, however,
most do not track or record requests. [Footnote 20] Collectively, human
service agencies in Arizona, Indiana, and Texas reported receiving
29,408 requests from law enforcement for recipient information from
fiscal years 1997 through 2001. SSA‘s OIG was able to report the number
of requests it has received each year from law enforcement since
implementation of PRWORA. (See fig 1.) Although requests increased
during the first few years after the law was passed, there was a
noticeable decrease in 2000 after the agency began to implement routine
file matching.
According to SSA officials, the recipient information SSA now routinely
provides to law enforcement agencies as part of its monthly matching
process most likely reduced the need for law enforcement agencies to
request this information.
Figure 1: Law Enforcement Officers‘ Requests to SSA or Its OIG for
Information on SSI Recipients Who Are Fugitive Felons, Fiscal Years
1997-2001:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Law Enforcement Officers‘ Requests to SSA or Its OIG for Information on
SSI Recipients Who Are Fugitive Felons:
Year: 1997;
Number of requests: 232.
Year: 1998;
Number of requests: 1,563.
Year: 1999;
Number of requests: 7,426.
Year: 2000;
Number of requests: 3,093.
Year: 2001;
Number of requests: 1,805.
Source: SSA‘s Office of Inspector General.
[End of figure]
Since PRWORA was enacted, the information that law enforcement has
received from programs about their recipients has resulted in the
arrest of at least 18,678 fugitive felons through March 2002, a
conservative figure in that law enforcement does not always report
arrests to programs, state auditors, or OIGs. SSA, USDA, and some state
TANF and Food Stamp officials were able to provide selected statistics.
USDA‘s Operation Talon”carried out in 30 states and D.C.”resulted in
5,165 arrests for felonies and probation and parole violations between
early 1997 and March 2002. [Footnote 21] SSA reported 5,019 fugitive
felons apprehended through 2001. [Footnote 22] Among states that have
screened both TANF and Food Stamp recipients, two were able to report
total arrests since 1997: Texas reported 791; New York, 6,980. Finally,
using matching, a state audit of Food Stamp and TANF programs in
Tennessee in 1998 resulted in 403 arrests for offenses as serious as...
Law enforcement officials do not arrest all recipients who are
identified as fugitive felons. Most fugitive felons found on the SSI
rolls, for example, were not arrested. SSA, which has a follow-up
reporting system in place, received reports on over 5,900 matched
warrants from law enforcement agencies in 2001, indicating that over
2,000 fugitive felons had been arrested. According to SSA, there are
many reasons why providing law enforcement with information from
recipients identified as fugitive felons may not lead to their arrest:
(1) The fugitives could not be located; (2) the recipient was not the
person for whom the warrant was issued; and (3) the law enforcement
agency that issued the warrant refused to extradite the recipient when
he or she was living in another jurisdiction.
Aggressive Implementation of the Law Poses a Number of Challenges for
Programs:
There are a number of reasons why the law is not aggressively
implemented by all programs that are required to deny benefits to
fugitive felons. First, centralized arrest warrant databases are not
readily available to programs. Second, programs need the assistance of
law enforcement agencies to achieve their goal of removing fugitive
felons from the rolls. Third, a lack of information about how to
conduct computerized matching and where to find assistance hampers many
state program officials. Finally, in the Food Stamp and TANF programs,
the lack of criteria for what constitutes a fugitive may interfere with
states‘ ability to act decisively to deny benefits to those wanted for
felonies or probation or parole violations.
Centralized and Complete Arrest Warrant Databases Are Not Readily
Available:
There is no single database that contains information on all wanted
persons throughout the United States. Local law enforcement agencies,
states, judicial agencies, and federal government agencies all maintain
various warrant records. The only database that compiles federal, state,
and local warrants is the FBI‘s National Crime Information Center, or
NCIC, established to support criminal justice agencies throughout the
country. Yet, according to SSA‘s OIG, in August 2000 this file contained
only about 30 percent of local and state warrants issued across the
nation. For this reason, SSA has found it necessary to negotiate with
many states and even municipalities for access to their local warrants.
Among the 75 state-administered Food Stamp and TANF programs that do not
perform computer matching to identify fugitive felons, nearly half
cited the lack of a statewide repository for warrants as a reason.
[Footnote 23] For the Food Stamp program, alone, 16 states reported
lacking a central source for statewide or interstate warrant data. Five
reported that existing warrant data are outdated and unreliable.
Matching Requires Collaboration and Close Coordination with Law
Enforcement:
Because computer matching involves using criminal records to which only
law enforcement agents are authorized access, program officials must
negotiate specific terms with each relevant agency for access to that
information. Nearly half of the TANF and Food Stamp programs that have
not conducted computer matching noted that the burden and complexity
of negotiating for access to statewide or NCIC arrest warrant records
was a reason why they did not match. In addition to accessing warrant
files, law enforcement‘s assistance is needed to verify the accuracy of
the warrant once a match it made. [Footnote 24] Officials from USDA‘s
FNS pointed out that such verification is critical to ensuring that
Food Stamp benefits are not improperly denied to otherwise eligible
individual. Consequently, they are dependent on law enforcement
agencies to determine if warrants are valid. Over a third of state
officials from TANF and Food Stamp programs that have not matched
indicated that they did not because law enforcement agencies are
unwilling to verify the results.
Lack of Knowledge about Matching and How to Define a Fugitive Felon
Hinders Implementation of the Law:
State program officials do not necessarily have knowledge about how to
design a file matching process, how to enlist the help and cooperation
of law enforcement agencies, or where to find centralized sources of
warrant data. Nearly two-thirds of the TANF and Food Stamp officials
surveyed whose programs do not use computerized matching said that
information about file matching from HHS or USDA would help them assess
its feasibility. Over half of these program officials said that
information about how matching is performed by other programs or
guidance testing its feasibility would be a moderate to very great
help. About half indicated that guidance on federal laws governing
either access to arrest warrants, or due process prior to terminating
benefits under computerized matching would be a moderate to very great
help. Many survey respondents also indicated that information about the
rules governing use of and access to the NCIC arrest warrant database
would be helpful.
There is also evidence that a fugitive felon is defined differently
across, and perhaps within, programs. FNS, for example, has directed
state Food Stamp programs to deny benefits to individuals with
outstanding arrest warrants only when the program has verified that
these individuals are aware of the warrants. In contrast, SSA
guidelines make no mention of this as criteria for denying SSI
benefits. They state that SSI benefits should be denied to applicants
and recipients with outstanding arrest warrants, whether or not the law
enforcement agencies that issued the warrants have acted on them.
FNS headquarters officials told us that they believed the definition of
a fugitive under PRWORA is open to interpretation and that, without
further guidance, state Food Stamp programs may be defining it
differently as well. They pointed out a number of questions that need
to be addressed when deciding whether or not to deny benefits to those
with arrest warrants. For example, should individuals with outstanding
warrants be considered fugitive felons if they are not aware of the
warrants, or if law enforcement agencies have not acted on the warrants
within a certain timeframe? HHS officials also indicated that, based on
the language in the law, it is not clear whether the Congress intended
to deny benefits when law enforcement officials lack the resources,
jail space, or court time to execute arrest warrants. They contend that
the most significant challenge programs face when implementing the law
is how to define a ’fleeing“ felon.
Responses to our survey confirm that there may be different definitions
of what constitutes a fugitive felon across state programs as well. For
example, one state program official indicated that the existence of a
warrant, alone, was not proof that a recipient was fleeing.
Consequently, recipients in that state who were fugitive felons were
reportedly not removed from the benefit rolls unless they were
arrested. An official from another state further questioned whether
those who are not aware of warrants for their arrest could be
considered fleeing.
Conclusions:
There has been some progress in implementing the fugitive felon
provisions of PRWORA. Where there has been leadership from program
officials, OIGs or state auditors, large numbers of fugitive felons
have been removed from the rolls and apprehended, mostly through the
use of matching. However, the law has not been implemented aggressively
in all programs. Most strikingly, HUD has done little to ensure that
fugitive felons do not receive housing assistance. This could be
because the law, as it applies to housing assistance programs, states
that fugitive felon status is only grounds for termination of tenancy
and not that fugitive felons are ineligible for housing assistance.
Therefore, according to HUD officials, while public housing agencies
and landlords have the authority to evict fugitive felons, they are not
required to do so. Furthermore, even though HUD maintains its own
national database of tenants, it has made no attempt to match it with
information from centralized arrest warrant databases such as the NCIC.
Such matching, even when done on a limited basis, would be an effective
way to identify potentially large numbers of fugitive felons in federal
housing assistance programs that landlords have the authority to evict.
As demonstrated in SSI and a few state TANF and Food Stamp programs,
matching recipient and arrest warrant data can be an effective tool for
implementing the fugitive felon provisions. However, expanding the use
of matching is not an easy task. In this respect, state program
officials indicated that they could benefit from the experience of
others. Information about how other programs and states have obtained
access to and used centralized arrest warrant data, collaborated with
law enforcement agencies, and conducted matching could help state TANF
and Food Stamp programs plan and develop their own matching procedures.
Increased use of computer matching alone will not ensure that the law is
fully implemented in state TANF and Food Stamp programs. The law‘s
overall effectiveness could be seriously undermined if it is not applied
consistently, and there appears to be some question about what
constitutes a fugitive felon within TANF and Food Stamp programs.
Without knowing how state programs are defining fugitive felons, there
is no way for HHS or USDA to determine if the law is being applied
consistently and, if not, how to ensure that it is.
Finally, neither HHS nor HUD has issued instructions on the
circumstances under which information about benefit recipients is to be
released to law enforcement agencies when they request it. As a result,
state TANF programs, and HUD public housing agencies and other
landlords in this highly decentralized system, may be implementing this
provision inconsistently. As a result, law enforcement agencies may not
be receiving the information they request and legally have access to.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
The Congress should consider amending the Housing Act of 1937 to make
fugitive felons ineligible for federal housing assistance.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better implement PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions, we recommend
that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development:
* test the feasibility and effectiveness of routinely matching its
nationwide tenant file with the NCIC arrest warrant database as a means
of identifying tenants in housing assistance programs nationwide who
are fugitive felons and subject to eviction and;
* issue guidance on the circumstances under which federal housing
programs are required to provide information about residents in
federally subsidized housing to law enforcement agencies.
To oversee and better implement these provisions in the TANF program,
we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services:
* encourage states to test the feasibility and effectiveness of
routinely matching TANF applicant and recipient records with arrest
warrants by providing them with information on the matching activities
of other state TANF programs and their results and on accessing
available arrest warrant databases such as NCIC;
* monitor states‘ computerized matching efforts to identify fugitive
felons and their results;
* determine what criteria state TANF programs are using to remove
recipients wanted for felonies or probation or parole violations from
the TANF rolls, and if these criteria differ across states, provide TANF
programs with clear guidance on the circumstances under which
benefits to fugitive felons should be terminated; and;
* issue guidance on the circumstances under which TANF programs are
required to provide information about TANF recipients to law
enforcement agencies.
To oversee and ensure better implement these provisions in the Food
Stamp program, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture:
* encourage states to test the feasibility and effectiveness of
routinely matching Food Stamp applicant and recipient records with
arrest warrants by providing them with information on the matching
activities of other state Food Stamp programs and their results and on
accessing available arrest warrant databases such as NCIC;
* monitor states‘ computerized matching efforts to identify fugitive
felons and their results; and;
* determine what criteria state Food Stamp programs are using to remove
recipients wanted for felonies, or probation or parole violations from
the Food Stamp rolls and, if these criteria differ across states,
provide Food Stamp programs with clear guidance on the circumstances
under which benefits to fugitive felons should be terminated.
Agency Comments:
Officials from the Department of Agriculture‘s Food and Nutrition
Service, the Department of Health and Human Services‘ Administration for
Children and Families, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development provided comments on our report. The full text of the
comments from HHS and HUD, appears in appendixes VI and VII,
respectively. The Director of FNS Program Development Division and
other FNS headquarters officials, provided oral comments, some of which
were technical and incorporated into the report where appropriate.
Officials from the Social Security Administration reviewed the report
and had no comments. (See app. VIII.)
In general, FNS officials agreed with our recommendations, but voiced
concern that the report needed to more fully discuss the legal and
procedural complexities involved in implementing the fugitive felon
provisions. They said that because what constitutes a fugitive under
PRWORA is open to interpretation, eligibility criteria for benefits may
vary within and across programs. They indicated their intention to re-
evaluate their current definition, which defines fugitives as only
those who are aware that warrants have been issued for their arrest.
Nevertheless, they noted that there may be room for flexibility in how
state agencies respond to the individual circumstances of fugitive
felons, just as states have flexibility when enforcing certain other
Food Stamp program requirements.
FNS officials cautioned against viewing the implementation of PRWORA‘s
fugitive felon provisions outside the context of a program‘s
administrative structure and its quality assurance procedures and
standards. They noted, for example, that the Food Stamp program is
administered by the states, making it more difficult to ensure uniform
implementation of the law than in the SSI program, where control is
centralized at the federal level.
FNS officials noted that, in order to enhance compliance with the law in
the Food Stamp program, they recently obtained information from SSA
about its fugitive felon procedures and processes and were now working
with their OIG to clarify issues related to fugitive felon
ineligibility for food stamps. They have also begun to plan pilot
projects in several states of procedures that would allow law
enforcement time to apprehend fugitive felons before state food stamp
agencies take action on their eligibility. These projects will build
due process protections into these procedures.
ACF acknowledged that the report provided new and useful information
on this topic. However, it expressed concern that the report did not
adequately portray the full significance of the challenges associated
with implementation of the fugitive felon provisions. In particular, ACF
highlighted the challenges associated with defining a fleeing felon.
Furthermore, ACF did not concur with our recommendations for a variety
of reasons. It believed that implementing our recommendations would
infringe on the authority and flexibility PRWORA gives states to
establish their own TANF eligibility rules and procedures and calls for
federal action not authorized under PRWORA. We believe that issuing
guidance is permissible under PRWORA and can be done in a manner that
allows for state flexibility. Guidance simply provides states with a
means to make more reasoned judgments about the actions they choose to
take.
ACF further argued that neither the Office of management and Budget‘s
(OMB) single state compliance audits, nor feedback it has received from
state agencies have identified problems with the implementation of the
fugitive felon provisions. The absence of evidence of problems in either
case, however, does not mean that problems do not exist, nor that the
monitoring and guidance we recommend would not be useful. ACF also
appears to have interpreted our recommendations for monitoring and
encouraging computer matching more narrowly than intended. We do not
prescribe how ACF should accomplish these tasks. Our recommendations
would not require the creation of new data collection procedures or
systems. The mechanisms that ACF and HHS‘s Office of Family Assistance
have in place for communicating and interacting with state and local
agencies could be used to effectively implement these recommendations
within the limits PRWORA places on federal authority.
ACF disagreed with the recommendation for national guidance describing
the circumstances, under PRWORA, in which TANF programs should provide
information to law enforcement agencies, noting that 44 state TANF
agencies had already developed their own guidance. Our point remains
that all state agencies should have established guidance. Furthermore,
our review of selected states‘ guidance showed that it may not always
be consistent with PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions. Consequently, we
continue to believe that national guidance is justified.
In its comments, HUD did not concur with our recommendation to test the
feasibility and effectiveness of routinely matching its nationwide
tenant file with NCIC arrest warrant data. HUD said that PRWORA does not
require, nor does it give, the department the authority to conduct
computer matching to screen for fugitive felons, and parole or probation
violators. We disagree with HUD‘s assertion that it lacks the authority
to conduct computer matching. In our view, HUD does not need any
specific statutory authority to conduct computer matching, but any
matching it does conduct must comply with the Computer Matching and
Privacy Protection Act of 1988. We also note that, even though HUD
contended that it lacked the authority to computer match, it did agree
to examine computer matching as a possible option for implementing the
fugitive felon provisions.
HUD did concur with our recommendation to issue guidance on the
circumstances under which federal housing programs are required to
provide information about residents to law enforcement agencies. HUD
said that its Office of General Counsel was working with its Office of
Public Housing and Multifamily Housing to determine the appropriate
method (by notice or regulation) to implement PRWORA‘s requirement
that public housing agencies provide law enforcement with information
about tenants who are fugitive felons, or parole or probation violators.
HUD also described other actions it was taking to better implement
PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions.
Finally, HUD expressed concern about our estimate of the savings that
could result from matching its national tenant file with warrants from
Ohio and Tennessee. HUD indicated that the assumptions upon which this
estimate is based, are not likely to hold true in every case. We agree
and had already recognized this qualification in the draft report. We
continue to believe that our analysis produced a reasonable estimate
that has been appropriately qualified.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties.
Copies will also be made available to others upon request. In addition,
this report will be available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you have any questions about this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-9889. Other contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix IX.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In order to determine the extent to which actions have been taken to
ensure that fugitive felons do not receive Supplemental Security Income
(SSI), Food Stamp, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or
housing assistance benefits, we interviewed federal officials in the
Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and reviewed
regulations and other documents that provide policy on handling
fugitive felons as applicants or beneficiaries. We also gathered data
from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for SSA, USDA, HUD, and
HHS on the number of program participants identified as fugitive felons
through their initiatives.
We conducted telephone and e-mail surveys with state officials who
administer TANF and Food Stamp programs in each of the states and the
District of Columbia. In our telephone survey, we collected data on the
actions these programs had taken to implement the fugitive felon
provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. We also collected information on
the extent to which law enforcement agencies have asked for or used
beneficiary information from these programs to locate and apprehend
fugitive felons and asked states for any estimates they had of the
number of fugitive felons identified on the rolls and the amount of
overpayments to these recipients. In our e-mail survey, we asked state
programs that were not conducting matching what prevented them from
doing so and what federal agencies could do to assist them in using
matching to implement the PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions.
We obtained information about SSA‘s process for identifying fugitive
felons through interviews with and documents provided by its OIG,
systems, and program staff involved with the fugitive felon program.
Appendix III contains a detailed description of SSA‘s fugitive felon
matching process. We visited state officials in Delaware to gather
information about their initiatives in the Food Stamp and TANF programs
and issues surrounding their efforts to establishing a data matching
process.
To determine the extent to which fugitive felons may be receiving
federal housing benefits, we conducted a one-time computer match using
HUD‘s national data on housing tenants and arrest warrant data from
Ohio and Tennessee. We chose these two states because their warrant
files were readily available from SSA and because of their prior
experience in matching warrant records with SSI, Food Stamps, and TANF
recipient files. In addition, both states agreed to participate in our
pilot. For computer matching, HUD provided us with national information
from its database containing persons in public housing, persons
receiving Section 8 tenant based assistance, and persons in the Section
8 Moderate Rehabilitation program for the period January 2001 through
January 2002. [Footnote 25] The Ohio and Tennessee warrant records were
all current as of January 2002. SSA screened the warrant records for us
through its automated Enumeration Verification System to verify the
Social Security number (SSN) and other pertinent data provided by the
law enforcement agency on the warrant matched with data from SSA‘s
records. [Footnote 26] Using SSA guidelines, we screened the
approximate 7.3 million tenant records and deleted records with invalid
SSNs, that is numbers that SSA never issued. Also, if we found multiple
persons using the same SSN, we removed their records. After the
screening process, we computer-matched the SSNs of 7.1 million tenant
records nationally with the numbers of 31,493 persons with fugitive
felon warrants issued by Ohio and Tennessee. [Footnote 27] Our SSN
comparisons identified 927 individual fugitive felons with one or more
arrest warrants issued by Ohio or Tennessee who resided in public
housing or Section 8 housing. As a final check, we compared the matched
individual‘s name and date of birth from the warrant and tenant records
and found minor inconsistencies which, in our opinion, would not change
the results.
To estimate cost savings, we analyzed agency data collected for a 1998
HUD report. [Footnote 28] The report showed data by state on the
average annual per unit cost for each housing type. Using these data,
we multiplied the number of resident fugitive felons by their
applicable average annual per unit cost. If the leases on the housing
units in which these 927 individuals lived had been terminated, we
estimate that about $4.2 million [Footnote 29] annually in federal
funds could have been made available to others who are eligible for,
but could not find, public housing or Section 8 housing. [Footnote 30]
[End of section]
Appendix II: PRWORA‘s Amendments to Authorizing Legislation of SSI,
TANF, Food Stamp, and Housing Assistance Programs:
Denial of benefits to fugitive felons and probation or parole
violators:
SSI: Section 1611 of the Social Security Act;
No person shall be considered an eligible individual or eligible spouse
for purpose of this title with respect to any month if during such
month the person is (A) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or
confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which
the person flees, for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime, which
is a felony under the laws of the place from which the person flees, or
which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor
under the laws of such State; or (B) violating a condition of probation
or parole imposed under Federal or State law.
TANF: Section 408 of the Social Security Act;
In general. – A State to which a grant is made under section 403 of the
Social Security Act shall not use any part of the grant to provide
assistance to any individual who is (i) fleeing to avoid prosecution,
or custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place
from which the individual flees, for a crime, or an attempt to commit a
crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the
individual flees, or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is
a high misdemeanor under the laws of such State; or (ii) violating a
condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law.
The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to conduct of an
individual, for any month beginning after the President of the United
States grants a pardon with respect to the conduct.
Food Stamps: Section 6 of the Food Stamp Act;
(k) Disqualification of Fleeing Felons ” No member of a household who
is otherwise eligible to participate in the food stamp program shall be
eligible to participate in the program as a member of that or any other
household during any period during which the individual is (1) fleeing
to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, under
the law of the place from which the individual is fleeing, for a crime,
or attempt to commit a crime, that is a felony under the law of the
place from which the individual is fleeing or that, in the case of New
Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the law of New Jersey; or (2)
violating a condition of probation or parole imposed
under a Federal or State law.
Housing Assistance: Sections 6 and 8 of the Housing Act of 1937;
It shall be cause for immediate termination of the tenancy of a tenant
if such tenant (A) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or
confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which
the individual flees, for a crime, or attempt to commit a crime, which
is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual
flees, or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high
misdemeanor under the laws of such State; or (2) violating a condition
of probation or parole imposed under a Federal or State law.
Provision of program recipient information to law enforcement officers:
SSI: Section 1611 of the Social Security Act;
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than section 6103 of
the Internal revenue Code of 1986), the Commissioner shall furnish any
Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, upon the written
request of the officer, with the current address, Social Security
number, and photograph (if applicable) of any recipient of benefits
under this title, if the officer furnishes the Commissioner with the
name of the recipient, and other identifying information as reasonably
required by the Commissioner to establish the unique identity of the
recipient, and notifies the Commissioner that (ii) the recipient has
information that is necessary for the officer to conduct the officer‘s
official duties; and (B) the location or apprehension of the recipient
is within the officer‘s official duties.
TANF: Section 408 of the Social Security Act;
If a State to which a grant is made under section 403 establishes
safeguards against the use or disclosure of information about
applicants or recipients of assistance under the State program funded
under this part, the safeguards shall not prevent the State agency
administering the program from furnishing a Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, upon the request of the officer, with the current
address of any recipient if the officer furnishes the agency with the
name of the recipient and notifies the agency that (i) the recipient has
information that is necessary for the officer to conduct the official
duties of the officer; and (ii) the location or apprehension of the
recipient is within such official duties.
Food Stamps: Section 11 of the Food Stamp Act;
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the address, social
security number, and, if available, photograph of any member of a
household shall be made available, on request, to any Federal, State.
or local law enforcement officer if the officer furnishes the State
agency with the name of the member and notifies the agency that (i) the
member (I) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement
after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to commit a crime) that,
under the law of the place the member is fleeing, is a felony (or, in
the case of New Jersey, a high misdemeanor), or is violating a
condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law; or
(II) has information that is necessary for the officer to conduct an
official duty. (ii)Locating or apprehending the member is an official
duty; and (iii) the request is being made in the proper exercise of an
official duty; and (E) the safeguards shall not prevent compliance with
paragraph (16).
Housing Assistance: Section 27 of the Housing Act of 1937;
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each public housing agency
that enters into a contract for assistance under section 6 or 8 of this
Act with Secretary shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, upon the request of the officer, with the current
address, Social Security number, and photograph (if applicable) of any
recipient of assistance under this Act, if the officer (1) furnishes
the public housing agency with the name of the recipient; and (2)
notifies the agency that (A) such recipient (i) is fleeing to avoid
prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws
of the place from which the individual flees, for a crime, or attempt to
commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from
which the individual flees, or which, in the case of the State of New
Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of such State; or (ii) is
violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or
State law; or (iii) has information that is necessary for the officer
to conduct the officer‘s official duties; (B) the location or
apprehension of the recipient is within such officer‘s official duties;
and (C) the request is made in the proper exercise of the officer‘s
official duties.
Note: The language for Sections 6 and 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 is
substantially identical except the word ’immediate“ is omitted in
Section 8.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: SSA‘s Computer Matching Process for Implementing PRWORA‘s
Fugitive Felon Provisions:
PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions have two objectives: (1) to ensure
that fugitive felons do not receive SSI benefits and (2) to ensure that
law enforcement agencies receive the information they need about SSI
applicants and recipients to apprehend fugitive felons. To implement the
law, SSA has designed a single process that can accomplish both
objectives. By matching arrest warrant information it receives from
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies with its national
SSI file, SSA is not only preventing fugitive felons from receiving SSI
benefits, but also providing information about those in the SSI file it
identifies as fugitive felons to law enforcement agencies so those
individuals can be apprehended. SSA‘s matching process requires the
active involvement of its OIG as well as the involvement and
cooperation from federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
In developing this process, SSA and its regional offices as well as its
OIG have had to locate sources of arrest warrant information, assess the
adequacy of arrest warrant information from each source, and negotiate
agreements with the law enforcement authorities that maintain this
information to release it to SSA. SSA began to explore the potential for
conducting such computer matching when it approached the U.S. Marshals
Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with proposals to
match its SSI file with their arrest warrant information. The FBI‘s
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database is the nation‘s most
extensive computerized criminal justice information system. NCIC
consists of millions of records in several files, including files on
wanted persons. As such, law enforcement agencies at the federal,
state, and local levels may voluntarily submit their law enforcement
information, including arrest warrants, to the FBI for inclusion in the
NCIC database. SSA and its OIG secured memorandum of understanding with
the FBI in March 2000 to provide SSA with monthly warrant information
on fugitive felons from its NCIC Wanted Person File. Submission of
information to the NCIC Wanted Person File is voluntary; however, so
the file does not include complete arrest warrant data on fugitive
felons, nationwide. According to SSA, as of June 2002, 17 states and
the District of Columbia submit warrant data on all felonies and parole
and probation violators to the FBI. Another 6 states report felonies
but not parole and probation violators. However, because the other 27
states told SSA that the majority of their warrant information is not
entered into the NCIC database, SSA has pursued negotiating agreement
with these 27 states to obtain their warrant information. As of June
2002, 20 of the 27 states had agreed to provide SSA with their fugitive
felon files. [Footnote 31] In exchange, once SSA has matched
information from warrants with its SSI file, it provides the addresses
of those in the file it finds with arrest warrants to the law
enforcement agencies that have issued those warrants, so they can be
apprehended. This matching and exchange process includes a number of
SSA offices, such as its Office of Telecommunications and Systems
Operations, its regional and field offices, and its OIG. To
successfully implement this process requires cooperation and commitment
from the FBI‘s NCIC staff and its Information Technology Center (ITC),
as well as law enforcement agencies at the state and local level.
Figure 2 illustrates the steps in the process and those involved.
Figure 2: SSA‘s Process for Identifying and Terminating SSI Benefits to
Fugitive Felons and Providing Information about Them to Law Enforcement
Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a flowchart of the SSA Process for Identifying and
Terminating SSI Benefits to Fugitive Felons and Providing Information
about Them to Law Enforcement Agencies. The following information is
depicted:
Start:
Agencies: FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC); U.S. Marshals;
State and local law enforcement;
Step 1 (Preliminary step): Send warrant data to SSA headquarters.
SSA Headquarters (Agency):
Step 2 (Preliminary step): Uses automated systems to verify identity of
individuals named on warrants;
Step 3 (Preliminary step): For NCIC warrant data, eliminates
misdemeanorss except for parole and probation violators;
Step 4 (Preliminary step): Matches warrant file with SSI recipient file
to identify those named on warrants;
Step 5 (Preliminary step): Forwards information on SSI recipient named
on warrant to SSA's OIG.
SSA Office of the Inspector General (OIG)(Agency):
Step 6 (Preliminary step): Opens case file for each recipient named on
warrant;
Step 7 (Preliminary step): Forwards information from case files to the
FBI Technology Information Center[A].
FBI Technology Information Center (Agency):
Step 8 (Law enforcement verification and apprehension step): Queries
NCIC database to verify that warrant is active;
Step 9 (Law enforcement verification and apprehension step): Forwards
address and other information about each SSI recipient named on an
active warrant to the appropriate law enforcement agency[B].
Appropriate law enforcement agency:
Step 10 (Law enforcement verification and apprehension step): Uses
address information of SSI recipient named on warrant to apprehend the
individual;
Step 11 (Law enforcement verification and apprehension step): Notifies
FBI/ITC as to the disposition of each individual's case.
Step 12 (Law enforcement verification and apprehension step): Updates
case file on each SSI recipient named on active warrant to reflect law
enforcement disposition of case;
Step 13 (Law enforcement verification and apprehension step): Forwards
law enforcement agency disposition of each case to SSA's OIG.
SSA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) (Agency):
Step 14 (Benefit termination and recovery step): After allowing 60 days
for appropriate law enforcement action to be taken, SSA's OIG forward
case to SSA field office serving SSI recipient for cancellation of
benefits.
SSA Field Office (Agency):
Step 15 (Benefit termination and recovery step): Field office takes
administrative actions, following due process requirements, to
terminate SSI recipient's benefits, determines overpayment amounts, and
takes recovery action;
Step 16 (Benefit termination and recovery step): Field office send
SSA's OIG information on actions taken.
SSA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) (Agency):
Step 17 (Benefit termination and recovery step): SSA's OIG updates
individuals case file on administrative actions taken by SSA field
office.
[A] The process is different for about 10 percent of the cases in which
the SSI recipient‘s name, Social Security number, date of birth, and
gender from records SSA maintains on individuals do not match the
warrant information. These cases are forwarded to one of the OIG‘s
field offices for additional verification and, if the identity can be
verified, are referred by the OIG to the appropriate law enforcement
authorities.
[B] For warrants not in the NCIC database, ITC forwards them to
appropriate law enforcement agencies to verify that these warrants are
active.
Source: SSA and SSA‘s OIG.
[End of figure]
Usually every month, SSA receives automated arrest warrant information
from a variety of sources (step 1 in fig. 2). SSA had found that the
information on arrest warrants is not always accurate. Fugitive felons
frequently use aliases or provide law enforcement agencies with
inaccurate Social Security numbers or dates of birth. In addition, SSA
noted that law enforcement agencies tend to rely on fingerprints for
identification because the Social Security numbers individuals report
are often unreliable. As a result, law enforcement agencies do not
always enter a Social Security number on a warrant. With the exception
of the FBI, law enforcement agencies have agreed to provide SSA with
arrest warrants that exclude misdemeanors, except in cases of probation
or parole violations. To ensure that the misdemeanors are screened out,
SSA‘s OIG checks the warrant files the first time SSA receives them to
verify that the misdemeanors have been removed. However, the FBI did
not agree to screen out misdemeanors from its NCIC Wanted Person File,
so an initial step in SSA‘s process is to screen out warrants for
misdemeanors in this file.
Using its automated systems, SSA confirms the identity of the individual
named on each warrant by comparing information on each warrant
(including the individual‘s name, Social Security number, date of
birth, and gender) with information on the automated records SSA
maintains on individuals. If there is no SSA record for a name on a
warrant, [Footnote 32] or if there is no Social Security number in
SSA‘s records for the name on the warrant, the warrant is eliminated
from the file (step 2). When the Social Security number on a warrant is
incorrect, according to SSA‘s records, or is missing from the warrant,
SSA uses its automated systems to attempt to locate the correct or
missing Social Security number. Finally, SSA uses its automated systems
to eliminate misdemeanors from the warrants it obtains from FBI‘s NCIC
database, except in cases where the warrant is for a probation or
parole violation (step 3). [Footnote 33] These steps help to ensure
that SSI recipients are not mistakenly identified as fugitive felons.
Next (step 4), SSA matches the remaining arrests warrant records with
its computerized SSI file to identify SSI applicants and recipients
named on warrants for felonies, or probation or parole violations. The
results of this match are then forwarded to the SSA‘s OIG (Office of
Investigations) (step 5), which establishes its own investigative case
file for each individual named on a warrant (step 6). Then, to provide
information to law enforcement authorities for the apprehension of
fugitive felons, the OIG forwards information from SSI records about
those named on warrants to the FBI‘s ITC (step 7). [Footnote 34] ITC
screens out duplicate files and verifies the address and status of each
individual named in the NCIC match warrant records to determine whether
the warrant is active (step 8) and forwards these to the law
enforcement agency that issued the warrant (step 9) so that it can
locate and apprehend the individual (step 10). If warrants cannot be
found in the NCIC database, ITC forwards them to the applicable law
enforcement agency for verification and (step 9) so they can locate and
apprehend the individual (step 10).
After the appropriate law enforcement agency receives the addresses of
individuals named on warrants, it has up to 60 days [Footnote 35] to
notify ITC of the actions taken, if any, on the disposition of each
individual‘s case (step 11). Next, ITC updates the case file on each
individual named on the active warrant to reflect the actions taken by
law enforcement (step 12). Then, ITC forwards the information on the
actions taken, if any, by law enforcement on each case to the OIG (step
13). Once SSA‘s OIG has been notified or the 60 days have expired,
whichever comes first, OIG reports those cases that require termination
or recovery of SSI benefits to the appropriate SSA field office (step
14). The field office than takes whatever administrative actions,
including due process safeguards, are required (step 15) and reports
this back to SSA‘s OIG (step 16). The OIG uses the information provided
by the SSA field office on the administrative actions taken to update
the individual‘s case file (step 17).
Although the matching process is complex and requires considerable
cooperation and assistance from law enforcement authorities, that is,
the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, state, county, and local law enforcement
authorities as well as SSA‘s OIG, SSA believes that it is the most
efficient and effective method for implementing both requirements of
PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Number of SSI Recipients in Fiscal Year 2001 Arrested by
Offense on Warrant:
Offense on warrant: Homicide;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 4.
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Kidnapping;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 4;
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Sexual assault;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 28;
Percent of total offenses: 1.3.
Offense on warrant: Robbery;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 32;
Percent of total offenses: 1.5.
Offense on warrant: Assault;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 75;
Percent of total offenses: 3.5.
Offense on warrant: Arson;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 8;
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Burglary;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 78;
Percent of total offenses: 3.7.
Offense on warrant: Stolen vehicles;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 10.
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Forgery or fraud;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 22;
Percent of total offenses: 1.0.
Offense on warrant: Receiving stolen or damaged property;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 9;
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Dangerous drugs;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 240;
Percent of total offenses: 11.2.
Offense on warrant: Sex offense;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 17;
Percent of total offenses: 1.0.
Offense on warrant: Family offense;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 2;
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Flight - escape;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 22;
Percent of total offenses: 1.0.
Offense on warrant: Parole violation;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 251;
Percent of total offenses: 11.8.
Offense on warrant: Probation violation;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 311;
Percent of total offenses: 14.6.
Offense on warrant: Failure to appear;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 137;
Percent of total offenses: 6.4.
Offense on warrant: Obstructing Judiciary, Congress, Legislature, or a
Commission;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 45;
Percent of total offenses: 2.1.
Offense on warrant: Weapon offenses;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 24;
Percent of total offenses: 1.1.
Offense on warrant: Public peace - disorderly conduct;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 1;
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Traffic offenses;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 11;
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Smuggling;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 2;
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Juvenile offenders;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 3;
Percent of total offenses: [Empty].
Offense on warrant: Not recorded;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 799;
Percent of total offenses: 37.4.
Offense on warrant: Total;
Number of fugitive felons arrested: 2,135;
Percent of total offenses: 100.0.
Source: SSA‘s Office of Inspector General based on the FBI‘s Uniform
Offense Classifications.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Warrants Issued for Fugitive Felons Residing in Federally
Funded Housing:
Offense on warrant: Abscond while on probation[A];
Number of warrants issued: 226.
Offense on warrant: Dangerous drugs (possess, sell, smuggle opium,
cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, etc.);
Number of warrants issued: 132.
Offense on warrant: Larceny (shoplifting, postal, U.S. government,
banking, etc.);
Number of warrants issued: 129.
Offense on warrant: Failure to appear;
Number of warrants issued: 124.
Offense on warrant: Forgery and fraud (forgery of
checks,counterfeiting, confidence game, swindle, mail fraud, etc.);
Number of warrants issued: 111.
Offense on warrant: Receiving stolen or damaged property:
Number of warrants issued: 36.
Offense on warrant: Burglary;
Number of warrants issued: 33.
Offense on warrant: Other obstructing Judiciary, Congress, Legislature,
or a Commission[B];
Number of warrants issued: 25.
Offense on warrant: Assault:
Number of warrants issued: 22.
Offense on warrant: Stolen vehicles;
Number of warrants issued: 18.
Offense on warrant: Family offense (cruelty toward child or wife,
bigamy, nonpayment of alimony, etc.);
Number of warrants issued: 16.
Offense on warrant: Abscond while on parole[A];
Number of warrants issued: 13.
Offense on warrant: Robbery;
Number of warrants issued: 13.
Offense on warrant: Property crimes;
Number of warrants issued: 9.
Offense on warrant: Sex offense;
Number of warrants issued: 9.
Offense on warrant: Weapon offenses;
Number of warrants issued: 8.
Offense on warrant: Kidnapping;
Number of warrants issued: 5.
Offense on warrant: Traffic offenses;
Number of warrants issued: 5.
Offense on warrant: Crimes against a person;
Number of warrants issued: 4.
Offense on warrant: Juvenile offender;
Number of warrants issued: 4.
Offense on warrant: Flight - escape;
Number of warrants issued: 3.
Offense on warrant: Smuggling;
Number of warrants issued: 3.
Offense on warrant: Other offenses (arson, material witness, morals-
decency, obstructing police, public disorder, disorderly conduct, or
sexual assault);
Number of warrants issued: 9.
Offense on warrant: Unknown offenses;
Number of warrants issued: 4.
Offense on warrant: Total[C];
Number of warrants issued: 961.
[A] Records do not indicate the original offense.
[B] Parole violation, probation violation, and failure to appear are
shown separately; they are not included in this category.
[C] Total is larger than number of fugitive felons identified because
some had more than one warrant outstanding.
Source: GAO computer match using the FBI‘s Uniform Offense
Classifications.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
September 16, 2002:
Mr. Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Robertson:
Enclosed are the department's comments on your draft report entitled,
"Welfare Reform: Implementation of Fugitive Felon Provisions Should be
Strengthened." The comments represent the tentative position of the
department and are subject to reevaluation when the final version of
this report is received.
The department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Michael Mangano, for:
Janet Rehnquist:
Inspector General:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the department's
designated focal point and coordinator for General Accounting Office
reports. The OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.
Enclosure:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Administration For Children And Families:
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Suite 600:
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20447:
Date: September 11, 2002:
To: Janet Rehnquist Inspector General:
FROM: Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. Assistant Secretary for Children and
Families:
Subject: Comments on the General Accounting Office's (GAO) Draft Report
"Welfare Reform: Implementation of Fugitive Felon Provisions Should Be
Strengthened" (GAO-02-716).
Attached are the Administration for Children and Families' comments on
the GAO Draft Report "Welfare Reform: Implementation of Fugitive Felon
Provisions Should Be Strengthened" (GAO-02-716).
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Mack
Storrs, National Expert/Policy Advisor, Office of Family Assistance, at
(202) 401-9289.
Attachment:
Comments of the Department of Health and Human Services on the General
Accounting Office's Draft Report, "Welfare Reform: Implementation of
Fugitive Felon Provisions Should Be Strengthened" (GAO–02-716):
The Department of Health and Human Services (department) appreciates
the opportunity to comment on the General Accounting Office's (GAO)
draft report, which addresses an important topic.
General Comments:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) of 1996 includes provisions that prohibit fugitive felons and
probation and parole violators from receiving assistance under the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program, the Food Stamp
(FS) Program and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program and
make their status grounds for termination of tenancy in Federal housing
assistance programs. The legislation also requires these programs to
provide information on recipients with outstanding warrants upon the
request of law enforcement officials.
Based primarily on surveys and interviews, the report provides
information on how these "fugitive felon" provisions have been
implemented in the four programs and the results in denials and
arrests. The report provides the department with new and useful
implementation information including these major findings.
Programs vary in how aggressively they implement the PRWORA fugitive
felon provisions:
* The SSI and most state TANF and Food Stamp programs require
applicants to certify that they are not fugitive felons;
* Social Security Administration (SSA) and some state programs also
match recipient and arrest warrant data (less than one-third of the
state agencies administering TANF and Food Stamps use periodic computer
matching);
* All programs are responding to law enforcement agency requests for
assistance; and;
* Office of Inspector General and state auditors have taken the lead in
providing law enforcement agencies with information about program
recipients.
Since PRWORA, thousands of fugitive felons have been identified and
denied benefits, with some resulting cost savings and arrests:
* Comprehensive data matching of warrant and enrollee files accounts
for the identification of most of the 110,000 fugitive felons in the
TANF, Food Stamps and SSI Programs;
* Program savings have also been realized. Of the 45,000 SSI clients
whose benefits have been terminated, SSA estimates $133 million in
overpayment and projected costs avoided. Very few state TANF or Food
Stamp Programs could provide precise estimates of savings; and;
* Law enforcement agency requests for recipient information have led to
thousands of arrests.
The report also addresses several issues that impede aggressive
implementation of the fugitive felon provisions. The challenges
identified in the report include:
* Centralized and complete arrest warrant databases are not readily
available;
* Matching requires close collaboration among agencies and verification
by law enforcement agencies of match results;
* While program officials need to notify recipients of their
ineligibility, they also need to provide time for law enforcement to
act without provoking flight; and;
* Lack of knowledge about matching, confidentiality and how to define a
"fleeing" fugitive hinders implementation of the law.
With respect to these issues, GAO's report does not adequately portray
the full significance of these challenges. First and foremost is how to
define a "fleeing" felon. Generally, the report treats individuals with
an outstanding arrest warrant as a "fleeing" felon. However, the
statutory prohibition on providing TANF assistance applies to any
individual who is "fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or
confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which
the individual flees, for a crime..." It is not clear from this
language that Congress intended to deny benefits with respect to an
individual with an outstanding warrant who continues to maintain a
residence in the jurisdiction of the felony, and whose address is
openly listed in telephone directories, schools and other public
records. If local law enforcement officials lack the resources, jail
space or court time to execute arrest warrants on felons with known
addresses residing within its jurisdiction, should benefits be denied?
Case law has not entirely answered this question, but Federal courts
have generally required that an individual must be acting with "intent"
to avoid prosecution and knowledge of a warrant to be "fleeing."
To make sure that "intent" was established before terminating benefits
in the Food Stamp Program, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) issued
guidance to states requiring the agency to verify knowledge of the
warrant by advising the client of the warrant and an opportunity to
satisfy it. However this procedure provides the necessary advance
notice to some felons, leading directly to flight and the inability of
law enforcement officials to locate and arrest the individual.
Resolution of this issue and effective implementation of the fleeing
felon provision occurs when state and local welfare and law enforcement
officials coordinate their efforts and work effectively together on
accurate information, on complete databases, and the timing of
procedures and efforts. Thus the department believes it is appropriate
to leave these issues to the discretion of state and local officials
who have direct, first-hand knowledge within their jurisdictions.
GAO Recommendation:
To oversee and better implement these provisions in the TANF Program,
we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services:
* encourage states to test the feasibility and effectiveness of
routinely matching TANF applicant and recipient records with arrest
warrants by providing them with information on the matching activities
of other state TANF Programs and their results and on accessing
available arrest warrant databases such as National Crime Information
Center (NCIC);
* monitor states' computerized matching efforts and their results;
* determine what criteria state TANF Programs are using to remove
recipients wanted for felonies or probation or parole violations from
the TANF rolls, and if these criteria differ across states, provide
TANF programs with clear guidance on the circumstances under which
benefits to fugitive felons should be terminated; and;
* issue guidance on the circumstances under which TANF Programs are
required to provide information about TANF recipients to law
enforcement agencies.
Department Comment:
The department does not agree with this four-part recommendation for a
variety of reasons.
In enacting TANF, Congress specified that the purpose was to "increase
the flexibility of states in operating the program." The legislation
contains an explicit limitation on Federal regulation and,
specifically, gave states very broad authority to establish eligibility
rules and procedures. Under the statute, states and localities are free
to choose how they will meet these fugitive felon requirements within
the overall context of how they choose to implement the program. As
this Administration has emphasized, much of the success of welfare
reform can be attributed to state and local innovation resulting from
this flexibility.
As the challenges discussed above illustrate, state flexibility and
local collaboration may be even more important for the effective
implementation of the fugitive felon provisions. When FNS issued
guidance to state agencies about necessary actions before terminating
individuals, the guidance required alerting fleeing felons that law
enforcement knew their whereabouts and served as a disincentive to the
participation of law enforcement in the program. State and local
governments can better ascertain how to address the needs and interests
of both law enforcement and TANF programs through innovative and
collaborative practices.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has an active and
effective system for states to request guidance through both our
regional and central offices. States are in regular communication with
ACF when policy concerns arise. Also, the Office of Family Assistance
provides technical assistance directly through conferences,
publications and a Peer Technical Assistance Network that allows states
and localities to directly request information on the success of
another agencies' practices. The fugitive felon provision and how other
states address the requirement have not been a topic of concern or
requests from state agencies.
With respect to providing guidance on the circumstances in which TANF
Programs should provide information to law enforcement officials, the
report shows that 44 TANF agencies have already provided written
guidelines for how staff should respond to requests. In addition, the
report does not indicate that law enforcement agencies have had any
problems with TANF agencies failing to respond to their requests for
information. As a result, it is not clear why national guidance is
needed.
To monitor state implementation of the fugitive felon provisions within
the statutory framework, ACF has included this requirement in the
compliance supplement guidelines for the single state audits. Through
three complete cycles of annual audits, no findings with respect to the
fugitive felon provision have been reported. Monitoring state
computerized matching efforts would be difficult because ACF lacks the
authority to collect data not authorized in the statute. The report
also notes that the reason many TANF and Food Stamp Programs do not
routinely use computer matching is due to the unwillingness of local
law enforcement agencies to verify the results. The ACF does not see
what purpose would be served by additional ACF monitoring or
encouraging computer matching in situations when state or local
agencies cannot coordinate efforts and procedures for computer
matching. Contrary to GAO's recommendation, ACF believes the
responsibility for effective implementation of computer matching and
enforcement of the fugitive felon provisions rests at the state and
local levels.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Office Of Departmental Operations And Coordination:
Washington, D.C. 20410-0003:
September 9, 2002:
Mr. Robert E. Robertson:
Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 29548:
Dear Mr. Robertson:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft report Welfare
Reform Implementation of Fugitive Felon Provisions Should Be
Strengthened (GAO-02-716), hereinafter called "the GAO report". These
comments provide a summary of the actions the Department has taken,
clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of the Department and
its partners in program delivery, and delineate HUD's plans for future
compliance related activities.
There are two requirements of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) that apply to HUD.
Section 903 makes status as a fugitive felon, and parole and probation
violator cause for immediate termination of tenancy; and it amends
Title I of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC 1437 et. seq.) by
adding a new section 27 [Footnote 36] that requires that public housing
agencies provide, upon the legitimate request from a law enforcement
officer, the name, address, social security number and photograph of
any recipient who is a fugitive felon, parole or probation violator.
On May 24, 2001, the Department published, in the Federal Register, a
final rule entitled Screening and Eviction for Drug Abuse and Other
Criminal Activity. [Footnote 37] The rule gives Public Housing
Authorities (PHAs) and assisted housing owners the tools for adopting
and implementing fair, effective and comprehensive policies for
screening out program applicants who engage in illegal drug use or
other criminal activity and for evicting or terminating assistance of
persons who engage in such activity. The changes in the rule
incorporate Section 903 of the PRWORA which amended sections 6(1) and
8(d)(1)(B) of the Housing Act of 1937 concerning cause for terminating
tenancy for fleeing to avoid prosecution, custody or confinement after
commission of a felony.
HUD does not directly provide housing assistance to recipients, and
such assistance cannot be automatically terminated. Housing assistance
is provided through Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) and private owners
and/or operators of multifamily housing. PHAs or owners enter into
contracts with the Department to provide housing assistance funds to
eligible applicants. They are required to comply with the statutes,
regulations and other HUD requirements. Under the terms of these
contracts PHAs or owners are responsible for applicant eligibility
screening (including criminal background checks) and the enforcement of
provisions of the lease (including prohibitions on criminal activities)
in local courts. HUD uses various methods to monitor PHAs and private
owners compliance with the applicable statutes, rules and regulations,
including those governing applicant screening and eviction policies.
Although HUD has oversight responsibilities for its PHAs and owners,
PHAs and owners exercise discretion in how they enforce mandatory lease
provisions. The Department recognized this fact in the preamble to the
final rule on Screening and Eviction for Drug Abuse and Other Criminal
Activity in its response to a comment, by a PHA concerning its
discretion. In response to the comment, HUD states: "...HUD agrees that
conferring discretion on PHAs does not require them to take action, and
that HUD's conferral of discretion on PHAs in deciding whether to
terminate tenancy in each case does not constitute a conferral of
discretion upon local courts to consider factors other than those under
the lease. Of course, by the same logic, it should be noted that,
insofar as PHAs possess discretion to determine for themselves when to
initiate eviction proceedings, they are neither required by law nor
encouraged by HUD to terminate leaseholds in every circumstance in
which the lease would give the PHA grounds to do so..."(emphasis
added).
In addition, the United States Supreme Court's March 26, 2002 decision
in the case of the Department of Housing and Urban Development v.
Rucker et al. 122 S. Ct. 1230 (2002) upheld the constitutionality of a
mandatory lease provision required by Title 42 U.S.C. § 1437(d)(l)(6).
This provision states that that any drug-related criminal activity on
or off the premises, by the tenant, any member of the tenant's
household, or guest or person under the tenant's control "shall be
cause for termination of tenancy." In upholding that provision, the
Court also held that 42 U.S.C. § I437(d)(1)(6), unambiguously requires
lease terms that vest public housing authorities with the discretion to
decide how they will enforce those mandatory provisions. This means
that the Department could not take punitive action against a housing
provider who chose to exercise its discretion to not evict a tenant who
violated a mandatory lease provision. This would include PWRORA
provisions regarding fugitive felons, parole and probation violators.
The draft report correctly states that HUD has never matched its
nationwide database of housing assistance recipients with arrest
warrant data from any law enforcement agency. HUD's regulations at 24
CFR Part 5 Subpart B grant the Department and public housing agencies
the authority to utilize computer matching to verify the income
eligibility of applicants and participants in Section 8 and public
housing programs and establish procedures for the termination, denial,
suspension, or reduction of assistance based on information obtained
from State Wage Information Collection Agencies (SWICA) or Federal
Agencies. PRWORA does not require, nor does it give the Department
authority to conduct computer matching to screen for fugitive felons,
parole or probation violators. Further, PWRORA does not provide for
procedures to address the termination, denial, suspension, or reduction
of assistance based on information obtained from such matches.
Also, since the Department has not yet had an opportunity to review the
data or findings of the GAO computer matching pilot, we are unable to
determine how effective it would be as a compliance strategy. HUD must
consider the costs, administrative and regulatory burden and potential
legal liability that could be imposed on the Department, its PHAs and
owners, in considering computer matching or any other compliance
strategy.
GAO's estimated annual savings, based on the computer matching pilot of
S 4.2 million to $4.4 million, cannot be fully supported by the
Department. It is not likely that all of the assumptions upon which the
estimates are based will hold true in each case. Further, PRWORA does
not state that fugitive felon, parole or probation violator status
shall be cause for termination of tenancy for the entire household,
only that status as a fugitive felon, parole or probation violator
shall be cause for termination of tenancy of that individual. However,
PHAs and owners have the discretion to evict entire households for
lease violations. It should be noted that under the Department's
current policies, if the amount of the initial housing subsidy was
based, in part. on the income of a fugitive felon, the removal of that
source of income could result in an increase in the family's housing
assistance.
Although, as recommended, the Department will examine other possible
options, we are taking the following steps to complete our compliance
with the provisions of PWRORA:
* On July 18, 2002, the Department issued Handbook 4530.3 CHG-30, which
revised HUD's model leases for Subsidized Multifamily Housing programs.
The revised leases contain the provisions of PWRORA that provide that
the landlord may terminate the lease if the tenant is a fleeing felon,
parole or probation violator;
* As a revision to current occupancy and eviction requirements. the
Office of Public Housing is preparing a notice to Public Housing
Agencies, Resident Management Corporations and HUD's Public Housing
Program Managers entitled, Instructions for Obtaining FBI Criminal
History Record and Admissions Screening, Lease Enforcement, and
Eviction Policies and Procedures. This notice, planned for issuance in
during the first quarter of fiscal year 2003, will incorporate the
provisions of PRWORA Section 903 regarding PHA's discretion to
terminate the tenancy of fleeing felons, parole and probation
violators; and;
* Finally, HUD's Office of General Counsel is working with both the
Office of Public Housing and Multifamily Housing to determine the
appropriate method, (by notice or regulation) to implement PWRORA
Section 27 requirements on the Exchange of Information with Law
Enforcement Agencies.
The Department and its PHAs and owners take seriously the need to
provide a safe and crime free living environment for the tenants of
assisted housing. However, PHAs and owners may exercise their
discretion in the enforcement of lease termination provisions
(including those making fugitive felon status cause for termination)
against individuals or household members. To that end we appreciate
GAO's comments and recommendations.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Frank L. Davis:
Director:
Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Social Security:
The Commissioner:
Social Security Administration:
Baltimore, MD 21235-0001:
September 5, 2002:
Mr. Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Robertson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report, "Welfare
Reform: Implementation of Fugitive Felon Provisions Should Be
Strengthened" (GAO-02-716). While we do not have any comments, as the
report did not include any recommendations directed to the Social
Security Administration (SSA), we do appreciate the report's
complimentary discussion of the Agency's fugitive felon program. As
indicated in the report, SSA has done quite a lot of work in this area
and will continue to work with States to obtain information about
Supplemental Security Income recipients who are fugitive felons.
Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. If you have
questions, please have your staff contact Odessa J. Woods at (410) 965-
0378.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jo Anne R. Barnhart:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Clarita A. Mrena, Assistant Director (202) 512-3022:
George Erhart, Analyst-in-Charge (202) 512-7026:
Staff Acknowledgments:
The following people also made significant contributions to this report:
William Hutchinson, Laura Luo, Susan Pachikara, Susan Bernstein,
Jonathan Barker, Jay Smale, Vanessa Taylor, and Elsie Picyk.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For this report, when we refer to fugitive felons, we are also
referring to probation and parole violators.
[2] This is the second report we have issued related to PRWORA‘s
fugitive felon provisions. While this review examined and compared the
implementation of these provisions and their impact across all four
programs, our earlier review (U.S. General Accounting Office, Social
Security Administration: Fugitive Felon Program Could Benefit from
Better Use of Technology and Increased Management Accountability, GAO-
02-346, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2002)) focused on SSA‘s use of
information technology to identify fugitive felons on the SSI rolls and
assist law enforcement authorities in apprehending them.
[3] Examples of crimes that are felonies include murder, rape, or
burglary and other serious crimes that are usually punishable by
imprisonment for more than 1 year.
[4] Specifically, PRWORA‘s fugitive felon provisions apply to the
following assisted housing programs: Public Housing, Section 8 New
Construction/Substantial Rehabilitation, Section 8 Property
Disposition, Section 8 Loan Management Set-Aside, Section 8
Certificate/Vouchers, Public Housing, HOPE VI, and the HOME Investment
Partnerships Program.
[5] Public housing agencies are typically municipal, county, or state
agencies created under state law to develop and manage public housing
units.
[6] Public housing agencies also determine and approve eligibility for
Section 8 payments and ensure that private housing units meet safety
and health standards.
[7] For example, about 75 percent of TANF recipients also receive food
stamps, and about 25 percent of individuals who receive federal housing
assistance are also on the TANF rolls.
[8] In addition to the TANF block grant states receive from the federal
government, state TANF programs receive state funding because PRWORA
includes a maintenance-of-effort provision that requires states to
contribute to their TANF program at least 75 to 80 percent of their
historic level of funding under Aid to Families with Dependent
Children, the predecessor to TANF. Thirty-four states indicated that
they have laws or regulations that make fugitive felons, and probation
and parole violators, ineligible for state-funded TANF benefits. Two
states did not have similar laws, and three states provided no
information in this regard.
[9] According to the Department of Justice, slightly more than half of
those on probation had been convicted of a felony.
[10] In the Food Stamp program, households are certified to be eligible
for periods ranging from 1 to 24 months. Households with stable incomes
are generally given longer certification periods than households with
fluctuating incomes. When the certification period ends, to continue
receiving benefits, clients must reapply and prove they are still
eligible to participate. This is known as the recertification process.
Unlike the Food Stamp program, in SSI the time between scheduled
eligibility redeterminations varies depending on the likelihood that
the recipient‘s situation may change in a way that affects eligibility.
In housing assistance programs, most families‘ incomes and composition
are reexamined once a year. In the TANF program, while recipients can
receive federally funded benefits for only 60 months, there are no
federal requirements related to how often eligibility is recertified.
[11] USDA and SSA began to require this procedure to effectively
support a determination that payments made in error to fugitive felons
could be recouped from these individuals.
[12] 24 C.F.R. §5.851(a).
[13] According to SSA, as of June 2002, the NCIC database received
complete arrest warrant information on all felonies and parole and
probation violations from 17 states and D.C., Another 6 states reported
all felonies, but not all parole and probation violations.
[14] SSA also receives arrest warrant information from Baltimore
County, Md.; Montgomery County, Pa.; and New York City and
Philadelphia.
[15] As of July 2002, SSA had signed memorandums of understanding with
20 states not providing complete data to NCIC, but 9 of these states
had not provided data since January 2002.
[16] Because individuals may participate in more than one of these
programs, this number may overstate the number of fugitive felons
identified.
[17] Five states queried the NCIC database.
[18] The tenant data we used in this match included individuals
participating in public housing, Section 8 Certificate/Vouchers, and
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Programs. These three programs
accounted for about 88 percent of the housing units in HUD programs
covered by PRWORA nationally in fiscal year 1999.
[19] This estimate is based on the assumption that in all 927 cases (1)
the tenant received housing assistance beginning in January 2001 and
ending in January 2002, (2) the tenant was the person named on the
warrant, (3) the warrant was issued in January 2001 and was in effect
only through January 2002, and (4) housing assistance to the tenant‘s
entire household was terminated. The actual savings in program costs
could be lower or higher depending on the degree to which each of these
assumptions is accurate.
[20] Thirty-four state Food Stamp officials noted that since PRWORA,
law enforcement officials have actively sought out information, but
only 5 states maintain data on those requests. According to our survey
of state TANF programs, 13 states routinely provided this information
to law enforcement.
[21] Including warrants for misdemeanors, the OIC reported 7,981 total
arrests for all offenses for this period.
[22] See appendix IV for data on the offenses charged on these
warrants.
[23] This includes TANF and Food Stamp programs in the District of
Columbia.
[24] Under the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988,
the accuracy of the warrants naming program recipients and the identity
of the persons named on these warrants must be verified before these
recipients can be removed from the rolls.
[25] HUD provided us with tenant data reported by public housing
agencies on the ’HUD-50058“ form. This form contains the name, SSN,
date of birth, gender, and other information of individuals
participating in public housing, Section 8 tenant-based assistance
(certificates and vouchers), and Section 8 moderate rehabilitation
programs.
[26] SSA‘s systems are also capable of identifying an individual‘s
correct SSN when it is missing from the warrant, or when the SSN
provided by the law enforcement agency does not match with other
pertinent information such as name and date of birth.
[27] Of the 31,493 warrant records, 95 percent were Ohio‘s and 5
percent were Tennessee‘s.
[28] A Picture of Subsidized Households in 1998: United States
Summaries, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, D.C.; August 28,1998.
[29] This estimate is based on the assumption that in all 927 cases (1)
the tenant received housing assistance beginning in January 2001 and
ending in January 2002, (2) the tenant was the person named on the
warrant, (3) the warrant was issued in January 2001 and was in effect
only through January 2002, and (4) housing assistance to the tenant‘s
entire household was terminated. The actual savings in program costs
would be lower or higher depending on the degree to which each of these
assumptions is accurate.
[30] If the average national annual cost, per unit, based on 1999
budget estimates were used, cost savings associated with our 927
resident fugitive felons would be $4.4 million.
[31] SSA also has agreements to receive warrant information from
Baltimore County, Md.; Montgomery County, Pa.; Philadelphia; and New
York City.
[32] SSA accepts names that may not be spelled correctly as long as the
misspelling falls within an acceptable tolerance range.
[33] PRWORA requires SSA to suspend SSI benefit payments to those
wanted for felonies, but not to those wanted for misdemeanors. SSI
benefits to parole and probation violators, however, must be suspended
whether the original offense was a felony or misdemeanor.
[34] The process is different for about 10 percent of the cases in
which the SSI recipient‘s name, Social Security number, date of birth,
and gender from records SSA maintains on individuals do not match
exactly with the warrant information. These cases are forwarded to one
of the OIG‘s field offices for additional verification and, if the
identity can be verified, are referred by the OIG to the appropriate
law enforcement authorities.
[35] SSA uses the 60-day period to avoid letting fugitives know that
their status and whereabouts have been revealed before law enforcement
authorities can arrest them.
[36] Section 27 is section 28 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.
[37] Final Rule on Screening and Eviction for Drug Abuse and Other
Criminal Activity 66 FR 28783, May 24, 2001.
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext 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
[hyperlink, http://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: [hyperlink, http://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:
