WIC: States Had a Variety of Reasons for Not Spending Program Funds
(Letter Report, 06/12/97, GAO/RCED-97-166).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed states' unspent
funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) in fiscal year (FY) 1995, focusing on: (1)
the reasons that states had unspent recoverable WIC funds; and (2)
whether unspent recoverable funds indicated that states had more WIC
funds available than necessary to meet their needs.

GAO noted that: (1) state officials identified a variety of reasons why
their states had unspent recoverable funds; (2) some of these reasons
were related to how WIC is structured; (3) for example, because the
federal grant is the only source of funds for WIC in most states, states
exercise caution to ensure that they do not spend more than their
federal grant; (4) in addition, because states use vouchers and checks
to distribute food benefits, it is difficult for them to determine the
program's food costs until the vouchers and checks have been redeemed
and processed; (5) some other reasons contributing to states' having
unspent recoverable funds relate to specific situations or circumstances
that limited program participation; (6) for example, in one state the
installation of a new computer system temporarily reduced the amount of
time clinic staff had to certify and serve new clients because they had
to instead spend time learning new software and operating procedures;
(7) having unspent recoverable funds does not necessarily indicate a
lack of need for program benefits; and (8) according to all eight WIC
directors who GAO contacted in states having FY 1995 unspent recoverable
funds, more eligible individuals could have been served by WIC had it
not been for reasons such as those identified above.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-166
     TITLE:  WIC: States Had a Variety of Reasons for Not Spending 
             Program Funds
      DATE:  06/12/97
   SUBJECT:  Food relief programs
             Women
             Infants
             Children
             Unexpended budget balances
             State-administered programs
             Grants to states
             Budget administration
IDENTIFIER:  Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and 
             Children
             California
             Florida
             Illinois
             Ohio
             Mississippi
             Texas
             Montana
             Wyoming
             Georgia
             New York
             WIC
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of
Representatives

June 1997

WIC - STATES HAD A VARIETY OF
REASONS FOR NOT SPENDING PROGRAM
FUNDS

GAO/RCED-97-166

Unspent Recoverable Funds

(150269)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  FCS - Food and Consumer Service
  WIC - Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
     and Children

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-276975

June 12, 1997

The Honorable John R.  Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) is designed to improve the health of low-income,
pregnant, breast-feeding, and postpartum women; infants; and children
up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk.  The program provides annual
cash grants to states for food, nutrition benefits, and
administrative expenses--about $3.7 billion in fiscal year 1997.  The
Food and Consumer Service (FCS) of the U.S.  Department of
Agriculture administers WIC. 

In the past, the Congress had raised concerns about the amount of WIC
grant funds that some states did not spend by the end of the fiscal
year and returned to FCS for reallocation to states the following
fiscal year (known as unspent recoverable funds).  These funds
totaled about $137.5 million of the about $3.5 billion WIC
appropriation in fiscal year 1995, the most recent year for which
data were available. 

You requested that we identify the reasons that states had unspent
recoverable funds.  In doing this, we also asked states whether
unspent recoverable funds indicated that they had more WIC funds
available than necessary to meet their needs.  In performing our
work, we interviewed state WIC officials in 8 of the 47 states that
had unspent recoverable funds in fiscal year 1995 and 2 of the 3
states that had no unspent recoverable funds that year.  The eight
states accounted for about 50 percent of the unspent recoverable
funds in fiscal year 1995. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

State officials identified a variety of reasons why their states had
unspent recoverable funds.  Some of these reasons were related to how
WIC is structured.  For example, because the federal grant is the
only source of funds for WIC in most states, states exercise caution
to ensure that they do not spend more than their federal grant.  In
addition, because states use vouchers and checks to distribute food
benefits, it is difficult for them to determine the program's food
costs until the vouchers and checks have been redeemed and processed. 
Some other reasons contributing to states' having unspent recoverable
funds relate to specific situations or circumstances that limited
program participation.  For example, in one state the installation of
a new computer system temporarily reduced the amount of time clinic
staff had to certify and serve new clients because they had to
instead spend time learning new software and operating procedures. 

Having unspent recoverable funds does not necessarily indicate a lack
of need for program benefits.  According to all eight WIC directors
who we contacted in states having fiscal year 1995 unspent
recoverable funds, more eligible individuals could have been served
by WIC had it not been for reasons such as those identified above. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Established in 1972, WIC provides federal grants to states for
supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education
for low-income, pregnant, breast-feeding, and postpartum women;
infants; and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk.  To
qualify for the program, WIC applicants must show evidence of health
or nutritional risk that is medically verified by a health
professional.  In addition, participants must have incomes at or
below 185 percent of the poverty level.  WIC operates in the 50
states (as well as on 33 Indian reservations), the District of
Columbia, Guam, the U.S.  Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Federal WIC appropriations totaled $3.47 billion in fiscal year 1995
and $3.73 billion annually in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.  The
program is primarily funded by federal appropriations, with some
states supplementing their federal grant with their own funds.  In
fiscal years 1995 and 1996, average monthly WIC participation was
about 6.9 million and 7.2 million, respectively, and in fiscal year
1997, average monthly participation was 7.4 million participants
through February 1997. 

Grants to states are divided into food grants and Nutrition Services
and Administration (NSA) grants.  Food grants are allocated to states
through a formula that is based on the number of individuals in each
state who are eligible for WIC benefits because of their income.  NSA
grants are allocated to states through a formula that is based on
factors such as the state's number of program participants and WIC
salary costs.  Both food and NSA grants have a stability feature that
attempts to ensure that prior year funding levels are maintained. 
Since 1995, food grants have represented about 74 percent of WIC
grant funds and NSA grants about 26 percent.  Food grants cover the
costs of supplemental foods.  NSA grants cover costs for program
administration, start-up, monitoring, auditing, the development of
and accountability for food delivery systems, nutrition education,
breast-feeding promotion and support, outreach, certification, and
developing and printing food vouchers or checks. 

FCS provides preliminary grant estimates to states in October,
followed by official notification of grant amounts in January.  A
state can increase its grant amount during the year by qualifying for
and requesting additional funds through FCS' reallocation process. 
FCS reallocates unspent recoverable funds as well as current-year
funds that the states voluntarily return.  In fiscal year 1995, FCS
reallocated funds four times:  in January, April, July and August. 
In fiscal year 1996, FCS reallocated funds five times:  in January,
February, May, July and August.  Priority for these funds in fiscal
years 1995 and 1996 was given to states that had not received funds
commensurate with their percentage of potentially eligible women,
infants, and children. 

In fiscal year 1990, unspent recoverable funds totaled about $28.1
million.\1 The amount increased to about $137.5 million in fiscal
year 1995, with FCS estimating a decline to about $121.6 million in
fiscal year 1996.  The unspent recoverable funds as a percentage of
the WIC appropriation for fiscal years 1990 through 1996 ranged from
about 1.3 to 4.3 percent.  See table 1. 



                                Table 1
                
                     Unspent Recoverable Funds, WIC
                Appropriations, and Unspent Recoverable
                Funds as a Percentage of Appropriations,
                          Fiscal Years 1990-96

                             Unspent           WIC             Unspent
                         recoverable  appropriatio   recoverable funds
                            funds ($             n    as percentage of
Fiscal year                millions)  ($ billions)       appropriation
----------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------------
1990                          $28.07         $2.13                1.32
1991                           73.38          2.35                3.12
1992                           66.23          2.60                2.55
1993                           97.26          2.86                3.40
1994                          136.77          3.21                4.26
1995                          137.48          3.47                3.96
1996                          121.57          3.73                3.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most WIC food benefits are provided to participants through vouchers
or checks.  These vouchers or checks allow participants to purchase a
monthly food package designed to supplement their diets.  The foods
they can purchase are high in protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins A
and C--nutrients frequently lacking in the diets of WIC's target
population.  Vouchers or checks can be issued monthly, bimonthly, or
every 3 months. 

Mothers participating in WIC are encouraged to breast-feed their
infants if possible, but states still spend hundreds of millions of
dollars a year for infant formula for WIC participants.  Federal law
requires that states enter into cost- containment contracts for the
purchase of infant formula used in WIC.  These contracts typically
involve a rebate to a state by an infant formula manufacturer for
each can of the manufacturer's formula purchased through WIC.  By
negotiating contracts for rebates with formula manufacturers, states
greatly reduce average per person food costs so that more people can
be served.  In fiscal year 1995, savings from rebates totaled $1.1
billion. 


--------------------
\1 Besides unspent recoverable funds that states must return to FCS
for reallocation to states the next fiscal year, WIC regulations
allow states to carry a certain percentage of funds into the next
fiscal year for their spending.  These funds are called spend-forward
funds. 


   REASONS CONTRIBUTING TO UNSPENT
   RECOVERABLE FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

State officials we contacted identified a variety of reasons that
contributed to states' having unspent recoverable funds.  Some of
these reasons are associated with the overall structure of WIC, while
others are due to specific circumstances that affect program
operations within individual states. 


      REASONS ASSOCIATED WITH
      PROGRAM STRUCTURE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

State officials identified five reasons for having unspent
recoverable funds that were related to WIC's basic structure.  First,
WIC directors pointed out that the federal grant was the sole source
of WIC funding in their states, and as a result, they needed to be
cautious to avoid overspending their WIC grant.  This careful
approach to managing their WIC grant can result in a considerable
amount of unspent recoverable funds because of the size of WIC
grants.  For example, in fiscal year 1995, California had unspent
recoverable funds of almost $16 million, which represented about 3
percent of its federal grant.  In contrast to California, New York
had no unspent recoverable funds in fiscal year 1995.  New York was
one of 12 states that provided supplemental funds that year. 
According to a WIC official in New York, having the supplemental
state funds was one of the reasons the state did not have unspent
recoverable funds in fiscal year 1995.  Furthermore, the group of
states that supplemented their WIC grants in fiscal year 1995
returned a smaller percentage of their combined WIC grants as unspent
recoverable funds than did the states that did not supplement their
grants (1.8 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively). 

Second, states had unspent recoverable funds because the use of
vouchers and checks to distribute benefits made it difficult for
states to determine program food costs until the vouchers and checks
were redeemed and processed, according to WIC directors.  Two
features of the voucher and check distribution method can contribute
to states' having unspent recoverable funds.  First, some portion of
the benefits issued in the form of vouchers and checks may not be
used, thereby reducing projected food costs.  Participants may not
purchase all food items specified on the voucher or check or not
redeem the voucher or check at all.  Second, because of the time it
takes to process vouchers and checks, states may find after the end
of the fiscal year that their actual food costs were lower than
projected.  For example, most states do not know the cost of the
vouchers and checks issued for August and September benefits until
after the fiscal year ends because program regulations require states
to give participants 30 days to use a voucher or check and retailers
60 days after receipt of the voucher or check to submit it for
payment. 

The difficulty in projecting food costs in a timely manner can be
exacerbated in states that issue participants 3 months of vouchers or
checks at a time.  In such states, vouchers or checks for August
benefits could be provided as early as June but not be submitted for
payment by the retailer until the end of October.  Some states, such
as Texas, now issue 3 months of vouchers to reduce crowded clinic
conditions and serve more participants with available resources. 

Third, some state WIC officials reported that they had unspent
recoverable funds in part because they accepted reallocated WIC funds
too late in the fiscal year to allow them to spend all of the
additional funds.  According to the California WIC director, a state
with a growing caseload could have an incentive to accept more funds
during the summer than could be spent because its next fiscal year's
grant is partially based on the current year's grant, including
reallocations.  However, states can be penalized if they do not spend
a certain percentage of their total food grant, including reallocated
funds.  In fiscal years 1995 and 1996, this percentage, known as a
performance standard, was 96 percent, and in fiscal year 1997, it is
97 percent. 

Fourth, some state WIC directors said that they had unspent
recoverable funds in part because the level of NSA funds they
received was, in their view, insufficient to support the WIC program
infrastructure needed to distribute the food grants they receive. 
These infrastructure needs included new clinics, extended clinic
hours to serve working women, updated information processing systems,
and additional staff.  The Illinois WIC director, for example,
reported that to meet its existing caseload, the state needs
additional clinic space that cannot be met with its current NSA
grant.  To compensate for this shortage of space, Illinois now issues
3 months of vouchers at one time to reduce crowded clinic conditions. 

Fifth, several WIC directors pointed out that higher-than-expected
increases in rebates on infant formula when new contracts were
negotiated contributed to states' having unspent recoverable funds. 
For example, the Texas WIC director reported that one of the reasons
the state had unspent recoverable funds in fiscal year 1996 was an
increase of $19 million in rebates, from $104 million in fiscal year
1995 to $123 million in fiscal year 1996, after a new contract went
into effect.  Program regulations allow states to carry forward into
the next fiscal year some of the additional funds that result from
new rebate contracts.  However, the amount of additional rebate funds
Texas experienced as a result of its new contract was more than the
amount that is allowed to be carried forward.  At the end of the
fiscal year, any additional rebate funds that are not spent or
allowed to be carried forward are returned to FCS as unspent
recoverable funds for reallocation in the next fiscal year. 


      REASONS RELATED TO SPECIFIC
      STATE SITUATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

In addition to the reasons related to the structure of WIC, some
state officials reported specific situations that contributed to
their state's having unspent recoverable funds.  Several examples of
state-specific situations follow. 

In Texas, installation of a new computer system contributed to the
state's having unspent recoverable funds of about $6.8 million in
fiscal year 1996.  The state WIC director reported that there were
eligible individuals who were not served in part because of problems
experienced in implementing the new computer system, which is used to
certify WIC eligibility and issue WIC food vouchers.  According to
the WIC director, eligible individuals were not served because it
took time for clinic managers and staff to learn new system software
and operating procedures, thereby reducing the time available for
providing services to new clients. 

In Florida, a hiring freeze contributed to the state's having unspent
recoverable funds of $7.7 million in fiscal year 1995.  According to
the state WIC director, although WIC funds were available to increase
the number of WIC staff at the state and local agency level, state
programs were under a hiring freeze that affected all programs,
including WIC.  The hiring freeze hindered the state's ability to
hire the staff needed to serve the program's expanding caseload. 

In Mississippi, changes in the health care delivery system for
Medicaid patients contributed to that state's having unspent
recoverable funds of $8 million in fiscal year 1995.  The state WIC
director said that many clients "dropped through the cracks" because
the state shifted health care for Medicaid patients from public
health centers, where WIC staff certified eligibility and provided
benefits, to private health maintenance organizations that did not
provide WIC services.  Under the new system, potential WIC
participants have to go to an additional location to obtain WIC
benefits.  This change made it more difficult to obtain WIC benefits,
thereby reducing program participation. 


   UNSPENT RECOVERABLE FUNDS DO
   NOT NECESSARILY MEAN ALL
   STATES' NEEDS MET
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Although states had unspent recoverable funds, they reported that
they had eligible individuals who were not served.  According to all
eight WIC directors that we contacted in states' having fiscal year
1995 unspent recoverable funds, more eligible individuals could have
been served by WIC had it not been for the reasons related to the
program's structure and/or state-specific situations.  The Ohio WIC
director, for example, reported that although the state had unspent
recoverable funds in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, more eligible
individuals could have been served if additional NSA funds had been
available to hire more staff.  The director pointed out that Ohio's
WIC reaches about 72 percent of WIC-eligible individuals, and he
believed that the state could serve 78 percent of eligible
individuals. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the U.S.  Department
of Agriculture's Food and Consumer Service for its review and
comment.  We met with Food and Consumer Service officials, including
the Director, Grants Management Division, and the Acting Director,
Supplemental Food Programs Division.  They agreed with the report's
findings and provided technical corrections, which we incorporated
into the report. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We judgmentally selected 10 states to contact regarding their reasons
for having or not having unspent recoverable funds.  Using FCS
program data for fiscal year 1995, the most recent available at the
time we selected the states, we identified the six states
(California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, and Texas) with
the greatest amount of unspent recoverable funds, the two states with
the highest percentage of unspent recoverable funds in relation to
their WIC grant (Montana and Wyoming), and two states that had no
unspent recoverable funds (Georgia and New York).  We contacted each
state's WIC director (or representative) by telephone to discuss the
reasons that the state had or did not have unspent recoverable funds. 
Because we judgmentally selected the states, the results we obtained
cannot be used to make statements about the universe of all states
participating in WIC.  As agreed, we excluded Indian tribal
organizations, the District of Columbia, and the territories from our
potential sample.  We also asked states whether unspent recoverable
funds indicated that their state had more WIC funds available than
necessary to meet the state's needs. 

In addition to talking with state WIC officials, we reviewed WIC
regulations and FCS financial documents, and discussed program
operations with staff at FCS headquarters and the six regional
offices that monitor the 10 states we contacted.  Furthermore, we
discussed WIC operations with the Executive Director, National
Association of WIC Directors; and the Executive Director and staff
from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, an organization
that has conducted a number of studies on WIC. 

We conducted our review from December 1996 through May 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
did not independently verify the financial information contained in
the FCS database. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and the Secretary of Agriculture.  We will also make
copies available to others on request. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-5138 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report.  Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix II. 

Sincerely yours,

Robert A.  Robinson
Director, Food and
 Agriculture Issues


STATES' WIC GRANTS AND UNSPENT
RECOVERABLE FUNDS, FISCAL YEARS
1995 AND 1996
=========================================================== Appendix I


                                              Unspent                             Unspent
                                          recoverable                         recoverable
State                     WIC grant             funds         WIC grant           funds\a
-----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
Alabama                 $64,611,410        $2,918,859       $61,217,277          $577,765
Alaska                   14,950,896         1,180,022        16,005,387           500,772
Arizona                  51,575,185         2,559,178        58,927,576         3,320,350
Arkansas                 40,736,964           761,538        42,362,221                 0
California              528,264,582        15,950,928       631,052,167        36,651,129
Colorado                 36,958,426         1,192,418        38,360,902         2,545,461
Connecticut              38,720,671         1,778,925        36,586,494         2,282,418
Delaware                  7,926,995            80,672         8,244,816           119,344
Florida                 163,876,394         7,735,081       176,189,537           672,456
Georgia                 107,253,724                 0       109,730,495         2,603,317
Hawaii                   22,089,495         3,079,333        22,652,211            33,586
Idaho                    19,009,593         2,704,452        17,736,340         2,106,815
Illinois                134,576,605         7,722,076       145,988,966           783,517
Indiana                  62,746,560         1,788,687        66,369,206           278,630
Iowa                     31,202,554         1,304,187        33,024,358             1,906
Kansas                   28,797,513           831,671        28,194,852         1,368,262
Kentucky                 58,848,075         1,525,130        60,376,983         1,887,377
Louisiana                73,526,079         4,524,832        73,035,770                 0
Maine                    13,610,310           834,941        13,987,474         1,078,613
Maryland                 44,861,177         1,348,600        48,997,345         1,901,410
Massachusetts            52,660,857         1,605,171        55,424,377                 0
Michigan                106,563,052         2,538,542       112,191,242         3,463,741
Minnesota                43,027,616                 0        45,264,013                 0
Mississippi              57,764,023         8,000,314        55,850,694         7,342,817
Missouri                 64,158,981         3,683,036        67,251,953         3,377,648
Montana                  12,106,893         1,885,585        12,590,028         1,442,734
Nebraska                 17,782,146           400,183        18,659,852                 0
Nevada                   15,723,968         1,640,476        17,467,771           515,513
New Hampshire             9,691,047           323,896         9,465,600                 0
New Jersey               70,886,124           371,253        74,029,481         3,879,861
New Mexico               25,468,382            52,476        27,276,366                 0
New York                237,732,790                 0       253,009,178                 0
North Carolina           86,156,248         3,350,351        89,939,421         2,501,167
North Dakota              8,930,948           347,061         8,767,349            25,949
Ohio                    121,153,627         4,706,154       124,621,932         8,104,571
Oklahoma                 41,082,326           759,306        42,418,976                 0
Oregon                   39,378,115         1,357,113        43,775,330         1,527,110
Pennsylvania            128,033,346         1,139,154       134,322,962         4,457,144
Rhode Island             11,837,294           509,801        11,777,659            91,985
South Carolina           58,179,048         4,031,474        59,951,078         1,617,017
South Dakota             11,545,103         1,440,989        10,968,497           119,806
Tennessee                71,592,650         2,048,077        77,232,944           211,417
Texas                   290,772,155        21,238,422       290,896,733         6,787,112
Utah                     29,034,990         3,230,678        30,017,807           592,300
Vermont                   8,837,753           275,149         8,969,678           275,705
Virginia                 66,135,980           551,490        70,872,396         3,502,451
Washington               60,412,019         1,200,000        77,160,239         6,767,714
West Virginia            28,733,148         3,287,465        29,367,162           731,539
Wisconsin                55,275,738         2,048,790        55,295,823                 0
Wyoming                   7,214,584         1,563,897         6,301,585           590,777
American Samoa                   \b                \b         4,345,329         1,577,791
District of               9,183,395                 0         9,793,974           415,282
 Columbia
Guam                      5,163,965           563,790         5,199,580           792,431
Puerto Rico             123,933,180           801,211       132,779,345                 0
U.S. Virgin               5,866,193             3,896         6,025,014           456,702
 Islands
Indian Tribal            40,162,705         2,702,015        45,585,584         1,693,516
 Organizations
=========================================================================================
Total                $3,566,323,597      $137,478,745    $3,809,562,000      $121,574,928
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Preliminary, subject to final reconciliation. 

\b Did not participate in fiscal year 1995. 

Source:  U.S.  Department of Agriculture's Food and Consumer Service. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

Thomas Slomba, Assistant Director
Rosellen McCarthy, Evaluator-in-Charge
Natalie Herzog
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman


*** End of document. ***