Sponsored Noncitizens and Public Benefits
More Clarity in Federal Guidance and Better Access to Federal Information Could Improve Implementation of Income Eligibility Rules Gao ID: GAO-09-375 May 19, 2009Federal law restricts noncitizens' access to public benefits, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Further, when noncitizens who legally reside in this country through sponsorship of a family member apply for these benefits, they are subject to sponsor deeming, which requires benefit agencies to combine noncitizens' incomes with those of their sponsors to determine eligibility. Sponsors are also financially liable for benefits paid to the noncitizen, and benefit agencies must seek repayment for these costs. GAO was asked to analyze (1) what is known about the size of the noncitizen population potentially affected by the sponsor deeming requirements for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI; (2) to what extent have agencies implemented sponsor deeming; (3) to what extent have agencies implemented sponsor repayment. To address these, GAO analyzed federal data, surveyed states, and interviewed federal, state, and local officials.
The number of sponsored noncitizens potentially affected by sponsor deeming is unknown; however, federal restrictions on their eligibility for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI, as well as other factors, likely limit the number affected. The most recent data available suggest that 11 percent (473,000) of sponsored noncitizens applied for TANF, Medicaid, or SNAP during the course of 2007, and less than 1 percent (29,000) applied for SSI. In addition to federal restrictions, benefit agency officials reported that applicants' reluctance or inability to obtain sponsor income information further reduces instances of deeming. Nationwide, most benefit administering agencies have established sponsor deeming policies for TANF, SNAP, and SSI. However, agencies in 20 states have not done so for Medicaid, due in part to the lack of federal guidance for Medicaid on this requirement. Yet, even among administering agencies that have established policies, many expressed the desire for more federal guidance on various aspects of deeming. For example, over 60 percent of state officials reported that additional clarification on applying an exception to deeming when noncitizen applicants are indigent would be useful. Local officials also reported difficulties accessing information from the Department of Homeland Security needed to determine whether an applicant is sponsored--an essential part of the deeming process. Few agencies have taken steps to implement sponsor repayment of TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI, due in part to inconsistent federal guidance. While law requires that agencies administratively pursue repayment, federal regulations and guidance suggest it is optional. In total, only two states have pursued sponsor repayment. Benefit agency officials reported that several factors discourage pursuit of repayment. Specifically, they reported that the process involves high relative costs since noncitizens who receive benefits after deeming only qualify because both they and their sponsors have very low incomes. Officials also reported that local staff who pursue repayment for these benefits sometimes have competing priorities.
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-09-375, Sponsored Noncitizens and Public Benefits: More Clarity in Federal Guidance and Better Access to Federal Information Could Improve Implementation of Income Eligibility Rules
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-375
entitled 'Sponsored Noncitizens and Public Benefits: More Clarity in
Federal Guidance and Better Access to Federal Information Could Improve
Implementation of Income Eligibility Rules' which was released on May 29,
2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Income Security and
Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2009:
Sponsored Noncitizens and Public Benefits:
More Clarity in Federal Guidance and Better Access to Federal
Information Could Improve Implementation of Income Eligibility Rules:
GAO-09-375:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-375, a report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Federal law restricts noncitizens‘ access to public benefits, including
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Supplemental
Security Income (SSI). Further, when noncitizens who legally reside in
this country through sponsorship of a family member apply for these
benefits, they are subject to sponsor deeming, which requires benefit
agencies to combine noncitizens‘ incomes with those of their sponsors
to determine eligibility. Sponsors are also financially liable for
benefits paid to the noncitizen, and benefit agencies must seek
repayment for these costs. GAO was asked to analyze (1) what is known
about the size of the noncitizen population potentially affected by the
sponsor deeming requirements for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI; (2) to
what extent have agencies implemented sponsor deeming; (3) to what
extent have agencies implemented sponsor repayment. To address these,
GAO analyzed federal data, surveyed states, and interviewed federal,
state, and local officials.
What GAO Found:
The number of sponsored noncitizens potentially affected by sponsor
deeming is unknown; however, federal restrictions on their eligibility
for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI, as well as other factors, likely
limit the number affected. The most recent data available suggest that
11 percent (473,000) of sponsored noncitizens applied for TANF,
Medicaid, or SNAP during the course of 2007, and less than 1 percent
(29,000) applied for SSI. In addition to federal restrictions, benefit
agency officials reported that applicants‘ reluctance or inability to
obtain sponsor income information further reduces instances of deeming.
Nationwide, most benefit administering agencies have established
sponsor deeming policies for TANF, SNAP, and SSI. However, agencies in
20 states have not done so for Medicaid, due in part to the lack of
federal guidance for Medicaid on this requirement. Yet, even among
administering agencies that have established policies, many expressed
the desire for more federal guidance on various aspects of deeming. For
example, over 60 percent of state officials reported that additional
clarification on applying an exception to deeming when noncitizen
applicants are indigent would be useful. Local officials also reported
difficulties accessing information from the Department of Homeland
Security needed to determine whether an applicant is sponsored”an
essential part of the deeming process.
Few agencies have taken steps to implement sponsor repayment of TANF,
Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI, due in part to inconsistent federal guidance.
While law requires that agencies administratively pursue repayment,
federal regulations and guidance suggest it is optional. In total, only
two states have pursued sponsor repayment. Benefit agency officials
reported that several factors discourage pursuit of repayment.
Specifically, they reported that the process involves high relative
costs since noncitizens who receive benefits after deeming only qualify
because both they and their sponsors have very low incomes. Officials
also reported that local staff who pursue repayment for these benefits
sometimes have competing priorities.
Figure: Sponsor Deeming and Repayment Processes:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Deeming:
Applicant: Contacts local benefit administering agency;
Local benefit administering agency: adds applicant and sponsor's income
together;
Applicant is eligible if under income threshold;
Repayment:
Eligible applicant receives benefit from Local benefit administering
agency;
Local benefit administering agency: bills sponsor for benefit costs.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)
provide additional guidance on sponsor deeming and the Secretary of
Homeland Security improve access to information on who is sponsored.
Both agencies generally agreed with the recommendations, although HHS
disagreed that additional guidance specifically for TANF was needed.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-375]. For more
information, contact Kay Brown at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Restrictions on Sponsored Noncitizens' Eligibility for Benefits, and
Other Factors, Limit the Number Potentially Affected by Sponsor
Deeming:
Most Agencies Have Taken Steps to Implement Sponsor Deeming, but Gaps
in Federal Guidance and Noncitizen Information Hinder Full
Implementation:
Agencies Generally Have Not Implemented Sponsor Repayment, Due in Part
to Unclear Federal Guidance and Other Factors:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Federal and State Responsibilities for Key Program Functions
Vary:
Figures:
Figure 1: Steps Generally Involved in Processing a Sponsored
Noncitizen's Benefit Application:
Figure 2: Federal Eligibility Restrictions and Other Factors Likely
Limit the Number of Sponsored Noncitizens Affected by Deeming and
Receiving Benefits:
Figure 3: Number of States in Which There Is a Sponsor Deeming Policy,
by Benefit:
Figure 4: State Administering Agencies' Views on Areas for Which
Additional Federal Assistance Would Be Useful:
Figure 5: Example of Variation Regarding When an Indigence Exception Is
Determined in the Application Process:
Figure 6: Number of States in Which There Is a Sponsor Repayment
Policy, by Benefit:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
CMS: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
HHS: Health and Human Services:
IIRIRA: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act:
LPR: legal permanent resident:
OIS: Office of Immigration Statistics:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act:
SAVE: Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements:
SCHIP: State Children's Health Insurance Program:
SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:
SSI: Supplemental Security Income:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 19, 2009:
The Honorable John Linder:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Linder:
To ensure that the availability of public benefits does not provide an
incentive for immigration and that noncitizens residing in this country
are self-reliant, Congress significantly limited noncitizens' access to
public benefits through the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).
Key federal means-tested public benefits involved are: Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),[Footnote 1] and Supplemental
Security Income (SSI). In many cases, the 1996 legislation restricted
entire categories of legal noncitizens, such as those who have resided
in the United States fewer than 5 years, from receiving these benefits.
For those legal noncitizens who obtained their status through the
financial sponsorship of a family member, there is an additional
restriction. Sponsored noncitizens[Footnote 2] generally cannot qualify
for benefits unless their incomes, combined with that of their
sponsors, are low enough to meet program eligibility thresholds--a
process known as "sponsor deeming." Sponsors must sign affidavits of
support, when these noncitizens immigrate, which verify that the
sponsors' incomes are at least 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines and pledge financial support for the noncitizens. Under the
1996 laws, this pledge of support was made legally binding and
enforceable, in part through the "sponsor repayment" provision, which
requires benefit granting agencies to seek repayment of the cost of
benefits provided to a sponsored noncitizen from the sponsor. Sponsor
repayment, in this context, is not related to error or fraud and must
be pursued after benefits are granted solely on the basis that the
sponsor agreed to be financially responsible for the noncitizen when he
or she immigrated.
Since these laws were passed and made effective, very little research
has examined how many people have been affected by the sponsor deeming
and repayment policies or how these policies have been implemented by
government agencies at the federal, regional, state, and local levels.
In light of the current economic downturn, this information may be of
growing importance, as increased numbers of sponsored noncitizens and
others may seek assistance from these benefits. Based on your request,
this report provides information on the following questions: (1) What
is known about the size of the noncitizen population potentially
affected by the sponsor deeming requirements for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP,
and SSI? (2) To what extent are agencies implementing sponsor deeming,
and what factors may hinder them? (3) To what extent are agencies
implementing sponsor repayment, and what factors may hinder them?
To answer these questions, we collected and analyzed information
through several methods. To gather relevant federal-level information,
we interviewed officials from:
* the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS) Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS), which, respectively, oversee TANF and Medicaid;
* the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service,
which oversees SNAP;
* the Social Security Administration (SSA), which oversees SSI; and:
* the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees immigration
and provides noncitizen information to benefit administering agencies
through its Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE)
system.
As criteria for policy implementation, we reviewed relevant federal
laws, regulations, and agency guidance. We also reviewed available
federal data on noncitizens, as well as benefit applicants and
recipients and, when appropriate, used these to produce estimates
related to sponsored noncitizens. Through interviews with agency
officials, as well as our own analyses, we determined that these data
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To gather regional, state, and local information on sponsor deeming and
repayment implementation, we used several methods. First, to collect
information on TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP, which are administered by
states, we conducted a Web-based survey of state administrators of each
of these benefits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia between
August and October 2008.[Footnote 3] All administrators responded to
our survey. While we did not validate specific information that
administrators reported through our survey, we reviewed their
responses, and we conducted follow-up as necessary to determine that
their responses were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report. Second, we conducted site visits in
five states selected because they had significant populations of legal
permanent residents and low-income, foreign born residents, as both of
these populations include sponsored noncitizens and are captured in
federal data. The selected states - California, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, and Minnesota - also provided geographic variation. In each
state, we interviewed state-level benefit administrators, as well as
officials from two to five local offices within a selected region that
had experienced significant growth in its legal permanent resident
population in recent years. Through both the survey and site visits, we
collected data on sponsored noncitizen applicants and recipients from
the limited number of states and localities that could provide such
information, and we determined that these data were sufficiently
reliable to include in this report. Third, to collect information on
sponsor deeming and repayment in SSI, which is federally administered
by SSA, we interviewed officials from all 10 SSA regional offices. We
also interviewed researchers knowledgeable about immigrant and public
benefit issues.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2008 to May 2009, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for
additional information on our methodology.
Background:
The passage of PRWORA significantly limited the conditions under which
legal permanent residents (LPR) are eligible for federal means-tested
public benefits. LPRs are noncitizens who are legally permitted to live
permanently in the United States and include those who obtain this
status through the sponsorship of a family member, an employer-based
preference, or are granted asylum or refugee status.[Footnote 4]
Benefits affected by the law include TANF,[Footnote 5] which provides
time-limited cash assistance and other support services; Medicaid,
which provides health care assistance; SNAP, which provides food
assistance; and SSI, which provides cash assistance to the aged, blind,
and disabled.
One particular subgroup of LPRs affected by the PRWORA changes to
eligibility requirements for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI includes
those who obtained their LPR status through sponsorship by a relative
who is also a LPR or U.S. citizen. Specifically, sponsored noncitizens
who entered the United States on or after the passage of PRWORA on
August 22, 1996, are generally only eligible for TANF, Medicaid, and
SNAP after they have been in the United States for 5 years and eligible
for SSI after they have been credited with 40 quarters of work. Certain
veterans, active duty military, and their spouses and children, are
exempted from these time-and work-related criteria, as are children
under the age of 18 who apply for SNAP benefits. As with all benefit
applicants, after sponsored noncitizens are determined to be qualified
for benefits based on their noncitizen status, their eligibility is
assessed on other criteria. For example, because these benefits are
means-tested, applicants' income and asset information is reviewed to
determine whether they fall below the established financial eligibility
threshold for each benefit.[Footnote 6]
At the same time that it limited the conditions under which sponsored
noncitizens are eligible for benefits, PRWORA, along with IIRIRA,
strengthened the requirement that sponsors demonstrate their ability to
provide financial support, if needed, to immigrating noncitizens.
Consequently, since December 19, 1997, a sponsor must sign a legally
binding affidavit of support as part of each sponsored noncitizen's
immigration application, which proves that the sponsor's income is at
least 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.[Footnote 7] The
affidavit, as a formal contract between the sponsor and the noncitizen,
also specifies that the sponsor will provide necessary support to
maintain the noncitizen at an annual income of no less than 125 percent
of the federal poverty guidelines while the affidavit is enforceable.
[Footnote 8] The goal of the strengthened affidavit, as stated in
PRWORA, is to ensure that sponsored noncitizens do not become public
charges.
Sponsor Deeming and Repayment in Federal Law:
Sponsor deeming is the attribution of the income and resources of the
noncitizen's sponsor (and that of the sponsor's spouse, if any) as the
applicant's own income when determining benefit eligibility and benefit
amounts. Specifically, when the sponsor's income is deemed, it is added
to that of the applicant, and that sum is compared with the benefit's
financial eligibility threshold.[Footnote 9] Therefore, if sponsor
deeming occurs, benefits are only granted to sponsored noncitizens when
both they and their sponsors are sufficiently low-income.[Footnote 10]
Policies requiring sponsor deeming for noncitizen benefit applicants
existed prior to 1996. However, PRWORA strengthened these deeming
policies by generally extending the deeming period from 3 years to when
the noncitizen naturalizes or has been credited with 40 quarters of
work in the United States, or when the sponsor dies. Medicaid was also
later added as a benefit subject to sponsor deeming, in addition to
TANF, SSI, and SNAP.[Footnote 11]
IIRIRA, which was passed shortly after PRWORA, specified two exceptions
to sponsor deeming for battery and indigence. A battery exception to
sponsor deeming can be made by a benefit agency if a sponsored
noncitizen benefit applicant is a battered spouse, child, or parent or
child of a battered person.[Footnote 12] An indigence exception to
sponsor deeming can be made by a benefit agency if a sponsored
noncitizen benefit applicant is unable to obtain food and shelter
despite any assistance provided by the sponsor or others. These cases
may include instances in which the sponsor has abandoned the noncitizen
or is otherwise unable to provide the noncitizen with sufficient
financial support. For any case in which the indigence exception is
applied, the administering agency processing the application must send
details related to the case, including the name of the sponsored
noncitizen and the sponsor, to DHS. Both exceptions may be granted for
1 year, and agencies may extend the exceptions in certain circumstances
after reassessing the case at that time.
Sponsor repayment is the collection of benefit costs paid to a
sponsored noncitizen by a benefit administering agency from that
person's sponsor. This provision, which originated with PRWORA, is
designed to legally enforce the affidavit of support, which pledges a
sponsor's continuous financial support of the noncitizen. Accordingly,
under the law, whenever a sponsored noncitizen receives federal means-
tested public benefits, the administering agency that provided the
benefit must request repayment of the benefit costs from the sponsor.
If sponsors do not repay benefits after the agency's request, the
agency may also pursue repayment from the sponsor through court action,
if it so chooses. These sponsor repayment provisions are separate from
the traditional benefit recovery provisions used in cases of benefit
fraud or payment error.
Agency Roles in Implementing the Deeming and Repayment Policies:
Federal and state agencies have different roles in overseeing and
administering the four federal means-tested public benefits. SSI is
overseen and administered by federal SSA staff across the country. In
contrast, TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP are generally overseen by the
relevant federal agencies and administered by states, although specific
roles vary by program (see table 1). For all four benefits,
administering agencies are responsible for deeming sponsor income
during the application process and pursuing sponsor repayment of
benefits received by sponsored noncitizens. In the case of SSI, these
administering agencies are SSA regional and field offices. For TANF,
Medicaid, and SNAP, the administering agencies are state and local
benefit offices.
Table 1: Federal and State Responsibilities for Key Program Functions
Vary:
Key functions: Funding benefits;
Program: TANF: federal and state shared responsibility;
Program: Medicaid: federal and state shared responsibility;
Program: SNAP: federal responsibility;
Program: SSI: federal responsibility.
Key functions: Funding administrative costs;
Program: TANF: federal and state shared responsibility;
Program: Medicaid: federal and state shared responsibility;
Program: SNAP: federal and state shared responsibility;
Program: SSI: federal responsibility.
Key functions: Establishing eligibility rules;
Program: TANF: federal and state shared responsibility;
Program: Medicaid: federal and state shared responsibility;
Program: SNAP: federal and state shared responsibility[A];
Program: SSI: federal responsibility.
Source: GAO.
[A] SNAP eligibility rules are established by the federal agency, but
states may chose certain state options for eligibility.
[End of table]
Sponsor deeming is implemented by staff at the administering agency as
part of the benefit application process. While agencies vary to some
degree in the methods used to process applications, the method used for
noncitizen applicants for whom deeming applies generally involves
several steps (see figure 1). First, eligibility workers processing
these cases typically review an applicant's documents, such as an LPR
or green card, to determine noncitizen status and verify the
information they contain using DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) automated SAVE system.[Footnote 13] Workers may then
determine whether an applicant has a sponsor by obtaining verification
from USCIS or by obtaining proof from the noncitizen. Once workers
determine that the noncitizen applicant is sponsored, they assess the
applicant's benefit eligibility based on the benefit-specific criteria.
To assess income eligibility, the worker requests proof of the
applicant's income and asset information, as well as that of the
sponsor, such as tax forms or other financial documents. Upon receipt
of that documentation, the worker performs the deeming step to
determine whether the applicant's income, when coupled with the
sponsor's, is below the benefit-specific financial eligibility
thresholds.
Figure 1: Steps Generally Involved in Processing a Sponsored
Noncitizen's Benefit Application:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Noncitizen applies for benefits:
TANF; Medicaid; SNAP; SSI;
Review applicant documents:
Eligibility worker requests and reviews applicant‘s noncitizen
documents (e.g., green card).
Verify citizenship status:
Worker seeks to verify noncitizenship status as LPR who is potentially
eligible for benefits through USCIS.
Check sponsor information:
Worker asks applicant if she/he is sponsored and seeks to confirm
answer through USCIS or other means.
Request and review sponsor‘s income information:
Worker obtains information on the sponsor‘s current income through the
applicant, sponsor, or other means.
Deeming sponsor income:
Worker …deems‘ or counts the sponsor‘s income when determining
eligibility.
Ineligible if income is over threshold; or;
Eligible if income is under threshold.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Sponsor repayment is also implemented by staff at the administering
agency, though after benefits are received by the sponsored noncitizen.
Federal law and DHS regulations on affidavits of support define several
steps that agencies must follow when pursuing sponsor repayment.
Specifically, once benefits have been received by a sponsored
noncitizen, the administering agency must contact the sponsor in
writing and request repayment of the costs associated with those
benefits. The written request must include several elements, such as
the name and address of the noncitizen, dates benefits were provided,
and amount of the benefits. If the sponsor has not responded to the
written request by either repaying the benefit costs or indicating a
willingness to pay after 45 days, the agency may initiate litigation to
recover benefit costs from the sponsor.
Restrictions on Sponsored Noncitizens' Eligibility for Benefits, and
Other Factors, Limit the Number Potentially Affected by Sponsor
Deeming:
The number of sponsored noncitizens potentially affected by sponsor
deeming is unknown; however, factors such as the restrictions on their
eligibility for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI, as well as the deeming
process itself, likely limit the number affected. Overall,
approximately 12.8 million legal noncitizens, including sponsored and
nonsponsored, were permanently residing in the United States as of
January 1, 2007, according to the most recent DHS estimates
available.[Footnote 14] We estimate that around 4.2 million of those
individuals obtained their legal noncitizen status via an executed
affidavit of support, whereby the sponsor assumed financial
responsibility for the noncitizen.[Footnote 15] Because demographic
data for this population, such as income and length of U.S. residency,
are unavailable,[Footnote 16] it is unknown how many of these
individuals are eligible for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, or SSI.
The total number of sponsored noncitizens that apply for these benefits
is also unknown, in part because most federal benefit agencies do not
collect this data. However, during 2007, TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP
administering agency staff used DHS's SAVE system to verify the
noncitizen status of approximately 473,000 applicants who were
sponsored--a step typically taken when noncitizens apply for benefits.
[Footnote 17] This is approximately 11 percent of the estimated
sponsored noncitizen population in the United States as of January 1,
2007,[Footnote 18] and it is the best proxy available for the number of
sponsored noncitizen applicants for these three programs. In addition,
approximately 29,000 (0.7 percent) sponsored noncitizens applied for
SSI benefits in that year, according to SSA data.[Footnote 19]
Local benefit agency staff we spoke with during our five site visits
reported that sponsored noncitizens currently constitute a small
proportion of the people they encounter applying for benefits. For
example, staff in many of the local offices we visited said that they
encounter only a few sponsored noncitizen applicants each month, though
staff in other offices said they saw these applicants more frequently.
Some staff noted that the number of sponsored noncitizens seeking TANF,
Medicaid, or SNAP benefits noticeably dropped, and has remained low,
since PRWORA became effective. Specifically, staff cited the PRWORA
requirement that sponsored noncitizens live in the United States for 5
years before they become eligible for those benefits as a significant
contributor to this change.
Likewise, SSA officials we spoke to reported that eligibility
restrictions imposed by PRWORA caused a similar drop in the number of
sponsored noncitizens pursuing SSI benefits. The requirement that most
sponsored noncitizens obtain credit for at least 40 quarters of work to
be eligible for SSI benefits was frequently cited by staff at regional
SSA offices as causing this decrease.[Footnote 20] Staff at all
regional offices reported that they continue to encounter few sponsored
noncitizens applying for SSI.
When sponsored noncitizens do apply for benefits, staff at most of the
local offices we visited during our site visits told us that very few
of these applications for TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP progress to the
point where local staff deem sponsor income.[Footnote 21] The perceived
low incidence of deeming was also supported by state administering
agency officials through our survey, as 69 percent indicated that cases
involving sponsor deeming had seldom or never occurred in their states
during the past 2 years.[Footnote 22] Local officials in several
offices indicated that applicants often withdraw their applications
after they are made aware of the sponsor deeming rules. State and local
staff also cited the reluctance or inability of the sponsored
noncitizen applicant to obtain sponsor income information as a reason
that the application process frequently ends before deeming occurs.
Staff reported the following examples of situations:
* some applicants withdraw their applications because they do not wish
to bother their sponsor with a request for income documentation;
* some withdraw because they are concerned about how their pursuit of
benefits will impact their sponsors' ability to remain in the United
States or naturalize, if their sponsors are legal noncitizens
themselves;
* some withdraw after being told their sponsor may be asked to repay
the benefits in the future, as specified by federal law;
* some applicants' sponsors cannot be located, resulting in denial of
the application due to lack of sponsor income information; and,
* some applicants' sponsors refuse to provide income information, also
resulting in denial of the application.
Officials from SSA also reported a low incidence of sponsor deeming
during the processing of SSI benefits. For example, officials from all
10 SSA regional offices reported that deeming has occurred either
rarely or never since PRWORA became effective. Specifically, because
the sponsor deeming policy does not apply to sponsored noncitizens
credited with 40 quarters of work, and most sponsored noncitizens are
only eligible for SSI if they have satisfied the 40-quarter work
eligibility requirement, deeming is inevitably rare. As a result, only
sponsored noncitizens who apply for SSI and are exempted from the 40-
quarter work eligibility criteria, such as those with military
connections, are subject to sponsor deeming.
While local staff from our five site visit states reported that sponsor
deeming has been applied in a limited number of cases at their offices,
the extent to which deeming has affected whether sponsored noncitizens
receive benefits or the amount of benefits they receive is unknown.
However, selected federal and state data that we were able to obtain
provide some insight into the proportion of benefit recipients that are
sponsored noncitizens.[Footnote 23] For instance, less than 0.4 percent
of SSI recipients were sponsored noncitizens during the years 2004
through 2007, according to SSA.[Footnote 24] Similarly, Florida, which
has a relatively large noncitizen population, reported that, in
December 2008, less than 0.05 percent of TANF, Medicaid, or SNAP
recipients were sponsored noncitizens. Utah and Minnesota also have few
sponsored noncitizens receiving TANF and SNAP, with their proportions
ranging from zero to 0.9 percent of each benefit's total recipients.
[Footnote 25] Figure 2 shows the progression of sponsored noncitizens
through the benefit application and sponsor deeming processes to become
recipients.
Figure 2: Federal Eligibility Restrictions and Other Factors Likely
Limit the Number of Sponsored Noncitizens Affected by Deeming and
Receiving Benefits:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Legal permanent residents: about 12.8 million.
Sponsored noncitizens: about 4.2 million.
Local benefit administering agency: about 473,000 noncitizens applied
for TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP; about 29,000 applied for SSI.
Applicant eligible? ineligible (narrows the number of sponsored
noncitizens): Applicants don‘t meet PRWORA eligibility requirements
(e.g., 5-year residency) and denied benefits.
Sponsor‘s income? ineligible (narrows the number of sponsored
noncitizens): Sponsor‘s income information not provided; applicant
withdraws, or is denied benefits.
Deeming: Add sponsor and applicant‘s income together: ineligible
(narrows the number of sponsored noncitizens): Applicant is ineligible
if over income threshold and denied benefits.
Remaining eligible applicants receive benefits.
Sources: GAO; estimates from DHS and SSA 2007 data.
Note: Conceptual depiction; figure not drawn to scale.
[End of figure]
Most Agencies Have Taken Steps to Implement Sponsor Deeming, but Gaps
in Federal Guidance and Noncitizen Information Hinder Full
Implementation:
Most Administering Agencies Have Established Sponsor Deeming Policies
but Report Needing Additional Federal Guidance:
Although benefit administering agencies have generally established
sponsor deeming policies for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI, based on
federal regulations and federal guidance,[Footnote 26] inaction by CMS
has stalled some states' implementation of sponsor deeming in Medicaid.
SSA disseminated SSI guidance to staff nationwide in 2000 addressing
the sponsor deeming provisions under the 1996 legislation. As a result,
field office staff nationwide have implemented sponsor deeming in SSI
by following procedures and using automated systems established by SSA
headquarters. Similarly, USDA and HHS issued guidance to state benefit
administering agencies in 2003 on sponsor deeming for SNAP and TANF,
respectively. Accordingly, all state agencies administering SNAP
reported in our survey that they have established sponsor deeming
policies, and administering agencies in all but five states reported
having established sponsor deeming policies for TANF. In contrast, CMS
has not issued formal guidance regarding sponsor deeming for Medicaid,
[Footnote 27] and CMS officials stated that the agency does not
currently have plans to do so. Thus, fewer administering agencies (31)
have established policies for Medicaid, and officials from a few states
cited the lack of guidance from CMS as a reason for their unwillingness
to establish sponsor deeming policies in their Medicaid programs.
Officials in one state referred to the issue's political sensitivity
and the high cost of reworking automated eligibility systems to include
sponsor deeming as reasons they would not act without clear federal
guidance. (See figure 3.)
Figure 3: Number of States in Which There Is a Sponsor Deeming Policy,
by Benefit:
[Refer to PDF for image: four pie-charts]
Number of States in Which There Is a Sponsor Deeming Policy, by
Benefit:
TANF:
Have a policy: 46 states;
Do not have a policy: 5 states.
Medicaid:
Have a policy: 31 states;
Do not have a policy: 20 states.
SNAP:
Have a policy: 51 states;
Do not have a policy: 0 states.
SSI:
Have a policy: 51 states;
Do not have a policy: 0 states.
Sources: GAO survey of state administrators of TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP
(from left to right, first three pie charts); SSA Program Operations
Manual System (see SSI pie chart far right).
Note: For SSI, SSA eligibility staff follow uniform federal-level
policies that cover all states and the District of Columbia.
[End of figure]
Although most administering agencies have established sponsor deeming
policies, agency officials reported that additional guidance in certain
areas would be helpful. Specifically, between 60 and 70 percent of
state administering agencies with sponsor deeming policies for TANF,
Medicaid, or SNAP expressed some desire for more guidance on various
aspects of deeming (see figure 4). For example, about 70 percent
reported that clarification on how to handle cases where information on
the sponsor's income is determined to be unobtainable would be
moderately, extremely, or very useful. In addition, many reported that
additional federal guidance on areas related to the indigence exception
to deeming would be useful.[Footnote 28] Guidance in these areas is
particularly important because how administering agencies handle
applicants who are unable to obtain sponsor income information can have
implications for how agencies apply the indigence exception, as well as
whether these applicants are determined to be eligible for benefits.
SSI guidance, as well as recently issued SNAP guidance, indicate that
when sponsor income information is unobtainable an indigence exception
is to be considered; however, federal TANF guidance does not clearly
address this issue.
Figure 4: State Administering Agencies' Views on Areas for Which
Additional Federal Assistance Would Be Useful:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph: Percentages of
administering agencies with sponsor deeming policies]
Type of assistance: Clarification on how to handle cases in which
information on the sponsor‘ income is determined to be unobtainable;
Extremely or very useful: 56%;
Moderately useful: 14%;
Slightly or not at all useful: 25%;
Don't know: 5%.
Type of assistance: Clarification on who to send indigence exception
reports to at the federal level;
Extremely or very useful: 49%;
Moderately useful: 19%;
Slightly or not at all useful: 23%;
Don't know: 9%.
Type of assistance: Clarification on how to define indigence and who
qualifies for the indigence exception;
Extremely or very useful: 41%;
Moderately useful: 21%;
Slightly or not at all useful: 33%;
Don't know: 5%.
Type of assistance: Clarification on who qualifies for the battery or
extreme cruelty exception;
Extremely or very useful: 41%;
Moderately useful: 24%;
Slightly or not at all useful: 30%;
Don't know: 5%.
Type of assistance: Additional assistance on how to calculate the
amount of sponsor's income to deem;
Extremely or very useful: 38%;
Moderately useful: 23%;
Slightly or not at all useful: 33%;
Don't know: 5%.
Source: GAO survey of state administrators of TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP.
Note: Percentages are calculated based on the number of state
administrators who reported that their agencies had established a
sponsor deeming policy and responded to this question. For all five
types of assistance, 25 out of 153 administrators skipped this question
because they did not have a sponsor deeming policy. For the first and
third types of assistance (reading from top to bottom), two additional
administrators did not respond to this question. Percentages may not
add up to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Similarly, about 62 percent of state administering agencies reported
that clarification on how to define indigence and who qualifies for the
indigence exception would be moderately, very, or extremely useful.
Although SSI guidance and recently issued SNAP guidance indicate at
what point in the eligibility screening process indigence should be
considered, and whether those who qualify for indigence must provide
full sponsor income and asset information, federal guidance for TANF
again does not clearly address this issue. During our site visits to
five states, we found that states and localities sometimes proceed
differently, which can directly affect who is determined eligible for
benefits. In some cases, local staff are directed to consider whether
an applicant qualifies for an indigence exception before deeming
occurs. Accordingly, if the agency's indigence criteria are met, the
applicant can qualify for benefits regardless of the applicant's
ability or willingness to provide full sponsor income information and
without deeming the sponsor's income. In these cases, the eligibility
worker counts only the actual amount of income or assistance the
applicant receives from the sponsor, rather than deeming all or most of
the sponsor's income and assets. One local official stated that
eligibility staff in his locality assess an applicant's eligibility for
the indigence exception before deeming and, though staff do not serve
many sponsored noncitizens, those that do apply typically qualify for
benefits this way.[Footnote 29] In contrast, the policy in some other
localities is to require applicants to provide sponsor income
information before considering an exception. For these agencies,
applicants who are unable or unwilling to provide sponsor income
information are not considered for an indigence exception. One local
official expressed concern that this requirement results in applicants,
whose sponsors have essentially abandoned them, being denied benefits.
(See fig. 5 for one example of how this process could vary.)
Figure 5: Example of Variation Regarding When an Indigence Exception Is
Determined in the Application Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Sponsored applicant:
1) Indigence exception:
Yes (applicant meets indigence criteria): proceed to #9.
No: proceed to #2.
2) Sponsor's income is checked;
3) No sponsor‘s income information provided: applicant withdraws,
sponsor cannot be located, or sponsor refuses to provide information;
4) ineligible.
5) Sponsor's income is checked; Sponsor‘s current information provided;
6) Indigence exception?
If yes, proceed to #9;
If no, proceed to #7.
7) Deeming: Add sponsor and applicant‘s income together;
8) Over income threshold: ineligible;
9) Under income threshold: eligible.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Administering agencies also reported that additional federal guidance
on other areas related to the indigence and battery exceptions would be
helpful. For example, administering agencies are required to report
indigence exception cases to DHS,[Footnote 30] but neither DHS
regulations nor federal benefit agency guidance provides the correct
address for them to do so. As a result, state officials in four of the
five states we visited did not have the correct address to send
indigence reports, and some told us that they have not reported these
cases to DHS. DHS officials also told us that they may not be receiving
reports of every indigence exception case. Consequently, DHS has
incomplete information on which sponsors are failing to financially
support the noncitizens for which they signed affidavits of support.
[Footnote 31] In addition, about two-thirds of state administering
agencies reported in our survey that further clarification on who
qualifies for the battery exception would be useful.[Footnote 32]
However, among local officials we spoke with, some stated they have
never made a battery exception.
Administering Agencies Also Reported Needing Assistance Accessing
Federal Information Needed to Determine Who Is Sponsored:
Administering agency officials reported that additional federal
assistance on accessing DHS information needed to determine who is
sponsored would also help them implement sponsor deeming policies.
Specifically, state or local officials in each of the five states we
visited reported difficulties accessing DHS information needed to
determine whether a noncitizen applicant has a sponsor, and 65 percent
of agencies administering these benefits nationwide reported that more
specific policies on using SAVE in determining sponsorship would be
useful. Agencies' difficulties in using SAVE could leave them
vulnerable to fraud or improper payments because SAVE is a key
mechanism for verifying eligibility and sponsorship status.[Footnote
33] DHS officials stated that the agency provided SAVE users with
technical assistance focused on using the automated system to obtain
sponsorship information when this feature became available in 2005, and
it continues to offer SAVE technical assistance through user-directed
online tools and instructor-led seminars or webinars upon request.
[Footnote 34] However, 30 to 40 percent of administering agencies for
TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP reported that they had not received any
technical assistance or communication from DHS on determining if a
noncitizen applicant has a sponsor.
As a result, benefit agencies report that staff commonly use SAVE to
verify noncitizen information, but not all staff are aware of how to
use SAVE to obtain sponsorship information. As an initial step, staff
in all local offices we visited use DHS's automated SAVE system to
verify the applicant's basic noncitizen information, such as name and
admission code.[Footnote 35] Some local officials said SAVE provides
this information quickly and easily. However, not all local offices we
visited were aware that, by taking an additional step, the automated
SAVE system can provide information on whether that person is
sponsored. Specifically, the system can provide the sponsor's name and
address to administering agencies, usually within a few days. Instead,
staff in some local offices used methods to verify sponsorship that
either took longer or were less reliable, sometimes because they were
unaware of the option to use SAVE. For example, some local officials
said eligibility staff manually submit paper request forms to DHS,
which usually results in a response within a few weeks but may take
several months. In other local offices, staff use the noncitizen's
admission code provided by SAVE to determine whether the applicant has
a sponsor. However, many different codes indicate that a noncitizen is
sponsored, and DHS has not provided administering agencies with an
official list specifying which group of codes indicate sponsorship.
Thus, eligibility staff sometimes rely on lists of codes developed in
their own offices, which may not be fully accurate.[Footnote 36] Some
state and local officials said that maintaining such lists is
challenging because admission codes are numerous and can change.
Agencies Generally Have Not Implemented Sponsor Repayment, Due in Part
to Unclear Federal Guidance and Other Factors:
Federal Regulations and Guidance Suggest Pursuit of Sponsor Repayment
Is Optional, and Very Few Administering Agencies Pursue Repayment:
Although federal law states that benefit granting agencies must
administratively pursue sponsor repayment, DHS regulations on
affidavits of support, as well as some federal benefit agency guidance,
suggest that administrative pursuit of sponsor repayment is optional.
Specifically, the law states that benefit administering agencies that
have granted a means-tested public benefit to a sponsored noncitizen
"shall request reimbursement by the sponsor." The law also states that
if the sponsor does not respond to this request within 45 days, "an
action may be brought against the sponsor" in court to enforce the
affidavit of support. The DHS regulations on affidavits of support,
however, simply describe the process a benefit agency must go through
if the agency "wants to seek reimbursement" from a sponsor. In
addition, the Federal Register notice accompanying the issuance of the
DHS regulations, states that "the agency may seek reimbursement" if a
sponsored noncitizen receives a means-tested benefit.
When asked about this apparent discrepancy between the language in the
statute and that in the regulations and Federal Register notice, a
USCIS Associate Counsel explained that the regulations are intended to
describe the process agencies must use when they pursue sponsor
repayment rather than address whether they are required to do so. As
stated in the Federal Register notice, "the request for reimbursement
[is] a prerequisite to suit," but the act "does not require the agency
to sue." Accordingly, DHS concluded that a request for reimbursement
does not have to be made if the agency has no intention to sue.
Agencies generally have enforcement discretion in carrying out laws,
and the USCIS Associate Counsel noted that the decision of whether to
pursue sponsor repayment involves an exercise of the federal benefit
agencies' discretion. He added that federal benefit agencies may
require their benefit administering agencies to pursue sponsor
repayment by issuing their own pertinent regulations. While the federal
benefit agencies have not issued related regulations, some have issued
federal guidance that also suggests pursuit of sponsor repayment is
optional.
The importance of this issue was noted by state administering agency
officials. Specifically, over two-thirds of the TANF, Medicaid, and
SNAP state agency officials responding to our survey reported that
clarification on whether it is mandatory or optional for agencies to
administratively pursue sponsor repayment would be moderately, very, or
extremely useful.[Footnote 37] A few benefit administering agency
officials we spoke with noted that their state policies indicate locals
"may" pursue sponsor repayment and, in those states, local staff are
not pursuing repayment.
Nationwide, most state benefit administering agencies reported that
they have not established policies on sponsor repayment for TANF,
Medicaid, or SNAP. In contrast, SSA has established a sponsor repayment
policy for SSI benefits, which applies nationwide. (See figure 6.)
Figure 6: Number of States in Which There Is a Sponsor Repayment
Policy, by Benefit:
[Refer to PDF for image: four pie-charts]
Number of States in Which There Is a Sponsor Repayment Policy, by
Benefit:
TANF:
Have a policy: 16;
Don't have a policy: 28;
Don't know: 2.
Medicaid:
Have a policy: 7;
Don't have a policy: 20;
Don't know: 4.
SNAP:
Have a policy: 21;
Don't have a policy: 27;
Don't know: 3.
SSI:
Have a policy: 51;
Don't have a policy: 0;
Don't know: 0.
Sources: GAO survey of state administrators of TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP
(from left to right, first three pie charts); SSA Program Operations
Manual System (see SSI pie chart far right).
Notes: In our survey, we assumed that state benefit administering
agencies without a sponsor deeming policy in place would similarly not
have a sponsor repayment policy. Therefore, state agencies without a
sponsor deeming policy were not asked about sponsor repayment in our
survey--5 for TANF, and 20 for Medicaid. For SSI, SSA eligibility staff
follow uniform federal-level policies that cover all states and the
District of Columbia.
[End of figure]
However, even in states with sponsor repayment policies formally in
place, state and local staff do not always understand the unique
characteristics of the sponsor repayment provisions. For example, a few
staff we spoke to during one of our site visits thought that the 1996
sponsor repayment provisions apply only when sponsored noncitizens
receive benefits erroneously or in greater amounts than they are
eligible for, as is the case with traditional benefit recovery
provisions.[Footnote 38] A few others believed that the provisions
require the federal government, rather than state or local
administering agencies, to pursue sponsor repayment of benefits. In
addition, some of the state and local officials we interviewed in one
state were unaware of the sponsor repayment provisions and surprised to
see that they were included in their state's policy manuals.
Officials from only two states reported in our survey that they have
pursued sponsor repayment of TANF, Medicaid, or SNAP benefits.
Similarly, SSA officials told us that neither its regional nor field
offices have pursued sponsor repayment of SSI benefits.[Footnote 39]
With the exception of SSA, federal benefit agency officials we
interviewed did not know if their administering agencies had pursued
sponsor repayment, as neither federal law nor regulations require that
these efforts be monitored. In addition, neither federal law nor
federal regulations impose penalties on administering agencies that do
not pursue sponsor repayment.
Of the two states that reported pursuing sponsor repayment, neither was
doing so for all cases. Specifically, Connecticut and New York state
officials reported that some of their local offices have pursued
sponsor repayment of TANF, Medicaid, or SNAP benefits received by
sponsored noncitizens. In addition, these states have pursued repayment
in different ways, and the full extent of their implementation is
unknown.
* Connecticut's sponsor repayment policy requires that after local
staff grant a sponsored noncitizen TANF, Medicaid, or SNAP benefits,
they refer the case to local resource recovery staff. According to
officials, the resource recovery staff are expected to initiate an
investigation, which involves obtaining a copy of the affidavit of
support and assessing the amount of benefits paid to the noncitizen,
and then send a letter to the sponsor requesting repayment. If the
sponsor does not respond to this request, local staff are to submit the
case to the Connecticut Attorney General. However, while Connecticut
officials consider this to be the state's sponsor repayment policy, it
is still in draft, and they report that not all offices have pursued
repayment. In addition, sponsor repayment in Connecticut has been on
hold statewide since March 2007, when several legal services
organizations questioned the legality of this policy in a complaint
letter.[Footnote 40] Connecticut state officials did not know how many
cases were pursued prior to that time or how many benefits were repaid
by sponsors.
* In New York, a state official reported that sponsor repayment is to
be pursued when noncitizens receive TANF or SNAP benefits after
qualifying for the indigence exception to deeming.[Footnote 41] In
these cases, local staff are to send a request for repayment to the
sponsor. The official noted that New York's policies for TANF and SNAP
indicate that counties should pursue sponsor repayment of benefits paid
to sponsored noncitizens; however, individual counties have some
discretion in determining whether to pursue sponsor repayment in each
specific case. He indicated that repayment has been pursued
administratively by several counties, but he did not know for how many
cases.
Administering Agencies Reported That High Relative Costs, Competing
Priorities, and Limited Federal Guidance Hinder Their Pursuit of
Sponsor Repayment:
During our site visits, some state and local TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP
officials suggested that pursuing sponsor repayment has clear costs and
unclear financial benefits. Specifically, if a sponsored noncitizen
qualifies to receive benefits after sponsor deeming occurs, it is
because both the noncitizen and the sponsor are low-income. Agencies
that pursue repayment of benefits from those sponsors may, therefore,
expend more in administrative and potential court costs than they are
able to recover from the sponsors. Because of these high relative
costs, several officials we spoke to indicated that sponsor repayment,
as it is currently defined in federal law, does not make sense for
administering agencies to pursue.
Some state and local TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP officials told us that
the staff who pursue sponsor repayment sometimes have competing
priorities that also discourage the pursuit of sponsors for repayment.
Local recovery staff we spoke to in one state noted that their office
is significantly understaffed for the investigations it is required to
perform for cases of benefit fraud and overpayment. While benefit
agencies have access to DHS information on sponsors, including their
names and addresses,[Footnote 42] the local recovery staff we spoke to
said that pursuing sponsor repayment is particularly labor intensive
because there is no national-or state-established infrastructure to
efficiently and effectively track down and bill sponsors for repayment.
Other state officials we spoke to reported that administering agencies
would like to pursue sponsor repayment through the courts, but the
state or county attorneys who need to litigate these cases have other
higher priority cases to pursue.
Benefit administering agencies also reported that additional federal
guidance on sponsor repayment is needed to assist implementation. For
example, approximately two-thirds of the TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP state
benefit administering agency officials responding to our survey
reported that specific federal guidance on how to pursue sponsor
repayment administratively, and when to pursue sponsor repayment
administratively or in the courts, would be moderately, very, or
extremely useful.[Footnote 43] While HHS guidance for TANF
administering agencies notes that states may want to consider the
sponsor's particular circumstances, such as financial status, and other
feasibility factors in determining whether to pursue sponsor repayment
of TANF benefits, other federal benefit agencies' guidance does not
address this issue. In addition, during one of our site visits, state
administering agency officials indicated that they would benefit from
additional federal guidance on pursuing sponsor repayment for cases
involving a battery exception to deeming. In these cases, the batterer
may be the sponsor. However, DHS regulations require that agencies
pursuing sponsor repayment send a letter to the sponsor containing
several elements, including the noncitizen benefit recipient's address.
Conclusions:
The PRWORA and IIRIRA changes to sponsor deeming and repayment in TANF,
Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI, coupled with simultaneous changes to
noncitizen eligibility for these benefits, were intended in part to
"assure that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national
immigration policy." While the laws' restrictions on noncitizen benefit
eligibility directly work toward this goal, sponsor deeming and
repayment efforts have not been as effective, in part because benefit
administering agencies do not have the information and guidance they
need to implement these provisions as intended.
Specifically, agencies lack clear federal guidance on implementing
deeming in Medicaid and also struggle to obtain federal information on
a noncitizen's sponsorship status from DHS. As a consequence, certain
sponsored noncitizens may receive means-tested public benefits based on
their income and assets alone, even though they have sponsors who
signed legally enforceable affidavits agreeing to support them when
they became permanent residents in this country. In addition, agencies
that are unaware of the most efficient and reliable method of accessing
a noncitizen's sponsorship status from DHS are vulnerable to benefit
fraud and improper payments. Medicaid and TANF agencies' efforts to
implement sponsor deeming have also been affected by a lack of clear
federal guidance on applying the indigence exception to deeming.
Because some low-income sponsored noncitizens have sponsors who choose
not to provide them financial assistance, or are unable to,
inconsistencies in implementation of the law's indigence exception to
sponsor deeming may cause these noncitizens unintended harm if they are
prevented from obtaining benefits.
In addition, while very few administering agencies currently are
pursuing sponsor repayment, agencies seem to be considering reasonable
factors when deciding whether to pursue repayment. Specifically,
because the sponsored noncitizens who receive means-tested benefits
after deeming occurs are those that have low-income sponsors, full
implementation of repayment may yield less than would be expended to
achieve this outcome. While the costs of pursuing repayment may be a
significant deterrent to agencies in most cases, there may be some
cases in which the monetary benefits of pursuing repayment are
substantial enough to outweigh the costs. For example, when sponsored
noncitizens receive benefits after qualifying for the indigence
exception to sponsor deeming because their sponsors have sufficient
financial means but choose not to support them, agencies may be able to
recover the costs of benefits from these sponsors. Under the current
law, federal regulations, and federal guidance, though there appears to
be inconsistency in whether pursuit of sponsor repayment is a
requirement, this does not in any way bar an administering agency from
pursuing sponsor repayment.
Because of the potentially high relative costs associated with pursuing
sponsor repayment, efforts to improve benefit administering agencies'
implementation of sponsor deeming may yield greater results. While the
limited available data suggest that sponsor deeming currently affects
relatively few people, ensuring that agencies have the federal guidance
needed to administer these provisions is of increasing importance in
the current economic environment. Specifically, it is possible that the
number of sponsored noncitizens, like citizens, applying for and
receiving these benefits will increase in the near term. If such an
increase occurs at the same time that federal and state budgets are
stretched, it will be even more important for the government to ensure
that the sponsor deeming provisions, in particular, are being
implemented in the way they were intended. If administering agencies
are better able to determine which benefit applicants are sponsored and
appropriately deem their sponsors' income, or grant related exceptions,
agencies will be less likely to either issue improper payments or
unintentionally harm noncitizens who have been abandoned by their
sponsors.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure sponsor deeming is implemented for Medicaid, we
recommend that the Administrator of CMS issue guidance to help
administering agencies implement the law in this area.
To improve consistency of benefit administering agencies' application
of the indigence exception to sponsor deeming, we recommend that the
Secretary of Health and Human Services clarify in the guidance for TANF
a suggested process for determining an applicant's eligibility for that
exception.
To help benefit administering agencies access information on sponsored
noncitizens, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take
the following two actions:
* Improve information on sponsorship status of noncitizens provided
through the automated SAVE system. For example, a class of admission
code list that indicates sponsored noncitizens could be added to the
SAVE technical assistance tools or effectively distributed to SAVE
users.
* Provide guidance to SAVE users that improves their understanding of
how to request sponsor information through the automated SAVE system
rather than through manual submission of paper request forms.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to HHS, USDA, SSA, and DHS for
review and comment. HHS and DHS provided written comments, which appear
in appendix II and III, respectively, of the report. SSA provided no
comments.
In oral comments, HHS concurred with our recommendation that the
Administrator of CMS issue guidance on sponsor deeming for Medicaid.
However, in its written comments, HHS disagreed with our recommendation
that the Secretary of HHS clarify in the TANF guidance the process for
determining indigence exceptions to sponsor deeming. HHS stated that,
unless there is an express law to the contrary, states have flexibility
in determining TANF eligibility procedures and also asserted that it
already addresses this issue in its guidance. We agree with HHS's
comments, in part, and revised the recommendation to add the word
"suggested" before "process" to clarify that states have flexibility in
establishing their own TANF processes for determining eligibility for
the indigence exception. However, we continue to believe that
additional federal guidance is needed, as over 60 percent of state
administering agencies reported through our survey that federal
clarification on who qualifies for the indigence exception would be
useful. In addition, procedures for determining indigence exceptions
varied in the states we visited, including whether states require
applicants to provide full sponsor income and asset information before
assessing their eligibility for this exception. While a federal HHS
official previously stated that the law suggests full sponsor income
and asset information does not need to be provided to determine an
applicant's eligibility for the indigence exception, the TANF guidance
does not clearly state this. We believe adding this clarification to
the TANF guidance would help address the inconsistencies among states
and prevent unintended harm to noncitizens who lack the support of
their sponsors.
DHS concurred with both our recommendations to help benefit
administering agencies access information on sponsored noncitizens and
indicated that it plans to take actions to address these in the coming
months. HHS, USDA, and DHS also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated into the report as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to relevant
congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and
Human Services, and Homeland Security; the Administrator of the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the Commissioner of SSA; and other
interested parties. The report also will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Kay Brown:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To obtain information on agency implementation of sponsor deeming and
repayment, as well as the population affected, we:
* reviewed available federal data on noncitizens, as well as available
federal and state data on benefit applicants and recipients, to develop
estimates of the sponsored noncitizen population and noncitizen
applicants and recipients;
* conducted a nationwide survey of states regarding Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and the Supplemental
Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP);
* visited five states and selected localities within each state and
interviewed officials administering TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP;
* interviewed officials from all 10 regional offices of the Social
Security Administration (SSA) regarding relevant Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) policies, implementation processes and challenges, and the
frequency that officials had encountered related cases;
* interviewed officials from relevant federal agencies and reviewed
pertinent federal laws, regulations, and agency guidance; and:
* interviewed researchers knowledgeable in immigrant and public benefit
issues.[Footnote 44]
We conducted this performance audit from March 2008 to May 2009, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Sponsored Noncitizen Population Estimate:
In determining the size of the sponsored noncitizen population, we
reviewed potential data sources from Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and the U.S. Census Bureau. We concluded that no single federal
data source contained the relevant information necessary to generate a
precise measure of this population. However, by combining data from
several DHS sources we were able to produce an estimate of the number
of sponsored noncitizens in the United States as of January 1, 2007.
Beginning with the overall noncitizen population, the DHS Office of
Immigration Statistics (OIS) reports annually on the estimated number
of legal permanent residents (LPR) residing in the United States.
Recently, OIS reported that approximately 12.8 million LPRs were
residing in the United States as of January 1, 2007.[Footnote 45] Upon
our request, OIS officials calculated that approximately 6.7 million of
those LPRs entered the United States after the legally enforceable
sponsor affidavit of support became effective in December 1997.
In order to estimate how many of the 6.7 million LPRs were sponsored by
a family member, we used two additional sources of DHS data. First,
from DHS, we requested a list of all admission codes denoting
sponsorship.[Footnote 46] While DHS does not have a list of all
admission codes ever issued for this group, we worked with subject
matter experts in DHS to compile a list of the codes that applied to
noncitizens sponsored by a family member during 2006 and 2007. We
determined that the codes from these 2 years would be sufficient for
our analysis, as the DHS experts attested that the resulting list would
include most of the codes applied to the sponsored noncitizens relevant
to our analysis.[Footnote 47] OIS then matched this list of codes with
their records of noncitizens who obtained LPR status in 2006 and 2007
to estimate the percentage that were sponsored. OIS estimated that 62.5
percent of LPRs obtaining this status in 2006 and 2007 were sponsored.
By applying OIS's sponsored LPR percentage of 62.5 percent to their
estimate of 6.7 million potentially sponsored LPRs, we estimate that
4.2 million sponsored noncitizens were residing in the United States as
of January 1, 2007. The data used in this estimate are limited by
assumptions made about emigration, mortality, and naturalization, which
are discussed in OIS's report, "Estimates of the Legal Permanent
Resident Population in 2007." The estimate is also limited by our
assumption that the LPR percentage for new noncitizens in 2006 and 2007
reasonably reflects that of past years. Despite these limitations, we
determined, in collaboration with an OIS official knowledgeable of the
data, that our methodology and the data used are sufficiently reliable
for establishing a rough estimate of the size of the sponsored
noncitizen population.
Noncitizen Applicant and Recipient Estimates:
In determining the number of sponsored noncitizens applying for TANF,
Medicaid, and SNAP benefits during 2007, we reviewed federal data from
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and found no source that contained
information specific to sponsored noncitizen applicants. We instead
determined, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) officials confirmed, that DHS's Systematic Alien Verification
for Entitlements (SAVE) system database is the best available proxy for
noncitizen applicants. Benefit administering agency staff from all
states typically access SAVE to obtain and verify citizenship status
for noncitizen TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP applicants.[Footnote 48] Each
time that a benefit agency staff member accesses SAVE to obtain
noncitizen information, the system captures several pieces of data,
including the date of the query and the admission code of the
applicant.
Therefore, to estimate the number of sponsored noncitizen applicants,
USCIS examined data on SAVE usage by benefit agency staff in 2007.
Specifically, USCIS matched the SAVE database with the list of
admission codes applied to noncitizens sponsored by a family member
during 2006 and 2007. Through this analysis, USCIS estimated that
benefit agency staff obtained information from SAVE on approximately
473,000 sponsored noncitizens in 2007. As noted previously, because
SAVE is typically accessed by benefit agency staff when they are
assessing noncitizen applicants, 473,000 is our proxy for sponsored
noncitizen TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP applicants. Limitations on this
estimate include the possibility that SAVE is not used by benefit
agency staff 100 percent of the time, which would result in this being
an underestimation. Conversely, benefit agency staff may access SAVE
multiple times for the same applicant, which would result in this being
an overestimation. While we are not able to estimate how often either
of these situations occurs, we determined that the SAVE data are
sufficiently reliable to use as a proxy for sponsored noncitizen
applicants of TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP nationwide.[Footnote 49]
To provide estimates on the number of noncitizens, both sponsored and
nonsponsored, receiving TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP benefits, we relied on
data we were able to obtain from the limited number of states that
maintain relevant recipient information for those benefits. Florida
officials, after analyzing state benefit data for December 2008,
reported that approximately 5.20, 8.12, and 9.50 percent of TANF,
Medicaid, and SNAP benefit recipients, respectively, were noncitizens
in that month. Further, they reported the corresponding percentages for
sponsored noncitizens were approximately 0.01, 0.04, and 0.03. Utah and
Minnesota officials were also able to provide us with information on
TANF and SNAP recipients in their states, based on analysis of state
benefit data for fiscal year 2008. Utah officials reported that
approximately 0.33 percent and 0.87 percent, respectively, of TANF and
SNAP recipients were sponsored noncitizens. Minnesota reported that no
sponsored noncitizen received TANF or SNAP benefits in that state
during fiscal year 2008. Based on our conversations with officials in
each state that provided the data, we determined that the data are
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.[Footnote 50]
SSA is the only federal benefit agency to collect and maintain
applicant and recipient data on sponsored noncitizens. To estimate the
number of sponsored noncitizen SSI applicants and recipients during
2007, SSA officials analyzed agency data on SSI applicants for that
year. Specifically, officials analyzed citizenship and sponsorship
codes for each SSI applicant in order to identify noncitizen
applicants. Based on this analysis, SSA officials reported that
approximately 5.5 percent of SSI applicants were noncitizens in 2007,
and approximately 1.1 percent were sponsored noncitizens.[Footnote 51]
Similar analysis on recipient data found that approximately 9 percent
of SSI recipients were noncitizens in that year, and approximately 0.3
percent were sponsored noncitizens. However, these are overestimates of
our target group of sponsored noncitizens because they include all
sponsored noncitizens, both those who entered the United States before
the legally enforceable affidavit of support was required and those who
entered after. Because SSA does not maintain data on each noncitizen
applicant's or recipient's date of entry into the United States, we
were unable to isolate our target group of sponsored noncitizens.
Despite this limitation, and based on our conversations with the SSA
official who provided the data, we determined that the data are
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Survey:
To better understand state implementation of sponsor deeming and
repayment for TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP, we conducted a Web-based survey
of state administrators of each of these benefits in all 50 states and
the District of Columbia. The survey was conducted between August and
October 2008 with 100 percent of state administrators responding (a
total of 153). The survey included questions about the extent that
states have encountered benefit cases involving sponsor deeming, state
policies on sponsor deeming and repayment, state efforts to pursue
repayment administratively and through the courts, the availability of
relevant data on sponsored noncitizen applicants and recipients,
implementation challenges, and areas of assistance from federal
agencies that have been or may be useful.
Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents
interpret questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses.
We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors, including pretesting
draft instruments and using a Web-based administration system.
Specifically, during survey development, we pretested draft instruments
with TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP administrators from six states (Arizona,
Connecticut, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Texas) between
June and July 2008. We selected the pretest states to provide variation
in the proportion of state residents that are LPRs, as well as
geographic location. In the pretests, we were generally interested in
the clarity, precision, and objectivity of the questions, as well as
the flow and layout of the survey. For example, we wanted to ensure
definitions used in the surveys were clear and known to the
respondents, categories provided in closed-ended questions were
complete and exclusive, and the ordering of survey sections and the
questions within each section was appropriate. We revised the final
survey based on pretest results. Another step we took to minimize
nonsampling errors was using a Web-based survey. By allowing
respondents to enter their responses directly into an electronic
instrument, this method automatically created a record for each
respondent in a data file and eliminated the need for and the errors
associated with a manual data entry process. To further minimize
errors, programs used to analyze the survey data and make estimations
were independently verified to ensure the accuracy of this work.
While we did not fully validate specific information that states
reported through our survey, we took several steps to ensure that the
information was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
For example, we reviewed the responses and identified those that
required further clarification and, subsequently, conducted follow-up
interviews with those respondents to ensure the information they
provided was reasonable and reliable. In our review of the data, we
also identified and logically fixed skip pattern errors - questions
that respondents should have skipped but did not. On the basis of these
checks, we believe our survey data are sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of our work.
Site Visits:
To better understand administering agency implementation of sponsor
deeming and repayment in TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP, we conducted site
visits to five states, and selected localities in those states, between
May and September 2008. The states and localities visited included
California--Los Angeles and Orange Counties; Connecticut--Cities of
Bridgeport and Stamford; Florida--Broward and Miami-Dade Counties;
Georgia--DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties; and Minnesota--
Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. The five states were selected primarily
because they had significant populations of LPRs and low-income foreign-
born residents, and they provided geographic variation. In addition,
the states selected varied in the proportion of their cash assistance
recipients that were noncitizens and in their provision of state-funded
assistance programs for noncitizens. The localities were selected
because they were within a region of the relevant state that had
experienced significant growth in its LPR population in recent years or
had a historically large base LPR population in the state. We visited
two to five local benefit agency offices in each state. We cannot
generalize our findings beyond the states and localities we visited.
During the site visits, we interviewed state and local administering
agency officials. Through interviews with state officials, we collected
information on states' sponsor deeming and repayment policies, possible
variation in local office implementation, challenges to implementation,
and areas in which officials thought federal assistance has been or
would be useful. Through interviews with local officials, we gathered
information on the processes staff use to determine eligibility for
noncitizens, the frequency that they have encountered cases involving
sponsored noncitizens and sponsor deeming, implementation of sponsor
repayment policies, implementation challenges, and areas that staff
indicated they would like additional assistance. During some site
visits, we observed the systems and tools eligibility staff use to
process an application. During our interviews with both state and local
officials, we also inquired about the availability of data on sponsored
noncitizen benefit applicants and recipients.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office Of The Secretary:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Washington, DC 20201:
April 9, 2009:
Kay Brown, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Brown:
Enclosed are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) report entitled: "Non-Citizens And Public Benefits: More Clarity
in Federal Guidance and Better Access to Federal Information Could
Improve Sponsor Deeming Implementation" (GAO-09-375).
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report before
its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Barbara Pisaro Clark:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Attachment:
[End of letter]
Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS) On The
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled: "Non-
Citizens And Public Benefits: More Clarity In Federal Guidance And
Better Access To Federal Information Could Improve Sponsor Deeming
Implementation" (GAO-09-375):
GAO Recommendation:
To improve consistency of benefit administering agencies' application
of the indigence exception to sponsor deeming, we recommend that the
Secretary of Health and Human Services clarify in the guidance for TANF
the process for determining an applicant's eligibility for that
exception.
HHS Comment:
ACF respectfully disagrees with this recommendation. ACF addressed the
process for determining eligibility for this exception in TANF-ACF-PI-
2003-03, Response 5, cited below in pertinent part:
In determining whether the sponsored LPR is indigent, States would use
their own standards and methods for deciding whether the sponsored
alien "would, in the absence of the assistance provided by the agency,
be unable to obtain food and shelter, taking into account the alien's
own income plus any cash, food, housing, or other-assistance provided
by other individuals, including the sponsor." For example, Food Stamp
program regulations at 7 C.F.R. 273.4(c)(3)(iv) define the phrase "is
unable to obtain food and shelter" to mean that the immigrant's own
family income, plus any cash or in-kind assistance actually provided by
the sponsor and others, does not exceed 130 percent of the Federal
poverty level for the size of the immigrant's household. Subsection
(iv) also states that "each indigence determination is renewable for
additional 12-month periods." The TANF agency may elect to adopt part
or all of the policy used by the Food Stamp program or establish its
own policy for determining whether the sponsored alien would, in the
absence of the assistance provided by the agency be "unable to obtain
food and shelter."
The TANF block grant program gives States the authority and flexibility
to design and operate their own programs. Unless there is an express
law to the contrary, States may establish their own methods and
procedures for determining eligibility and payment, and States may
establish their own methods and procedures for verifying eligibility
and payment criteria. The statute on sponsor deeming at 8 U.S.C.
1631(e) provides no such process for determining an applicant's
eligibility for the indigence exemption. Therefore, it is left to the
State (as expressly stated in the law) to make the determination.
Nevertheless, the last sentence of Response 5 offers States an example
of a way to determine whether indigence exception would apply:
The TANF agency may elect to adopt part or all of the policy used by
the Food Stamp program or establish its own policy for determining
whether the sponsored alien would, in the absence of the assistance
provided by the agency be "unable to obtain food and shelter."
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20525:
April 8, 2009:
Kay Brown:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Brown:
We appreciate the opportunity to review Draft Report GAO-09-375 titled,
"Non-Citizens And Public Benefits: More Clarity in Federal Guidance and
Better Access to Federal Information Could Improve Sponsor Deeming
Implementation." USCIS concurs with the recommendations made in your
Draft Report and is submitting their formal responses for your
consideration in the Final Report.
To help benefit administering agencies access information on sponsored
non-citizens, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security:
Recommendation 1: Improve information on sponsorship status of non-
citizens provided through the automated SAVE system. For example, a
class of admission code list that indicates sponsored non-citizens
could be added to the SAVE technical assistance tools or effectively
distributed to SAVE users.
USCIS Response: Concur. USCIS will prepare an updated list of class of
admission codes to indicate whether non-citizens are sponsored. USCIS
will post that list to its Online Resources so that it is accessible by
all user agencies, and will provide notice to all user agencies when
the list is posted. This action should be completed in April 2009.
Recommendation 2: Provide guidance to SAVE users that improves their
understanding of how to request sponsorship information through the
automated SAVE system rather than through manual submission of paper
request forms.
USCIS Response: Concur. Currently, user agencies can only access
sponsorship information online through the automated system if they are
using the Web-1 method to access the SAVE Program. SAVE is currently
undergoing system upgrades intended to increase the overall
verification efficiency of the Program and reduce the number of manual
verification requests. As part of this effort, SAVE has been upgrading
its Web-3 access method which currently has connection to more
databases and features not found on other access methods.
As indicated in the report, the SAVE Program is adding the sponsorship
feature to the Web-3 access method as part of its improvements. This
upgrade is scheduled for June 2009, at which time SAVE will move all of
its current Web-1 user agencies onto Web-3. These agencies will receive
the added benefits of the Web-3 method while retaining the ability to
receive sponsorship information.
The changeover to Web-3 includes an outreach program to educate user
agencies on the system capabilities, as well as in-system notices in
the time leading up to the change. With this outreach effort, SAVE will
advise the affected agencies that sponsorship information is available
through the online system in lieu of the manual Form G-845 process.
SAVE will continue to offer customized training to these user agencies
We ask that you consider and reflect this response in the final GAO
report on this subject. If you have any questions regarding USCIS's
comments, you may contact Jane Chung at 202-272-9627.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Kay Brown, (202) 512-7215, or brownke@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Heather McCallum Hahn, Assistant Director; Rachel Frisk, Analyst-in-
Charge; Theresa Lo; David Perkins; Heather Whitehead; Jean McSween;
Cathy Hurley; Kirsten Lauber; Doreen Feldman; Alexander Galuten; Susan
Bernstein; and Mimi Nguyen also made significant contributions to this
report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] SNAP was formerly known as the Food Stamp Program.
[2] Throughout this report, "sponsored noncitizen" is used to denote a
legal permanent resident who obtained this status through sponsorship
by a family member, and whose sponsor signed a legally enforceable
affidavit of support. Noncitizens who enter the country through the
"sponsorship" of an organization, as well as those who do not have a
sponsor, such as refugees and asylees, are not subject to sponsor
deeming.
[3] In reporting survey results, we consider the District of Columbia
as a state.
[4] LPRs differ from other legal noncitizens who are admitted to the
country for a specific purpose and temporary period of time, such as
students. In addition, asylees and refugees become LPRs after they
enter the country and apply to have their status adjusted, according to
DHS officials.
[5] Through PRWORA, TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children program.
[6] While TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, and SSI all serve low-income people,
the financial eligibility thresholds, or income limits, for these
benefits differ. Specifically, TANF's income limit varies by state.
Medicaid income limits can also vary by state, as well as type of
recipient. For example, the Medicaid income limits for children
generally range from 100 to 185 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines. The SNAP income limit is generally set at 130 percent of
the federal poverty guidelines. In contrast, SSI's income limit is set
at a fixed dollar amount.
[7] Sponsors who are on active duty in the U.S. military must
demonstrate they have an income of at least 100 percent of the federal
poverty guidelines if they are sponsoring their spouse or child.
[8] Affidavits of support generally remain enforceable until the
noncitizen naturalizes or has been credited with 40 quarters of work in
the United States, or when the sponsor dies.
[9] The exact amount of the sponsor's income and assets to deem can
vary by benefit and, for TANF and Medicaid, can vary by state.
[10] For example, to be eligible for SNAP benefits after deeming has
occurred, the total combined income of the applicant and sponsor must
be less than the SNAP income limit of 130 percent of the federal
poverty guidelines.
[11] Medicaid was added as a federal means-tested public benefit
subject to deeming through a 1997 Federal Register notice. In addition,
the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), created through
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, was added as a benefit subject to
deeming. However, the recently enacted Children's Health Insurance
Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 allows states to waive certain
federal rules related to some sponsored noncitizens for both SCHIP and
Medicaid. Specifically, states can now opt to provide Medicaid and
SCHIP benefits to certain sponsored noncitizen children or pregnant
women within their first 5 years of U.S. residency. In such cases, the
sponsor's income is neither deemed to determine the applicant's income
eligibility nor is the sponsor held liable for reimbursement costs.
[12] The noncitizen might be battered by the sponsor, but that
relationship is not required to grant the exception.
[13] While eligibility workers review noncitizen documents, they may
not be able to detect fraudulent documents, even through the use of
SAVE. For more information on identity fraud related to noncitizens see
GAO, Employment Verification: Challenges Exist in Implementing a
Mandatory Electronic Employment Verification System, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-895T] (Washington, D.C.: June 10,
2008).
[14] While DHS's USCIS tracks the total number of people obtaining LPR
status in the United States each year, it does not maintain data on how
many of those individuals emigrate, naturalize, or die. As a result,
DHS Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) publishes an annual
estimation of the number of LPRs in the United States rather than the
actual total.
[15] While this estimate is limited by several assumptions in our
methodology, we determined that both the methodology and data are
sufficiently reliable for establishing a rough estimate of the size of
the sponsored noncitizen population. For more information on this
estimate, see appendix I.
[16] DHS does not update demographic information, such as income, hours
worked, or length of residency, for noncitizens after they enter the
United States. Also, while the U.S. Census Bureau maintains some data
on the U.S. foreign born population, it does not delineate the data by
noncitizen status, such as those who are sponsored by a family member.
[17] Benefit administering agencies in 48 states, and the District of
Columbia, have signed memorandums of understanding allowing them to
request information from the SAVE system for the purposes of verifying
the noncitizenship status of applicants and recipients of these
benefits. However, we don't know the extent to which local benefit
staff nationwide use SAVE for this purpose. We also do not know the
frequency with which staff who do use SAVE for this purpose enter a
noncitizen applicant's information into SAVE more than once. While
these are both limitations of the SAVE data, we determined that they
are sufficiently reliable for establishing a proxy measure of the
sponsored noncitizen applicants for TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP
nationwide. Our assessment of the SAVE data's reliability are limited
to use of the data for this purpose.
[18] National data on the percentage of sponsored noncitizens with
incomes below the federal poverty level is unavailable. However,
approximately 21 percent of the foreign-born, noncitizen population,
including both sponsored and nonsponsored, had incomes below the
federal poverty level in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
[19] We also obtained SAVE and SSA data for 2006, which were consistent
with 2007, as they showed that approximately 11 percent and 0.7 percent
of the sponsored noncitizen population had applied for these benefits
in that year. However, we did not obtain SAVE and SSA data for earlier
years and, therefore, we do not know if these proportions changed over
time. Further, the SSA data includes both sponsored noncitizens who
entered the United States before the legally enforceable affidavit of
support was required and those who entered after. Because SSA does not
maintain data on each noncitizen applicant's date of entry into the
United States, we were unable to further isolate the sponsored
noncitizens with a legally enforceable affidavit. For more information
on the SAVE and SSA estimates, see appendix I.
[20] Generally, sponsored noncitizens who are veterans or active duty
military, including their spouses and children, are exempt from the 40-
quarter work eligibility requirement. In addition, noncitizens who
entered the country before PRWORA was enacted and changed their
noncitizen status to sponsored after PRWORA are exempt from the 40-
quarter work eligibility requirement, according to SSA officials.
[21] In addition, if the sponsor of the noncitizen applicant is part of
the same family or household, the sponsor's income is often counted as
part of the applicant's income under general eligibility rules that
apply to both citizens and noncitizens. For example, if a noncitizen
applies for SNAP benefits and lives with his or her sponsor, the
sponsor's income is counted as part of the applicant's household income
under general SNAP eligibility rules. The noncitizen sponsor deeming
provisions do not affect the applicant's eligibility in such cases--
which are very common, according to USDA officials.
[22] Of the remaining 31 percent, 14 percent reported that deeming has
sometimes occurred, 3 percent reported that it has occurred frequently
or very frequently, and another 13 percent did not know the frequency.
The additional 1 percent constitutes rounding error. Percentages are
based on those who responded and, of the 153 state benefit agency
administrators for TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP that we surveyed, one
administrator did not respond to this question.
[23] We did not attempt to estimate benefit amounts that have been paid
to sponsored noncitizens, largely because of the lack of data on this
recipient group. In addition, this type of analysis is complicated by
the fact that one benefit is often provided for all members of a
household or family, though they may have different citizenship
statuses.
[24] SSA is the only federal benefit agency that maintains recipient
data for sponsored noncitizens. According to SSI data as of December
2004, 27,300 of 7.0 million total recipients - citizen and noncitizen -
were sponsored noncitizens. The corresponding data for December 2005,
2006, and 2007 were 24,200 of 7.1 million, 21,500 of 7.2 million, and
19,200 of 7.4 million, respectively. (All figures are approximate.)
However, this data includes both sponsored noncitizens who entered the
United States before the legally enforceable affidavit of support was
required and those who entered after. Because SSA does not maintain
data on each noncitizen recipient's date of entry into the United
States, we were unable to further isolate the sponsored noncitizens
with a legally enforceable affidavit. For more information about the
SSI estimate, see appendix I.
[25] Florida benefit data as of December 2008 show that 12 of 95,000
total TANF recipients - citizen and noncitizen - were sponsored
noncitizens. Corresponding Florida data for Medicaid and SNAP were 950
of 2.1 million, and 500 of 1.8 million, respectively. Utah fiscal year
2008 benefit data showed 93 of 28,300 total TANF recipients were
sponsored noncitizens as were 2,100 of 246,000 SNAP recipients.
Minnesota reported that in fiscal year 2008 none of the 42,000 and
209,000 recipients of TANF and SNAP, respectively, were sponsored
noncitizens. (All figures are approximate, except for those less than
100.) For more information about the state estimates, see appendix I.
[26] USDA and SSA issued federal regulations as well as guidance to
address the PRWORA sponsor deeming provisions for SNAP and SSI,
respectively. HHS issued only guidance to address the PRWORA sponsor
deeming provisions for TANF.
[27] CMS issued a letter to state Medicaid Directors in 1998 indicating
that guidance on sponsor deeming would be forthcoming; however, no such
guidance was ever issued.
[28] In addition, 32 TANF, Medicaid, or SNAP administering agencies (in
21 states) that have sponsor deeming policies reported that they did
not have a policy on the indigence exception.
[29] This official and other local officials we interviewed, however,
said that some sponsored noncitizens who may qualify for benefits
through the indigence exception ultimately withdraw their application
when they are told that their names and those of their sponsors must be
reported to the federal government, as required by law.
[30] The 1996 legislation required benefit administering agencies to
report any indigence exception cases to the U.S. Attorney General.
However, due to the reorganization of immigration services into DHS,
since 2003, such cases should be reported to USCIS Office of Policy and
Strategy, according to agency officials.
[31] When we informed DHS of the situation, officials agreed to provide
the correct address to the relevant federal benefit agencies.
[32] In addition, 17 TANF, Medicaid, or SNAP administering agencies (in
14 states) that have sponsor deeming policies reported that they did
not have a policy on this exception.
[33] One local benefit official reported that she believes some
sponsored noncitizen applicants intentionally withhold information
about their sponsorship status in order to avoid sponsor deeming. We do
not know the extent to which this occurs, though other local staff we
spoke to on our site visits did not mention this issue.
[34] In addition, DHS officials stated that the agency plans to offer
enhanced Web access to SAVE beginning in 2009 that will, in part,
assist benefit agencies with fraud detection. Training on the enhanced
access will be offered to benefit agency users, and officials also
indicated that they plan to convene a SAVE user conference in 2010 to
provide additional assistance and training.
[35] Noncitizens receive an admission code from DHS upon entry and, if
they change their status, which classifies the individual by noncitizen
status, such as refugee, asylee, or family-sponsored.
[36] We obtained a few lists developed by state, local, and SSI
agencies enumerating codes for sponsored noncitizens. We compared these
with a similar list provided by DHS for our analysis and noted some
discrepancies. For example, in some cases, the lists developed by
administering agencies were missing codes that DHS uses to classify
sponsored noncitizens, while in other cases, they included codes that
DHS indicated are not used for sponsored noncitizens.
[37] This percentage was calculated based on the number of state
benefit agency administrators who responded to this question (128). In
our survey, we assumed that state agencies without a sponsor deeming
policy in place would similarly not have a sponsor repayment policy.
Therefore, state agencies without a sponsor deeming policy were not
asked about sponsor repayment in our survey--5 for TANF, and 20 for
Medicaid.
[38] We use "traditional benefit recovery provisions" in this report to
refer to benefit administering agencies' routine efforts to recover
improperly issued benefits in cases of benefit fraud or payment error.
[39] SSA policy requires its regional and field offices to report cases
of SSI sponsor repayment to SSA headquarters. SSA headquarters
officials reported that they have not received any reports of sponsor
repayment.
[40] Connecticut officials thought they were following federal law when
they initiated sponsor repayment for TANF, Medicaid, and SNAP, but the
complaint letter they received that led to the suspension of their
efforts in this area cites the DHS regulations as support that
repayment is optional.
[41] The state official we spoke to indicated that repayment is pursued
when a sponsored noncitizen qualifies for the indigence exception to
deeming because he or she is not receiving sufficient financial support
from the sponsor. However, if the sponsored noncitizen qualified for
the indigence exception because he or she was abandoned by the sponsor,
and the sponsor's whereabouts were unknown, the official said that
repayment would not be pursued because the state would likely not be
able to locate the sponsor.
[42] DHS data on sponsors' names and addresses, if complete and easily
accessible, could assist state and local officials pursuing sponsor
repayment. However, while federal regulations require sponsors to
submit address changes to DHS, the extent to which this is done is
unknown, according to DHS officials.
[43] This percentage was calculated based on the number of state
benefit administering agencies who responded to each of these
questions. In our survey, we assumed that state agencies without a
sponsor deeming policy in place would similarly not have a sponsor
repayment policy. Therefore, state agencies without a sponsor deeming
policy were not asked about sponsor repayment in our survey--5 for
TANF, and 20 for Medicaid. One additional agency chose not to respond
to the question related to the usefulness of clarification on when to
pursue sponsor repayment administratively.
[44] We interviewed researchers from the Catholic Legal Immigration
Network, the Center for Immigration Studies, the Migration Policy
Institute, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National
Immigration Law Center, and the Urban Institute, among others.
[45] This is a point-in-time estimate.
[46] DHS applies an admission code to each noncitizen upon their entry
to the United States, classifying the entrant by noncitizen status,
such as refugee, asylee, or family-sponsored.
[47] This list included codes only for those noncitizens required to
have an enforceable affidavit of support, the I-864, completed by a
family member for entry into the United States.
[48] Benefit administering agencies in 48 states, and the District of
Columbia, have signed memorandums of understanding allowing them to
request information from the SAVE system for the purposes of verifying
the noncitizen status of benefit applicants and recipients.
[49] We did not assess the reliability of SAVE data for other purposes.
[50] However, the quality of this data is dependent on the ability of
benefit agency staff to correctly identify the recipient as a sponsored
noncitizen. State or local officials we spoke with in each of the five
states we visited reported that they have difficulty determining who is
sponsored.
[51] This 1.1 percent is equal to approximately 29,000 SSI applicants,
which corresponds to 0.7 percent of the estimated sponsored noncitizen
population.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
