WIC Program: More Detailed Price and Quantity Data Could Enhance
Agriculture's Assessment of WIC Program Expenditures (28-JUL-06,
GAO-06-664).
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC), authorizes retail grocers, called regular WIC
vendors, to provide the food benefit. Recently, some states have
seen an increase in vendors called WIC-only vendors, who stock
only WIC food and accept only WIC vouchers. Both vendor types
accept WIC vouchers in exchange for a cash payment, or
redemption, from WIC state agencies with U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) grant funds. To determine what effect WIC-only
vendors' growth would have on program expenditures, in the
absence of recent cost containment legislation, Congress asked
GAO (1) what is known about WIC-only vendors' growth and their
share of the WIC market in recent years, (2) to what extent do
WIC-only and regular WIC vendors differ, and (3) what would
WIC-only vendors' contribution to WIC program expenditures have
been, if their market share increased. GAO analyzed national WIC
vendor data, interviewed WIC state officials about vendors'
business practices, and analyzed redemption data from California,
Texas and Florida.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-664
ACCNO: A57620
TITLE: WIC Program: More Detailed Price and Quantity Data Could
Enhance Agriculture's Assessment of WIC Program Expenditures
DATE: 07/28/2006
SUBJECT: Children
Competition
Cost control
Data collection
Financial analysis
Food programs for children
Infants
Women
State-administered programs
Vouchers
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants and Children
******************************************************************
** 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-06-664
*
* Results in Brief
* Background
* How the Retail Food Delivery System Works
* How WIC Vendors Are Managed
* How Vendor Management in the WIC Program Has Evolved
* WIC-Only Vendors Increased in Number during Fiscal Years 199
* WIC-Only Vendors Tripled from Fiscal Year 1999 to Fiscal Yea
* Despite Recent Growth, WIC-Only Vendors Represent a Fraction
* WIC-Only Vendors Had the Smaller Share of the WIC Market in
* WIC-Only Vendors and Regular WIC Vendors' Business and Marke
* WIC-Only Vendors Emphasized Customer Service, while Regular
* WIC-Only Vendors Tend to Locate near WIC Clinics; Regular WI
* WIC-Only Vendors Used Community-Based Media to Advertise; Re
* Officials Told Us That WIC-Only and Regular WIC Vendors Lowe
* We Estimated That Program Participation Would Have Decreased
* If WIC-Only Vendors' Market Share Had Doubled in 2004 and Pr
* The Reasons for the Size of the Decrease in Program Particip
* If WIC-Only Vendors' Market Share Had Doubled and Program Ex
* Data Limitations Prevented Us from More Fully Analyzing the
* Conclusions
* Recommendation for Executive Action
* Agency Comments
* Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
* Procedures for Analyzing WIC-Only Vendors' Growth and Market
* Data Collection
* Data Analysis
* Procedures for Determining the Extent to Which WIC-Only and
* Sample Selection
* Data Collection
* Data Analysis
* Scenario Analyses of WIC-Only Vendors' Contribution to WIC P
* Data Collection
* The model
* Scenario 1:
* Calculating the Number of Participants
* Scenario 2:
* Results of the Analysis for Scenario 1
* Results of the Analysis for Scenario 2
* Limitations
* Appendix II: Number of WIC-Only Vendors, Fiscal Years 1999-2
* Appendix III: Average Monthly Redemptions per WIC-Only Vendo
* Appendix IV: WIC Vouchers Most Frequently Used at WIC-Only a
* Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
* Order by Mail or Phone
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
July 2006
WIC PROGRAM
More Detailed Price and Quantity Data Could Enhance Agriculture's
Assessment of WIC Program Expenditures
GAO-06-664
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 5
Background 8
WIC-Only Vendors Increased in Number during Fiscal Years 1999-2004,
although Their Market Share Remained Relatively Small in Fiscal Year 2004
15
WIC-Only Vendors and Regular WIC Vendors' Business and Marketing Practices
Differ in Their Approach to Customer Service and Price 23
We Estimated That Program Participation Would Have Decreased by about
136,000 WIC Participants or Expenditures Would Have Increased by About $50
Million if WIC-Only Vendors' Market Share Had Doubled in 2004 32
Conclusions 37
Recommendation for Executive Action 38
Agency Comments 38
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 41
Appendix II Number of WIC-Only Vendors, Fiscal Years 1999-2004 61
Appendix III Average Monthly Redemptions per WIC-Only Vendor by State in
Fiscal Year 2004 62
Appendix IV WIC Vouchers Most Frequently Used at WIC-Only and Regular WIC
Vendors in California, Texas and Florida 63
Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 68
Tables
Table 1: Number of WIC-Only Vendors by State, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2004
17
Table 2: Estimated Change in the Number of Participants Served if WIC-Only
Vendors' Market Share Increased while Program Expenditures Were Held
Constant at Fiscal Year 2004 Levels 33
Table 3: Difference between the Average Value of WIC-Only and Regular WIC
Vendor Food Vouchers in 2004 and the Market Share of WIC-Only Vendors in
California, Texas, and Florida 34
Table 4: Change in Program Expenditures if WIC-Only Vendors' Market Share
Increases while Maintaining the Total Number of Food Vouchers at Fiscal
Year 2004 Levels 36
Table 5: Time Periods Other than Monthly That WIC State Agencies Used in
Reporting Fiscal Year 2004 Redemption Data to FNS 44
Table 6: Example of Application of Model to Actual Data for California 52
Table 7: Example of Calculation of WIC-Only and Regular WIC Vendors'
Number and Average Value of Food Vouchers for California 53
Table 8: Example Calculation of Decline in Number of Participants for
California 54
Table 9: Results of the Calculation of WIC-Only and Regular WIC Vendors'
Number and Average Value of Food Vouchers for California, Texas, and
Florida 56
Table 10: Results of the Calculation of Decline in Number of Participants
for California, Texas, and Florida 58
Table 11: Results of Allowing Program Food Expenditures to Increase for
California, Texas, and Florida 59
Figures
Figure 1: Sample Voucher from California 10
Figure 2: National Total of WIC-Only Vendors 16
Figure 3: Share of Total WIC-Only Vendors Nationwide by State and the Top
Three Metropolitan Areas in 2004 18
Figure 4: Percentage of Total WIC Vendors Represented by Each Vendor Type,
Nationwide and in Select States 20
Figure 5: Average Monthly WIC Redemptions per Vendor in 2004, by Vendor
Type 21
Figure 6: Share of Total Average Monthly WIC-Only Redemptions by State in
2004 23
Figure 7: Available WIC Food Items at WIC-Only Vendor in Texas 25
Figure 8: Interior of WIC-Only Vendor in California 25
Figure 9: Proximity of WIC-Only Vendor to WIC Clinic in Texas 28
Figure 10: Sample WIC-Only Vendor Promotional Flyer 29
Figure 11: Marquee of WIC-Only Vendor in Florida 30
Figure 12: Example of the Average Value of Food Vouchers Redeemed by a
WIC-Only Vendor 48
Figure 13: Example of Hypothetical Vouchers Specifying Price and Quantity
49
Figure 14: Average Monthly Redemptions per WIC-Only Vendor by State in
Fiscal Year 2004 62
Figure 15: Most Frequently Used Vouchers for WIC-Only, Regular and State
Total for California, 2004 63
Figure 16: Most Frequently Used Vouchers for WIC-Only, Regular and State
Total for Texas, 2004 64
Figure 17: Most Frequently Used Vouchers for WIC-Only, Regular and State
Total for Florida, 2004 66
Abbreviations
EBT electronic benefits transfer
FNS Food and Nutrition Service
GIS geographic information system
IOM Institute of Medicine
ITO Indian Tribal Organization
MSA metropolitan statistical area
TIP The Integrity Profile
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
July 28, 2006
The Honorable Tom Harkin Ranking Democratic Member Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry United States Senate
The Honorable Herb Kohl Ranking Democratic Member Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Committee on
Appropriations United States Senate
Each month, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children, better known as WIC, provides nutritious food, nutrition
education, and referrals to health care to more than 8 million low-income
women, infants, of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
through WIC state and local agencies that implement the program and manage
the food delivery system. WIC is a discretionary program, as Congress does
not set aside funds to allow every eligible individual to participate, and
was funded at a level of more than $5 billion in fiscal year 2005.
In most states, WIC participants receive vouchers to exchange for food
from authorized retail grocery stores that are known as WIC vendors in the
program.1 These vouchers provide participants with a prescribed type and
quantity of supplemental WIC foods tailored to their health needs, such as
infant formula, milk, and peanut butter. Participants generally are not
required by the federal WIC program to obtain all items on a voucher.
However, they may not use the voucher to purchase items that are not
listed on it. Because participants receive food in exchange for their
vouchers, without exchanging any cash, their purchasing decisions are not
price sensitive, that is, they do not need to consider the prices WIC
vendors charge for the items.2 The vendors, which include independent
stores as well as national and local chains, accept the vouchers and
exchange them for a cash payment, or redemption, from the WIC state
agency. Until recently, retail grocery stores that commonly carry a
variety of foods including supplemental WIC foods-or regular WIC vendors,
as they are referred to in this report-represented 98 percent or more of
the stores each WIC state agency authorized as WIC vendors. However,
beginning in about fiscal year 2000, some WIC state agencies noticed an
increase in another type of authorized vendor in the WIC vendor market,
one that sells only WIC-authorized food items to program participants and
accepts only WIC vouchers. Prior to changes introduced by the Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, these vendors were called
WIC-only vendors.3 With data reported by the WIC state agencies, FNS has
tracked WIC-only vendors' redemptions since 1998, but little else is known
at the national level about the percentage of total WIC redemptions that
WIC-only vendors are receiving, that is, their market share, or about
their business practices.
1WIC participants may receive benefits in the form of checks or vouchers,
also called food instruments by the WIC program. We refer to both forms as
vouchers for the purposes of this report.
Questions have been raised about whether WIC-only vendors charge higher
prices than other vendors and therefore will place a higher demand on
overall program expenditures over time. If so, the WIC program may need to
restrict program participation or seek additional funding. Concerned about
the potential consequences of increasing claims on program funds, in
fiscal year 2004, Congress established cost containment provisions to
ensure that the WIC program is not charged more for food items obtained at
WIC-only vendors than it would be for the same items at regular WIC
vendors.4 Also, in fiscal year 2005, Congress prohibited the payment of
administrative funds to any state agency that authorized any new WIC-only
vendors, unless deemed necessary to ensure participant access, for 2
years.5 To determine what the effect of WIC-only vendors' growth on WIC
program expenditures would have been without the recent cost containment
changes and the prohibition on authorizing new vendors, and to better
understand how they do business, you asked us (1) what is known about
WIC-only vendors' growth and their share of the WIC market in recent
years, (2) to what extent do the business and marketing practices of
WIC-only and regular WIC vendors differ, and (3) what would WIC-only
vendors' contribution to WIC program expenditures have been if their
market share increased.
2While the WIC program generally does not require participants to pay
attention to vendor prices, some WIC state agencies, such as that of
Texas, for example, require WIC participants to obtain the least expensive
brand of certain items (e.g., juice) with their voucher.
3The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.
108-265 (2004), created a new category of vendors referred to as above 50
percent vendors, vendors whose revenue from the sale of WIC food is more
than half of their annual revenue from food sales, as part of an overall
cost containment strategy. This new category includes WIC-only vendors. In
this report, we used the definitions established by FNS prior to the
changes brought by the reauthorization because those definitions conform
to the redemption data provided by FNS and WIC state agencies for our
analyses.
4The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 established cost
containment provisions that require WIC state agencies to implement a
vendor peer group system that groups stores according to similar
characteristics in a way that ensures that all authorized vendors are paid
competitive prices for WIC food.
To find out what is known about WIC-only vendors' growth and their share
of the WIC market in recent years, we analyzed data from FNS's
administrative data files on the national WIC vendor population-The
Integrity Profile (TIP)-for fiscal years 1999-2004 to determine the number
and distribution of WIC-only vendors. We focused exclusively on data from
the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and excluded from our analysis
any vendor type other than WIC-only vendors and regular WIC vendors.6 To
determine WIC-only vendors' share of the WIC market, we analyzed
redemption data for an average month in fiscal year 2004 from FNS's
regional office files.7 However, because TIP does not record when vendors
enter or exit the WIC program, but instead records any vendor that
participated in WIC during the fiscal year, it may overstate the number of
vendors in operation at any point in time. As a result, we calculated the
number of WIC-only vendors in the program each year, but we were unable to
determine percentage-based growth from year to year. In addition, because
national redemption data for fiscal years 1999-2004 did not meet GAO's
data reliability standards, we could not use these data to analyze changes
in WIC-only vendors' share of the WIC market over time. However, the
fiscal year 1999-2004 TIP data on the number of vendors and FNS regional
office redemption data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.8
5The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447 (2004).
The prohibition applied to those WIC vendors expected to derive 50 percent
or more of their annual revenue from WIC vouchers. This prohibition was
extended for fiscal year 2006, and the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
proposal seeks a continuation of this prohibition through the fiscal year.
6Vendor types excluded from our analysis include military commissaries and
pharmacies. See the background section for more information on these
vendor types.
7Most redemption data from WIC state agencies were reported as average
monthly redemptions in fiscal year 2004. According to FNS, this amount may
represent either the average monthly value of WIC vouchers over a 3-6
month period or a recent month that accurately reflects a vendor's normal
redemptions. See appendix I for additional information.
To determine the difference in WIC-only vendors and regular WIC vendors'
business and marketing practices, we interviewed WIC state agency
officials in seven of the eight states that had authorized more than 10
WIC-only vendors in fiscal year 2004: Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas.9 To complement these
telephone interviews, we visited 4 WIC-only vendors and 4 regular WIC
vendors in California, Texas, and Florida, for a total of 24 site visits.
Our vendor selection criteria included urban and rural locations, years in
operation, and redemption practices. WIC state officials' accounts and the
site visits to vendors provided insight into the distinctions in WIC-only
and regular WIC vendors' business behavior, but were not quantifiable or
applicable beyond the states and vendors they represented.
To calculate the contribution of WIC-only vendors to WIC program
expenditures, we obtained administrative data from the California, Texas,
and Florida WIC state agencies on the redemption value for every voucher
redeemed in those states in fiscal year 2004. We selected these three
states because they represent more than 80 percent of the national
WIC-only vendor market. Because we needed data on both the price and the
quantity of WIC food items purchased from WIC-only and regular WIC vendors
to isolate the effect of WIC-only vendors' prices on program expenditures,
and both of those data elements were not available from any existing data
source, we developed a scenario analysis that used redemption data.10 We
used the redemption data to determine the actual number of vouchers
redeemed and to calculate the average value of all vouchers redeemed in
each of the states by WIC-only and by regular WIC vendors. We applied the
number of vouchers redeemed and the average value of all vouchers redeemed
to the scenario analysis to estimate the effect on program participation
and expenditures of successive increases in WIC-only vendors' market
share. However, because redemption data do not break out the price and
quantity of the individual food items on each voucher, we could not
determine whether prices of individual food items were higher at WIC-only
vendors than at regular WIC vendors. Thus, even though we were able to
calculate the average value of all vouchers redeemed by both types of
vendors, we were not able to explain why the values may have been
different.
8See the discussion of our data reliability assessment procedures in
appendix I.
9Because of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana, one of the states with more than
10 WIC-only vendors, was not included.
Appendix I provides a detailed description of our methodology and its
limitations. We conducted our work from April 2005 through June 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
The number of WIC-only vendors has grown substantially in recent years.
However, their location is concentrated in a few states, and their share
of the national WIC market remained small in 2004. The number of WIC-only
vendors in operation at any point during the fiscal year increased from
394 in 1999 to 1,180 in 2004. WIC-only vendors are concentrated
geographically: in 2004, 84 percent of all WIC-only vendors operated in
California, Texas, or Florida, home to nearly a third of all WIC
participants. Moreover, nearly half were located within three metropolitan
areas: Los Angeles, California; Riverside, California; and Miami, Florida.
Notwithstanding the increase in WIC-only vendors, in 2004 they represented
only 3 percent of the approximately 45,000 WIC vendors nationwide.
Although we could not determine the growth of WIC-only vendors' market
share over time, WIC-only vendors generated 6 percent of business in the
WIC market on an average monthly basis in 2004, compared to the 94 percent
generated by regular WIC vendors. However, on an individual store basis,
WIC-only vendors redeemed about twice the monthly average redemption value
of regular WIC vendors.
10The California, Texas, and Florida WIC state agencies periodically
collect data on WIC vendors' shelf prices, but they do not collect data on
both the price actually charged and the quantity of each WIC food item
purchased with each WIC voucher. The California and Texas WIC state
agencies maintain the shelf price data they collect during vendor
monitoring visits in paper records and do not enter it into the automated
management information systems they use to monitor vendors' redemption
claims. The Florida WIC state agency transfers the shelf price data it
collects during monitoring visits to an EXCEL spreadsheet but does not
incorporate these data into the state agency management information
system. The California WIC state agency also sponsored a survey in fiscal
year 2003 that collected shelf price data from a random sample of the
state's WIC vendors, but this survey did not collect data on food item
purchases. The Texas WIC state agency is currently conducting a pilot
project for electronic benefits transfer (EBT) in selected areas of the
state that collects WIC transaction data, including the type of food item
purchased, the quantity purchased and the price paid, and stores it
electronically in the EBT system. These data may be useful for future
research.
WIC-only and regular WIC vendors used different business models,
reflecting, for the most part, the different customer groups they served,
according to WIC state agency officials. Because WIC participants are not
price sensitive, WIC-only vendors competed for their business by
structuring their stores to emphasize customer service, which participants
seemed to value. For example, to simplify the WIC food purchase, officials
pointed out that WIC-only vendors often gathered the food items listed on
the voucher for WIC participants from food maintained behind a counter.
This practice eliminated the stigma participants may feel because of
backups in regular WIC vendors' checkout lines when they select an
unauthorized food item. WIC-only vendors, we were told, also tended to
locate near WIC clinics, places that were very accessible to WIC
participants. However, regular WIC vendors, who served non-WIC consumers
as well as WIC participants, focused their businesses on their non-WIC
customers, state officials told us. Because these non-WIC consumers are
price sensitive, regular WIC vendors competed for their business based on
price and competitors' behavior. For example, regular WIC vendors made
location decisions based on their broader customer base and often used
price-based incentives, such as "buy-one-get-one-free" offers, specials,
or discount cards to appeal to their non-WIC, price sensitive customers.
An important difference in these approaches was that because WIC
participants were not price sensitive, they might take advantage of the
service offered by WIC-only vendors, even if their prices were somewhat
higher. In contrast to the vendors' different customer service and
marketing practices, state officials told us that both WIC-only and
regular WIC vendors are able to lower the average cost of food they
purchase for resale when they buy in volume, according to a majority of
WIC state agency officials interviewed, by expanding from one outlet to a
chain or forming consortia. However, we did not analyze the effect of
decreasing food-purchasing costs on WIC-only and regular WIC vendors' food
prices.
If WIC-only vendors' market share in 2004 had doubled in California,
Texas, and Florida, either program participation would have decreased by
about 3 percent-about 136,000 participants-or program food expenditures
would have increased about 3 percent-about $50 million-according to our
scenario estimates. Our estimates showed that the average value of all
vouchers redeemed by WIC-only vendors in 2004 was higher than the average
value of all food vouchers redeemed at regular WIC vendors: $0.87 higher
in California, $9.83 higher in Texas, and $4.42 higher in Florida. As a
result, if the number of food vouchers redeemed by WIC-only stores had
increased and total expenditures remained fixed at 2004 levels, fewer
vouchers could have been issued and fewer participants could have been
served. Conversely, if the total number of vouchers issued to participants
remained at the 2004 level, the higher average value of vouchers redeemed
at WIC-only vendors' would have resulted in increased program
expenditures. However, because we used the average value of all food
vouchers in our analysis without knowing the price or quantity of the
individual food items that made up the vouchers, we could not determine if
the higher average value meant that prices for individual food items were
higher at WIC-only vendors. WIC-only vendors' higher average value of
redeemed vouchers could mean that they charge higher prices for WIC food
but could also mean that WIC-only vendors' customers are more likely to
select all of the food items on their vouchers. Making price comparisons
would require both food item price and quantity data for WIC-only and
regular WIC vendors, at a minimum.
To assist WIC state agencies in more effectively monitoring WIC vendors'
redemption practices, in implementing the new cost containment
requirements, and in analyzing program expenditures, we are recommending
that the Secretary of Agriculture require, if collection of more detailed
information on WIC food purchases is cost-effective through electronic
benefits transfer (EBT) implementation, that WIC state agencies collect
data on both the price and the quantity of each WIC food item purchased,
especially in each state that authorizes WIC-only vendors. In oral
comments on a draft of this report, FNS officials generally agreed that
our methodology was reasonable, given data limitations, and did not
dispute our findings. However, officials did not believe that the
small-scale study we recommended in the draft they read would be
cost-effective or necessary, because of the difficulty in collecting price
and quantity data under the current system and because state agencies
already are required to collect shelf price data and redemption data from
authorized vendors. We acknowledged that USDA's research funds are limited
and that its research agenda is full. However, we maintained that because
the cost containment provisions are complex, it is important for FNS to
monitor state agencies' implementation of the provisions closely, to help
ensure that program expenditures are in fact contained. In response, we
removed our recommendation for further study and further clarified our
recommendation for collection of data on both the price and the quantity
of WIC food items purchased under a cost-effective EBT system.
Background
WIC aims to protect the health of low-income women, infants, and young
children who are at nutritional risk by providing nutritious foods to
supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health
care at no charge to participants. Permanently established in 1974, WIC
serves more than 8 million participants each month, including women who
are pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding; infants under the age of 1;
and children under the age of 5, the largest category of participants. To
participate in the program, eligible applicants must meet income
guidelines, be deemed nutritionally at risk by a health professional
(e.g., having a poor diet, low weight, or anemia), and must apply in the
state in which they reside.
In fiscal year 2005, the federal government spent over $5 billion on WIC.
WIC is not an entitlement program that allows every eligible individual to
participate; rather, it is a federal discretionary grant program for which
Congress authorizes a specific amount of funds each year. At the federal
level, WIC is administered by FNS, which provides grants to WIC state
agencies for food and for nutrition services and administration. The
nutrition services and administration grant covers the cost of certifying
participants and determining nutrition risks; providing outreach and
nutrition education services, including breastfeeding promotion; and
printing vouchers and administering the food delivery system. FNS also
determines WIC program policy and guidance, provides technical assistance
to the WIC state agencies and sponsors research on program issues. In
turn, WIC state agencies operate the program through thousands of local
agencies and clinic sites. The 90 WIC state agencies include 50 state
health departments, as well as those of the District of Columbia, 34
Indian Tribal Organizations, and five U.S. territories (Northern Mariana,
American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).
How the Retail Food Delivery System Works
In most WIC state agencies, WIC participants receive vouchers to purchase
supplemental food in appropriate amounts tailored to their health needs
from authorized retail stores, known as vendors in the WIC program.11
Vouchers prescribe food that is high in nutrients found to be lacking in a
participant's diet, such as milk, cereal, and eggs, and are adapted from a
set of federally established food packages that differ according to
participant type (e.g., infants or pregnant woman). Each WIC state agency
designs its own vouchers and usually issues vouchers that contain a
combination of WIC food items. For example, one frequently used voucher
contains eggs, juice, cereal, cheese, milk, and beans. However, some
vouchers contain only one food item, such as formula or cereal. (See app.
IV.) Most participants receive multiple vouchers each month for all of the
food they are prescribed. However they may not use the voucher to purchase
items that are not listed on it. Figure 1 shows a sample voucher for food
items from California's WIC state agency.
11WIC state agencies may also operate other, less prevalent food delivery
systems, including home food delivery systems, in which authorized
supplemental foods are delivered to the participant's home, and direct
distribution food delivery systems, in which participants, or their
proxies, collect authorized supplemental foods from storage facilities
operated by the state agency or its local agency.
Figure 1: Sample Voucher from California
Unlike some other food assistance program models, WIC vouchers do not
provide an incentive for program participants to consider vendor prices
for supplemental foods. For example, the Food Stamp and WIC Farmers'
Market Nutrition Programs generally provide electronic benefits or coupons
that are used like cash at grocery stores or through farmers, and which
encourage participants to make cost-conscious decisions regarding food
choices. In contrast, because WIC participants purchase supplemental foods
with vouchers that prescribe the type and quantity of foods a participant
may receive, regardless of the prices charged by vendors to the WIC
program, WIC participants are not price sensitive, that is, participants
do not have an incentive to purchase their food benefit from lower-priced
vendors.12
The approximately 45,000 vendors in the WIC program accept vouchers and
exchange them for cash payment-or redemption-from their WIC state agency.
Vendors are subject to price limitations, often in the form of an overall
maximum, not-to-exceed amount for each voucher, determined by WIC state
agencies. As shown in figure 1, a state may clearly print the
not-to-exceed amount for the total amount charged on the voucher.
Like other retail grocery stores, WIC vendors sell to participants small
quantities of food items that they typically purchase from manufacturers,
wholesalers, or, on occasion, other retailers. The methods that grocery
stores use to purchase food items are important business practices,
because the cost of buying goods for resale is the largest single expense
for an average grocery store, according to Food Marketing Institute
research.13
How WIC Vendors Are Managed
Through regulation and program guidance, FNS provides broad oversight to
WIC state agencies on cost containment and vendor management. FNS provides
the food grant that state agencies use to reimburse vendors for redeemed
vouchers, gathers program integrity data, supports upgrades to states'
management information systems, and sponsors research on vendor management
issues. Because federal legislation grants primary responsibility for WIC
vendor management to the WIC state agencies, WIC state agencies have
considerable flexibility in designing and implementing their vendor
management systems. FNS regulations require that WIC state agencies'
vendor management systems include six areas of activity:
12The total amount charged for a voucher is monitored and assessed for
reimbursement by WIC state agencies.
13Food Marketing Institute, Marketing Costs (Washington, D.C.),
http://www.fmi.org/facts_figs/superfact.htm (downloaded March 29, 2006).
o authorization and reauthorization-The authorization process
begins with a vendor's application and an on-site visit by WIC
state agency staff to verify the information provided in the
application. Authorized vendors must enter into a written
agreement, which may be reauthorized, usually every 1-3 years.
o training-WIC state agencies train vendor staff on the purpose
of the WIC program and program procedures such as accepting
vouchers from participants at the point of sale.
o representative monitoring-State agencies are required to
conduct routine monitoring visits of at least 5 percent of their
vendors annually to observe vendor and participant transactions
and collect shelf prices to ensure they are within the required
state limits.
o voucher review and redemption-State agencies are required to
develop and implement an edit system of the vouchers turned in for
redemption to detect noncompliance with program regulations. The
redeemed-voucher review includes checking that charges for food
items do not go over the not-to-exceed payment amount for
vouchers, set by the state, and other edits such as transactions
or redemptions outside of valid dates.
o high-risk vendor monitoring-WIC state agencies identify
high-risk vendors through on-site monitoring visits or through the
redemption system and must investigate a minimum of 5 percent of
vendors meeting high-risk criteria, such as high rates of
redemption at or near the not-to-exceed payment amount for
vouchers.
o sanctions-State agencies may impose sanctions ranging from
fines to disqualification on vendors that violate program
requirements or may impose a civil money penalty when a
disqualification would result in inadequate participant access. A
temporarily disqualified vendor may reapply after the
disqualification period has expired.
How Vendor Management in the WIC Program Has Evolved
In the past few years, the WIC program has initiated significant changes
in vendor management practices to contain costs and maximize the number of
eligible women, infants, and children that can receive benefits. Prior to
fiscal year 2004, FNS characterized authorized WIC vendors that
participate in the program as:
o retail grocery stores-vendors that commonly stock a variety of
foods, including supplemental WIC foods, and serve a wide variety
of customers, referred to as regular WIC vendors in this report;
o WIC-only vendors-vendors that stock only WIC-approved food and
accept only WIC vouchers;
o military commissaries-vendors located on military installations
and designed for military families; and
o pharmacies-vendors that only provide infant formula, exempt
infant formula, or WIC-eligible medical foods.14
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 200415 established new
cost containment provisions designed, in part, to ensure that the WIC
program is not charged more for the same supplemental food items provided
in exchange for vouchers that participants might use at WIC-only vendors
instead of at regular WIC vendors. These cost containment provisions
require state agencies to implement a vendor peer group system that groups
stores according to similar characteristics, such as vendor size and
geographic location, in a manner that ensures that the WIC program pays
all authorized vendors competitive prices for supplemental foods. FNS
expects to complete certification of states' plans for cost containment by
September 2006.
One cost containment provision created a new category of vendors referred
to as above 50 percent vendors, which include any vendor whose revenue
from the sale of WIC supplemental food is more than half of its annual
revenue from food sales.16 In addition, the Act prohibited above 50
percent vendors from providing any incentive items, such as free diapers,
detergent, baby strollers, or bicycles, to participants unless the
incentives are of nominal value or were obtained at no cost. On November
29, 2005, USDA issued an interim rule, effective on December 29, 2005,
that incorporated the cost containment provisions of the Act into program
regulations that are applicable to WIC state agencies.17 To help ensure
that vendors' prices are competitive, these regulations require states to
collect and review vendors' shelf prices at least every 6 months after
authorization. The regulations also require state agencies to compare the
average cost of each type of food instrument redeemed by WIC-only vendors
against the average cost of the same type of food instrument redeemed by
regular vendors.
14Exempt infant formulas are designed for infants with specific medical or
dietary problems. Similarly, WIC-eligible medical foods are considered
medically necessary and are prescribed by a physician when conventional
foods cannot be consumed by women or children with special dietary needs.
15The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.
108-265 (2004).
16However, we used the WIC-only vendor definition established by FNS prior
to the changes brought by the reauthorization because those definitions
conform to the redemption data provided by FNS and WIC state agencies for
our analyses.
1770 Fed. Reg. 71,708 (Nov. 29, 2005).
In December of 2005, attorneys representing an association of WIC-only
vendors and three food companies, the plaintiffs, filed an action in
federal district court for the District of Columbia to stop implementation
of FNS's regulations. Arguing that the regulations were contrary to the
Act and to congressional intent, the plaintiffs asserted that the cost
containment provisions concerning above-50-percent vendors would reduce
their WIC reimbursements to a level that would be unsustainable. In
describing services that WIC-only vendors offered WIC participants, the
plaintiffs characterized WIC-only vendors as small businesses and
acknowledged that their cost of doing business was higher than that of
large stores, referred to as box stores, that purchased food in high
volume at discount prices. The plaintiffs estimated that WIC-only vendors'
prices were about 8 to 15 percent higher than prices charged at box
stores, on average. On February 23, 2006, the court dismissed the case,
finding that the cost containment provisions of the interim rule were
consistent with the plain language and purpose of the Act.18
Recent initiatives suggest that more changes to the WIC program are
forthcoming. In 2003, FNS developed a plan to transform WIC from its
paper-based food benefit delivery system to an electronic benefits
transfer system. Through pilot projects in many states that are still
under way, FNS is working toward a national model that is both technically
and financially viable for implementation of EBT by 2008. In addition, in
2004 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) began examining WIC food packages to
determine if modification could help participants eat a healthier diet. In
its 2005 report, IOM recommended revisions to the food packages that match
current dietary guidance for infants and young children, encourage
consumption of fruits and vegetables, emphasize whole grains, lower
saturated fat, and appeal to diverse populations.19
18National Women, Infants and Children Grocers Association v. Food and
Nutrition Service, 416 F.Supp. 2d 92 (D.D.C. 2006).
19See the Institute of Medicine, WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change,
National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2006, for more information.
WIC-Only Vendors Increased in Number during Fiscal Years 1999-2004, although
Their Market Share Remained Relatively Small in Fiscal Year 2004
Since 1999, WIC-only vendors have increased in number, with concentrated
growth in a few states, but their share of the national WIC market stayed
small in comparison to the share of regular WIC vendors during an average
month in 2004. The number of WIC-only vendors nationwide tripled from 1999
to 2004, and the number of states with WIC-only vendors also grew over
this period. Notwithstanding these increases, in 2004 the majority of
WIC-only vendors were located in California, Texas, and Florida, and
nearly half of all WIC-only vendors operated in a few metropolitan areas
within these states. Nationwide, WIC-only vendors still accounted for
about 3 percent of all WIC vendors in 2004 and generated about 6 percent
of business in the WIC market during an average month that year, compared
to regular WIC vendors' predominant market share. On a store-by-store
basis, however, WIC-only vendors' redemption value was greater, on
average, than regular WIC vendors' during this period.
WIC-Only Vendors Tripled from Fiscal Year 1999 to Fiscal Year 2004, and They Are
Highly Concentrated Geographically
The 1,180 WIC-only vendors in operation at any point during 2004 were
three times the number in business at any point in 1999 (see fig. 2).20
20TIP does not record when vendors enter or exit the WIC program, and
therefore may overstate the number of vendors in operation on any
particular date. See appendix I for a more detailed explanation of the
data limitations created by this issue.
Figure 2: National Total of WIC-Only Vendors
Note: Vendor counts include any vendor in operation at some point during
the fiscal year.
Just as the total number of WIC-only vendors has increased, the number of
states with WIC-only vendors has grown in recent years. Of the 50 states
and the District of Columbia, 15 had WIC-only vendors in 2004, an increase
from 12 in 1999 (see table 1).21
21 States may have had WIC-only vendors in 1999 that they did not report
in TIP. As one example, Georgia did not identify WIC-only vendors as a
separate vendor type until 2004. Appendix II presents the number of
WIC-only vendors by state for all fiscal years from 1999 through 2004.
Table 1: Number of WIC-Only Vendors by State, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2004
State 1999 2004
California 235 715
Texas 69 162
Florida 57 109
North Carolina 2 72
Arkansas 4 42
Georgia 0 22
Alabama 0 19
Louisiana 4 11
Oklahoma 5 8
New Mexico 4 7
Virginia 5 6
Kansas 0 3
Utah 2 2
District of Columbia 0 1
Tennessee 2 1
Oregon 5 0
Total 394 1,180
Source: GAO analysis of FNS 1999 and 2004 TIP data.
Note: Vendor counts include any vendor in operation at some point during
the fiscal year. Any state not listed had no WIC-only vendors authorized
during either fiscal year.
Even with the increase in recent years in both total WIC-only vendors and
the number of states with such vendors, in 2004 most WIC-only vendors were
located in three states, and nearly half operated in three metropolitan
areas. Figure 3 shows that, at the national level, 84 percent of all
WIC-only vendors operated in California, Texas, or Florida. Moreover,
approximately one out of every two WIC-only vendors nationwide operated in
Los Angeles, California; Riverside, California; or Miami, Florida. In
contrast, each of the remaining states with WIC-only vendors accounted for
less than 7 percent of total WIC-only vendors in 2004.
Figure 3: Share of Total WIC-Only Vendors Nationwide by State and the Top
Three Metropolitan Areas in 2004
Note: Vendor counts include any vendor in operation at some point during
the fiscal year. All figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number
except for states that accounted for less than 0.5 percent of all WIC-only
vendors, which are marked as "<1 percent." Metropolitan areas were
determined using U. S. Census Bureau definitions for metropolitan
statistical areas.
The total number of WIC-only vendors in operation at any point in 2005 is
not yet available, but may be lower than the 1,180 reported for 2004. For
example, WIC state agency officials in Texas and Florida have indicated
that the number of WIC-only vendors in their respective states decreased
after 2004. Both WIC state agencies continued to monitor and occasionally
disqualify WIC-only vendors. At the same time, Texas WIC agency officials
have indicated that a number of WIC-only vendors went out of business.
Moreover, because the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 prohibited
states from authorizing additional WIC-only vendors after December 8,
2004, WIC state agencies could not replace WIC-only vendors that departed
the program with new WIC-only vendors during much of fiscal year 2005.
Despite Recent Growth, WIC-Only Vendors Represent a Fraction of All WIC Vendors
Notwithstanding the increase in the number of WIC-only vendors in recent
years, WIC-only vendors have remained a fraction of total WIC vendors.
Nationally, the share of all WIC vendors accounted for by WIC-only vendors
increased from approximately 1 percent in 1999 to about 3 percent in 2004
(see fig. 4). During the same period, the number of regular WIC vendors in
operation at any point changed only slightly, from 43,712 in 1999 to
43,463 in 2004. However, in California, Texas, and Florida, WIC-only
vendors have accounted for a larger proportion of all WIC vendors than in
the nation as a whole. At the same time, these three states were home to
nearly one-third of all WIC participants nationwide.
Figure 4: Percentage of Total WIC Vendors Represented by Each Vendor Type,
Nationwide and in Select States
Note: Vendor counts include any vendor in operation at some point during
the fiscal year.
WIC-Only Vendors Had the Smaller Share of the WIC Market in 2004 but Redeemed
about Twice the Average Monthly Amount per Vendor as Regular WIC Vendors
Nationally, as their numbers might suggest, WIC-only vendors had the
smaller share of the WIC market during an average month in 2004, but on a
store-by-store basis, they redeemed about twice as much as regular WIC
vendors.22 Whereas regular WIC vendors accounted for 94 percent of
business in the WIC market, or about $784 million on an average monthly
basis in 2004, WIC-only vendors redeemed about $47 million, or 6 percent
of all WIC redemptions.23 However, WIC-only vendors nationwide redeemed
nearly $40,000 per vendor during an average month that year, about twice
the average monthly amount from WIC as regular WIC vendors that
participated in the program (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Average Monthly WIC Redemptions per Vendor in 2004, by Vendor
Type
22 Because we were unable to calculate the growth of WIC-only vendors'
redemptions over time, we reported redemptions on an average monthly basis
in 2004.
23 WIC business volume is defined as total redemptions from WIC, for the
purposes of our report.
Because these data represent simply the average monthly payments received
per vendor from WIC state agencies, differences between WIC-only vendors'
redemptions and those of regular WIC vendors could signify that a vendor
type charges higher prices for WIC food, but could also reflect the number
of participants that shop at each vendor type; the probability that a
participant selected all or only part of the food items on a voucher; the
amount of WIC business volume conducted, on average, by WIC-only and
regular WIC vendors; or all of these practices.24 For example, a WIC-only
vendor that serves a far greater number of WIC participants than a regular
WIC vendor would tend to have higher redemptions for the same WIC items
even if both vendors' prices for those items were comparable.
At the state level, the three states with the most WIC-only vendors also
produced the majority of total WIC-only vendor business volume during an
average month in 2004. Though the average monthly redemptions per WIC-only
vendor in California, Texas, and Florida fell below the high of nearly
$64,000 per vendor in Oklahoma, the three states accounted for 90 percent
of all WIC-only redemptions during that period (see fig. 6).25
24 The FNS data we analyzed did not allow us to make determinations about
these differences.
25See appendix III for the average monthly redemptions per WIC-only vendor
in fiscal year 2004 for all states with WIC-only vendors.
Figure 6: Share of Total Average Monthly WIC-Only Redemptions by State in
2004
WIC-Only Vendors and Regular WIC Vendors' Business and Marketing Practices
Differ in Their Approach to Customer Service and Price
WIC-only and regular WIC vendors generally employed different business and
marketing practices, largely in response to the two different customer
groups they served and the nature of the markets they faced. Because WIC
participants are not required by the WIC program to consider retail
prices, vendors that served only WIC participants competed for their
business by emphasizing customer service, which participants seemed to
value. On the other hand, regular WIC vendors served non-WIC consumers as
well as WIC participants. Because these non-WIC consumers are considered
price sensitive, regular WIC vendors competed for their business based on
price and competitors' behavior. These differences in customer base also
affected decisions on where to locate stores and how to advertise.
WIC-only stores tended to locate near WIC clinics, while regular WIC
vendors considered their broader customer base when choosing locations.
Also, WIC-only vendors used community-based media and word-of-mouth to
advertise, while regular WIC vendors were more likely to use mass media.
Finally, WIC-only and regular WIC vendors used similar food purchasing
practices, because the cost of food purchased for resale by vendors is
related more to the quantity of food purchased than the type of vendor
purchasing the food. Both WIC-only and regular WIC vendors were able to
lower the average cost of food purchased for resale when they bought in
volume, according to WIC state agency officials.
WIC-Only Vendors Emphasized Customer Service, while Regular WIC Vendors Focused
on Price
WIC-only vendors employed a business model that allowed them to emphasize
customer service for program participants rather than price, while regular
WIC vendors focused on attracting a broader customer base by offering
competitive prices. These differences have likely evolved because WIC
shoppers need not be price sensitive. WIC-only vendors attracted WIC
participants, who were not price sensitive, by emphasizing customer
service. Because WIC participants were not price sensitive, they responded
to non-price inducements, like service, which they valued. As a result,
they might take advantage of the service offered by WIC-only vendors, even
if their prices were somewhat higher. In comparison, regular WIC vendors
more often used price reductions to appeal to a broad customer base, most
of whom were price-sensitive shoppers, according to WIC state agency
officials.
Although WIC-only vendors did not compete on the basis of price, WIC-only
vendors did compete with other WIC-only and regular WIC vendors on the
basis of customer service, a central feature of their business model,
according to WIC state officials. WIC-only vendors typically organized
their stores in ways that emphasized service to their WIC participant
customers. Because WIC-only vendors stocked only WIC-approved items (see
fig. 7), they eliminated the need for WIC participants to identify
WIC-eligible foods. Moreover, WIC-only vendors often kept food behind a
counter, and employees gathered and bagged the WIC items customers
requested, according to most WIC state agency officials we interviewed and
our observations during site visits. (see fig. 8) As a result, customers
did not need to spend time finding products in store aisles or face the
risk or stigma of selecting an unauthorized food item and creating a delay
in the checkout line. Several state officials thought that this feature of
WIC-only vendors' business model was a prime attraction for WIC
participants.
Figure 7: Available WIC Food Items at WIC-Only Vendor in Texas
Figure 8: Interior of WIC-Only Vendor in California
Some state officials told us they believe the customer service features of
WIC-only vendors' business model, together with their use of only one or
two checkout points, their limited customer floor area, and their location
in low-income neighborhoods, would reduce their operating expenses.
However, we were unable to obtain the data needed to confirm these views.
Few WIC-only vendors used price-based incentives such as
buy-one-get-one-free specials, sale items, or discount cards to attract
WIC customers. Because WIC participants purchase items with vouchers and
are not price sensitive, price discounts would not induce them to go to a
store with lower prices. However, for this same reason, WIC-only vendors
would not risk losing WIC customers, even if their prices were higher.
In the past, WIC-only vendors also have given away food and non-food
items, called incentives, to attract customers. For example, WIC-only
vendors gave away strollers and diapers in California and North Carolina,
cash in Arkansas, and gift certificates in Georgia, according to WIC state
agency officials. Because WIC-only vendors' main source of revenue was the
WIC benefit, paid for by the WIC program, offering such incentives raised
concerns about the use of federal funds. However, several WIC state agency
officials noted that the use of incentives by WIC-only vendors has
decreased as a result of rule changes required by the Child Nutrition and
WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004.26 In fact, the WIC state officials we
spoke with in California, North Carolina, and Arkansas said that WIC-only
vendors no longer give away most of the items they provided in the past.
None of the WIC-only vendors we observed on our site visits provided such
incentives, with the exception of one in California that gave customers a
small amount of free produce for purchasing a certain quantity of food
items.
In contrast to WIC-only vendors, the retail grocers that we define as
regular WIC vendors targeted the population at large and did not focus on
customer service, according to WIC state agency officials.27 Regular WIC
vendors served WIC participants, but their largest group of customers was
non-WIC consumers, who are price sensitive. For the most part, regular WIC
vendors targeted their business practices on their non-WIC customers and
set prices in response to this group. The regular WIC vendors we observed
on our site visits provided examples of their business practices that
contrast with those of WIC-only vendors. Of the 12 regular WIC vendors we
visited, none gathered the WIC food items listed on the voucher for WIC
customers and only 3 had food items authorized by the WIC program placed
together on an aisle shelf to assist participants in finding the items on
their vouchers. Having to search store aisles and shelves for the correct
food type, brand, and size listed on their voucher can make shopping for
WIC food items at regular WIC vendors challenging or uncomfortable for WIC
participants.
26Section 203(e)(14) of the law states, "A State agency shall not
authorize or make payments to a [WIC-only] vendor that provides incentive
items or other free merchandise, except food or merchandise of nominal
value (as determined by the Secretary), to program participants unless the
vendor provides to the State agency proof that the vendor obtained the
incentive items or merchandise at no cost."
27 Under the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, an
unknown number of these vendors we call regular WIC vendors will be
reclassified as 50 percent WIC vendors. As such, they will continue to
serve some combination of both WIC participants and price-sensitive
non-WIC shoppers.
WIC state officials told us that regular WIC vendors' marketing practices
are price-based, that is, they competed in the market based on price and
their competitors' behavior. Regular WIC vendors commonly use
buy-one-get-one-free specials, sale items, discount cards, and other
price-based incentives to attract a broad client base that is price
sensitive. Since the rule changes required by the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004, regular WIC vendors, who have sources of
revenue other than federal funds from their broad customer base, continue
to provide higher-priced incentives to attract customers, according to
several of the WIC state agency officials and WIC vendor employees whom we
interviewed.
Despite these differences, WIC-only vendors and regular WIC vendors used
some similar business or marketing practices that did not involve
price-based incentives. For example, both employed checkout staff who
spoke one or more languages other than English, according to the majority
of WIC state agency officials interviewed, a practice we observed on our
site visits. In addition, both vendor types in several states organized
community outreach activities, ranging from baby clothes exchanges to
barbecues.
WIC-Only Vendors Tend to Locate near WIC Clinics; Regular WIC Vendors Base
Location Decisions on Their Broader Customer Base
WIC-only vendors are often located in places readily accessible to WIC
participants. All WIC state agency officials we interviewed stated that
WIC-only vendors tend to locate their stores as close to WIC clinics as
possible (see fig. 9), and several officials indicated that WIC-only
vendors may also operate in low-income neighborhoods-geographic areas that
are often one and the same.
Figure 9: Proximity of WIC-Only Vendor to WIC Clinic in Texas
In contrast, WIC state agency officials told us that regular WIC vendors
typically make their location decisions based on their entire customer
population, not just WIC participants. While WIC state agencies consider
participant access when authorizing regular WIC vendors, they need not
ensure that the vendor will be located near a WIC clinic.
WIC-Only Vendors Used Community-Based Media to Advertise; Regular WIC Vendors
Use Mass Media
WIC-only vendors generally advertise with publicity flyers, word-of-mouth,
and community-based media. WIC officials in all seven states reported that
WIC-only vendors tend to use publicity flyers to publicize their stores;
figure 10 presents an example of this type of advertisement. Further,
word-of-mouth is the most important advertising practice for some WIC-only
vendors. In addition to using flyers and word-of-mouth, some WIC-only
vendors in Alabama, Florida, and North Carolina advertise in local
newspapers, and a few WIC-only vendors in California and North Carolina
promote their stores via radio.
Figure 10: Sample WIC-Only Vendor Promotional Flyer
In addition, most of the WIC-only vendors we visited post signs indicating
that they accept vouchers. In California, the majority of the WIC-only
vendors we visited post signs indicating that the stores accept vouchers.
In Texas and Florida, several stores have replaced the name of the store
in the marquee over the front door with statements such as "WIC Checks
Accepted Here" (see fig. 11).28
Figure 11: Marquee of WIC-Only Vendor in Florida
In contrast to WIC-only vendors, which used community-based media, regular
WIC vendors typically advertised to a broad client base through mass media
such as newspapers, television, radio, and billboards, according to most
WIC agency officials and regular WIC vendor employees interviewed.
However, most of the regular WIC vendors that we visited do not post signs
indicating that they participate in the WIC program, even though most WIC
state agency officials whom we interviewed said that they provide regular
WIC vendors with a state-authorized sign indicating that the store accepts
vouchers.
28Several WIC state agency officials noted that their states limit or do
not permit WIC vendors to use the WIC acronym for advertising purposes.
FNS policy states, "WIC State agencies have the discretion to authorize
WIC vendors to use the acronym `WIC' and/or the WIC logo for the following
purposes: 1) to identify the retailer as an authorized WIC food vendor;
and 2) to identify authorized WIC foods by attaching channel strips or
shelf-talkers stating 'WIC-approved' or `WIC-eligible' to grocery store
shelves."
Officials Told Us That WIC-Only and Regular WIC Vendors Lower Food-Purchasing
Costs by Buying in Volume, although the Effect on Retail Food Prices Is Unclear
Although their marketing and advertising practices differ, WIC state
officials told us that WIC-only and regular WIC vendors use similar
food-purchasing practices. Wholesalers tend to offer WIC-only and regular
WIC vendors lower prices for higher volume purchases, according to a
majority of WIC state agency officials interviewed. Some vendors have
lowered food-purchasing costs by expanding the number of outlets they
operate or forming consortia to buy in greater volume. For example, one
WIC-only vendor in California operates a chain of 49 outlets. A few
WIC-only chains in California and Florida have become wholesalers
themselves because they are large enough to purchase food directly from
manufacturers. WIC state agency officials in two states indicated that WIC
vendors increase the amount of food purchased by forming a consortium with
other vendors. For example, several WIC-only vendors in Florida purchase
food collectively to earn volume discounts from wholesalers.
In contrast to WIC vendors that form consortia or are large enough to
purchase independently from wholesalers or manufacturers, some small WIC
vendors-including both WIC-only and regular WIC vendors-purchase food for
resale from other retail sources. The small WIC vendors may not have the
room to store large amounts of goods or may not be able to buy on credit
from wholesalers. Although several WIC state agency officials said that
buying from other retailers leads to higher costs, a few officials noted
that WIC vendors with a small purchasing capacity may in fact pay less by
buying food from other large retailers, such as Wal-Mart or Costco,
instead of from wholesalers.
Even though WIC vendors can reduce their average food-purchasing costs by
buying food in greater volume, existing data did not permit us to
determine the relationship between food-purchasing costs and retail food
prices. The retail price for food items reflects numerous store-operating
expenses in addition to the cost of buying food for resale-such as
employee salaries, rent, and insurance-and a decrease in average
food-purchasing costs over time does not necessarily result in a reduction
in other business costs.
We Estimated That Program Participation Would Have Decreased by about 136,000
WIC Participants or Expenditures Would Have Increased by About $50 Million if
WIC-Only Vendors' Market Share Had Doubled in 2004
If the market share of WIC-only vendors had doubled in California, Texas,
and Florida, either program participation would have decreased by about 3
percent-about 136,000 participants-or program expenditures would have
increased by about 3 percent-about $50 million-in those states, according
to our scenario estimates using conditions present in 2004.29 These
changes would have occurred because the average value of all food vouchers
redeemed by WIC-only vendors in 2004 was higher than the average value of
all food vouchers redeemed at regular WIC vendors. However, even though
the change would be a similar 3 percent of 2004 levels across all three
states, the reasons for the size of the change differ among the states,
depending on WIC-only vendors' market share and the difference in WIC-only
and regular WIC vendors' average voucher value. Because the average value
of all food vouchers we calculated did not specify either the price or
quantity of individual items that make up the voucher, we could not
determine whether the prices for individual items at WIC-only vendors were
higher than at regular WIC vendors. At a minimum, data on both the price a
vendor charges for individual food items and the quantity purchased by
participants are needed to make price comparisons.
If WIC-Only Vendors' Market Share Had Doubled in 2004 and Program Expenditures
Were Held Constant, We Estimated That Program Participation Would Have Decreased
by About 136,000 WIC Participants
The number of participants that could have been served would have
decreased if the WIC-only vendors' market share increased while holding
total WIC food expenditures constant at 2004 levels, according to our
first scenario.30
As shown in table 2, if redemptions at WIC-only vendors had doubled in
each state, the decrease in the number of participants that could be
served would be 136,202, or about 3 percent of 2004 levels for the three
states.
29Our estimates are based on available data for WIC-only and regular WIC
vendors, excluding pharmacies and commissaries, from 2004 and assume that
all program characteristics other than those we manipulated did not
change. See appendix I for additional information on our methodology.
30We increased the market share of WIC-only vendors by increasing the
number of food vouchers redeemed at these stores. (See scenario 1 analysis
in app. I.)
Table 2: Estimated Change in the Number of Participants Served if WIC-Only
Vendors' Market Share Increased while Program Expenditures Were Held
Constant at Fiscal Year 2004 Levels
Percentage
increase California Texas Florida Total for 3 states
in Decline as Decline as Decline as Decline as
WIC-only Decline in a Decline in a Decline in a Decline in a
vendors' number of percentage number of percentage number of percentage number of percentage
market participants of 2004 participants of 2004 participants of 2004 participants of 2004
share serveda levelb served levelb served levelb served levelb
10 percent
increase -6,277 0.29 -5,271 0.36 -2,072 0.31 -13,620 0.32
20 percent
increase -12,553 0.59 -10,542 0.72 -4,145 0.61 -27,240 0.64
30 percent
increase -18,830 0.88 -15,814 1.08 -6,217 0.92 -40,861 0.96
50 percent
increase -31,383 1.47 -26,356 1.79 -10,362 1.53 -68,101 1.59
100
percent
increase -62,766 2.95 -52,712 3.58 -20,724 3.05 -136,202 3.18
Source: GAO analysis of California, Texas, and Florida WIC state agency
redemption data for 2004.
aWe calculated the number of participants that would be affected by using
the average number of redemptions per participant in each state. (See app.
I)
bTo develop our estimates for fiscal year 2004, we used our redemption
data to calculate the number of people who redeemed a voucher that year:
2.1 million people redeemed vouchers in California, 1.5 million in Texas,
and 0.679 million in Florida. To avoid double counting, we used a unique
identification number for each person that was available in our data and
counted each person only once. Because we had data for every voucher
redeemed in each of the three states, for every month in fiscal year 2004,
our calculations of annual program participation likely exceeded FNS's
estimates based on average monthly participation. (See app. I)
Because the average value of all food vouchers redeemed by WIC-only
vendors in all three states in 2004 was higher than the average value of
all food vouchers redeemed by regular WIC vendors, more funds would have
been needed to reimburse WIC-only vendors than regular WIC vendors for the
same number of vouchers.31 As a result, when the number of food vouchers
redeemed by WIC-only vendors increased and program expenditures were held
constant in our scenario estimate, fewer food vouchers could be issued and
fewer participants could be served. This constraint was reflected in our
analysis by a reduction in the number of vouchers redeemed by regular WIC
vendors.
31These data should be treated with caution. A higher average value for
all food vouchers does not necessarily mean that prices for individual
food items at WIC-only stores are higher than prices at regular WIC
stores. Our average value of all food vouchers redeemed is the average
value of all food vouchers redeemed in particular states, by type of
vendor. (See app. I.)
The Reasons for the Size of the Decrease in Program Participation Differ among
the Three States
Even though the size of the decrease in program participation would be a
similar 3 percent of 2004 levels across all three states, the reasons for
the size of the decrease differ among the states. Two key factors would
affect the size of the decrease in each state: (1) the size of WIC-only
vendors' share of the total WIC vendor market and (2) the difference
between the average value of food vouchers redeemed by WIC-only and by
regular WIC vendors.32 As shown in table 3, in California, WIC-only
vendors' market share was 41.46 percent in 2004, and the difference in the
average value of food vouchers redeemed by WIC-only and regular WIC
vendors was $0.87. Because WIC-only vendors' market share is 41 percent in
California, doubling their market share means that WIC-only vendors would
account for most of the WIC market in that state.
Table 3: Difference between the Average Value of WIC-Only and Regular WIC
Vendor Food Vouchers in 2004 and the Market Share of WIC-Only Vendors in
California, Texas, and Florida
Average value Average value
of WIC-only of regular WIC Difference between WIC-only
food voucher food voucher WIC-only and regular vendors'
State redeemed redeemed WIC redemptions market share
Dollars Dollars Dollars Percent
California $13.15 $12.28 $0.87 41.47
Texas $31.55 $21.72 $9.83 7.93
Florida $22.92 $18.50 $4.42 12.8
Source: GAO analysis of California, Texas, and Florida WIC state agency
redemption data for 2004.
Conversely, in Texas and Florida, redemptions at WIC-only vendors
accounted for a smaller market share than in California in 2004-8 percent
in Texas and 13 percent in Florida. The difference between the average
value of food vouchers redeemed at WIC-only and regular WIC vendors in
2004, however, was higher than in California-$9.83 in Texas and $4.42 in
Florida. Therefore, although WIC-only vendors accounted for a larger
portion of the WIC vendor market in California than in Texas and Florida,
the smaller difference in WIC-only and regular WIC vendors' food voucher
values would have helped counteract the overall effect of an increase in
California WIC-only vendors' market share. Conversely, the smaller market
share held by WIC-only stores in Texas and Florida would have partially
offset the overall effect of the larger difference in average food voucher
value in those two states.
32Our scenario analyses assumed that all factors other than those we
changed, including the difference between WIC-only and regular WIC
vendors' average food voucher values, remained constant as we increased
WIC-only vendors' market share.
We acknowledge that we could have increased the market share held by
WIC-only vendors in Texas and Florida in 2004 further in our scenario
analysis. However, our analysis is based on the relative market shares and
the corresponding differences in average food voucher values in 2004. Over
time, the differences in average food voucher values as well as the market
share held by WIC-only vendors could increase or decrease with
corresponding implications for program resources.
If WIC-Only Vendors' Market Share Had Doubled and Program Expenditures Were Not
Held Constant, Program Expenditures Would Have Increased About $50 Million
Program expenditures would increase if the market share of WIC-only
vendors grew and all else remained the same, including the overall number
of food vouchers redeemed by both WIC-only and regular WIC vendors in
2004.33 As shown in table 4, if redemptions at WIC-only stores doubled in
each state, program expenditures would increase by about $50 million, or 3
percent above the three states' 2004 levels. As discussed previously, the
size of WIC-only vendors' share of t See appendix IV for the range of
vouchers in California, Texas, and Florida that we analyzed. The total WIC
vendor market and the difference between the average value of food
vouchers redeemed by WIC-only and by regular WIC vendors in part explain
why the changes for the three states are similar.
33The overall number of food vouchers redeemed would remain constant as
WIC-only vendors' market share increases because the number of vouchers
redeemed by regular WIC stores would go down. Because our estimates do not
take into account savings from infant formula rebates, the estimated
dollar amounts in our scenario analysis do not reflect total cost to the
program.
Percentage
increase Total for 3
in California Texas Florida states
WIC-only Change as a Change as a Change as a Change as a
vendors' Change in percent-age Change percent-age Change percent-age Change percent-age
market WIC of 2004 in WIC of 2004 in WIC of 2004 in WIC of 2004
share dollars levelsa dollars levelsa dollars levelsa dollars levelsa
Millions Percent Millions of Percent Millions of Percent Millions of Percent
of dollars dollars dollars dollars
10 percent
increase 2.52 0.29 1.78 0.35 0.69 0.30 4.99 0.31
20 percent
increase 5.04 0.57 3.55 0.69 1.38 0.59 9.97 0.61
50 percent
increase 12.60 1.43 8.89 1.73 3.45 1.48 24.93 1.53
100
percent
increase 25.20 2.86 17.77 3.46 6.89 2.96 49.86 3.07
Table 4: Change in Program Expenditures if WIC-Only Vendors' Market Share
Increases while Maintaining the Total Number of Food Vouchers at Fiscal
Year 2004 Levels
Source: GAO analysis of California, Texas, and Florida WIC state agency
redemption data for 2004.
aIn 2004, the value of redemptions was $880 million in California, $513
million in Texas, and $233 million in Florida.
Data Limitations Prevented Us from More Fully Analyzing the Effects of WIC-Only
Vendors on WIC Program Participation and Expenditures
Although our two scenario estimates are based on the best available data
concerning WIC-only vendors' contributions to expenditures and
participation, they are illustrative only and have limitations. Because
food item price data and quantities of food items purchased were not
available, we were unable to construct analyses that would have isolated
the effect of actual prices charged by WIC-only and regular vendors on
program expenditures or participation. For example, some food vouchers in
our data were composed of a single item, but most of them contained
multiple food items, such as milk, cheese, and cereal.34 Because most of
the vouchers contained several types of WIC food and allowable quantities
for each food item, the value of an individual voucher was not the price a
vendor charged for an individual food item. The value of an individual
food voucher was the sum of the price of each food item on the voucher
times the quantity purchased. As a result, the difference in value between
WIC-only and regular WIC vouchers could be due to differences in prices
for individual items or differences in the quantities redeemed or both.
For example, if some participant customers of regular WIC vendors select
only a portion of the food items on a voucher, regular WIC vendors'
average redemption value would be lower than WIC-only vendors', if their
WIC customers received all of the items on the voucher. As a result,
without these data, we could not attribute with certainty the changes in
WIC program participation and expenditures we identified to WIC-only
vendors' prices.
34See appendix IV for the range of vouchers in California, Texas, and
Florida that we analyzed.
Conclusions
The growth in the number of WIC-only vendors in recent years, combined
with our finding that individual WIC-only vendors generally had more than
twice the business volume of regular WIC vendors in an average month in
2004, suggest that WIC-only vendors' share of the WIC retail market was
increasing before the 2004 legislation. Although in some states the number
of WIC-only vendors has not grown, in others the number has grown quickly
and the future effect of the new cost containment requirements on this
growth is not known. Our scenario analyses suggest that continued WIC-only
vendor growth could have resulted in either fewer participants being
served or higher program costs. Moreover, given the current program model
that focuses on ensuring participants receive prescribed foods without
having to consider the costs of the commodities, participants would likely
continue to take advantage of the customer service and convenient location
offered by WIC-only vendors, even if prices are higher.
The lack of price and quantity data needed to explain the higher monthly
average redemptions of WIC-only vendors and the higher average value of
vouchers redeemed by WIC-only vendors leaves important questions
unanswered. We could not determine how WIC-only and regular WIC vendors'
prices differ. Our study was a first attempt to develop a national picture
of WIC-only vendors, to inform policy initiatives and practice. However,
absent a systematic analysis of vendor-level data, it is difficult to
determine with more certainty how changes in market share between WIC-only
and regular WIC vendors would affect WIC program expenditures.
The lack of price and quantity data on WIC food purchases also has broader
program implications. Although WIC state agencies have used routine and
high-risk vendor monitoring and voucher review to promote accountability,
for the most part they authorize and reimburse their WIC-only and regular
WIC vendors without knowing precisely which prescribed foods were
purchased and in what quantities, what price the program was being charged
for food, and whether participants were receiving the whole food package
or only part of it. Collecting these data under the current system would
be costly and burdensome to states. Under the new interim rule, WIC state
agencies are required to collect vendors' shelf price data but not the
actual price charged the program or the quantity purchased. However, two
recent developments in the WIC program-the implementation of electronic
benefits transfer and the redesign of the WIC food package to include
fruit and vegetables-may lead to changes in the WIC voucher and present
WIC state agencies the opportunity to collect price and quantity data
during the WIC transaction in a cost-effective way. This information could
be used to determine whether the prices that both WIC-only and regular WIC
vendors charge the program are reasonable and to analyze the effects of
WIC vendors' prices on program expenditures with greater certainty.
Recommendation for Executive Action
To assist WIC state agencies in more effectively monitoring WIC vendors'
redemption practices, in implementing the new cost containment
requirements, and in analyzing program expenditures, we recommend that the
Secretary of Agriculture require, if collection of more detailed
information on WIC food purchases is cost-effective through EBT
implementation, that WIC state agencies collect data on both the price and
the quantity of each WIC food item purchased, especially in each state
that authorizes WIC-only vendors.
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
for review and comment. On June 14 and 16, 2005, FNS officials provided us
with their oral comments. The officials generally agreed that our
methodology was reasonable, given data constraints, and did not dispute
our findings on the recent growth of WIC-only vendors, the business model
differences between WIC-only and regular WIC vendors, and the likely
effect on the WIC program of further growth of WIC-only vendors' market
share based on 2004 data. However, they raised several concerns. They
asked us to make clear that the 2004 data we used to determine the growth
in the number of WIC-only vendors preceded the current moratorium on
approving new WIC-only vendors, and the data we used to calculate the
effect of additional growth on the program were gathered before the full
implementation of new cost containment provisions. These provisions,
enacted when the program was reauthorized in 2004, are intended to help
ensure that the program pays competitive prices to all authorized vendors.
We incorporated additional references to these recent changes where
appropriate.
FNS officials also commented on our finding that although the average
value of all vouchers redeemed by WIC-only vendors in our three states in
2004 was higher than that of vouchers redeemed by regular WIC vendors in
these states, we could not determine with certainty whether prices charged
by WIC-only vendors are higher than those charged by regular WIC vendors
because we could not disaggregate price from quantity at the level of
purchase. Officials acknowledged the ongoing challenges in collecting
these data for foods provided under the WIC program. However, they
expressed concern that this finding would be misinterpreted to mean there
is no price difference between WIC-only and regular WIC vendors, and our
finding on the likely effect on the program of continued growth of
WIC-only vendors under 2004 conditions would be overlooked. We made some
minor technical revisions to our report wording to clarify our findings
and the limitations of available data on prices charged by WIC vendors.
Further, in the draft these officials read, we recommended that FNS
consider conducting a small-scale study to better understand how WIC-only
vendor prices and operations contribute to program expenditures. Officials
did not believe this study would be necessary or cost-effective because of
the difficulty in collecting price and quantity data on WIC purchases
under the current paper-based system, and because program regulations
already require monitoring of shelf prices and redemption data as a
component of their vendor management. We understand that USDA has limited
funds available for research, with multiple demands on these funds. Since
the cornerstones of the new legislative requirements are that prices at
above-50-percent vendors should be competitive with those charged by
regular vendors and that vendors that derive more than 50 percent of their
revenue from WIC food instruments do not result in higher food costs to
the program than do other vendors, officials are hopeful that the new cost
containment provisions will ensure the program pays competitive prices to
all vendors. However, the cost containment provisions are complex and
entail significant changes for some states. We believe it is important for
FNS to closely monitor implementation of cost containment provisions to
help ensure that program costs are in fact contained as intended.
Moreover, as long as the program is structured so that participants need
not pay attention to price, and given the current lack of available
information on whether participants are actually receiving their
prescribed foods and at what price, we believe FNS should proactively take
advantage of all cost-effective ways of gathering data that will help
contain costs and ensure the program is meeting its overall goals. In
response, we have removed our recommendation for further study and further
clarified our recommendation for additional data collection on the price
and quantity of WIC food items purchased under a new EBT system.
FNS also made additional technical comments, which we have incorporated
where appropriate.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the
Secretary of Agriculture, relevant congressional committees, and other
interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be made available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected] . Contact points for our Office
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Cynthia M. Fagnoni Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
This appendix discusses in detail our methodology for determining whether
the vendors authorized by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) that are known as WIC-only vendors
contribute more to WIC program expenditures than do regular WIC vendors.
The study was framed around three questions: (1) what is known about
WIC-only vendors' growth and their share of the WIC market in recent
years? (2) To what extent do the business and marketing practices of
WIC-only and regular WIC vendors differ?(3) What would WIC-only vendors'
contribution to WIC program expenditures have been if their market share
increased?
Scope
Because existing research on WIC-only vendors consisted of a few
single-state studies or analyses of a small number of individual states,
we sought to develop a national picture. To ensure comparability of costs
and business practices, we focused on the WIC retail vendor market,
excluding Mississippi, which operates a direct distribution system, and
Vermont, which uses a home food delivery system. To prevent potential
duplication of data, we limited the study to the geographically contiguous
states, omitting the 32 Indian Tribal Organizations that authorize many of
same vendors authorized by the geographic WIC state agencies in which they
reside. Given the large size of the WIC retail vendor population, we used
existing data sources for our national-level analyses of WIC-only vendors'
growth and market share. Because WIC food instrument and redemption
systems are unique to each state, we focused our analyses of WIC-only
vendors' contribution to program expenditures at the state level,
concentrating on California, Texas, and Florida, the states that authorize
84 percent of WIC-only vendors. To examine WIC-only and regular WIC
vendors' business and marketing practices, we relied on the experience of
WIC state agency officials who have managed a substantial number of
WIC-only vendors, including officials from seven states that had
authorized 10 or more WIC-only vendors in fiscal year 2004.
Methodology
We used separate sources of data for each study question, including
national-level administrative data for the entire WIC vendor population,
state-level administrative data for every WIC food instrument redeemed in
fiscal year 2004, telephone interviews with WIC state agency directors and
vendor management staff, and on-site observations and interviews at
WIC-only and regular WIC vendor establishments. Before deciding to use the
administrative data, we conducted a thorough data reliability assessment
of each data base, including a review of the data collection and reporting
system that produced the data, guidance on variable definitions and
measures provided to entities that reported the data, and steps the Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) or the WIC state agencies took to ensure data
reliability. Once we received the administrative data files, GAO's
methodologists conducted electronic tests to check for the accuracy and
completeness of individual data elements. We discuss our testing
procedures and steps we took to mitigate any data limitations below, as
part of the methodology for each study question. On the basis of these
efforts, we believe the data are sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We conducted a descriptive analysis of WIC-only vendors' growth and market
share, a scenario analysis of WIC-only vendors' potential contribution to
WIC program expenditures, and a comparative analysis of WIC-only and
regular WIC vendors' business and marketing practices.
Procedures for Analyzing WIC-Only Vendors' Growth and Market Share
To determine what is known about WIC-only vendors in recent years, we
gathered various federal and other data sources. We collected copies of
FNS's The Integrity Profile (TIP) for federal fiscal years 1999 through
2004. TIP is a database that includes information on all vendors
authorized to provide food benefits under the WIC program at any point
during a fiscal year. For each vendor entry, TIP identifies vendor type,
location, and WIC redemption amounts, among other data. TIP data is
provided by 90 WIC state agencies, representing all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs), and U.S.
territories. WIC state agencies submit electronic data to FNS on an annual
basis in accordance with instructions provided by FNS.1 To complement
information provided by TIP, we conducted a literature search to compile a
list of all research conducted on WIC-only vendors in recent years, but
found that few such studies exist. As a result, our analysis focused
largely on TIP.
Data Collection
As one step in our data reliability assessment process, we evaluated the
integrity of TIP data. This procedure revealed two primary limitations.
First, TIP does not report the actual date when a vendor enters or exits
the WIC program; rather, it only indicates whether a vendor was authorized
by a WIC state agency at any point during a fiscal year. As a result, TIP
likely overstates the number of vendors in operation on any given date.
For example, the number of WIC vendors in operation on the first day of a
particular fiscal year-October 1-is probably less than the number reported
by TIP for the same fiscal year, as TIP includes all WIC vendors for that
fiscal year that were authorized as of October 1, in addition to all
vendors that entered the program after that date. Thus, we could not
calculate a percentage-based growth rate from year to year using TIP.
Instead, we could only calculate the total number of WIC vendors of a
specific type in operation for at least 1 day during a particular fiscal
year.
1Through fiscal year 2004, WIC state agencies provided data in electronic
files, using either ASCII or delimited file formats, which FNS then
converted into a consolidated file. For fiscal year 2005, WIC state
agencies were able to upload data directly into the FNS database.
The second limitation we identified was that national TIP redemption data
did not meet GAO's data reliability standards, based upon information
provided by FNS. Although FNS had requested that WIC state agencies submit
average monthly redemption data for all WIC vendors during fiscal years
1999-2003, FNS officials determined subsequently that not all WIC state
agencies had followed these instructions. FNS officials concluded that
some WIC state agencies had submitted redemption data in formats other
than average monthly amounts, such as annual or quarterly figures, but
they were uncertain about the time period used by any particular WIC state
agency in reporting redemption data. In recognition of this problem, for
fiscal year 2004, FNS requested that WIC state agencies specify the time
period that their redemption figures covered when submitting TIP data. FNS
then annualized all redemption figures not submitted as annual amounts by
multiplying the figures that were other than annual by the appropriate
number of months. However, this process may have resulted in overstated
redemption figures for certain WIC vendors in fiscal year 2004, as FNS
annualized the redemption figures for all WIC vendors that did not have
annual redemption amounts-including those vendors that were not authorized
to participate in WIC for the entire fiscal year. As a result of these
issues, we determined that we could not use FNS's national TIP data to
report trends in redemption amounts over time, or to calculate average
annual redemption amounts by vendor type for any particular fiscal year.
However, because FNS had requested that WIC state agencies specify the
time period used in reporting redemption data for fiscal year 2004, we
concluded that we could use the original state data files from that year
to calculate average monthly redemption figures.
We converted redemption figures for all WIC-only and regular WIC vendors
with valid redemption data into average monthly redemption amounts for any
state that reported redemptions in a form other than monthly (see table 5
for these other time periods reported by states to FNS for fiscal year
2004).2 For example, for any state that reported redemption amounts using
quarterly figures, we divided each WIC vendor's redemption total by three
to create an average monthly figure. In converting redemption amounts, we
excluded vendors that were not authorized to participate in the WIC
program but that were sometimes included in the state files. When such
vendors appeared, they were clearly identified as being unauthorized.
2The majority of WIC state agencies provided redemption data over an
average monthly period in fiscal year 2004.
Table 5: Time Periods Other than Monthly That WIC State Agencies Used in
Reporting Fiscal Year 2004 Redemption Data to FNS
State Redemption data reporting period used
Alaska No valid redemptions reporteda
Delaware Quarterly
District of Columbia Annual
Kentucky Annual, specifying the number of months in operation
Maine Annual, specifying the number of months in operation
Maryland Quarterly
Mississippi Not applicableb
New Hampshire Annual, specifying the number of months in operation
New Jersey Quarterly
New Mexico Annual
Ohio Annual
Oregon Annual
Pennsylvania Annual
Rhode Island Annual, specifying the number of months in operation
Vermont Not applicablec
Virginia Annual
West Virginia Annual
Source: FNS regional office 2004 TIP files.
aAlaska's WIC state agency did not report valid redemption data for fiscal
year 2004; therefore, we excluded Alaska from our redemption analysis.
However, Alaska was included in our analysis of national WIC vendor
numbers.
bMississippi did not authorize any WIC-only or regular WIC vendors during
fiscal year 2004.
cVermont did not authorize any WIC-only or regular WIC vendors during
fiscal year 2004.
In addition to eliminating specific analysis procedures due to data
reliability issues, we narrowed the focus of our analyses to certain
geographic areas and WIC vendor types. Because TIP includes data from ITOs
and U.S. territories in addition to the 50 states and the District of
Columbia, some WIC vendors may have been listed in more than one state
agency TIP file. For example, both a state and an ITO located within that
state may have authorized, and thus included in their data file submitted
to FNS, the same WIC vendor. To eliminate these potential data-reporting
redundancies, our analysis of TIP focused exclusively on the 50 states and
the District of Columbia. Concerning our vendor focus, TIP includes some
vendor types and additional food delivery systems that are not directly
comparable to WIC-only vendors. The noncomparable vendor types include
military commissaries, usually located on military installations, and
pharmacies, which often only provide infant formula and WIC-eligible
medical foods. In addition, some state agencies authorize other food
delivery systems, such as home food delivery and direct distribution. We
eliminated from our analysis these noncomparable vendors and alternate
food delivery systems, and defined our total WIC vendor population as
consisting entirely of WIC-only vendors and regular WIC vendors.
Data Analysis
Our findings are the result of two primary analyses. First, we generated
frequency statistics concerning the number and location of WIC-only
vendors and regular WIC vendors for fiscal years 1999 through 2004, and
used geographic information system (GIS) software to map the location of
WIC-only vendors in fiscal year 2004. Second, using the original state
data we received from FNS's regional offices for fiscal year 2004, we
analyzed average monthly WIC redemption amounts by vendor type, both
nationally and by state.
Procedures for Determining the Extent to Which WIC-Only and Regular WIC Vendors'
Business and Marketing Practices Differ
To identify WIC-only and regular WIC vendors' business and marketing
practices, we used two data collection strategies: group telephone
interviews with WIC state agency directors, vendor management staff, and
local agency staff that participate in vendor monitoring in selected
states, and site visits to three of the states selected for telephone
interviews. We developed criteria and selected states and officials for
the telephone interviews and the site visits.
Sample Selection
Because we were relying on WIC state officials' experience managing their
WIC-only and regular WIC vendors to identify their business and marketing
practices, we selected states for the telephone interviews that had
authorized a substantial number of WIC-only vendors and specified 10 as
the minimum number of vendors. Using TIP data for fiscal year 2004 to
determine the number of vendors in operation, we selected states that had
at least 10 WIC-only vendors that year. During fiscal year 2004, the
number of WIC-only vendors in the 16 states that authorized them varied
from 1 to 715, but eight states-California, Texas, Florida, North
Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana-had 10 or more. We
treated Puerto Rico as a separate case and, because of Hurricane Katrina,
excluded Louisiana, leaving seven states for interviews. To select
telephone interview respondents, we asked the WIC state agency director to
identify staff who had observed WIC-only and regular WIC vendors' business
and marketing practices directly through representative monitoring and
compliance investigations.
To ensure that we visited establishments with a range of key
characteristics, we selected states for site visits from among those with
the greatest number of WIC-only vendors-California, Texas, and Florida. We
selected vendor establishments to visit in consultation with the WIC state
agency director. Our selection criteria included urban and rural
locations, years in operation, food price range, and vendor size, measured
by WIC redemption volume. The California and Texas WIC state agencies
provided us with a list of vendors from which we chose vendors according
to our selection criteria. The Florida WIC state agency provided us with a
list of vendors that met our criteria. We visited four WIC-only and four
regular WIC vendors in each of the three states.
Data Collection
We developed an interview guide with a standard set of questions for the
telephone interviews and data collection instruments for the site visits.
As a first step, we compiled a list of business and marketing practices
from an interview with WIC state agency directors and vendor managers;
interviews with representatives of vendor associations, such as the
National Grocers Association, the Gulf Coast Retailers Association, and
the California Independent Grocers Association; and existing studies of
WIC-only vendors. These practices include selling shelf space to
manufacturers; location of stores near clinics or military bases;
advertising methods such as announcing weekly specials in newspaper ads or
placing flyers on windshields in parking lots; incentives offered to
participants at no cost, such as strollers, diapers, and bicycles; reduced
price offers, such as buy one item, get one free; and transportation for
participants to and from the vendor's establishment. For the telephone
interviews, we converted the list of practices to a separate set of
questions about WIC-only and regular WIC vendors. The site visit data
collection instruments covered the same topics as the telephone instrument
to permit comparisons of the information provided by WIC state agency
staff and our observations of vendor establishments and interviews with
store managers. However, the site visit instrument was designed with
fixed-response questions in a checklist format to facilitate completion
during observation. To complement the observational and interview data, we
obtained digital cameras and, with the WIC vendors' permission, took
interior and exterior photographs of the vendor establishments we visited.
Data Analysis
For all of the seven states we interviewed by telephone, we prepared a
state-level table that synthesized the interview responses separately by
vendor type and key business and marketing practice categories. We also
prepared summary tables that further aggregated the business and marketing
practice data within vendor type for each state. We used the summary
tables to make cross-state comparisons. For the site visit interview
responses, we created a matrix to summarize key findings on store
characteristics, illustrative price data, and selected business and
marketing practices.
Scenario Analyses of WIC-Only Vendors' Contribution to WIC Program Expenditures,
if Their Market Share Increases
In order to assess WIC-only vendors' contribution to WIC program food
expenditures, if their market share increased, we developed two scenarios,
based on available data for 2004 (the latest data available). In these
scenarios we asked:
o Scenario 1: What would have happened to the number of food
vouchers that could have been issued and the number of WIC
participants that could have been served in 2004, if we increased
the number of food vouchers redeemed at WIC-only vendors while
holding program food expenditures constant at fiscal year 2004
levels?
o Scenario 2: What would have happened to program food
expenditures in 2004 if we increased the number of food vouchers
redeemed at WIC-only vendors while program expenditures were not
held constant and the number of food vouchers issued to program
participants remained at the 2004 level?
Data Collection
We obtained copies of administrative data files from WIC state agencies'
management information systems in California, Texas, and Florida. These
data included information on every food voucher that had actually been
redeemed-that is, submitted for payment and paid-in these states. The unit
of measure in our data was the value of a redeemed food voucher, and the
data consisted of values for more than 100 million vouchers.
Using these data, we could determine the actual number of food vouchers
redeemed at WIC-only and regular WIC vendors for each of the three states,
as well as the average value of all food vouchers redeemed at WIC-only and
regular WIC vendors in each state. For example, figure 12 depicts the
information available on three representative food vouchers and how we
combined the values for these individual vouchers (e.g., $17.95, $13.07,
and $12.55) to determine the average value of all vouchers redeemed (e.g.,
$14.52). We did this for all vouchers for WIC-only and regular WIC vendors
in California, Texas, and Florida.
Figure 12: Example of the Average Value of Food Vouchers Redeemed by a
WIC-Only Vendor
Even though we were able to calculate the average value of all redeemed
food vouchers for WIC-only and regular WIC vendors, we were not able to
determine whether prices for individual food items were higher at WIC-only
vendors than at regular WIC vendors. In order to answer that type of
detailed question, we would have needed additional information that was
not available because of the way data are collected by the states.
Specifically, we would have needed the price of the individual food items
listed on the voucher and the quantity of each food item purchased, in
addition to the total redeemed value. Figure 13 shows hypothetical
vouchers from two vendors that include the type of information that would
have been needed for such an analysis. It specifies that 2 gallons of milk
were purchased at $3.57 per gallon for a total expenditure of $7.14.
However, the data files we received did not contain either the price or
the quantity purchased for individual vouchers.
Figure 13: Example of Hypothetical Vouchers Specifying Price and Quantity
Without information on the quantity and price of the items on food
vouchers, WIC participants would not know the value of the items they
received and could not be price sensitive. WIC agencies would also not be
able to determine the prices of the items they redeemed or whether
participants received the total quantity of products specified on the
voucher. Without this information, it is difficult to know why average
redemption values differ.
Figure 13 illustrates why it is important to know the quantity actually
redeemed by the participant. For example, as shown in voucher 1 in the
figure, the participant received the full quantity of food specified on
the voucher. The average value of all items is $17.95. In voucher 2, the
average value of the voucher at $14.00 is less expensive. The participant,
however, did not buy eggs or cheese and did not receive the full quantity
of food specified on the voucher. If the voucher represents a prescription
designed to fulfill shortfalls in the participant's nutritional needs, the
partial fulfillment suggests that although the average value of voucher 2
is less than in voucher 1, the actual delivery of the food has not been
achieved.
Voucher 2 in figure 13 also demonstrates why it is necessary to know the
price of individual items on the voucher. Without this information, it is
not possible to know whether the prices at one vendor are higher than
prices at another vendor. In voucher 2, the total value of the voucher is
less than in voucher 1, yet the price charged for a gallon of milk is
significantly higher. Use of the average value of the voucher of $14.00
clearly does not prove that prices at the second vendor are less than
prices at the first vendor with the higher average value of $17.95.
In addition, it is important to collect the actual price of the sales
transaction-collected at the point of sale-rather than a shelf price. This
is because the price listed on the shelf may not be the actual price of
the transaction. For example, if milk is being sold as a loss leader at
the vendor represented by voucher 1, it is possible that the price on the
shelf is actually $7.00 per gallon even though the price on the voucher is
$3.57 per gallon.
We also would have needed information on such things as the size and
location of stores to further determine why prices and average values may
have varied between WIC-only and regular WIC vendors in the states.
The model
To answer the questions presented in these two scenarios, we used the
following equation for the sum of WIC-only and regular WIC retail vendor
food expenditures:
1) (program food expenditures for WIC-only vendors) + (program food
expenditures for regular WIC vendors) = total WIC program food
expenditures, or:
2) qw xw + qrxr = F04
Where,
qw xw = program food expenditures for WIC-only vendors where
qw= number of vouchers redeemed by WIC-only vendors
xw = average value of vouchers redeemed by WIC-only vendors
qrxr = program food expenditures for regular WIC vendors where
qr = number of vouchers redeemed by regular WIC vendors
xr= average value of vouchers redeemed by regular WIC vendors
F04 = total WIC program food expenditures for fiscal year 2004
Table 6 shows the actual data for 2004 for California and can be used to
demonstrate the application of the model. The number of vouchers redeemed
by WIC-only vendors (qw) equaled 28,866,000, the average value of vouchers
redeemed (xw ) equaled $13.15.3 Conversely, the number of vouchers
redeemed by regular WIC vendors (qr) equaled 40,745,000, the average value
of vouchers redeemed (xr) equaled $12.28. Total WIC program food
expenditures for California for fiscal year 2004 (F04 ) equaled
$880,096,000. These data can be used in the formula to obtain the
following:
3) (28,866,000* $13.15) + (40,745,000 * $12.28) = $880,096,0004
3For each state, we computed the number of redeemed vouchers as the total
count of records in each state data file excluding vouchers redeemed at
commissaries and pharmacies. In addition, we removed, on the advice of and
in consultation with state representatives, any record that appeared to
contain an anomaly such as missing an instrument ITEM number code, missing
a vendor TYPE code, having a redeemed amount greater than the maximum
allowable amount, or having a negative redeemed amount.
4Numbers may not add because of rounding. The total is the result of
numbers and calculations carried out using more significant digits than
shown and is accurate.
Table 6: Example of Application of Model to Actual Data for California
WIC-only vendors Regular WIC vendors Total
Average Average
value of value of Total number
Number of food Number of food of food Total WIC
vouchers vouchers vouchers vouchers vouchers program food
redeemed redeemed redeemed redeemed redeemed expenditures
California Thousands Dollars Thousands Dollars Thousands Thousands
2004 28,866 $13.15 40,745 $12.28 69,611 880,096
Actual
Source: GAO analysis of California WIC state agency redemption data for
2004.
Scenario 1:
In the first scenario, we wanted to see how participation would change in
California, Texas, and Florida in 2004 if the number of vouchers redeemed
at WIC-only vendors increased while holding total WIC program food
expenditures constant at 2004 levels. We did this by increasing the number
of vouchers redeemed at WIC-only vendors in the states in 2004 by a
hypothetical 10, 20, 30, 50, and 100 percent. Because we increased the
number of food vouchers redeemed at WIC-only vendors, and do not allow
total WIC program food expenditures to increase, the total number of
vouchers for WIC-only and regular WIC vendors that can be issued depends,
in part, on whether the average value of redeemed vouchers is higher for
WIC-only vendors. If the average value is higher, fewer food vouchers
could be issued under this scenario and thus fewer participants could be
served. This would be reflected in our scenario by a reduction in the
number of vouchers redeemed by regular WIC vendors. We calculated this
change in the number of vouchers redeemed by regular WIC vendors by using
equation 2a, which is equation 2 transformed.5 We calculated the number of
vouchers that would have been redeemed at regular WIC vendors qr for each
hypothetical increase. All else was held constant at 2004 levels.
2a.) qr = ((F04 - qw xw/)/xr )
We then used these new quantities calculated for WIC-only and regular WIC
vendors under each of the hypothetical increases to determine the program
food expenditures for each of the vendors. Examples of the scenario
results for California are presented in table 7. In the case of a 100
percent increase in WIC-only vendor redemptions, we increased the number
of WIC-only redemptions from the actual value in 2004-28,866,000 by a
hypothetical 100 percent to 57,732,000. The resulting number of
redemptions for regular WIC vendors, as calculated in formula 2a,
decreased from the 2004 value of 40,745,000 to 9,827,000. All else-the
average value of redeemed vouchers for WIC-only ($13.15) and regular WIC
vendors ($12.28), as well as total WIC program food expenditures
($880,096,000)-is held constant.
5 Equation 2 is transformed to 2a in the following manner:
qw xw + qr xr = F04
qr xr = (F04 - qw xw)
qr = ((F04 - qw xw)/xr )
Table 7: Example of Calculation of WIC-Only and Regular WIC Vendors'
Number and Average Value of Food Vouchers for California
Regular WIC
WIC-only vendors vendors Total
Average Average Total
Number of value of Number of value of number of
food food food food food Total WIC
vouchers vouchers vouchers vouchers vouchers program food
redeemed redeemed redeemed redeemed redeemed expenditures
California Thousands Dollars Thousands Dollars Thousands Thousands
100% 57,732 $13.15 9,827 $12.28 67,560 $880,096
increase
Source: GAO analysis of California WIC state agency redemption data for
2004.
This decline in the number of vouchers redeemed at regular WIC vendors
results from the restriction in the analysis of keeping total WIC program
food expenditures constant at 2004 levels. This decline occurs because
according to our calculations based on all food vouchers for the state,
the average value of food vouchers redeemed at WIC-only vendors is
somewhat higher than the average value at regular WIC vendors.
Calculating the Number of Participants
We calculated the number of participants who might be affected by the
change in the scenario. We did this by adding together the number of
vouchers redeemed at WIC-only and regular WIC vendors in 2004 and under
each hypothetical increase in the scenario for each of the three states.
For example, in California, a total of 69,611,000 vouchers were redeemed
in 2004 (table 6). As shown in table 7, for a doubling in the number of
vouchers redeemed by WIC-only vendors, we estimated a total of 67,560,000
vouchers.
In the absence of more specific information on participation, we simply
divided the total number of vouchers redeemed by the average number of
vouchers redeemed per participant for each of the states. For example, in
California we estimated 32.69 vouchers per participant.6 We used that
information to estimate that there were 2,130,000 participants in 2004,
(69,611,000 / 32.69). Conversely, as shown in table 8, if the redemptions
of vouchers by WIC-only vendors doubled, we estimated that 2,067,000
participants (67,559,000 / 32.69) would be affected.
As shown in table 8, in California, the difference between the number of
participants in 2004 and the estimated number of participants if WIC-only
vendor redemptions increased 100 percent (2,067,000-2,130,000) indicated a
decline of 63,000 participants that could be served. In California, this
represented about 3 percent of the number of participants in 2004,
((63,000 / 2,130,000)*100).
Table 8: Example Calculation of Decline in Number of Participants for
California
Total number of Average number
vouchers of vouchers
redeemed, all redeemed per Number of
vendors person participants
California Thousands Number Thousands
2004 actual 69,611 32.69 2,130
100 percent increase in
vouchers redeemed at WIC-only
vendors 67,560 32.69 2,067
Decline in vouchers and -2,052 0 -63
participants
Source: GAO analysis of California WIC state agency redemption data for
2004.
Note: Numbers may not add because of rounding.
Scenario 2:
In the second scenario, we wanted to see how expenditures that had been
held constant in the previous scenario would have to change in order to
maintain the level of program participation constant at 2004 levels when
the market share of WIC-only vendors increased. As in the previous
scenario, we increased the number of redeemed food vouchers for WIC-only
vendors (qw) by a hypothetical 10, 20, 50, and 100 percent. While keeping
the total number of vouchers redeemed constant at 2004 levels, we again
used equation 2a to calculate the number of redeemed vouchers for regular
WIC vendors (qr). We allowed total expenditures to increase (F04). We then
looked at the difference between that new level of expenditures and 2004
levels and then calculated what that change represented as a percentage of
2004 levels.
6The number of vouchers per participant is based on the number of unique
people who redeemed a voucher, that is, people who are counted only once
even if they came back multiple times. For California, we computed the
number of participants as a count of all unique INDIVIDUAL_ID values. This
was defined in the California data documentation as a "system generated 11
character identifier unique to an individual". The Individual ID can
remain constant throughout the participant's entire eligibility period
with WIC. For Texas, we computed the number of participants as a count of
all unique CID (Unique Number Identifying A Client) values in the file.
For Florida, we asked the state agency for "the number of unique people
who redeemed any type of food instrument in FY2004". Florida provided us
with an "Unduplicated count for FFY04". The number of vouchers per
participant was computed as the number of vouchers/number of participants.
Results of the Analysis for Scenario 1
The results of the analysis for scenario 1 are presented in the next two
tables. As shown in table 9, if the number of food vouchers redeemed in
California at WIC-only vendors doubled, the number would increase from
28.8 million to 57.7 million, while the number at regular WIC vendors
would decline from 40.7 million to 9.8 million.
Table 9: Results of the Calculation of WIC-Only and Regular WIC Vendors'
Number and Average Value of Food Vouchers for California, Texas, and
Florida
Actual and
scenario Regular WIC
increases WIC-only vendors vendors
in Average Average
vouchers Number of value of Number of value of
at food food food food Total WIC
WIC-only vouchers vouchers vouchers vouchers program food
vendors redeemed redeemed redeemed redeemed expenditures
California Thousands Dollars Thousands Dollars Thousands
2004 28,866 $13.15 40,745 $12.28 880,096
actual
10 % 31,753 13.15 37,653 12.28 880,096
increase
20% 34,639 13.15 34,561 12.28 880,096
increase
30 % 37,526 13.15 31,470 12.28 880,096
increase
50 % 43,299 13.15 25,286 12.28 880,096
increase
100% 57,732 13.15 9,827 12.28 880,096
increase
Texas
2004 1,808 31.55 20,988 21.72 512,976
actual
10 % 1,989 31.55 20,726 21.72 512,976
increase
20% 2,170 31.55 20,463 21.72 512,976
increase
30 % 2,350 31.55 20,201 21.72 512,976
increase
50 % 2,711 31.55 19,675 21.72 512,976
increase
100% 3,616 31.55 18,362 21.72 512,976
increase
Florida
2004 1,562 22.92 10,641 18.50 232,709
actual
10 % 1,719 22.92 10,447 18.50 232,709
increase
20% 1,875 22.92 10,254 18.50 232,709
increase
30 % 2,031 22.92 10,060 18.50 232,709
increase
50 % 2,343 22.92 9,673 18.50 232,709
increase
100% 3,125 22.92 8,706 18.50 232,709
increase
Source: GAO analysis of California, Texas, and Florida WIC state agency
redemption data for 2004.
WIC-only vendors account for a much smaller share of the WIC market in
Texas and Florida than in California. In Texas, for example a doubling of
the WIC-only vendors' market share would result in an increase in the
number of food vouchers redeemed from 1.8 million to 3.6 million-with the
number of food vouchers redeemed at regular WIC vendors decreasing from
20.9 million to 18.3 million.
For Florida, the doubling of WIC-only vendors' market share would result
in an increase in the number of food vouchers redeemed from 1.6 million to
3.1 million-with the number of food vouchers redeemed at regular WIC
vendors decreasing from 10.6 million to 8.7 million.
In all the states, the average value of vouchers redeemed at WIC-only
vendors was higher than the average value of vouchers redeemed at regular
WIC vendors. The value for California was calculated as $13.15, while the
value for regular WIC was $12.28, with a difference of $0.87 between the
two types of vendors. In Texas, the average value of vouchers redeemed at
WIC-only vendors was calculated to be $31.55, while the value for regular
WIC vendors was $21.72-a difference of $9.83. In Florida, WIC-only voucher
redemptions averaged $22.92 in value, while the value for regular WIC was
$18.50-a difference of $4.42. In addition, according to our analysis, the
average value of vouchers redeemed at regular WIC vendors was lowest in
California, at $12.28, followed by Florida at $18.50 and Texas at $21.72.
The difference in the average value of vouchers redeemed should be treated
with a great deal of caution. Because we used the average value of all
food vouchers in our analysis without knowing the price or quantity of the
individual food items that made up the vouchers, we could not determine if
the higher average value meant that prices for individual food items were
higher at WIC-only vendors. As described earlier, the data represent the
average value of the vouchers, not prices for specific food items. These
data do not enable us to make price comparisons between the two types of
vendors. In addition, this analysis does not allow us to determine why the
average values in vouchers redeemed may be higher. To do that, we would
need enough data on the costs vendors incurred in obtaining the food items
as well as an understanding of the factors affecting those costs, such as
store size, store location, marketing conditions and business practices,
and any other factors affecting food item prices, to identify the factors
affecting voucher values.
The results of our calculation of the decline in the number of
participants due to the increase in WIC-only vendors' market share are
presented in table 10. The number of redemptions as reported to us by each
of the states was 33 per participant in California, 16 in Texas, and 18 in
Florida. The decline in the number of participants ranged from less than 1
percent for a 10 percent increase in the number or redemptions at WIC-only
vendors to about 3 percent for a 100 percent increase.
Table 10: Results of the Calculation of Decline in Number of Participants
for California, Texas, and Florida
Actual and Decline in
scenario Total Average number of
increases in number of number of participants
food vouchers vouchers, vouchers Decline in as a
at WIC-only all per Number of number of percentage of
vendors vendors person participants participants 2004
California Thousands Number Thousands Thousands Percent
2004 actual 69,611 33 2,130 -
10 % increase 69,406 33 2,123 -6 0.29
20% increase 69,201 33 2,117 -13 0.59
30 % increase 68,996 33 2,111 -19 0.88
50 % increase 68,585 33 2,098 -31 1.47
100% increase 67,560 33 2,067 -63 2.95
Texas
2004 actual 22,796 16 1,469 -
10 % increase 22,715 16 1,464 -5 0.36
20% increase 22,633 16 1,458 -11 0.72
30 % increase 22,551 16 1,453 -16 1.08
50 % increase 22,387 16 1,443 -26 1.79
100% increase 21,978 16 1,416 -53 3.59
Florida
2004 actual 12,203 18 679 -
10 % increase 12,166 18 677 -2 0.31
20% increase 12,129 18 675 -4 0.61
30 % increase 12,091 18 673 -6 0.92
50 % increase 12,017 18 669 -10 1.53
100% increase 11,831 18 658 -21 3.05
Source: GAO analysis of California, Texas and Florida WIC state agency
redemption data for 2004.
Results of the Analysis for Scenario 2
The results of our analysis for scenario 2 are shown in table 11.
Expenditures for WIC-only vendors in California increased from $380
million for a 10 percent increase to $759 million for a doubling of their
market share. Expenditures changed by $2.5 million for the 10 percent
increase to $25 million for a 100 percent increase in WIC-only market
share.
Table 11: Results of Allowing Program Food Expenditures to Increase for
California, Texas, and Florida
Actual and Program food
scenario expenditures by Total program food Change in
increases vendor type expenditures total
in Change in program food
vouchers food expenditures
at Regular expenditures as a
WIC-only WIC-only WIC Total food under percentage
vendors vendors vendors expenditures scenarios of 2004
California Thousand Thousand Thousand Thousand dollars Percent
dollars dollars dollars
2004 379,704 500,392 880,096
actual
10 % 417,674 464,942 882,616 2,520 0.29
increase
20% 455,644 429,491 885,135 5,039 0.57
increase
50 % 569,555 323,139 892,694 12,598 1.43
increase
100% 759,407 145,885 905,292 25,196 2.86
increase
Texas
2004 57,046 455,930 512,976
actual
10 % 62,751 452,002 514,753 1,777 0.35
increase
20% 68,455 448,075 516,530 3,554 0.69
increase
50 % 85,569 436,292 521,861 8,885 1.73
increase
100% 114,092 416,654 530,746 17,770 3.46
increase
Florida
2004 35,801 196,907 232,709
actual
10 % 39,382 194,016 233,398 689 0.30
increase
20% 42,962 191,125 234,087 1,378 0.59
increase
50 % 53,702 182,452 236,154 3,446 1.48
increase
100% 71,603 167,997 239,600 6,891 2.96
increase
Source: GAO analysis of California, Texas, and Florida WIC state agency
redemption data for 2004.
In Texas, program food expenditures in the scenario increased from $1.8
million to $17.8 million, while expenditures increased from $689,000 to
$6.9 million in Florida. In all three states the increase represented from
less than 1 percent to about 3 percent of 2004 values.
Limitations
The scenarios presented are based on the best data available at the time
of the analysis. The results, however, are illustrative and leave
unanswered some fundamental questions, including whether WIC-only vendors
charge higher prices for food items and if so why the prices would be
higher and what is the overall effect on total program food expenditures
and participation. In order to more fully answer these questions, we would
have to know more about the actual prices and quantities of individual
food items on the redemption vouchers. Any price comparison would have to
be for similar products of similar quantity and quality. In addition, we
would also have to know the factors that may be influencing prices. This
would include such things as the costs for obtaining the product, as well
as the difference between that cost and price. In addition, even if price
differences exist, certain factors affecting the store's costs-the size of
the store, the location of the store, and the general market structure in
which the store operates-may help explain the price differences. In the
case of the WIC market, the role of the program itself cannot be ignored;
for example, that participants are not price sensitive. Thus to fully
understand the price difference between WIC-only and regular WIC vendors,
we would need not only additional data but a different framework of
analysis that would allow us to hold various factors constant while
changing others. This type of detailed analysis would require significant
resources to gather the data and, in addition, would probably be limited
in scale to cover local rather than national WIC markets.
Appendix II: Number of WIC-Only Vendors, Fiscal Years 1999-2004
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Alabama 0 0 0 3 4 19
Arkansas 4 4 9 0 0 42
California 235 303 378 516 653 715
District of Columbia 0 0 0 1 1 1
Florida 57 78 90 106 109 109
Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 22
Kansas 0 0 0 0 1 3
Louisiana 4 5 4 6 13 11
Maryland 0 0 0 1 1 0
Missouri 0 1 0 0 0 0
New Mexico 4 4 4 4 4 7
North Carolina 2 11 18 29 44 72
Oklahoma 5 6 6 6 6 8
Oregon 5 7 7 0 0 0
Tennessee 2 2 2 3 2 1
Texas 69 89 86 81 116 162
Utah 2 1 1 1 1 2
Virginia 5 12 16 22 6 6
Total WIC-only vendors 394 523 621 779 961 1,180
Source: GAO analysis of FNS 1999-2004 TIP data.
Note: Vendor counts include any vendor in operation at some point during
the fiscal year. States not listed did not authorize any WIC-only vendors
at any time during any of the fiscal years listed.
Appendix III: Average Monthly Redemptions
per WIC-Only Vendor by State in Fiscal Year 2004
The figure below shows the average monthly redemptions per WIC-only vendor
and the number of these vendors in the 15 states (including the District
of Columbia) with them in fiscal year 2004.
Figure 14: Average Monthly Redemptions per WIC-Only Vendor by State in
Fiscal Year 2004
Note: N = number of WIC-only vendors with valid redemption data in fiscal
year 2004. States are listed from left to right with decreasing numbers of
WIC-only vendors.
Appendix IV: WIC Vouchers Most Frequently Used
at WIC-Only and Regular WIC Vendors in California, Texas and Florida
The figures below show the most frequently used vouchers for WIC-only and
WIC regular vendors as well as the state total. We defined "most
frequently" used as those that accounted for more than 1 percent of the
total. The figures indicate that both WIC-only and regular vendors are
redeeming the same type of vouchers.
Figure 15: Most Frequently Used Vouchers for WIC-Only, Regular and State
Total for California, 2004
Figure 16: Most Frequently Used Vouchers for WIC-Only, Regular and State
Total for Texas, 2004
[This page left blank intentionally.]
Figure 17: Most Frequently Used Vouchers for WIC-Only, Regular and State
Total for Florida, 2004
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Cynthia M. Fagnoni (202) 512-7215, [email protected]
Acknowledgments
Kay Brown,(Assistant Director), Sara Edmondson, (AIC), Carol Bray, Casey
Hanewall, Avani Locke, Luann Moy, Jennifer Popovic, Mark Ramage, Tovah
Rom, and Dan Schwimer also made significant contributions to this report.
(130464)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-664 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Cynthia Fagnoni at (202) 512-7215 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-664 , a report to congressional requesters
July 2006
WIC PROGRAM
More Detailed Price and Quantity Data Could Enhance Agriculture's
Assessment of WIC Program Expenditures
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and children
(WIC), authorizes retail grocers, called regular WIC vendors, to provide
the food benefit. Recently, some states have seen an increase in vendors
called WIC-only vendors, who stock only WIC food and accept only WIC
vouchers. Both vendor types accept WIC vouchers in exchange for a cash
payment, or redemption, from WIC state agencies with U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) grant funds. To determine what effect WIC-only vendors'
growth would have on program expenditures, in the absence of recent cost
containment legislation, you asked GAO (1) what is known about WIC-only
vendors' growth and their share of the WIC market in recent years, (2) to
what extent do WIC-only and regular WIC vendors differ, and (3) what would
WIC-only vendors' contribution to WIC program expenditures have been, if
their market share increased. GAO analyzed national WIC vendor data,
interviewed WIC state officials about vendors' business practices, and
analyzed redemption data from California, Texas and Florida.
What GAO RecommendsGAO recommends that the USDA Secretary require, if
collecting detailed information on WIC food purchases is cost-effective
through electronic benefits transfer, that WIC state agencies collect data
on the price and quantity of each food item purchased. USDA generally
agreed with our findings.
The number of WIC-only vendors has tripled since 1999, with growth
concentrated in a few states. However, WIC-only vendors' share of the
national WIC market was relatively small compared to that of regular WIC
vendors in 2004. Nationally, WIC-only vendors increased in number from 394
in 1999 to 1,180 in 2004, but 84 percent of these vendors are in
California, Texas, and Florida. Despite their growth, WIC-only vendors
accounted for 3 percent of all WIC vendors nationwide, and their market
share, that is, their percentage of all WIC redemptions nationally, was on
average 6 percent in 2004. Because of limitations in the data, we were
unable to calculate annual growth rates or analyze changes in market share
over time.
WIC-only and regular WIC vendors generally employed different business and
marketing practices, largely in response to the two different customer
groups they served, according to WIC state agency officials. Because WIC
participants are not required to consider retail prices, WIC-only vendors
competed for participants' business by emphasizing customer service, which
participants seemed to value. On the other hand, regular WIC vendors
served non-WIC consumers as well as WIC participants. Because these
non-WIC consumers are price sensitive, regular WIC vendors competed for
their business based on price and competitors' behavior. An important
difference in these approaches was that because WIC participants were not
price sensitive, they might choose the service offered by WIC-only
vendors, regardless of price. Finally, WIC-only and regular WIC vendors
used similar food purchasing practices, because the cost of food purchased
for resale is related more to the volume purchased than to the type of
vendor purchasing the food. Both WIC-only and regular WIC vendors were
able to lower the average cost of food purchased for resale when they
bought in volume, according to WIC state agency officials.
If WIC-only vendors' market share in 2004 had doubled in California,
Texas, and Florida, either about 3 percent-about 136,000-fewer
participants could have been served in each state, or program food
expenditures would have increased about 3 percent-about $50
million-according to our scenario estimates. The average value of all
vouchers redeemed by WIC-only vendors in 2004 was higher than the average
value of all vouchers redeemed at regular WIC vendors. Thus, if the number
of vouchers redeemed by WIC-only vendors had increased and state food
expenditures remained at 2004 levels, fewer vouchers could have been
issued, and fewer participants served. Conversely, if the number of
vouchers issued remained at 2004 levels, the higher average value of
vouchers redeemed at WIC-only vendors would have resulted in increased
program expenditures. However, the price and quantity of the individual
food items that make up the vouchers were not available to us; therefore
we could not determine if the higher average value of vouchers meant that
prices for individual food items were higher at WIC-only vendors. Making
price comparisons would require food item price and quantity data for both
WIC-only and regular WIC vendors, at a minimum.
*** End of document. ***