Welfare Reform: Implementation of Fugitive Felon Provisions	 
Should Be Strengthened (25-SEP-02, GAO-02-716). 		 
                                                                 
In response to concerns that individuals wanted in connection	 
with a felony or violating terms of their parole or probation	 
could receive benefits from programs for the needy, Congress	 
added provisions to the Personal Responsibility and Work	 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 that prohibit these	 
individuals from receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI),	 
Food Stamp benefits, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families  
(TANF) and make fugitive felon status ground for the termination 
of tenancy in federal housing assistance programs. In addition,  
the act directs these programs to provide law enforcement	 
officers with information about program recipients for whom there
are outstanding warrants to assist in their apprehension. Actions
taken to implement the act's fugitive felon provisions have	 
varied substantially by program. In implementing provisions to	 
prohibit benefits to fugitive felons, all but housing assistance 
programs include, at a minimum, a question about fugitive felon  
status in their applications. SSI and some state Food Stamp and  
TANF programs also seek independent verification of fugitive	 
felon status by using computer matching to compare arrest warrant
and program recipient files. To date, 110,000 beneficiaries have 
been identified as fugitive felons and dropped from the SSI, Food
Stamp, and TANF rolls, and many have been apprehended.		 
Computerized file matching has been responsible for the 	 
identification of most of these fugitive felons. Aggressive	 
implementation of the act's fugitive felon provisions poses a	 
number of challenges for programs. First, centralized and	 
complete national and statewide arrest warrant data for computer 
matching are not readily available. Second, because direct access
to arrest warrants and criminal records is limited to law	 
enforcement personnel, computer matching requires what many state
TANF and Food Stamp officials view as a burdensome and complex	 
negotiation process to obtain these records. Third, the absence  
of information and guidance about how to conduct file matching	 
and overcome its logistical challenges has also hindered	 
aggressive implementation of the law. Finally, there is evidence 
that individuals with outstanding warrants for felonies, or	 
probation or parole violations, may continue to collect benefits 
because there may be differences in the interpretation of what	 
constitutes a fugitive felon within the Food Stamp and TANF	 
programs.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-716 					        
    ACCNO:   A05156						        
  TITLE:     Welfare Reform: Implementation of Fugitive Felon	      
Provisions Should Be Strengthened				 
     DATE:   09/25/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Computer matching					 
	     Criminals						 
	     Data bases 					 
	     Eligibility criteria				 
	     Federal social security programs			 
	     Food relief programs				 
	     Housing programs					 
	     Information disclosure				 
	     Law enforcement					 
	     Program abuses					 
	     Public assistance programs 			 
	     Food Stamp Program 				 
	     HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy 		 
	     Families Program					 
                                                                 
	     Supplemental Security Income Program		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-716

Report to the Honorable Rick Santorum U. S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

September 2002 WELFARE REFORM Implementation of Fugitive Felon Provisions
Should Be Strengthened

GAO- 02- 716

Page i GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Programs Vary in How Aggressively They
Implement PRWORA*s

Fugitive Felon Provisions 9 Since PRWORA, Thousands of Fugitive Felons
Have Been

Identified and Denied Benefits, with Some Resulting Cost Savings and
Arrests 14 Aggressive Implementation of the Law Poses a Number of

Challenges for Programs 19 Conclusions 21 Matters for Congressional
Consideration 23 Recommendations for Executive Action 23 Agency Comments
24

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 28

Appendix II PRWORA*s Amendments to Authorizing Legislation of SSI, TANF,
Food Stamp, and Housing Assistance Programs 31

Appendix III SSA*s Computer Matching Process for Implementing PRWORA*s
Fugitive Felon Provisions 33

Appendix IV Number of SSI Recipients in Fiscal Year 2001 Arrested by
Offense on Warrant 39

Appendix V Warrants Issued for Fugitive Felons Residing in Federally
Funded Housing 40 Contents

Page ii GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of Health and Human

Services 41

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
47

Appendix VIII Comments from the Social Security Administration 51

Appendix IX GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 52 GAO Contacts 52
Staff Acknowledgments 52

Tables

Table 1: Total Erroneous Payments Reported by Federal Agencies, Benefits
Paid, and Caseload by Program 7 Table 2: Scope of Arrest Warrants Matched
with Program Recipient

Databases in State Food Stamp and TANF Programs 11 Table 3: Fugitive
Felons Identified in the SSI Program and

Estimated Overpayments and Projected Savings, Fiscal Years 1997- 2001 15
Table 4: Scope and Results of State Initiatives That Matched

Automated State Program Recipient and Warrant Files To Identify Fugitive
Felons on the Rolls 16

Figures

Figure 1: Law Enforcement Officers* Requests to SSA or Its OIG for
Information on SSI Recipients Who Are Fugitive Felons, Fiscal Years 1997-
2001 18 Figure 2: SSA*s Process for Identifying and Terminating SSI

Benefits to Fugitive Felons and Providing Information about Them to Law
Enforcement Agencies 35

Page iii GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families FBI Federal Bureau of
Investigation FNS Food and Nutrition Service HHS Department of Health and
Human Services HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development ITC
International Technology Center NCIC National Crime Investigation Center
OIG Office of Inspector General OMB Office of Management and Budget PRWORA
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 SSA Social Security Administration SSI
Supplemental Security Income SSN Social Security number TANF Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture

Page 1 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

September 25, 2002 The Honorable Rick Santorum United States Senate

Dear Senator Santorum: In response to concerns that individuals wanted in
connection with a felony or violating terms of their parole or probation
could receive benefits from programs for the needy, the Congress added
provisions to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 that prohibit these individuals from
receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamp benefits, and
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and make fugitive felon
status grounds for the termination of tenancy in federal housing
assistance programs. 1 In addition, PRWORA directs these programs to
provide law enforcement officers with information about program recipients
for whom there are outstanding warrants to assist in their apprehension.

In response to your request for information on the implementation and
impact of PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions, this report provides
information on: (1) what has been done in these four programs to implement
PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions, (2) the extent to which their actions
have resulted in the denial of benefits to fugitive felons and their
arrest, and (3) issues that keep programs from aggressively implementing
the provisions.

We used a number of data collection and analysis techniques to obtain this
information. Because Food Stamp and TANF programs are administered at the
state or county level, we conducted a telephone survey of state TANF and
food stamp officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to
learn how they were implementing the provisions and the results of these
efforts. We also conducted an e- mail survey of those state programs that
do not screen their rolls for fugitive felons by conducting computerized
file matches. Because we could find no data on the extent to which
fugitive felons participate in federal housing programs, we compared Ohio

1 For this report, when we refer to fugitive felons, we are also referring
to probation and parole violators.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

and Tennessee arrest warrant records as of January 2002 with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data on federally
subsidized housing tenants to determine the number nationwide who may have
been wanted for arrest from January 2001 through January 2002 in those two
states. We chose Ohio and Tennessee because their warrant files were
readily available from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and
because they had prior experience in matching warrant records with SSI,
Food Stamp, and TANF recipient files. We also visited with officials in
Delaware*s Department of Health and Social Services, fraud unit, as well
as law enforcement officials from that state to discuss Delaware*s
initiatives for implementing PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions in TANF
and Food Stamp programs. Finally, we reviewed existing regulations and
agency policies related to these provisions and interviewed officials from
SSA, the Department of Agriculture*s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), the Department of Health and Human Services* (HHS) Administration
for Children and Families (ACF), and HUD* federal agencies that oversee
the SSI, Food Stamp, TANF, and federal housing programs, respectively. We
conducted our work between October 2001 and August 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I provides
details on our methodology. 2

Actions taken to implement PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions have varied
substantially by program. In implementing provisions to prohibit benefits
to fugitive felons, all but housing assistance programs include, at a
minimum, a question about fugitive felon status in their applications. SSI
and some state Food Stamp and TANF programs also seek independent
verification of fugitive felon status by using computer matching to
compare arrest warrant and program recipient files. In this regard, SSA
conducts the most comprehensive computerized matching effort, comparing
data from its entire file of applicants and recipients on a monthly basis
to warrant data it obtains from various federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies. Less than one- third of the state agencies
administering the TANF and Food Stamp programs use periodic computer

2 This is the second report we have issued related to PRWORA*s fugitive
felon provisions. While this review examined and compared the
implementation of these provisions and their impact across all four
programs, our earlier review (U. S. General Accounting Office,

Social Security Administration: Fugitive Felon Program Could Benefit from
Better Use of Technology and Increased Management Accountability, GAO- 02-
346, (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 6, 2002)) focused on SSA*s use of
information technology to identify fugitive felons on the SSI rolls and
assist law enforcement authorities in apprehending them. Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

matching to varying degrees, while the housing assistance programs do not
use matching at all. With regard to PRWORA*s requirement that program
officials provide law enforcement agencies with information on program
recipients when they request it, SSA and USDA have issued guidance to
program staff on how to respond. HHS and HUD have issued no such guidance,
although most of the state TANF programs indicate that, in fact, they have
issued written guidance. Meanwhile, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
in the SSI and Food Stamp programs have frequently taken the lead in both
responding to and facilitating arrangements with law enforcement for file
matches to identify and apprehend fugitive felons.

To date, about 110,000 beneficiaries have been identified as fugitive
felons and dropped from the SSI, Food Stamp, and TANF rolls. Many have
been apprehended. Computerized file matching has been responsible for the
identification of most of these fugitive felons. About 80 percent of all
fugitive felons dropped from the SSI rolls, for example, were identified
when SSA began its computerized matching process in 2000. While HUD has
not attempted to match arrest warrants with its nationwide tenant file,
our own match turned up nearly 1,000 housing assistance recipients for
whom there were arrest warrants in Ohio and Tennessee, alone. The passage
of PRWORA and subsequent initiatives to match files have also led to the
reported arrest of some 18,678 fugitive felons* largely on the SSI, Food
Stamp, and TANF rolls. This figure may understate the actual number,
because law enforcement agencies do not always apprise program officials
of arrests.

Aggressive implementation of PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions poses a
number of challenges for programs. First, centralized and complete
national and statewide arrest warrant data for computer matching are not
readily available. Even the most comprehensive database available contains
only about 30 percent of the state and local warrants issued nationwide.
Second, because direct access to arrest warrants and criminal records is
limited to law enforcement personnel, computer matching requires what many
state TANF and Food Stamp officials view as a burdensome and complex
negotiation process to obtain access to these records. Third, the absence
of information and guidance about how to conduct file matching and
overcome its logistical challenges has also hindered aggressive
implementation of the law. Finally, there is evidence that individuals
with outstanding warrants for felonies, or probation or parole violations,
may continue to collect benefits because there may be differences in the
interpretation of what constitutes a fugitive felon within the Food Stamp
and TANF programs.

Page 4 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

In this report, we suggest that the Congress consider amending the Housing
Act of 1937 to explicitly make fugitive felons ineligible for housing
benefits. We also make a number of recommendations to HHS, USDA, and HUD
for actions to better implement PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions, which
include encouraging the use of computer matching.

USDA*s FNS officials generally agreed with our recommendations, but
believed that a fuller discussion of the legal and procedural complexities
involved in implementing the law was needed. We added information to the
report to better reflect these complexities. HHS*s Administration for
Children and Families acknowledged that the report provided new and useful
information. However, ACF did not concur with our recommendations for a
variety of reasons, including concern that implementing the
recommendations would infringe on the flexibility that PRWORA granted
states in administering TANF programs. After evaluating ACF*s comments, we
continue to believe our recommendations are warranted and can be
implemented within PRWORA*s framework. HUD concurred with our
recommendation to issue guidance on providing information to law
enforcement officers. HUD did not concur with our recommendation that it
test the feasibility and effectiveness of matching its nationwide tenant
file with arrest warrant data to identify fugitive felons receiving
housing assistance. HUD said that it lacked the legal authority to do so.
We believe HUD has such authority. SSA reviewed the draft report and had
no comments.

PRWORA amended the authorizing language in statutes governing SSI, TANF,
Food Stamp, and housing assistance programs by prohibiting fugitive felons
3 and probation and parole violators from receiving benefits under these
programs. To assist law enforcement agencies in apprehending fugitive
felons, PRWORA also amended the authorizing legislation for each of these
programs to require program officials to disclose the information they
maintain on individuals to law enforcement officers when they request it.

Oversight and administration of the SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, and federal
housing assistance programs are the responsibility, respectively, of four
federal agencies: SSA, HHS, USDA, and HUD. Through the SSI program,

3 Examples of crimes that are felonies include murder, rape, or burglary
and other serious crimes that are usually punishable by imprisonment for
more than 1 year. Background

Page 5 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

SSA oversees the provision of monthly cash payments to people who are
blind, disabled, or age 65 or older and have limited income and resources.
HHS oversees the TANF program, which provides cash assistance and other
work- related services to needy individuals. USDA oversees the Food Stamp
Program, which helps low- income individuals purchase food. HUD provides
housing assistance to low- income families, including the elderly and
persons with disabilities. PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions apply to
eligibility for HUD*s public housing program and to most Section 8
programs. 4 The public housing program provides housing units whose
operation, maintenance, and modernization is subsidized with federal
funds. Section 8 programs provide needy families with rental assistance
through vouchers that can be used in privately owned housing or by
occupying government- subsidized housing units.

While SSA directly administers the SSI program nationwide, the Food Stamp
and TANF programs are generally administered at the state or local level,
albeit with federal money in the case of the Food Stamp Program, and a
combination of federal and state funds in the case of TANF. Depending on
the state, the same staff at local offices may determine eligibility and
benefit levels for both Food Stamp and TANF programs. HUD relies on local
public housing agencies to administer its public housing and Section 8
programs. 5 Public housing agencies manage and operate local public
housing units and enforce tenant compliance with the lease. 6 Low- income
individuals and families often participate in more than one of the above
public programs. 7

The federal agencies that oversee these programs work with their OIG to
meet their responsibility to ensure program integrity. In addition to
helping to identify fraud, waste, and abuse in these programs, the OIGs

4 Specifically, PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions apply to the following
assisted housing programs: Public Housing, Section 8 New Construction/
Substantial Rehabilitation, Section 8 Property Disposition, Section 8 Loan
Management Set- Aside, Section 8 Certificate/ Vouchers, Public Housing,
HOPE VI, and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.

5 Public housing agencies are typically municipal, county, or state
agencies created under state law to develop and manage public housing
units. 6 Public housing agencies also determine and approve eligibility
for Section 8 payments and ensure that private housing units meet safety
and health standards. 7 For example, about 75 percent of TANF recipients
also receive food stamps, and about 25 percent of individuals who receive
federal housing assistance are also on the TANF rolls.

Page 6 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

participate in federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies* pursuit
and apprehension of individuals wanted for criminal offenses, including
felonies. State governments can also play a role in ensuring the integrity
of federal programs, particularly TANF and Food Stamp because states or
counties administer them. The governments do so through fraud units in
state human services departments and state inspectors or auditors general.
To illustrate the size of these programs and their potential for fraud,
waste, and abuse, table 1 compares the total benefits paid, erroneous
payments, and caseload size reported by federal agencies in a single year
by program.

Page 7 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Table 1: Total Erroneous Payments Reported by Federal Agencies, Benefits
Paid, and Caseload by Program Program Program purpose

Total erroneous

payments reported in FY 2000 (in billions)

Total federal benefits

paid (in billions) Caseload,

nationwide

SSI To provide income support to low- income people who are 65 and older,
blind, or disabled. $1.64 $30.8

in FY 2000. 6.4 million

recipients as of 12/ 01. TANF To provide temporary assistance to needy

families. In general, able- bodied TANF recipients must participate in
work or work- related activities after receiving assistance for a maximum
of 24 months, and there is a 5- year time limit on federal assistance.

Not available $15.7 in FY 2000.

2.1 million families on average per month; 5.5

million recipients on average per month

in FY 2001. Food Stamp a To help needy households and those making the

transition from welfare to work buy the food they need for a nutritionally
adequate diet.

$1.1 $15.0 in FY 2000.

7.3 million households on average per month

in FY 2000. Public housing and Section 8 housing assistance programs

Public housing programs assist communities in providing decent, safe, and
sanitary dwellings for low- income families. It provides housing units
whose operation, maintenance, and modernization is subsidized with federal
funds. Section 8 programs provide needy families with rental assistance
through vouchers that can be used in privately owned housing or by
occupying government- subsidized housing units.

$1.25 $22.0 in FY 1999.

4.0 million renter households in FY 1999.

a According to USDA, in fiscal year 2001 the total erroneous payments
reported for the Food Stamp program were $1.0 billion; total federal
benefits paid were $15.5 billion; and caseload nationwide was 7.4 million
households on average per month.

Source: Erroneous payment information for the Food Stamp program from
USDA. All other information prepared by GAO for its report Financial
Management: Improper Payments Reported in Fiscal Year 2000 Financial
Statements, GAO- 02- 131R, (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 2, 2001).

Under PRWORA, the focus of the language affecting fugitive felons in each
programs* authorizing language differs somewhat. The use of federal funds
by fugitive felons is specifically prohibited in the SSI, TANF, and Food
Stamp programs. For the SSI and Food Stamp programs, individuals
identified as fugitive felons are ineligible for benefits for any period
in which they are considered to be a fugitive felon, or probation or
parole violator. For the TANF program, states are prohibited from using
any portion of their federal funding to assist any individual considered
to be a

Page 8 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

fugitive felon. 8 For public housing and Section 8 programs, PRWORA states
that fugitive felon and probation or parole violation status ** shall be
cause for immediate termination of the tenancy*.*

PRWORA*s provisions also require the SSI, Food Stamp, and housing
assistance programs to disclose information about felons to law
enforcement. Upon request from any federal, state, or local law
enforcement officer, program officials must furnish the current address,
Social Security number (SSN), and photograph (if applicable) of any
benefit recipient. The officer must furnish the name of the recipient, and
other identifying information to establish the unique identity of the
recipient, and also attest that the request is made in conjunction with
the officer*s official duties. For the TANF program, the law also states
that no

*safeguards* a state has established *... against the* disclosure of
information about applicants or recipients*.* are to prevent the program
from furnishing this information to law enforcement officers. Appendix II
provides the language by program of PRWORA*s provisions in the authorizing
legislation with regard to the eligibility of fugitive felons and
probation and parole violators for benefits and the release of recipient
information to law enforcement officers.

It is difficult to estimate the number of fugitive felons who could be
receiving SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, or housing assistance benefits, or the
amount of erroneous payments made to such individuals, because there is no
comprehensive data on the total number of people, nationwide, for whom
there are outstanding arrest warrants for felonies or probation or parole
violations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does compile arrest
warrant data from a number of sources, nationwide, in its National Crime
Investigation Center (NCIC) database. The NCIC is a repository for arrest
warrants that federal agencies and state and local law enforcement
authorities submit to it on a voluntary basis. According to an FBI
official, there were about 825,000 outstanding warrants for felonies,
serious misdemeanors, and parole and probation violations filed in the
NCIC database as of August 2002. NCIC does not report the total number of

8 In addition to the TANF block grant states receive from the federal
government, state TANF programs receive state funding because PRWORA
includes a maintenance- of- effort provision that requires states to
contribute to their TANF program at least 75 to 80 percent of their
historic level of funding under Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
the predecessor to TANF. Thirty- four states indicated that they have laws
or regulations that make fugitive felons, and probation and parole
violators, ineligible for state- funded TANF benefits. Two states did not
have similar laws, and three states provided no information in this
regard.

Page 9 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

warrants for felonies alone, nor does it know if all the warrants in the
database are outstanding. There is some data available on the number of
adults in the United States on probation or parole. According to the
Department of Justice, there were 3,839, 500 on probation in December 2000
and another 725,500 on parole. 9

The extent to which PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions have been
implemented in SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, and housing assistance programs
varies. To help ensure that fugitive felons do not receive benefits for
which they are ineligible, during the application and recertification
processes, most programs ask applicants about their fugitive felon status.
A number of programs also match recipient files and arrest warrant data to
identify and terminate benefits to fugitive felons who are already on the
rolls, but the scope and frequency of such matching activity varies
widely. All programs also are responding in some way to PRWORA*s
requirement that they make information on recipients available to law
enforcement when requested. In the Food Stamp and SSI programs, federal
OIGs play a critical role in providing law enforcement agencies with this
information directly assisting them at times in the apprehension of those
fugitive felons on the rolls. HUD and HHS, on the other hand, have done
little to ensure their programs* disclosure of information from recipient
records to law enforcement agencies.

Officials in 49 state TANF and 47 state Food Stamp programs reported that
they require applicants to answer questions about whether there is a
warrant outstanding for their arrest, although there is little evidence
available on the degree to which this practice deters fugitive felons from
applying for benefits or the number of applicants identified as fugitive
felons in this way. In 39 TANF and 43 Food Stamp programs, recipients are
also required to respond to these questions when their continuing

9 According to the Department of Justice, slightly more than half of those
on probation had been convicted of a felony. Programs Vary in How

Aggressively They Implement PRWORA*s Fugitive Felon Provisions

SSI and Most State TANF and Food Stamp Programs Require Applicants To
Certify That They Are Not Fugitive Felons

Page 10 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

eligibility is assessed. 10 Two state TANF and 4 state Food Stamp programs
reported doing nothing to determine fugitive felon status at the time an
individual applies for benefits.

In the Food Stamp and SSI programs, procedures require staff to ask
individuals when they apply for benefits whether or not they are fugitive
felons. Staff also must ask recipients about their fugitive felon status
when their continuing eligibility for benefits is reassessed. At the
completion of the application interview, applicants also are asked to sign
the application form, which contains a statement certifying that the
information they provide is true and that they understand that any
misrepresentation of the truth may constitute a crime. 11

In housing assistance programs, according to HUD officials, PRWORA*s
provisions do not make fugitive felons who apply for assistance
ineligible. PRWORA states only that fugitive felon status shall be cause
for immediate termination of tenancy. To implement this provision, HUD*s
regulations state that the lease must provide that the public housing
authority may terminate the tenancy during the term of the lease if a
tenant is a fugitive felon. Although HUD lacks requirements for systematic
methods to prevent fugitive felons from successfully applying for
assistance, the agency*s regulations do state that housing agencies have
authority to screen out applicants they determine to be unsuitable for
admission under public housing authority standards. 12 Officials from HUD,
however, indicated that they were not aware of which, if any, housing
agencies engage in screening for fugitive felons.

10 In the Food Stamp program, households are certified to be eligible for
periods ranging from 1 to 24 months. Households with stable incomes are
generally given longer certification periods than households with
fluctuating incomes. When the certification period ends, to continue
receiving benefits, clients must reapply and prove they are still eligible
to participate. This is known as the recertification process. Unlike the
Food Stamp program, in SSI the time between scheduled eligibility
redeterminations varies depending on the likelihood that the recipient*s
situation may change in a way that affects eligibility. In housing
assistance programs, most families* incomes and composition are reexamined
once a year. In the TANF program, while recipients can receive federally
funded benefits for only 60 months, there are no federal requirements
related to how often eligibility is recertified.

11 USDA and SSA began to require this procedure to effectively support a
determination that payments made in error to fugitive felons could be
recouped from these individuals. 12 24 C. F. R. S:5. 851( a).

Page 11 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

In addition to the practice of asking applicants to report their fugitive
felon status when they apply for benefits, SSI and some state Food Stamp
and TANF programs identify and remove fugitive felons already on the rolls
by comparing entire recipient files with a law enforcement agency*s arrest
warrant data. The scope and frequency of computerized matching can vary.
SSI and some state Food Stamp and TANF programs use databases containing
arrest warrants city or countywide, statewide, or nationwide. The FBI*s
NCIC database, for example, is a repository of arrest warrant information
the FBI receives on a voluntary basis from states and from local
jurisdictions. 13 In 2002, the FBI expressed its willingness to compare
state Food Stamp and TANF recipient files with warrants in the NCIC
database and initiated an information campaign regarding its service.

Fifteen state Food Stamp and 15 state TANF programs reported that they
periodically matched their recipient files with arrest warrant data. Most
have done these matches on an ongoing basis* in most cases monthly, but
the scope of the matches varied by state and program. (See table 2.)

Table 2: Scope of Arrest Warrants Matched with Program Recipient Databases
in State Food Stamp and TANF Programs

Recipient database matched with: Number of state Food Stamp programs
Number of state

TANF programs

Local arrest warrants only 1 1 Statewide arrest warrants only 9 10 NCIC
and statewide arrest warrants 3 2 NCIC arrest warrants only 2 2

Total 15 15

Note: Thirteen states reported conducting a match using both TANF and Food
Stamp recipients. Source: GAO*s survey of state Food Stamp and TANF
programs.

SSA currently matches its nationwide SSI applicant and recipient file with
arrest warrant data from the FBI*s NCIC database, the U. S. Marshals
Service, and 11 states, 14 usually on a monthly basis. 15 SSA*s current

13 According to SSA, as of June 2002, the NCIC database received complete
arrest warrant information on all felonies and parole and probation
violations from 17 states and D. C., Another 6 states reported all
felonies, but not all parole and probation violations.

14 SSA also receives arrest warrant information from Baltimore County,
Md.; Montgomery County, Pa.; and New York City and Philadelphia. SSA and
Some State

Programs Also Match Recipient and Arrest Warrant Data

Page 12 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

matching process, which covers all SSI applicants and recipients
nationwide, has evolved from attempts by its OIG to verify the fugitive
felon status of SSI recipients on an ad hoc basis in certain geographic
areas. SSA officials said that systematic computer matching of the SSI
file and arrest warrant data, although a complex process requiring
considerable resources, is the most efficient and comprehensive way to
ensure that fugitive felons do not receive SSI benefits. See appendix III
for a detailed description of SSA*s monthly matching process.

HUD officials said that the agency has never matched its nationwide
database of housing assistance recipients with arrest warrant data from
any law enforcement agency to identify program participants who are
fugitive felons, even though PRWORA makes fugitive felon status grounds
for termination of tenancy. The agency has left the implementation of this
provision up to the individual public housing agencies, leaving it to them
to identify fugitive felons. HUD regulations give public housing agencies
and other landlords the option to evict those identified as fugitive
felons, but do not require them to do so. However, HUD has not determined
the extent to which public housing agencies have implemented the fugitive
felon provisions in accordance with its regulations. In addition to its
regulations, in July 2002, HUD issued revised model lease language stating
that the tenancy of fugitive felons may be terminated.

To help law enforcement officials apprehend fugitive felons, PRWORA calls
for programs to provide information from SSI, Food Stamp, TANF, and
housing assistance recipient records to law enforcement officers under
certain circumstances. Law enforcement agencies can request such
information directly from program staff, or indirectly from federal OIGs.
In the case of state Food Stamp and TANF programs, they can request
information from program officials, fraud units in state program
departments, or from auditors general in state government.

In the SSI and Food Stamp programs, there are written procedures that must
be followed when responding to these requests. USDA has issued regulations
for state Food Stamp programs that mirror the PRWORA provisions and
require states to provide household addresses, SSNs, and photographs, if
available, to law enforcement officials when they make a request, and 44
state Food Stamp programs reported also having their own

15 As of July 2002, SSA had signed memorandums of understanding with 20
states not providing complete data to NCIC, but 9 of these states had not
provided data since January 2002. All Programs Are

Responding to Law Enforcement Agency Requests for Assistance

Page 13 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

written guidelines. In the absence of any guidance from HHS, officials
from 44 state TANF programs reported that their programs had their own
written guidelines for what program staff and others should do, under
PRWORA, when a request for information from recipient records is received
from law enforcement officers. Both SSA and its OIG have comprehensive
procedural guidelines for handling law enforcement requests for
information about SSI recipients. These guidelines include specific
instructions on confirming the identity of the person named on an arrest
warrant before information from recipient records can be released. HUD,
like HHS, has not issued guidance, thus they have left it up to public
housing agencies and other landlords to determine whether and under what
circumstances they will respond to such requests from law enforcement
officers. HUD has no information on how public housing agencies are
handling such requests.

Because of their own law enforcement authority, federal OIGs and state
fraud units have often acted as intermediaries between outside law
enforcement agencies and program staff to facilitate the exchange of
recipient and arrest warrant information. Federal OIGs and state auditors
have also played a major role in assisting in law enforcement*s
apprehension of fugitive felons on program rolls. Both USDA*s and HHS*s
OIG have conducted such efforts. In both cases, the OIG matched recipient
files and arrest warrant data and provided law enforcement officials with
the matches. USDA*s efforts, known as Operation Talon, began in 1997 in
Kentucky, and expanded to include operations in 30 states and D. C.
According to USDA*s Inspector General, Operation Talon activities slowed
beginning in 2001 when OIG priorities shifted to other areas. HHS*s OIG
conducted one initiative in a metropolitan area in Nebraska that ended in
the apprehension of a very small number of fugitive felons.

SSA*s OIG has also played a key role in the exchange of arrest warrant and
SSI recipient information. SSA*s monthly matching process is not only
designed to identify and terminate benefits to fugitive felons on the SSI
rolls, but also to provide law enforcement agencies with information from
SSI recipients* records that will assist them in apprehending fugitive
felons. SSA and its OIG worked together to negotiate agreements with
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to provide them with
arrest warrant information. Once SSA staff match arrest warrants with the
SSI file, the OIG helps ensure that the law enforcement agencies that
issued the warrants receive the information from SSI records they need to
apprehend those identified as fugitive felons. Finally, the OIG tracks and
OIGs and State Auditors

Have Taken the Lead in Providing Law Enforcement Agencies with Information
about Program Recipients

Page 14 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

compiles data on the apprehension and termination of benefits to SSI
recipients determined to be fugitive felons. See appendix III for a
detailed description of SSA*s monthly matching process.

In addition, SSA*s OIG has assisted law enforcement officials in their
pursuit and arrest of SSI recipients who are fugitive felons. For example,
the OIG has participated in joint investigations with the New York State
Division of Parole, the New York State Welfare Inspector General, and the
New York City Department of Corrections to identify and apprehend SSI
recipients who were parole violators.

To assist law enforcement in locating criminals, HUD*s OIG indicated that
it has responded to requests from law enforcement for information, usually
on a case- by- case basis. As with SSA*s OIG, HUD*s and USDA*s OIGs also
have assisted law enforcement agencies in the pursuit and arrest of
fugitive felons.

The SSI, Food Stamp, and TANF programs have identified over 110,000
beneficiaries who are fugitive felons* largely through the matching of
warrant and enrollee files. When SSA and states have taken the initiative
or been in a position to match recipient and warrant data, there have been
a significant number of fugitive felons identified. The results from our
own comparison of arrest warrant from just two states and the HUD
nationwide tenant database suggest that many fugitives in housing
assistance programs go unidentified. Total cost savings to date are hard
to ascertain, however, in part, because not all state Food Stamp and TANF
programs keep records or make such calculations. SSA*s OIG has reported 5-
year cumulative savings of more than $81 million in overpayments and $133
million in projected future savings from the SSI recipients identified as
fugitive felons. Since passage of PRWORA, law enforcement officials also
have been making thousands of requests for program information to help
them apprehend fugitive felons, either for specific case information or
for file matches. At least 18,678 arrests from this effort have occurred.
This may be a conservative figure because programs do not always receive
feedback from law enforcement on the outcome of cases. Since PRWORA,

Thousands of Fugitive Felons Have Been Identified and Denied Benefits,
with Some Resulting Cost Savings and Arrests

Page 15 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Of the more than 110,000 beneficiaries identified as fugitive felons
across all programs since 1996, 16 45,000 have been identified on the SSI
rolls through matching. SSA*s experience strongly suggests that matching
SSI and arrest warrant data produces better results than less
comprehensive methods of identifying fugitive felons such as case- by-
case inquiries. Also, the more comprehensive the warrant database drawn
from, the higher the yield. SSA*s access to the NCIC database together
with its array of agreements with states and municipalities has given the
agency a large database of warrants against which to compare its own
national recipient file. Although SSA efforts to identify fugitive felons
on the rolls increased steadily prior to 2000, the agency*s identification
process up until that time was largely confined to manual checks for
specific case inquiries and onetime

*sweeps* initiated by law enforcement, the OIG, or state fraud units. In
2000, however, after SSA secured a memorandum of understanding with the
FBI to provide it with arrest warrant data, SSA began performing monthly
matches with its SSI file. This more comprehensive approach resulted in
some sharp yearly increases in the numbers of fugitive felons identified.
(See table 3.)

Table 3: Fugitive Felons Identified in the SSI Program and Estimated
Overpayments and Projected Savings, Fiscal Years 1997- 2001

Estimates of: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total

Fugitive felons identified 23 1, 172 7,421 13,817 22,638 45,071
Overpayments $333,000 $1,360,000 $17,219,000 $20,895,000 $41,843,000
$81,650,000 Projected savings a $450,000 $9,208,000 $27,087,000
$34,474,000 $61,727,000 $132,946,000

Note: The volume of fugitives identified should increase as additional
agreements with state law enforcement agencies are negotiated. a SSA
calculates savings by multiplying the monthly SSI payment by 24 months.

Source: SSA and SSA*s Office of Inspector General.

Increased savings accompanied the increases in the number of fugitive
felons identified. SSA estimates that since the passage of PRWORA, it has
identified more than $81 million in overpayments. It has projected future
savings on fugitive felons removed from the SSI rolls of about $133
million. Table 3 shows substantial annual increases in those savings
beginning in 1999 with SSA*s initial computer matching efforts.

16 Because individuals may participate in more than one of these programs,
this number may overstate the number of fugitive felons identified.
Comprehensive Data

Matching Accounts for Most Identifications; Program Savings Have Also Been
Realized

Page 16 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

State Food Stamp and TANF administrators have identified many fugitive
felons on their program rolls, as well. Based on the estimates we received
from state officials, in total, over 65,000 have been identified in these
programs across all states since 1997. Identification strategies and
results varied considerably across states, but those state programs that
identified large numbers of felons usually did so by matching their
automated recipient files and files of arrest warrants nationwide and/ or
statewide. 17 For example, sizeable numbers of fugitive felons on TANF and
Food Stamp rolls in Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee were identified using
large warrant databases. (See table 4.)

Table 4: Scope and Results of State Initiatives That Matched Automated
State Program Recipient and Warrant Files To Identify Fugitive Felons on
the Rolls

State and year of initiative Benefit populations Scope of

warrants Number of fugitive felons identified Estimated amount of

erroneous payments

Tennessee (1998)

Statewide TANF and Food Stamp rolls combined Statewide

and NCIC 1,678 $7,000,000 a

Ohio (1999)

Statewide TANF and Food Stamp rolls combined Statewide 1, 082 $1,056,028
Missouri (2000)

Statewide TANF and Food Stamp rolls combined Statewide 802 $672,640

a Amount includes estimated future payments. Source: State auditors*
reports from Missouri and Ohio and a state law enforcement agency report
from Tennessee.

Very few state TANF or Food Stamp programs could provide precise estimates
of cost savings, but the initiatives in Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee
found that millions of dollars could be saved using matching at the state-
level.

17 Five states queried the NCIC database.

Page 17 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Because HUD has no data on the numbers of housing assistance recipients
whose tenancy could be subject to termination under PRWORA, we conducted
our own match of arrest warrants in two states* Ohio and Tennessee* with
HUD*s national, tenant database. Nationally, we found 927 adults who were
living in public housing or Section 8 housing between January 2001 and
January 2002 while there were outstanding warrants for their arrests from
those two states for felonies, or parole or probation violations. 18 These
adults were wanted for a wide range of crimes, including possession of or
selling dangerous drugs; larceny, such as bank robbery; and assault. (See
app. V.) About 65 percent were living in public housing or Section 8
housing outside of Ohio and Tennessee. If the leases on the housing units
where these fugitive felons lived or the Section 8 voucher had been
terminated, we estimate HUD could have saved $4.2 million annually in
program costs * or made housing available to some of the 9 million
eligible families waiting for units nationwide. 19 See appendix I for a
detailed description of our matching process.

Law enforcement officers have requested information about thousands of
recipients since PRWROA gave them access to program information. With the
exception of SSA and a few state human service agencies, however, most do
not track or record requests. 20 Collectively, human service agencies in
Arizona, Indiana, and Texas reported receiving 29,408 requests from law
enforcement for recipient information from fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
SSA*s OIG was able to report the number of requests it has received each
year from law enforcement since implementation of PRWORA. (See fig 1.)
Although requests increased during the first few years after the law was
passed, there was a noticeable decrease in 2000 after the agency began to
implement routine file matching.

18 The tenant data we used in this match included individuals
participating in public housing, Section 8 Certificate/ Vouchers, and
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Programs. These three programs accounted
for about 88 percent of the housing units in HUD programs covered by
PRWORA nationally in fiscal year 1999.

19 This estimate is based on the assumption that in all 927 cases (1) the
tenant received housing assistance beginning in January 2001 and ending in
January 2002, (2) the tenant was the person named on the warrant, (3) the
warrant was issued in January 2001 and was in effect only through January
2002, and (4) housing assistance to the tenant*s entire household was
terminated. The actual savings in program costs could be lower or higher
depending on the degree to which each of these assumptions is accurate.

20 Thirty- four state Food Stamp officials noted that since PRWORA, law
enforcement officials have actively sought out information, but only 5
states maintain data on those requests. According to our survey of state
TANF programs, 13 states routinely provided this information to law
enforcement. GAO*s Computerized

Match of Arrest Warrants with HUD Tenant Files Identified Nearly 1,000
Fugitive Felons in Housing Assistance Programs

Law Enforcement Agency Requests for Recipient Information Have Led to
Thousands of Arrests

Page 18 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

According to SSA officials, the recipient information SSA now routinely
provides to law enforcement agencies as part of its monthly matching
process most likely reduced the need for law enforcement agencies to
request this information.

Figure 1: Law Enforcement Officers* Requests to SSA or Its OIG for
Information on SSI Recipients Who Are Fugitive Felons, Fiscal Years 1997-
2001

Source: SSA*s Office of Inspector General.

Since PRWORA was enacted, the information that law enforcement has
received from programs about their recipients has resulted in the arrest
of at least 18,678 fugitive felons through March 2002, a conservative
figure in that law enforcement does not always report arrests to programs,
state auditors, or OIGs. SSA, USDA, and some state TANF and Food Stamp
officials were able to provide selected statistics. USDA*s Operation
Talon* carried out in 30 states and D. C.* resulted in 5,165 arrests for
felonies and probation and parole violations between early 1997 and March
2002. 21 SSA reported 5,019 fugitive felons apprehended through 2001. 22
Among states that have screened both TANF and Food Stamp

21 Including warrants for misdemeanors, the OIC reported 7, 981 total
arrests for all offenses for this period. 22 See appendix IV for data on
the offenses charged on these warrants.

Number of requests 0 1,000

2,000 3,000

4,000 5,000

6,000 7,000

8,000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal year 232

1,563 7,426

3,093 1,805

Page 19 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

recipients, two were able to report total arrests since 1997: Texas
reported 791; New York, 6,980. Finally, using matching, a state audit of
Food Stamp and TANF programs in Tennessee in 1998 resulted in 403 arrests
for offenses as serious as

Law enforcement officials do not arrest all recipients who are identified
as fugitive felons. Most fugitive felons found on the SSI rolls, for
example, were not arrested. SSA, which has a follow- up reporting system
in place, received reports on over 5, 900 matched warrants from law
enforcement agencies in 2001, indicating that over 2,000 fugitive felons
had been arrested. According to SSA, there are many reasons why providing
law enforcement with information from recipients identified as fugitive
felons may not lead to their arrest: (1) The fugitives could not be
located; (2) the recipient was not the person for whom the warrant was
issued; and (3) the law enforcement agency that issued the warrant refused
to extradite the recipient when he or she was living in another
jurisdiction.

There are a number of reasons why the law is not aggressively implemented
by all programs that are required to deny benefits to fugitive felons.
First, centralized arrest warrant databases are not readily available to
programs. Second, programs need the assistance of law enforcement agencies
to achieve their goal of removing fugitive felons from the rolls. Third, a
lack of information about how to conduct computerized matching and where
to find assistance hampers many state program officials. Finally, in the
Food Stamp and TANF programs, the lack of criteria for what constitutes a
fugitive may interfere with states* ability to act decisively to deny
benefits to those wanted for felonies or probation or parole violations.

There is no single database that contains information on all wanted
persons throughout the United States. Local law enforcement agencies,
states, judicial agencies, and federal government agencies all maintain
various warrant records. The only database that compiles federal, state,
and local warrants is the FBI*s National Crime Information Center, or
NCIC, established to support criminal justice agencies throughout the
country. Yet, according to SSA*s OIG, in August 2000 this file contained
only about 30 percent of local and state warrants issued across the
nation. For this reason, SSA has found it necessary to negotiate with many
states and even municipalities for access to their local warrants. Among
the Aggressive

Implementation of the Law Poses a Number of Challenges for Programs

Centralized and Complete Arrest Warrant Databases Are Not Readily
Available

Page 20 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

75 state- administered Food Stamp and TANF programs that do not perform
computer matching to identify fugitive felons, nearly half cited the lack
of a statewide repository for warrants as a reason. 23 For the Food Stamp
program, alone, 16 states reported lacking a central source for statewide
or interstate warrant data. Five reported that existing warrant data are
outdated and unreliable.

Because computer matching involves using criminal records to which only
law enforcement agents are authorized access, program officials must
negotiate specific terms with each relevant agency for access to that
information. Nearly half of the TANF and Food Stamp programs that have not
conducted computer matching noted that the burden and complexity of
negotiating for access to statewide or NCIC arrest warrant records was a
reason why they did not match. In addition to accessing warrant files, law
enforcement*s assistance is needed to verify the accuracy of the warrant
once a match it made. 24 Officials from USDA*s FNS pointed out that such
verification is critical to ensuring that Food Stamp benefits are not
improperly denied to otherwise eligible individual. Consequently, they are
dependent on law enforcement agencies to determine if warrants are valid.
Over a third of state officials from TANF and Food Stamp programs that
have not matched indicated that they did not because law enforcement
agencies are unwilling to verify the results.

State program officials do not necessarily have knowledge about how to
design a file matching process, how to enlist the help and cooperation of
law enforcement agencies, or where to find centralized sources of warrant
data. Nearly two- thirds of the TANF and Food Stamp officials surveyed
whose programs do not use computerized matching said that information
about file matching from HHS or USDA would help them assess its
feasibility. Over half of these program officials said that information
about how matching is performed by other programs or guidance testing its
feasibility would be a moderate to very great help. About half indicated
that guidance on federal laws governing either access to arrest warrants,
or due process prior to terminating benefits under computerized matching
would be a moderate to very great help. Many survey respondents also

23 This includes TANF and Food Stamp programs in the District of Columbia.
24 Under the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, the
accuracy of the warrants naming program recipients and the identity of the
persons named on these warrants must be verified before these recipients
can be removed from the rolls. Matching Requires

Collaboration and Close Coordination with Law Enforcement

Lack of Knowledge about Matching and How to Define a Fugitive Felon
Hinders Implementation of the Law

Page 21 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

indicated that information about the rules governing use of and access to
the NCIC arrest warrant database would be helpful.

There is also evidence that a fugitive felon is defined differently
across, and perhaps within, programs. FNS, for example, has directed state
Food Stamp programs to deny benefits to individuals with outstanding
arrest warrants only when the program has verified that these individuals
are aware of the warrants. In contrast, SSA guidelines make no mention of
this as criteria for denying SSI benefits. They state that SSI benefits
should be denied to applicants and recipients with outstanding arrest
warrants, whether or not the law enforcement agencies that issued the
warrants have acted on them.

FNS headquarters officials told us that they believed the definition of a
fugitive under PRWORA is open to interpretation and that, without further
guidance, state Food Stamp programs may be defining it differently as
well. They pointed out a number of questions that need to be addressed
when deciding whether or not to deny benefits to those with arrest
warrants. For example, should individuals with outstanding warrants be
considered fugitive felons if they are not aware of the warrants, or if
law enforcement agencies have not acted on the warrants within a certain
timeframe? HHS officials also indicated that, based on the language in the
law, it is not clear whether the Congress intended to deny benefits when
law enforcement officials lack the resources, jail space, or court time to
execute arrest warrants. They contend that the most significant challenge
programs face when implementing the law is how to define a *fleeing*

felon. Responses to our survey confirm that there may be different
definitions of what constitutes a fugitive felon across state programs as
well. For example, one state program official indicated that the existence
of a warrant, alone, was not proof that a recipient was fleeing.
Consequently, recipients in that state who were fugitive felons were
reportedly not removed from the benefit rolls unless they were arrested.
An official from another state further questioned whether those who are
not aware of warrants for their arrest could be considered fleeing.

There has been some progress in implementing the fugitive felon provisions
of PRWORA. Where there has been leadership from program officials, OIGs or
state auditors, large numbers of fugitive felons have been removed from
the rolls and apprehended, mostly through the use of matching. However,
the law has not been implemented aggressively in all programs. Most
strikingly, HUD has done little to ensure that fugitive Conclusions

Page 22 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

felons do not receive housing assistance. This could be because the law,
as it applies to housing assistance programs, states that fugitive felon
status is only grounds for termination of tenancy and not that fugitive
felons are ineligible for housing assistance. Therefore, according to HUD
officials, while public housing agencies and landlords have the authority
to evict fugitive felons, they are not required to do so. Furthermore,
even though HUD maintains its own national database of tenants, it has
made no attempt to match it with information from centralized arrest
warrant databases such as the NCIC. Such matching, even when done on a
limited basis, would be an effective way to identify potentially large
numbers of fugitive felons in federal housing assistance programs that
landlords have the authority to evict.

As demonstrated in SSI and a few state TANF and Food Stamp programs,
matching recipient and arrest warrant data can be an effective tool for
implementing the fugitive felon provisions. However, expanding the use of
matching is not an easy task. In this respect, state program officials
indicated that they could benefit from the experience of others.
Information about how other programs and states have obtained access to
and used centralized arrest warrant data, collaborated with law
enforcement agencies, and conducted matching could help state TANF and
Food Stamp programs plan and develop their own matching procedures.

Increased use of computer matching alone will not ensure that the law is
fully implemented in state TANF and Food Stamp programs. The law*s overall
effectiveness could be seriously undermined if it is not applied
consistently, and there appears to be some question about what constitutes
a fugitive felon within TANF and Food Stamp programs. Without knowing how
state programs are defining fugitive felons, there is no way for HHS or
USDA to determine if the law is being applied consistently and, if not,
how to ensure that it is.

Finally, neither HHS nor HUD has issued instructions on the circumstances
under which information about benefit recipients is to be released to law
enforcement agencies when they request it. As a result, state TANF
programs, and HUD public housing agencies and other landlords in this
highly decentralized system, may be implementing this provision
inconsistently. As a result, law enforcement agencies may not be receiving
the information they request and legally have access to.

Page 23 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

The Congress should consider amending the Housing Act of 1937 to make
fugitive felons ineligible for federal housing assistance.

To better implement PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions, we recommend that
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

 test the feasibility and effectiveness of routinely matching its
nationwide tenant file with the NCIC arrest warrant database as a means of
identifying tenants in housing assistance programs nationwide who are
fugitive felons and subject to eviction and

 issue guidance on the circumstances under which federal housing programs
are required to provide information about residents in federally
subsidized housing to law enforcement agencies.

To oversee and better implement these provisions in the TANF program, we
recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services

 encourage states to test the feasibility and effectiveness of routinely
matching TANF applicant and recipient records with arrest warrants by
providing them with information on the matching activities of other state
TANF programs and their results and on accessing available arrest warrant
databases such as NCIC;

 monitor states* computerized matching efforts to identify fugitive
felons and their results;

 determine what criteria state TANF programs are using to remove
recipients wanted for felonies or probation or parole violations from the
TANF rolls, and if these criteria differ across states, provide TANF
programs with clear guidance on the circumstances under which benefits to
fugitive felons should be terminated; and

 issue guidance on the circumstances under which TANF programs are
required to provide information about TANF recipients to law enforcement
agencies.

To oversee and ensure better implement these provisions in the Food Stamp
program, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture Matters for

Congressional Consideration

Recommendations for Executive Action

Page 24 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

 encourage states to test the feasibility and effectiveness of routinely
matching Food Stamp applicant and recipient records with arrest warrants
by providing them with information on the matching activities of other
state Food Stamp programs and their results and on accessing available
arrest warrant databases such as NCIC;

 monitor states* computerized matching efforts to identify fugitive
felons and their results; and

 determine what criteria state Food Stamp programs are using to remove
recipients wanted for felonies, or probation or parole violations from the
Food Stamp rolls and, if these criteria differ across states, provide Food
Stamp programs with clear guidance on the circumstances under which
benefits to fugitive felons should be terminated.

Officials from the Department of Agriculture*s Food and Nutrition Service,
the Department of Health and Human Services* Administration for Children
and Families, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development provided
comments on our report. The full text of the comments from HHS and HUD,
appears in appendixes VI and VII, respectively. The Director of FNS
Program Development Division and other FNS headquarters officials,
provided oral comments, some of which were technical and incorporated into
the report where appropriate. Officials from the Social Security
Administration reviewed the report and had no comments. (See app. VIII.)

In general, FNS officials agreed with our recommendations, but voiced
concern that the report needed to more fully discuss the legal and
procedural complexities involved in implementing the fugitive felon
provisions. They said that because what constitutes a fugitive under
PRWORA is open to interpretation, eligibility criteria for benefits may
vary within and across programs. They indicated their intention to re-
evaluate their current definition, which defines fugitives as only those
who are aware that warrants have been issued for their arrest.
Nevertheless, they noted that there may be room for flexibility in how
state agencies respond to the individual circumstances of fugitive felons,
just as states have flexibility when enforcing certain other Food Stamp
program requirements.

FNS officials cautioned against viewing the implementation of PRWORA*s
fugitive felon provisions outside the context of a program*s
administrative structure and its quality assurance procedures and
standards. They noted, Agency Comments

Page 25 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

for example, that the Food Stamp program is administered by the states,
making it more difficult to ensure uniform implementation of the law than
in the SSI program, where control is centralized at the federal level.

FNS officials noted that, in order to enhance compliance with the law in
the Food Stamp program, they recently obtained information from SSA about
its fugitive felon procedures and processes and were now working with
their OIG to clarify issues related to fugitive felon ineligibility for
food stamps. They have also begun to plan pilot projects in several states
of procedures that would allow law enforcement time to apprehend fugitive
felons before state food stamp agencies take action on their eligibility.
These projects will build due process protections into these procedures.

ACF acknowledged that the report provided new and useful information on
this topic. However, it expressed concern that the report did not
adequately portray the full significance of the challenges associated with
implementation of the fugitive felon provisions. In particular, ACF
highlighted the challenges associated with defining a fleeing felon.
Furthermore, ACF did not concur with our recommendations for a variety of
reasons. It believed that implementing our recommendations would infringe
on the authority and flexibility PRWORA gives states to establish their
own TANF eligibility rules and procedures and calls for federal action not
authorized under PRWORA. We believe that issuing guidance is permissible
under PRWORA and can be done in a manner that allows for state
flexibility. Guidance simply provides states with a means to make more
reasoned judgments about the actions they choose to take.

ACF further argued that neither the Office of management and Budget*s
(OMB) single state compliance audits, nor feedback it has received from
state agencies have identified problems with the implementation of the
fugitive felon provisions. The absence of evidence of problems in either
case, however, does not mean that problems do not exist, nor that the
monitoring and guidance we recommend would not be useful. ACF also appears
to have interpreted our recommendations for monitoring and encouraging
computer matching more narrowly than intended. We do not prescribe how ACF
should accomplish these tasks. Our recommendations would not require the
creation of new data collection procedures or systems. The mechanisms that
ACF and HHS*s Office of Family Assistance have in place for communicating
and interacting with state and local agencies could be used to effectively
implement these recommendations within the limits PRWORA places on federal
authority.

Page 26 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

ACF disagreed with the recommendation for national guidance describing the
circumstances, under PRWORA, in which TANF programs should provide
information to law enforcement agencies, noting that 44 state TANF
agencies had already developed their own guidance. Our point remains that
all state agencies should have established guidance. Furthermore, our
review of selected states* guidance showed that it may not always be
consistent with PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions. Consequently, we
continue to believe that national guidance is justified.

In its comments, HUD did not concur with our recommendation to test the
feasibility and effectiveness of routinely matching its nationwide tenant
file with NCIC arrest warrant data. HUD said that PRWORA does not require,
nor does it give, the department the authority to conduct computer
matching to screen for fugitive felons, and parole or probation violators.
We disagree with HUD*s assertion that it lacks the authority to conduct
computer matching. In our view, HUD does not need any specific statutory
authority to conduct computer matching, but any matching it does conduct
must comply with the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988.
We also note that, even though HUD contended that it lacked the authority
to computer match, it did agree to examine computer matching as a possible
option for implementing the fugitive felon provisions.

HUD did concur with our recommendation to issue guidance on the
circumstances under which federal housing programs are required to provide
information about residents to law enforcement agencies. HUD said that its
Office of General Counsel was working with its Office of Public Housing
and Multifamily Housing to determine the appropriate method (by notice or
regulation) to implement PRWORA*s requirement that public housing agencies
provide law enforcement with information about tenants who are fugitive
felons, or parole or probation violators. HUD also described other actions
it was taking to better implement PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions.

Finally, HUD expressed concern about our estimate of the savings that
could result from matching its national tenant file with warrants from
Ohio and Tennessee. HUD indicated that the assumptions upon which this
estimate is based, are not likely to hold true in every case. We agree and
had already recognized this qualification in the draft report. We continue
to believe that our analysis produced a reasonable estimate that has been
appropriately qualified.

Page 27 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties. Copies
will also be made available to others upon request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO*s Web site at http:// www.
gao. gov. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512- 9889. Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in
appendix IX.

Sincerely yours, Robert E. Robertson Director, Education, Workforce, and

Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 28 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive
Felon Provisions

In order to determine the extent to which actions have been taken to
ensure that fugitive felons do not receive Supplemental Security Income
(SSI), Food Stamp, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or
housing assistance benefits, we interviewed federal officials in the
Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and reviewed regulations
and other documents that provide policy on handling fugitive felons as
applicants or beneficiaries. We also gathered data from the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) for SSA, USDA, HUD, and HHS on the number of
program participants identified as fugitive felons through their
initiatives.

We conducted telephone and e- mail surveys with state officials who
administer TANF and Food Stamp programs in each of the states and the
District of Columbia. In our telephone survey, we collected data on the
actions these programs had taken to implement the fugitive felon
provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. We also collected information on the
extent to which law enforcement agencies have asked for or used
beneficiary information from these programs to locate and apprehend
fugitive felons and asked states for any estimates they had of the number
of fugitive felons identified on the rolls and the amount of overpayments
to these recipients. In our e- mail survey, we asked state programs that
were not conducting matching what prevented them from doing so and what
federal agencies could do to assist them in using matching to implement
the PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions.

We obtained information about SSA*s process for identifying fugitive
felons through interviews with and documents provided by its OIG, systems,
and program staff involved with the fugitive felon program. Appendix III
contains a detailed description of SSA*s fugitive felon matching process.
We visited state officials in Delaware to gather information about their
initiatives in the Food Stamp and TANF programs and issues surrounding
their efforts to establishing a data matching process.

To determine the extent to which fugitive felons may be receiving federal
housing benefits, we conducted a one- time computer match using HUD*s
national data on housing tenants and arrest warrant data from Ohio and
Tennessee. We chose these two states because their warrant files were
readily available from SSA and because of their prior experience in
matching warrant records with SSI, Food Stamps, and TANF recipient files.
In addition, both states agreed to participate in our pilot. For Appendix
I: Scope and Methodology

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 29 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive
Felon Provisions

computer matching, HUD provided us with national information from its
database containing persons in public housing, persons receiving Section 8
tenant based assistance, and persons in the Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation program for the period January 2001 through January 2002. 1
The Ohio and Tennessee warrant records were all current as of January
2002. SSA screened the warrant records for us through its automated
Enumeration Verification System to verify the Social Security number (SSN)
and other pertinent data provided by the law enforcement agency on the
warrant matched with data from SSA*s records. 2 Using SSA guidelines, we
screened the approximate 7.3 million tenant records and deleted records
with invalid SSNs, that is numbers that SSA never issued. Also, if we
found multiple persons using the same SSN, we removed their records. After
the screening process, we computer- matched the SSNs of 7.1 million tenant
records nationally with the numbers of 31,493 persons with fugitive felon
warrants issued by Ohio and Tennessee. 3 Our SSN comparisons identified
927 individual fugitive felons with one or more arrest warrants issued by
Ohio or Tennessee who resided in public housing or Section 8 housing. As a
final check, we compared the matched individual*s name and date of birth
from the warrant and tenant records and found minor inconsistencies which,
in our opinion, would not change the results.

To estimate cost savings, we analyzed agency data collected for a 1998 HUD
report. 4 The report showed data by state on the average annual per unit
cost for each housing type. Using these data, we multiplied the number of
resident fugitive felons by their applicable average annual per unit cost.
If the leases on the housing units in which these 927 individuals

1 HUD provided us with tenant data reported by public housing agencies on
the *HUD50058*

form. This form contains the name, SSN, date of birth, gender, and other
information of individuals participating in public housing, Section 8
tenant- based assistance (certificates and vouchers), and Section 8
moderate rehabilitation programs.

2 SSA*s systems are also capable of identifying an individual*s correct
SSN when it is missing from the warrant, or when the SSN provided by the
law enforcement agency does not match with other pertinent information
such as name and date of birth.

3 Of the 31,493 warrant records, 95 percent were Ohio*s and 5 percent were
Tennessee*s. 4 A Picture of Subsidized Households in 1998: United States
Summaries, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington,
D. C.; August 28, 1998.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 30 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive
Felon Provisions

lived had been terminated, we estimate that about $4.2 million 5 annually
in federal funds could have been made available to others who are eligible
for, but could not find, public housing or Section 8 housing. 6

5 This estimate is based on the assumption that in all 927 cases (1) the
tenant received housing assistance beginning in January 2001 and ending in
January 2002, (2) the tenant was the person named on the warrant, (3) the
warrant was issued in January 2001 and was in effect only through January
2002, and (4) housing assistance to the tenant*s entire household was
terminated. The actual savings in program costs would be lower or higher
depending on the degree to which each of these assumptions is accurate.

6 If the average national annual cost, per unit, based on 1999 budget
estimates were used, cost savings associated with our 927 resident
fugitive felons would be $4. 4 million.

Appendix II: PRWORA*s Amendments to Authorizing Legislation of SSI, TANF,
Food Stamp, and Housing Assistance Programs

Page 31 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

SSI TANF Food Stamps Housing Assistance Denial of benefits to fugitive
felons and probation or parole violators

Section 1611 of the Social Security Act Section 408 of the Social

Security Act Section 6 of the Food Stamp Act Sections 6 and 8 of the
Housing Act of 1937

No person shall be considered an eligible individual or eligible spouse
for purpose of this title with respect to any month if during such month
the person is (A) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement
after conviction, under the laws of the place from which the person flees,
for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under the
laws of the place from which the person flees, or which, in the case of
the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of such
State; or (B) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under
Federal or State law.

In general. * A State to which a grant is made under section 403 of the
Social Security Act shall not use any part of the grant to provide
assistance to any individual who is (i) fleeing to avoid prosecution , or
custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from
which the individual flees, for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime,
which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual
flees, or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high
misdemeanor under the laws of such State; or (ii) violating a condition of
probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law. The preceding
sentence shall not apply with respect to conduct of an individual, for any
month beginning after the President of the United States grants a pardon
with respect to the conduct.

(k) Disqualification of Fleeing Felons * No member of a household who is
otherwise eligible to participate in the food stamp program shall be
eligible to participate in the program as a member of that or any other
household during any period during which the individual is (1) fleeing to
avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, under the
law of the place from which the individual is fleeing, for a crime, or
attempt to commit a crime, that is a felony under the law of the place
from which the individual is fleeing or that, in the case of New Jersey,
is a high misdemeanor under the law of New Jersey; or (2) violating a
condition of probation or parole imposed under a Federal or State law.

It shall be cause for immediate termination of the tenancy of a tenant if
such tenant (A) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement
after conviction, under the laws of the place from which the individual
flees, for a crime, or attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under
the laws of the place from which the individual flees, or which, in the
case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of
such State; or (2) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed
under a Federal or State law.

Appendix II: PRWORA*s Amendments to Authorizing Legislation of SSI, TANF,
Food Stamp, and Housing Assistance Programs

Appendix II: PRWORA*s Amendments to Authorizing Legislation of SSI, TANF,
Food Stamp, and Housing Assistance Programs

Page 32 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

SSI TANF Food Stamps Housing Assistance Provision of program recipient
information to law enforcement officers

Section 1611 of the Social Security Act Section 408 of the Social

Security Act Section 11 of the Food Stamp Act Section 27 of the Housing
Act of

1937 Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than section 6103
of the Internal revenue Code of 1986), the Commissioner shall furnish any
Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, upon the written request
of the officer, with the current address, Social Security number, and
photograph (if applicable) of any recipient of benefits under this title,
if the officer furnishes the Commissioner with the name of the recipient,
and other identifying information as reasonably required by the
Commissioner to establish the unique identity of the recipient, and
notifies the Commissioner that (ii) the recipient has information that is
necessary for the officer to conduct the officer*s official duties; and
(B) the location or apprehension of the recipient is within the officer*s
official duties.

If a State to which a grant is made under section 403 establishes
safeguards against the use or disclosure of information about applicants
or recipients of assistance under the State program funded under this
part, the safeguards shall not prevent the State agency administering the
program from furnishing a Federal, State, or local law enforcement
officer, upon the request of the officer, with the current address of any
recipient if the officer furnishes the agency with the name of the
recipient and notifies the agency that (i) the recipient has information
that is necessary for the officer to conduct the official duties of the
officer; and (ii) the location or apprehension of the recipient is within
such official duties.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the address, social security
number, and, if available, photograph of any member of a household shall
be made available, on request, to any Federal, State. or local law
enforcement officer if the officer furnishes the State agency with the
name of the member and notifies the agency that (i) the member (I) is
fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction,
for a crime (or attempt to commit a crime) that, under the law of the
place the member is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of New Jersey, a
high misdemeanor), or is violating a condition of probation or parole
imposed under Federal or State law; or (II) has information that is
necessary for the officer to conduct an official duty. (ii) Locating or
apprehending the member is an official duty; and (iii) the request is
being made in the proper exercise of an official duty; and (E) the
safeguards shall not prevent compliance with paragraph (16)

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each public housing agency
that enters into a contract for assistance under section 6 or 8 of this
Act with Secretary shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, upon the request of the officer, with the current
address, Social Security number, and photograph (if applicable) of any
recipient of assistance under this Act, if the officer (1) furnishes the
public housing agency with the name of the recipient; and (2) notifies the
agency that (A) such recipient (i) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or
custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from
which the individual flees, for a crime, or attempt to commit a crime,
which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual
flees, or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high
misdemeanor under the laws of such State; or (ii) is violating a condition
of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law; or (iii) has
information that is necessary for the officer to conduct the officer*s
official duties; (B) the location or apprehension of the recipient is
within such officer*s official duties; and (C) the request is made in the
proper exercise of the officer*s official duties.

Note: The language for Sections 6 and 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 is
substantially identical except the word *immediate* is omitted in Section
8.

Appendix III: SSA*s Computer Matching Process for Implementing PRWORA*s
Fugitive Felon Provisions

Page 33 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions have two objectives: (1) to ensure that
fugitive felons do not receive SSI benefits and (2) to ensure that law
enforcement agencies receive the information they need about SSI
applicants and recipients to apprehend fugitive felons. To implement the
law, SSA has designed a single process that can accomplish both
objectives. By matching arrest warrant information it receives from
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies with its national SSI
file, SSA is not only preventing fugitive felons from receiving SSI
benefits, but also providing information about those in the SSI file it
identifies as fugitive felons to law enforcement agencies so those
individuals can be apprehended. SSA*s matching process requires the active
involvement of its OIG as well as the involvement and cooperation from
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

In developing this process, SSA and its regional offices as well as its
OIG have had to locate sources of arrest warrant information, assess the
adequacy of arrest warrant information from each source, and negotiate
agreements with the law enforcement authorities that maintain this
information to release it to SSA. SSA began to explore the potential for
conducting such computer matching when it approached the U. S. Marshals
Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with proposals to
match its SSI file with their arrest warrant information. The FBI*s
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database is the nation*s most
extensive computerized criminal justice information system. NCIC consists
of millions of records in several files, including files on wanted
persons. As such, law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and
local levels may voluntarily submit their law enforcement information,
including arrest warrants, to the FBI for inclusion in the NCIC database.
SSA and its OIG secured memorandum of understanding with the FBI in March
2000 to provide SSA with monthly warrant information on fugitive felons
from its NCIC Wanted Person File. Submission of information to the NCIC
Wanted Person File is voluntary; however, so the file does not include
complete arrest warrant data on fugitive felons, nationwide. According to
SSA, as of June 2002, 17 states and the District of Columbia submit
warrant data on all felonies and parole and probation violators to the
FBI. Another 6 states report felonies but not parole and probation
violators. However, because the other 27 states told SSA that the majority
of their warrant information is not entered into the NCIC database, SSA
has pursued negotiating agreement with these 27 states to obtain their
warrant information. As of June 2002, 20 of the 27 states had agreed to
provide SSA with their fugitive Appendix III: SSA*s Computer Matching

Process for Implementing PRWORA*s Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix III: SSA*s Computer Matching Process for Implementing PRWORA*s
Fugitive Felon Provisions

Page 34 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

felon files. 1 In exchange, once SSA has matched information from warrants
with its SSI file, it provides the addresses of those in the file it finds
with arrest warrants to the law enforcement agencies that have issued
those warrants, so they can be apprehended. This matching and exchange
process includes a number of SSA offices, such as its Office of
Telecommunications and Systems Operations, its regional and field offices,
and its OIG. To successfully implement this process requires cooperation
and commitment from the FBI*s NCIC staff and its Information Technology
Center (ITC), as well as law enforcement agencies at the state and local
level. Figure 2 illustrates the steps in the process and those involved.

1 SSA also has agreements to receive warrant information from Baltimore
County, Md.; Montgomery County, Pa.; Philadelphia; and New York City.

Appendix III: SSA*s Computer Matching Process for Implementing PRWORA*s
Fugitive Felon Provisions

Page 35 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Figure 2: SSA*s Process for Identifying and Terminating SSI Benefits to
Fugitive Felons and Providing Information about Them to Law Enforcement
Agencies

FBI National Crime Information

Center (NCIC) U. S. Marshals State and local law enforcement

1. Send warrant data to SSA headquarters

SSA headquarters

2. Uses automated systems to verify identity of individuals

named on warrants 3. For NCIC warrant

data, eliminates misdemeanors except for parole and

probation violators 4. Matches warrant file with SSI recipient file

to identify those named on warrants

5. Forwards information

on SSI recipient named on warrant

to SSA's OIG

SSA Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

6. Opens case file for

each recipient named on warrant

7. Forwards information from case files to the

FBI Information Technology Center

FBI Information Technology Center

8. Queries NCIC database to verify

that warrant is active

9. Forwards address and other information

about each SSI recipient named on an active warrant to the appropriate law

enforcement agency b

a

Appropriate law enforcement

agency

10. Uses address information of SSI recipient named on warrant to
apprehend

the individual 11. Notifies FBI/ ITC as to the disposition of each
individual's case

12. Updates case file on

each SSI recipient named on active warrant to reflect law enforcement
disposition of case

13. Forwards law enforcement agency

disposition of each case to SSA's OIG

14. After allowing 60 days for appropriate

law enforcement action to be taken, SSA's OIG forwards

case to SSA field office serving SSI

recipient for cancellation of

benefits

SSA field office

15. Field office takes

administrative actions, following

due process requirements,

to terminate SSI recipient's benefits, determines

overpayment amounts, and takes

recovery action 16. Field Office sends

SSA's OIG information of actions taken

Start

17. SSA's OIG updates individual's case file

on administrative actions taken by SSA field office

Agencies Preliminary steps Law enforcement verification and apprehension
steps Benefit termination and recovery steps

Appendix III: SSA*s Computer Matching Process for Implementing PRWORA*s
Fugitive Felon Provisions

Page 36 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

a The process is different for about 10 percent of the cases in which the
SSI recipient*s name, Social Security number, date of birth, and gender
from records SSA maintains on individuals do not match the warrant
information. These cases are forwarded to one of the OIG*s field offices
for additional verification and, if the identity can be verified, are
referred by the OIG to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. b For
warrants not in the NCIC database, ITC forwards them to appropriate law
enforcement agencies

to verify that these warrants are active. Source: SSA and SSA*s OIG.

Usually every month, SSA receives automated arrest warrant information
from a variety of sources (step 1 in fig. 2). SSA had found that the
information on arrest warrants is not always accurate. Fugitive felons
frequently use aliases or provide law enforcement agencies with inaccurate
Social Security numbers or dates of birth. In addition, SSA noted that law
enforcement agencies tend to rely on fingerprints for identification
because the Social Security numbers individuals report are often
unreliable. As a result, law enforcement agencies do not always enter a
Social Security number on a warrant. With the exception of the FBI, law
enforcement agencies have agreed to provide SSA with arrest warrants that
exclude misdemeanors, except in cases of probation or parole violations.
To ensure that the misdemeanors are screened out, SSA*s OIG checks the
warrant files the first time SSA receives them to verify that the
misdemeanors have been removed. However, the FBI did not agree to screen
out misdemeanors from its NCIC Wanted Person File, so an initial step in
SSA*s process is to screen out warrants for misdemeanors in this file.

Using its automated systems, SSA confirms the identity of the individual
named on each warrant by comparing information on each warrant (including
the individual*s name, Social Security number, date of birth, and gender)
with information on the automated records SSA maintains on individuals. If
there is no SSA record for a name on a warrant, 2 or if there is no Social
Security number in SSA*s records for the name on the warrant, the warrant
is eliminated from the file (step 2). When the Social Security number on a
warrant is incorrect, according to SSA*s records, or is missing from the
warrant, SSA uses its automated systems to attempt to locate the correct
or missing Social Security number. Finally, SSA uses its automated systems
to eliminate misdemeanors from the warrants it obtains from FBI*s NCIC
database, except in cases where the warrant is for a probation

2 SSA accepts names that may not be spelled correctly as long as the
misspelling falls within an acceptable tolerance range.

Appendix III: SSA*s Computer Matching Process for Implementing PRWORA*s
Fugitive Felon Provisions

Page 37 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

or parole violation (step 3). 3 These steps help to ensure that SSI
recipients are not mistakenly identified as fugitive felons.

Next (step 4), SSA matches the remaining arrests warrant records with its
computerized SSI file to identify SSI applicants and recipients named on
warrants for felonies, or probation or parole violations. The results of
this match are then forwarded to the SSA*s OIG (Office of Investigations)
(step 5), which establishes its own investigative case file for each
individual named on a warrant (step 6). Then, to provide information to
law enforcement authorities for the apprehension of fugitive felons, the
OIG forwards information from SSI records about those named on warrants to
the FBI*s ITC (step 7). 4 ITC screens out duplicate files and verifies the
address and status of each individual named in the NCIC match warrant
records to determine whether the warrant is active (step 8) and forwards
these to the law enforcement agency that issued the warrant (step 9) so
that it can locate and apprehend the individual (step 10). If warrants
cannot be found in the NCIC database, ITC forwards them to the applicable
law enforcement agency for verification and (step 9) so they can locate
and apprehend the individual (step 10).

After the appropriate law enforcement agency receives the addresses of
individuals named on warrants, it has up to 60 days 5 to notify ITC of the
actions taken, if any, on the disposition of each individual*s case (step
11). Next, ITC updates the case file on each individual named on the
active warrant to reflect the actions taken by law enforcement (step 12).
Then, ITC forwards the information on the actions taken, if any, by law
enforcement on each case to the OIG (step 13). Once SSA*s OIG has been
notified or the 60 days have expired, whichever comes first, OIG reports
those cases that require termination or recovery of SSI benefits to the
appropriate SSA field office (step 14). The field office than takes
whatever administrative actions, including due process safeguards, are
required

3 PRWORA requires SSA to suspend SSI benefit payments to those wanted for
felonies, but not to those wanted for misdemeanors. SSI benefits to parole
and probation violators, however, must be suspended whether the original
offense was a felony or misdemeanor.

4 The process is different for about 10 percent of the cases in which the
SSI recipient*s name, Social Security number, date of birth, and gender
from records SSA maintains on individuals do not match exactly with the
warrant information. These cases are forwarded to one of the OIG*s field
offices for additional verification and, if the identity can be verified,
are referred by the OIG to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

5 SSA uses the 60- day period to avoid letting fugitives know that their
status and whereabouts have been revealed before law enforcement
authorities can arrest them.

Appendix III: SSA*s Computer Matching Process for Implementing PRWORA*s
Fugitive Felon Provisions

Page 38 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

(step 15) and reports this back to SSA*s OIG (step 16). The OIG uses the
information provided by the SSA field office on the administrative actions
taken to update the individual*s case file (step 17).

Although the matching process is complex and requires considerable
cooperation and assistance from law enforcement authorities, that is, the
FBI, U. S. Marshals Service, state, county, and local law enforcement
authorities as well as SSA*s OIG, SSA believes that it is the most
efficient and effective method for implementing both requirements of
PRWORA*s fugitive felon provisions.

Appendix IV: Number of SSI Recipients in Fiscal Year 2001 Arrested by
Offense on Warrant

Page 39 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Offense on warrant Number of fugitive felons arrested Percent of total

offenses

Homicide 4 Kidnapping 4 Sexual assault 28 1.3 Robbery 32 1.5 Assault 75
3.5 Arson 8 Burglary 78 3.7 Stolen vehicles 10 Forgery or fraud 22 1.0
Receiving stolen or damaged property 9 Dangerous drugs 240 11.2 Sex
offense 17 1.0 Family offense 2 Flight - escape 22 1.0 Parole violation
251 11.8 Probation violation 311 14.6 Failure to appear 137 6.4
Obstructing Judiciary, Congress, Legislature, or a Commission 45 2.1
Weapon offenses 24 1.1 Public peace - disorderly conduct 1 Traffic
offenses 11 Smuggling 2 Juvenile offenders 3 Not recorded 799 37.4

Total 2,135 100.0

Source: SSA*s Office of Inspector General based on the FBI*s Uniform
Offense Classifications.

Appendix IV: Number of SSI Recipients in Fiscal Year 2001 Arrested by
Offense on Warrant

Appendix V: Warrants Issued for Fugitive Felons Residing in Federally
Funded Housing

Page 40 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Offense on warrant Number of warrants issued

Abscond while on probation a 226 Dangerous drugs (possess, sell, smuggle
opium, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, etc.) 132 Larceny (shoplifting,
postal, U. S. government, banking, etc.) 129 Failure to appear 124 Forgery
and fraud (forgery of checks, counterfeiting, confidence game, swindle,
mail fraud, etc.) 111 Receiving stolen or damaged property 36 Burglary 33
Other obstructing Judiciary, Congress, Legislature, or a Commission b 25
Assault 22 Stolen vehicles 18 Family offense (cruelty toward child or
wife, bigamy, nonpayment of alimony, etc.) 16 Abscond while on parole a 13
Robbery 13 Property crimes 9 Sex offense 9 Weapon offenses 8 Kidnapping 5
Traffic offenses 5 Crimes against a person 4 Juvenile offender 4 Flight -
escape 3 Smuggling 3 Other offenses (arson, material witness, morals-
decency, obstructing police, public disorder, disorderly conduct, or
sexual assault) 9 Unknown offenses 4

Total c 961

a Records do not indicate the original offense. b Parole violation,
probation violation, and failure to appear are shown separately; they are
not included in this category. c Total is larger than number of fugitive
felons identified because some had more than one warrant

outstanding. Source: GAO computer match using the FBI*s Uniform Offense
Classifications.

Appendix V: Warrants Issued for Fugitive Felons Residing in Federally
Funded Housing

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 41 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 42 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 43 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 44 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 45 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 46 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development

Page 47 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development

Page 48 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development

Page 49 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development

Page 50 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Security Administration

Page 51 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Security Administration

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 52 GAO- 02- 716 PRWORA's Fugitive Felon Provisions

Clarita A. Mrena, Assistant Director (202) 512- 3022 George Erhart,
Analyst- in- Charge (202) 512- 7026

The following people also made significant contributions to this report:
William Hutchinson, Laura Luo, Susan Pachikara, Susan Bernstein, Jonathan
Barker, Jay Smale, Vanessa Taylor, and Elsie Picyk. Appendix IX: GAO
Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments

(130083)

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists
to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to
help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government
for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and
other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and
funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good government is reflected in its
core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov
and select *Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products*
under the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U.
S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO*s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***