Food Stamp Program: FNS Could Improve Guidance and Monitoring to
Help Ensure Appropriate Use of Noncash Categorical Eligibility
(28-MAR-07, GAO-07-465).
In fiscal year 2005, the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food
Stamp Program served over 25 million individuals per month, on
average, providing over $28 billion in benefits for the year. To
reduce the administrative burden on state agencies, current food
stamp regulations allow households that receive or are authorized
to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) noncash
services to obtain automatic eligibility for food stamps, known
as categorical eligibility. TANF noncash services include any
TANF noncash or in-kind benefits, such as child care and
transportation aid. Under categorical eligibility, households
must apply to determine if they will receive any food stamp
benefits. The application process for categorically eligible food
stamps is the same as for regular food stamps, except that
caseworkers apply the different income and asset limits for the
TANF noncash services, or those imposed by the state. Under
current food stamp regulations, states must confer categorical
eligibility for individuals receiving, or authorized to receive,
TANF noncash services that are funded with more than 50 percent
federal or state maintenance of effort (MOE) funds and serve
certain TANF purposes. In addition, states have the option to
confer categorical eligibility using TANF noncash services funded
with less than 50 percent federal or state funds. States are
required to determine that individuals are eligible for a TANF
noncash service and notify them of this determination before
conferring categorical eligibility, but individuals are not
required to receive these services. USDA's Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS), which administers the Food Stamp Program, is not
required to track how states are implementing categorical
eligibility, but it does sporadically collect information from
the states on the nature and funding of the services used to
confer categorical eligibility. The Administration has proposed
eliminating TANF noncash categorical eligibility for food stamps,
and the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that about
280,000 participants would no longer be eligible for food stamps
in fiscal year 2008 if the proposal is implemented. Also, because
food stamp eligibility confers automatic eligibility for other
nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch Program,
there is some question as to how the elimination of TANF noncash
categorical eligibility would affect the recipients of other
nutrition programs. In this context, Congress asked us to review
the implementation of TANF noncash categorical eligibility and
examine the potential effect of its proposed elimination.
Specifically, Congress asked us to answer the following
questions: (1) How have states implemented categorical
eligibility for TANF noncash recipients? (2) How do the income
and asset levels of TANF noncash food stamp recipients compare to
those of TANF cash food stamp recipients? (3) What is the
potential effect of eliminating TANF noncash categorical
eligibility on Food Stamp Program participation, administration,
and state administrative costs?
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-465
ACCNO: A67386
TITLE: Food Stamp Program: FNS Could Improve Guidance and
Monitoring to Help Ensure Appropriate Use of Noncash Categorical
Eligibility
DATE: 03/28/2007
SUBJECT: Disadvantaged persons
Eligibility criteria
Eligibility determinations
Food relief programs
Income statistics
Policy evaluation
Program management
State-administered programs
Program implementation
Food Stamp Program
HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-465
* [1]Survey of State Food Stamp Administrators
* [2]Data on TANF Categorically Eligible Food Stamp Households
* [3]State Site Visits
* [4]GAO Contact
* [5]Staff Acknowledgments
* [6]GAO's Mission
* [7]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [8]Order by Mail or Phone
* [9]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [10]Congressional Relations
* [11]Public Affairs
Report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S.
Senate
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
March 2007
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
FNS Could Improve Guidance and Monitoring to Help Ensure Appropriate Use
of Noncash Categorical Eligibility
GAO-07-465
Contents
Letter 1
Appendix I Briefing Slides 7
Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 44
Appendix III State Vehicle Rule Choices and Descriptions 47
Appendix IV Other Nutrition Programs 51
Appendix V Nature of TANF Noncash Services Used to Confer Categorical
Eligibility for Food Stamps 56
Appendix VI Eligibility Criteria of TANF Noncash Services Used to Confer
Categorical Eligibility 60
Appendix VII State-by-State Comparison of TANF Noncash and TANF Cash
Categorically Eligible Households 70
Appendix VIII State-by-State Household Characteristics of TANF Noncash
Categorically Eligible Food Stamp Households 76
Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 119
Related GAO Products 120
Abbreviations
CACFP Child and Adult Care Food Program
CSFP Commodity Supplemental Food Program
FNS Food and Nutrition Service
FSP Food Stamp Program
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
MOE maintenance of effort
NSLP National School Lunch Program
SBP School Breakfast Program
SFMNP Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
SMP Special Milk Program
TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
TEFAP The Emergency Food Assistance Program
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
March 28, 2007
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Chairman
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
Ranking Republican Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate
In fiscal year 2005, the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Stamp
Program served over 25 million individuals per month, on average,
providing over $28 billion in benefits for the year. To reduce the
administrative burden on state agencies, current food stamp regulations
allow households that receive or are authorized to receive Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) noncash services to obtain automatic
eligibility for food stamps, known as categorical eligibility.^1 TANF
noncash services include any TANF noncash or in-kind benefits, such as
child care and transportation aid.^2 Under categorical eligibility,
households must apply to determine if they will receive any food stamp
benefits. The application process for categorically eligible food stamps
is the same as for regular food stamps, except that caseworkers apply the
different income and asset limits for the TANF noncash services, or those
imposed by the state.^3
Under current food stamp regulations, states must confer categorical
eligibility for individuals receiving, or authorized to receive, TANF
noncash services that are funded with more than 50 percent federal or
state maintenance of effort (MOE) funds and serve certain TANF purposes.
In addition, states have the option to confer categorical eligibility
using TANF noncash services funded with less than 50 percent federal or
state funds. States are required to determine that individuals are
eligible for a TANF noncash service and notify them of this determination
before conferring categorical eligibility, but individuals are not
required to receive these services. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), which administers the Food Stamp Program, is not required to track
how states are implementing categorical eligibility, but it does
sporadically collect information from the states on the nature and funding
of the services used to confer categorical eligibility.
^1Categorical eligibility for food stamps is also available through
receipt of TANF cash assistance, Social Security Income, and general
assistance.
^2These services may also include short-term, nonrecurring cash payments,
but not TANF cash assistance.
^3For example, caseworkers in Massachusetts apply a gross income limit of
200 percent of the federal poverty level to determine if households are
eligible for the state's TANF noncash service that confers categorical
eligibility for food stamps. In addition, Texas has a $5,000 asset limit
for all TANF noncash categorically eligible households.
The Administration has proposed eliminating TANF noncash categorical
eligibility for food stamps, and the Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that about 280,000 participants would no longer be eligible for
food stamps in fiscal year 2008 if the proposal is implemented. Also,
because food stamp eligibility confers automatic eligibility for other
nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, there is
some question as to how the elimination of TANF noncash categorical
eligibility would affect the recipients of other nutrition programs. In
this context, you asked us to review the implementation of TANF noncash
categorical eligibility and examine the potential effect of its proposed
elimination. Specifically, you asked us to answer the following questions:
(1) How have states implemented categorical eligibility for TANF noncash
recipients? (2) How do the income and asset levels of TANF noncash food
stamp recipients compare to those of TANF cash food stamp recipients? (3)
What is the potential effect of eliminating TANF noncash categorical
eligibility on Food Stamp Program participation, administration, and state
administrative costs?
To answer these questions, we surveyed food stamp administrators in the 50
states and the District of Columbia to collect information on TANF noncash
categorical eligibility implementation. We also obtained household
characteristic data on noncash households from 21 out of the 29 states
that confer TANF noncash categorical eligibility. To augment the survey
results, we conducted site visits in Maryland, Massachusetts, and South
Carolina to interview state and local officials responsible for
administering the food stamp and other nutrition programs. We selected
states that were geographically dispersed across FNS regions and provided
variety across (1) population coverage of TANF noncash services, (2)
number of noncash services, and (3) total food stamp population. We
reviewed FNS data and interviewed officials from FNS and representatives
of nutrition groups. We conducted our work from June 2006 to March 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
On March 15, 2007, we briefed you on the results of our analysis. This
report formally conveys the information provided in that briefing (see
app. I). In summary, we reported the following findings:
o The 29 states that confer TANF noncash categorical eligibility
use a variety of noncash services to qualify participants for food
stamp benefits under categorical eligibility, such as services
that provide employment support, family support, and
self-sufficiency support. Some states use brochures or information
referral services that could allow for a large segment of the
state's food stamp population to be categorically eligible, while
some states use services designed to serve more narrowly defined
populations.^4 Six states may not be following program
regulations, however, which require them to use certain federally
or state-funded noncash services to confer categorical
eligibility. Additionally, some states reported that they do not
specifically determine if an individual needs a certain TANF
noncash service before conferring food stamp eligibility.
o TANF noncash categorically eligible food stamp households appear
to have slightly higher incomes as compared to those of TANF cash
categorically eligible households.^5 We do not have asset data for
the TANF cash categorically eligible households, so we cannot
compare the assets of TANF cash and TANF noncash households.
o Our analysis showed that a vast majority of TANF noncash
households may remain eligible for food stamps without TANF
noncash categorical eligibility because their income and/or asset
levels are within the regular food stamp limits. Other households
may lose eligibility for food stamps because their income and/or
asset levels are too high. However, the degree to which
participation may decrease varies across the states. In addition,
our analysis showed that few noncash households may lose
eligibility for other nutrition programs because their incomes are
sufficiently low to qualify them for these programs. Similarly,
many of the states' food stamp officials believed eliminating
noncash categorical eligibility would decrease participation in
food stamps and other nutrition programs. Many of the states' food
stamp officials also believed that the proposed elimination of
noncash categorical eligibility would increase the Food Stamp
Program administrative workload and state administrative costs,
for example, due to the need to verify assets, change data
systems, and train staff.
^4Some states use both types of services. For example, Oregon provides
information and referral services as well as several services targeted to
more narrowly defined populations, such as a housing stabilization program
targeted to homeless families or those at risk for homelessness.
^5FNS data on TANF cash categorically eligible households are from fiscal
year 2005; state data on TANF noncash categorically eligible households
are from September 2006 for the 21 states that confer noncash categorical
eligibility for which we have data on household characteristics.
In conclusion, although some states appear to do little to link a
household's need for specific TANF noncash services in conferring
categorical eligibility for food stamps, we found that the vast majority
of these households may still be eligible for regular food stamps if TANF
noncash categorical eligibility were eliminated. In addition, it appears
that some states are not conferring categorical eligibility to households
receiving, or authorized to receive, TANF noncash services funded with
more than 50 percent federal or state MOE funds as required by the
regulations. As a result, some states may not assess all potentially
eligible households to determine if they could receive food stamps through
a TANF noncash service. Finally, FNS's administration of the TANF noncash
categorical eligibility program may result in some states not following
program rules or states not fully understanding the implications of how
they have implemented the program.
To improve management and administration of TANF noncash categorical
eligibility, we recommend that FNS provide guidance and technical
assistance to states clarifying which TANF noncash services states must
use to confer categorical eligibility for food stamps and monitor states'
compliance with the categorical eligibility requirements.
We provided a draft of this report to FNS for comment, and on March 12,
2007, we met with FNS officials to obtain their comments. Overall, the
officials agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendation. The
agency officials said they would wait until after the Food Stamp Program
is reauthorized under the Farm Bill reauthorization due in 2007 to see if
TANF noncash categorical eligibility for food stamps is retained before
implementing the recommendation. FNS officials said it is difficult to
identify the magnitude of states' noncompliance with the funding rule
without more information about specific state programs. We added
information, where appropriate, on which states appear not to be following
the funding rules and provided some examples of the noncash services. FNS
officials also said that if TANF noncash categorical eligibility is
eliminated, only a small number of households may no longer be eligible
for food stamps, even if this number represents a high percentage of a
state's TANF noncash categorically eligible population. We agree with this
statement and clarified the text.
In addition, FNS officials stated that at the state level, program changes
are regularly made which may increase state administrative costs. The
officials noted that these costs can be difficult to quantify and can vary
from state to state; moreover, small changes in the amount of time spent
on one part of policy may not change total state administrative costs. We
agree that states may experience different costs to change their
operations if noncash categorical eligibility is eliminated, but we
reported information that the states provided in response to our survey.
The agency also indicated that it recently issued a report on expanded
categorical eligibility in February 2007.^6 FNS officials said that
although FNS may characterize information on states somewhat differently
than we do, the conclusions about the program remain the same. FNS also
provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.
^6"Food Stamp Program: Expanded Categorical Eligibility," FNS, USDA,
Alexandria, Virginia, February 2007.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture,
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov .
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
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found in the
last page of this report. GAO staff who have made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix IX.
Sincerely,
Sigurd R. Nilsen
Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Briefing Slides
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
To understand more about individuals eligible for food stamps as a result
of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) noncash categorical
eligibility, we examined (1) how states have implemented categorical
eligibility for TANF noncash recipients; (2) how the income and asset
levels of TANF noncash food stamp recipients compare to those of TANF cash
food stamp recipients; and (3) the potential effect of eliminating TANF
noncash categorical eligibility on Food Stamp Program participation,
administration, and state administrative costs.
To address these issues, we surveyed state food stamp administrators,
obtained data on TANF noncash households from 21 out of the 29 states that
confer TANF noncash categorical eligibility,^1 conducted three state site
visits (Maryland, Massachusetts, and South Carolina), analyzed data
provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS), and interviewed program stakeholders, including officials
at FNS headquarters and regional offices and representatives of nutrition
groups. We conducted our work from June 2006 to March 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Survey of State Food Stamp Administrators
To learn about states' implementation of TANF noncash categorical
eligibility for food stamps, we conducted a Web-based survey of food stamp
administrators in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey
was conducted between October 2006 and February 2007 with 100 percent of
state food stamp administrators responding. The survey included questions
about (1) the number and nature of TANF noncash services states use to
confer food stamp categorical eligibility, (2) why states chose or did not
choose to confer noncash categorical eligibility, (3) how states determine
eligibility for noncash services that confer categorical eligibility, (4)
the availability of state data on household characteristics of TANF
noncash food stamp recipients, and (5) state officials' opinions on the
potential effects on food stamp participation, administration, and state
administrative costs, as well as other nutrition programs, if TANF noncash
categorical eligibility were eliminated.
Because this was a survey of all states and the District (not a sample
survey), there are no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties
of conducting any survey may introduce nonsampling errors, such as
variations in how respondents interpret questions and their willingness to
offer accurate responses. We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors,
including pretesting draft instruments and using a Web-based
administration system. Specifically, during survey development, we
pretested draft instruments with officials in Maryland, New York, Oregon,
and Pennsylvania in August and September 2006. In the pretests, we were
generally interested in the clarity of the questions and the flow and
layout of the survey. For example, we wanted to ensure definitions used in
the surveys were clear and known to the respondents, categories provided
in closed-ended questions were complete and exclusive, open-ended
questions were understandable, and the ordering of survey sections and the
questions within each section was appropriate. On the basis of the
pretests, the Web instrument underwent some slight revisions. A second
step we took to minimize nonsampling errors was using a Web-based survey.
By allowing respondents to enter their responses directly into an
electronic instrument, this method automatically created a record for each
respondent in a data file and eliminated the need for, and the errors (and
costs) associated with, a manual data entry process. To further minimize
errors, programs used to analyze the survey data were independently
verified to ensure the accuracy of this work. We found our survey data to
be sufficient for the purposes of our work.
^1Twenty-two states reported that they do not have TANF noncash services
funded with more than 50 percent TANF or state maintenance of effort (MOE)
dollars and said they have chosen not to confer categorical eligibility
for TANF noncash services funded with less than 50 percent TANF/MOE.
Data on TANF Categorically Eligible Food Stamp Households
We obtained the following data for each TANF noncash categorically
eligible food stamp household for September 2006 from 21 out of the 29
states that confer TANF noncash categorical eligibility:^2
o total number of TANF noncash categorically eligible households;
o gross income;
o net income;
o countable resources, excluding vehicles;
o dollar value of vehicles;
o number of children less than age 5;
o number of children age 5 to 17;
o number of disabled children;
o number of nondisabled adults age 18 to 59;
o number of disabled adults age 18 to 59;
o number of nondisabled persons age 60 or over; and
o number of disabled persons age 60 or over.
^2Some of the 21 states did not provide all the data elements.
We found the state data on TANF noncash categorically eligible food stamp
households to be sufficient for the purposes of our work. To compare the
TANF noncash to TANF cash households, we obtained data from FNS on the
household characteristics of TANF cash categorically eligible households
for fiscal year 2005, the latest available data. FNS did not provide data
on disabled versus nondisabled children and adults. In addition, FNS did
not provide asset data (i.e., countable resources and vehicles) because
the agency does not collect asset data on TANF cash categorically eligible
households.^3
State Site Visits
To supplement information from the survey, we conducted three site visits
(Maryland, Massachusetts, and South Carolina). We selected states that
were geographically dispersed across FNS regions and provided variety
across (1) states that use TANF noncash services that could cover a large
segment of their food stamp population versus services targeted to more
narrowly defined populations, (2) the state's total number of TANF noncash
services that confer categorical eligibility, and (3) the state's total
food stamp population. During each visit, we met with state and local
officials (including caseworkers) responsible for administering the food
stamp and other nutrition programs, such as the school breakfast and lunch
programs, to obtain their views on the implementation of, and potential
effects of eliminating, TANF noncash categorical eligibility for food
stamps.
^3 For categorical eligibility, there is no separate food stamp asset
limit; instead, the asset limit is that imposed by a TANF noncash service
or by a state.
Appendix III: State Vehicle Rule Choices and Descriptions
State Vehicle rule choice Vehicle rule description
Alabama TANF assistance All vehicles are excluded.
Alaska TANF assistance Alaska excludes the value of a
vehicle if it is necessary for
transportation to meet basic needs
(obtaining food, medical care);
transportation to and from work,
school, training; used in
self-employment; or used as the
household's home. All vehicles
with an equity value of $1,500 or
less are excluded. All other
vehicles have their equity value
counted.
Arizona TANF assistance Vehicles are not considered in the
resource determination, with the
exception of recreational
vehicles.
Arkansas TANF assistance In conjunction with the TANF rule,
the state exempts one vehicle per
household regardless of the value.
California Child care/foster care All vehicles are exempt for the
purpose of determining food stamp
eligibility.
Colorado Food Stamp Program All vehicles are exempt except
recreational vehicles.
Connecticut TANF assistance State did not provide vehicle rule
description.
District of TANF assistance The District of Columbia excludes
Columbia the value of any vehicle primarily
used for transportation.
Delaware TANF/MOE--categorical Food Stamps (FS) in Delaware does
eligibility not use the TANF vehicle rules.
Because the state has expanded
categorical eligibility to all FS
applicants, except those who have
a disqualified household member,
the state does not look at
resources in the FSP at all for
categorically eligible households.
Florida Food Stamp Program and The state excludes any vehicle
TANF assistance possible by using the food stamp
rules to exempt vehicles. For
those that cannot be exempted, the
state applies the TANF policy of
excluding $8,500 maximum equity
value, and then counting the
remaining value toward the $2,000
(or $3,000 for elderly and
disabled) asset limit.
Georgia TANF/MOE--categorical The state aligned its vehicle
eligibility policy with its TANF support
services policy. The TANF
Transitional Support Services
policy excludes vehicles from
consideration.
Hawaii TANF assistance All vehicles are excluded
regardless of value.
Idaho Food Stamp Program Idaho currently uses Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) rules on
vehicle resource determination.
The state is proposing a rule
change to the legislature this
year. If passed, Idaho will
exclude one vehicle per adult
household member; all other
vehicles subject to CFR rules.
Illinois Food Stamp Program and Licensed vehicles are exempt:
TANF assistance
o one vehicle per household
o if net proceeds if sold would
be $1,500 or less
o if used primarily for
producing income
o if annually producing income
consistent with fair market
value
o if needed for long-distance
travel for employment, not
including daily commuting
o if it is the household's home
o if needed to transport a
physically disabled household
member
o if needed to carry fuel for
heating or water for home use
if the transported fuel or
water is the main source of
fuel or water
o one vehicle for each adult
o if used by person under age
18 to transport to training or
education to prepare for work
(except high school or
college), work, or to look for
work
Indiana Food Stamp Program (1) Fair Market Value (FMV) -
$4,650 = x (2) FMV - lien(s) = y.
The state uses the greater of x
and y as a resource.
Iowa Food Stamp Program and Iowa excludes the entire value of
TANF assistance one vehicle per household for TANF
and the Food Stamp Program. The
value of remaining vehicles for
the Food Stamp Program is
determined using FSP rules.
Kansas TANF assistance All vehicles are exempt for TANF
and FS purposes.
Kentucky TANF assistance State did not provide vehicle rule
description.
Louisiana TANF assistance Louisiana excludes the value of
all vehicles when determining
eligibility for food stamp
benefits.
Maine TANF assistance Primary household vehicle exempt.
Additional vehicle may be exempt
depending on use. Can have exempt
vehicle for each licensed driver
in the household.
Maryland TANF assistance The value of all vehicles is
excluded from countable resources.
Massachusetts TANF assistance Vehicles were eliminated as
countable assets for FS purposes
in 11/2001. The Department of
Transitional Assistance (DTA)
chose to adapt the vehicle rule of
a TANF-funded program for former
Transitional Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (TAFDC) clients
who are unemployed and are
completing an education or
training program. This program
provides child care services for
up to 6 months after the TAFDC
cash case has closed. There is no
vehicle test in this program.
Michigan State did not provide The state does not consider assets
(resources) as a result of its
expanded categorical eligibility,
so therefore the state does not
follow the vehicle rules.
Minnesota TANF/MOE--categorical The TANF/MOE program that confers
eligibility categorical eligibility for FS
does not count vehicles as assets.
Mississippi TANF assistance Mississippi excludes all vehicles
except recreational vehicles such
as boats, all-terrain vehicles
(ATV), etc.
Missouri Child care/foster care All vehicles are excluded.
Montana Child care/foster care All vehicles are excluded.
Nebraska Child care/foster care One vehicle per household can be
excluded if the vehicle has a fair
market value of: (a.) $12,000 or
less, the total value of the car
is excluded. (b.) More than
$12,000, the amount over $12,000
is counted toward the household's
resource limit.
Nevada Food Stamp Program, TANF One vehicle no matter the value
assistance, and vehicles owned by a
TANF/MOE--categorical categorically eligible household.
eligibility
New Hampshire TANF assistance The state excludes one vehicle per
adult household member, including
one vehicle per adult household
member disqualified or excluded
from the assistance group
regardless of use or value. A
vehicle belonging to a dependent
child may also be excluded as long
as the number of vehicles excluded
does not exceed the number of
adult household members.
New Jersey TANF assistance As per the Farm Bill, New Jersey
matched the TANF vehicle resource
limit at $11,500 and eliminated
assessing the vehicle at equity
value. All vehicles are assessed
at fair market value.
New Mexico Child care/foster care Child care rule that New Mexico
uses for FSP vehicle policy
excludes any vehicle.
New York Child care/foster care State did not provide vehicle rule
description.
North Carolina TANF assistance North Carolina excludes one
vehicle per adult household member
plus others if they are used for
specific purposes or if the sale
of the vehicle would net the owner
less than $1,500. The equity value
(using Blue Book figures) of any
remaining vehicles is counted in
resources.
North Dakota Food Stamp Program and All vehicles are excluded for
TANF/MOE--categorical categorically eligible households.
eligibility Regular Food Stamp Program vehicle
rules apply to disqualified
individuals.
Ohio TANF assistance Ohio excludes all vehicles in
determining resources for food
stamps, following TANF policy to
exclude vehicles.
Oklahoma TANF assistance Use the TANF program rules, $5,000
equity value. Use exclusions
allowed through federal
regulations.
Oregon TANF assistance The first $10,000 of the combined
equity value of all motor
vehicles--whether licensed or
unlicensed--is excluded for both
FS and TANF. The remaining equity
value, if any, counts toward both
the FS and TANF resource limits.
Pennsylvania TANF assistance Exempt one vehicle.
Rhode Island TANF assistance Rhode Island excludes one vehicle
per household member with a
maximum of two vehicles being
excluded per household. If there
are any other vehicles, the
regular food stamp rules would
apply to those vehicles.
South Carolina TANF assistance For households that are not
categorically eligible, exempt one
licensed vehicle per adult
household member.
South Dakota TANF assistance Per TANF rules, the state excludes
one vehicle per household. All
other vehicle exclusions follow
federal Food Stamp regulations.
Tennessee Child care/foster care Exclude all vehicles with certain
exceptions such as vehicles used
for recreational purposes, such as
personal watercraft.
Texas TANF/MOE--categorical Texas exempts all vehicles as
eligibility specified by food stamp
regulations; plus the state
exempts $15,000 of the fair market
value of the highest valued
vehicle that would otherwise be
countable.
Utah TANF assistance Exempt vehicles beginning January
1, 2007. Will match to TANF.
Vermont Food Stamp Program, TANF Aligns FS vehicle rules with TANF
assistance, and (Reach Up) rules by totally
TANF/MOE--categorical excluding the value of one vehicle
eligibility per adult in the household for no
more than two adults. Also
excludes all vehicles when the
household is categorically
eligible by virtue of receiving
state-funded earned income tax
credit, which is counted as
TANF/MOE.
Virginia TANF assistance The vehicle evaluation was changed
as a result of the options allowed
under the Farm Bill of 2002. The
TANF program changed its
eligibility criteria at the same
time to exclude the evaluation of
all resources. The FS program in
Virginia chose to exclude the
value of all nonliquid resources,
including vehicles, so that now
only liquid resources are
countable.
Washington Food Stamp Program, TANF/MOE categorical eligibility
TANF/MOE--categorical for households meeting the
eligibility eligibility test and not
specifically barred from
categorical eligibility status.
All other households: Food Stamp
Program rules.
West Virginia Child care/foster care All vehicles are excluded for the
West Virginia FSP. West Virginia
defines "vehicle" as a car, truck,
motorcycle, motor scooter, or
camper when the living section of
the camper is a permanent part of
the motorized section. To be
considered a vehicle, it must
require licensing to operate on
public roadways, not necessarily
be licensed. ATVs are treated as
recreational vehicles, not as
vehicles, and can be considered as
an available resource to
household.
Wisconsin TANF/MOE--categorical Wisconsin currently does not have
eligibility a vehicle limit.
Wyoming TANF assistance Exclude a vehicle with trade-in
value up to $15,000 for single
household. Exclude two vehicles
with a combined trade-in value of
$15,000 for a married household.
Source: GAO survey.
Note: States are allowed to substitute the following vehicle rules in
place of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) rules: TANF Assistance Rules,
TANF/Maintenance-of-effort (MOE) Categorical Eligibility Rules, and Child
Care/Foster Care Rules.
Appendix IV: Other Nutrition Programs
Appendix V: Nature of TANF Noncash Services Used to Confer Categorical
Eligibility for Food Stamps
Appendix VI: Eligibility Criteria of TANF Noncash Services Used to Confer
Categorical Eligibility
Appendix VII: State-by-State Comparison of TANF Noncash and TANF Cash
Categorically Eligible Households
Appendix VIII: State-by-State Household Characteristics of TANF Noncash
Categorically Eligible Food Stamp Households
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Sigurd R. Nilsen, (202) 512-7215 or [email protected] .
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Diana M. Pietrowiak, Assistant
Director; Linda L. Siegel; Meghana Acharya; Jill M. Evancho; and Jasminee
Persaud contributed significantly to all aspects of this report. Kevin L.
Jackson and Laurie S. Hamilton assisted in conducting the survey and
analyzing the state data; Daniel A. Schwimer provided legal support; and
Charles E. Willson assisted in report development.
Related GAO Products
Food Stamp Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined despite
Increased Program Participation. [15]GAO-07-422T . Washington, D.C.:
January 31, 2007.
Food Stamp Trafficking: FNS Could Enhance Program Integrity by Better
Targeting Stores Likely to Traffic and Increasing Penalties. [16]GAO-07-53
. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2006.
Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in States'
Uses of the TANF Block Grant. [17]GAO-06-414 . Washington, D.C.: March 3,
2006.
Food Stamp Program: States Have Made Progress Reducing Payment Errors, and
Further Challenges Remain. [18]GAO-05-245 . Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2005.
Food Stamp Program: Farm Bill Options Ease Administrative Burden, but
Opportunities Exist to Streamline Participant Reporting Rules among
Programs. [19]GAO-04-916 . Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2004.
Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation of
Working Families, but Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed. [20]GAO-04-346
. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2004.
Food Stamp Program: States' Use of Options and Waivers to Improve Program
Administration and Promote Access. [21]GAO-02-409 . Washington, D.C.:
February 22, 2002.
Food Stamp Program: States Seek to Reduce Payment Errors and Program
Complexity. [22]GAO-01-272 . Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2001.
(130579)
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.
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
References
Visible links
15. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-422T
16. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-53
17. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-414
18. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-245
19. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-916
20. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-346
21. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-409
22. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-272
*** End of document. ***