Food Stamp Program: Implementation of the Employment and Training
Program for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (27-FEB-01,	 
GAO-01-391R).							 
								 
Recent legislation increased funding for food stamp employment	 
and training programs from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year  
2002, when the Food Stamp Program is scheduled to be		 
reauthorized. To qualify for these additional federal funds,	 
states must maintain their state-funded expenditures for	 
employment and training at a level no lower than in fiscal year  
1996; these additional funds are referred to as 		 
maintenance-of-efforts funds. The act requires that at least 80  
percent of all employment and training funds be spent on	 
able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWD). The law also gives
the states the option to exempt from the work requirement up to  
15 percent of their ABAWD population not residing in a waived	 
area or otherwise exempted from the work requirement. GAO	 
examined (1) the trends in ABAWD participation in the Food Stamp 
Program, including recent data on ABAWDs who are living in waived
areas, exempted from work requirements, participating in	 
qualifying employment and training activities, or working, and	 
(2) the extent to which the states have used employment and	 
training program funding. GAO found (1) ABAWD participation in	 
the Food Stamp Program has dropped rapidly since fiscal year 1996
and (2) the states have not used a substantial portion of the	 
funds made available for Food Stamp employment and training	 
programs.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-391R					        
    ACCNO:   164563						        
    TITLE:   Food Stamp Program: Implementation of the Employment and 
             Training Program for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents       
     DATE:   02/27/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Employment or training programs			 
	     Food relief programs				 
	     Funds management					 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Food Stamp Program 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** 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-01-391R

Food Stamp Employment and Training United States General
Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 27, 2001 The Honorable Richard G. Lugar Chairman, Committee on
Agriculture,

Nutrition, and Forestry United States Senate

Subject: Food Stamp Program: Implementation of the Employment and Training
Program for Able- Bodied Adults Without Dependents

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P. L. 104- 193) amended the Food Stamp Act of
1977 by, among other things, tightening work requirements for food stamp
participants who are between the ages of 18 and 50, able- bodied, and do not
have dependents. (These participants are referred to as able- bodied adults
without dependents, or ABAWDs). Specifically, the act prohibits ABAWDs from
receiving food stamp benefits if they had received food stamp benefits for
at least 3 months during the preceding 36- month period, unless they either
meet the work requirement or live in an area that has been waived from the
requirement because of high unemployment or an insufficient number of
available jobs. 1 ABAWDs can meet the work requirement by (1) working a
minimum of 80 hours per month; (2) participating in qualifying state
employment and training programs for 20 hours per week; or (3) participating
in workfare, public service work for which ABAWDs receive food stamp
benefits.

In response to concerns that some ABAWDs were willing to work but were
unable to find opportunities to meet the Food Stamp Program's new work
requirement, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P. L. 105- 33) authorized
increased funding for food stamp employment and training programs from
fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002, when the Food Stamp Program is
scheduled to be reauthorized. To qualify for these additional federal funds,
the states must maintain their state- funded expenditures for employment and
training at a level no lower than in fiscal year 1996; these additional
funds are referred to as maintenance- of- effort funds. To ensure that
employment and training programs are targeted at ABAWDs, the act requires
that at least 80 percent of all employment and training funds be spent on
ABAWDs. The Balanced Budget Act also gave the states the option to exempt
from the work

1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS),
which oversees the Food Stamp Program, reviews the states' requests for
waivers and approves those that meet the criteria.

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 2 requirement up to 15
percent of their ABAWD population not residing in a waived

area or otherwise exempted from the work requirement. This letter provides
information on (1) trends in ABAWD participation in the Food Stamp Program,
including recent data on ABAWDs who are living in waived areas, exempted
from work requirements, participating in qualifying employment and training
activities, or working; and (2) the extent to which the states have used
employment and training program funding.

ABAWD Participation in the Food Stamp Program Has Dropped Rapidly Since
Fiscal Year 1996

As presented in figure 1, FNS' preliminary estimates show that the number of
ABAWDs participating in the Food Stamp Program has dropped from a monthly
average of 1,133,000 in fiscal year 1996 to a monthly average of 362,000 in
fiscal year 1999- an estimated 68- percent drop. This decline has occurred
even though most states have used waivers and/ or exemptions to exclude
portions of their ABAWD population from the work requirement.

Figure 1: Average Monthly ABAWD Participation in the Food Stamp Program,
Fiscal Years 1996 to 1999

Participants (in Thousands) Fiscal Year

0 100

200 300

400 500

600 700

800 900

1,000 1,100

1,200 1999 1998 1997 1996

Source: FNS. As of January 2001, 36 states and the District of Columbia have
waivers for at least one county, city, or Indian reservation with either
high unemployment or an

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 3 insufficient number of
jobs. (See table 1 in enc. I.) The states' use of waivers is

comparable to the level we reported for June 1999. 2 FNS does not require
the states to report the number of ABAWDs living in areas covered by
waivers. However, based on our survey of food stamp officials in 42 states,
we estimated that in the spring of 1998 about 40 percent of ABAWDs were
living in areas covered by FNS waivers. 3

The states increased their use of exemptions for ABAWDs between fiscal years
1999 and 2000. In fiscal year 2000, 36 states exempted a total monthly
average of about 14,000 ABAWDs not living in areas waived from the work
requirement. In fiscal year 1999, 33 states exempted a total monthly average
of 9,400 ABAWDs not living in areas covered by waivers- less than 3 percent
of the total estimated number of ABAWDs participating in the Food Stamp
Program in that year. (See table 2 in enc. I.)

In fiscal year 2000, a monthly average of about 71,400 ABAWDs participated
in qualifying food stamp employment and training activities, including
workfare. 4 (See enc. II.) About 81 percent of these participants engaged in
workfare, while the remaining 19 percent participated in other employment
and training activities. About 82 percent of the ABAWDs participating in
employment and training activities lived in areas not covered by waivers. In
fiscal year 1999, a monthly average of about 71,100 ABAWDs participated in
qualifying employment and training programs. About 85 percent of these
participants engaged in workfare, while the remaining 15 percent
participated in other employment and training activities. About 78 percent
of the ABAWDs participating in employment and training activities lived in
areas not covered by waivers.

Data are not currently available on the number of ABAWDs participating in
the Food Stamp Program who work. FNS does not require the states to collect
and report these data. However, preliminary data from an FNS study of the
ABAWD population indicates that a substantial portion of ABAWDs who receive
food stamp benefits are working, according to an FNS official.

The States Have Not Used a Substantial Portion of the Funds Made Available
for Food Stamp Employment and Training Programs

In fiscal year 2000, the states spent $98 million, or only 30 percent, of
the $330 million available for employment and training programs. (See table
3 in enc. III.) As shown in figure 2, funds available for food stamp
employment and training programs have

2 For example, only four states changed their waiver status: Arkansas,
California, and Utah used waivers for certain areas in June 1999, but did
not use waivers in January 2001; Oregon did not use waivers in June 1999,
but used waivers for certain areas in January 2001. See Food Stamp Program:
How States Are Using Federal Waivers of the Work Requirement (GAO/ RCED- 00-
5, Oct. 20, 1999).

3 Food Stamp Program: Information on Employment and Training Activities
(GAO/ RCED- 99- 40, Dec. 14, 1998). 4 The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act excluded job search and job search training
as allowable employment and training program components.

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 4 grown rapidly since
fiscal year 1997, while spending has remained fairly constant.

Funds available for employment and training programs have grown, in part,
because they can be carried over to subsequent fiscal years. In fiscal year
2001, $426 million are available for employment and training programs
through fiscal year 2001 appropriations and the carryover of prior- year
funds.

Figure 2: Funds Available and Spent for Food Stamp Employment and Training
Programs, Fiscal Years 1997 to 2000

Dollars (in Millions) Funds Available

Funds Spent Fiscal Year

0 50

100 150

200 250

300 350

2000 1999 1998 1997

Source: FNS. In fiscal year 2000, 30 states, the District of Columbia, Guam,
and the Virgin Islands spent less than half of their employment and training
allocations. (See table 4 in enc. III.) This low level of spending reflects
both the rapid decline in the number of ABAWDs receiving food stamp benefits
as well as states' decisions about how to structure their programs. For
example, eight states and the Virgin Islands have elected not to provide any
qualifying employment and training activities for ABAWDs and had to limit
their spending to at most 20 percent of their allocation. 5 According to the
Economic Research Service's October 2000 report, these states said that they

5 The Balanced Budget Act requires that the states spend at least 80 percent
of their employment and training funds to serve ABAWDs. Even though these
states do not spend any funds on ABAWDs, they are still eligible to spend up
to 20 percent of their allocated funds to serve non- ABAWDs.

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 5 did not have enough
participating ABAWDs to justify the cost of expanding services. 6

These states generally disagreed with the Balanced Budget Act's requirement
that 80 percent of the food stamp employment and training funds be spent on
ABAWDs. 7

In addition, 20 states and the District of Columbia were ineligible to
receive maintenance- of- effort funding in at least 1 year from fiscal year
1998 through fiscal year 2000 because their use of state funds was less than
their fiscal year 1996 expenditures. (See table 5 in enc. III.) For example,
New York spent more than $19 million of state funds per year in fiscal years
1998 to 2000 but was not eligible for maintenance- of- effort funding in any
of these years because it had spent $22.9 million on employment and training
in fiscal year 1996. Conversely, 15 states and the Virgin Islands were
automatically eligible for maintenance- of- effort funding because they did
not spend any state funds on employment and training in fiscal year 1996
and, therefore, did not have a maintenance- of- effort requirement. For
example, North Dakota qualified for $145,000 in maintenance- of- effort
funding in fiscal year 2000, even though it did not spend any of its own
funds on employment and training activities in that year.

Agency Comments

We provided the U. S. Department of Agriculture with a draft of this report
for review and comment. Officials from the Department's Food and Nutrition
Service agreed with the factual accuracy of the information presented.

Scope and Methodology

To accomplish our objectives, we interviewed FNS officials and obtained FNS
data for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 on ABAWD participation in the Food Stamp
Program, the states' use of work requirement waivers and exemptions for
ABAWDs, and the states' use of employment and training funds. This report
updates information in our October 1999 report on ABAWD participation in the
Food Stamp Program and states' waivers of ABAWDs from work requirements.
This report also updates information in our December 1998 report and the
Economic Research Service's October 2000 report on the extent to which the
states have used employment and training program funds. We conducted our
review in January 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

- - - 6 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Report
to Congress on State Use of Funds to Increase Work Slots for Food Stamp
Recipients (Oct. 2000). 7 The states also have expressed concern about the
amount of available funding for each ABAWD employment and training slot. In
response, FNS has designated 13 states as alternative reimbursement states,
which are not limited to the reimbursement rate of $175 for each filled
slot, provided they agree to offer a qualifying employment and training slot
to all ABAWDs who do not live in waived areas.

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 6 As arranged with your
office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we

plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after the date of
this letter. At that time, we will send copies of the report to the House
Committee on Agriculture; the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies of the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations; and other appropriate congressional committees; the
Honorable Ann M. Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture; and the Honorable
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of Management and Budget. In
addition, we will make copies available to others on request.

Please contact me at (202) 512- 7215 if you or your staff have any questions
about this report. Major contributors to this report were Richard Cheston
and Debra Prescott.

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

Income Security Issues

Enclosure I Enclosure I

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 7

WAIVERS AND EXEMPTIONS OF THE WORK REQUIREMENT FOR ABLE- BODIED ADULTS
WITHOUT DEPENDENTS

Table 1: Approved Waivers of the ABAWD Work Requirement, by State, as of
January 2001 State Waiver

state Unemployment

greater than 10 percent Insufficient

jobs Areas included in waiver

Alabama Yes X X 36 counties Alaska Yes X X 21 census areas Arizona Yes X X 9
counties, 1 partial county, 5 Indian reservations Arkansas No California No
Colorado Yes X 5 counties, 2 Indian reservations Connecticut Yes X 4 cities
and towns Delaware No District of Columbia Yes X Entire District Florida Yes
X X 21 counties, 1 partial county, 1 city Georgia Yes X 50 counties, 5
cities Guam No Hawaii Yes X X 3 islands Idaho Yes X X 5 Indian reservations
Illinois Yes X 52 counties, 18 cities, 180 municipalities Indiana Yes X 3
counties, 2 cities Iowa No Kansas No Kentucky Yes X 57 counties, 1 partial
county Louisiana Yes X 48 parishes, 2 cities Maine Yes X 6 counties, 5 local
metropolitan areas, 4 cities and

towns, 1 Indian reservation Maryland Yes X X 7 counties, 2 cities
Massachusetts No Michigan No Minnesota Yes X X 15 counties, 8 Indian
reservations Mississippi No Missouri Yes X 26 counties, 1 city Montana Yes X
X 17 counties, portions of 5 Indian reservations Nebraska Yes X 3 Indian
reservations Nevada Yes X X 5 counties, 1 city, 16 Indian reservations/
colonies New Hampshire No New Jersey Yes X X 2 counties, 29 municipalities
New Mexico Yes X X 15 counties, 3 partial counties, 1 city, 5 Indian

reservations New York Yes X X 23 counties, 13 cities North Carolina No North
Dakota Yes X 3 counties Ohio No Oklahoma No Oregon Yes X 26 counties, 1 city
Pennsylvania Yes X 33 counties, 8 cities

Enclosure I Enclosure I

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 8

State Waiver

state Unemployment

greater than 10 percent

Insufficient jobs

Areas included in waiver

Rhode Island Yes X 5 towns South Carolina Yes X X 17 counties South Dakota
Yes X X 9 counties, portions of 11 counties with Indian

reservations Tennessee Yes X X 39 counties Texas Yes X X 20 counties Utah No
Vermont Yes X 2 counties Virgin Islands No Virginia Yes X 13 counties, 3
cities Washington Yes X X 26 counties, 17 Indian reservations West Virginia
Yes X X 12 counties, 28 low service areas Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes X 1
Indian reservation

Total Yes: 37 No: 16

20 36

Note: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996
authorizes the states to apply for and FNS to grant a waiver of the work
requirement for ABAWDs living in an area with either an unemployment rate
above 10 percent or an insufficient number of available jobs.

Source: FNS.

Table 2: Average Monthly Number of ABAWDs Exempted From the Work
Requirement, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000

State FY 1999 FY 2000

Alabama 0 111 Alaska 17 24 Arizona 74 379 Arkansas 276 329 California 392
325 Colorado 42 50 Connecticut a 83 203 Delaware 0 0 District of Columbia 0
0 Florida 407 926 Georgia 105 72 Guam 0 0 Hawaii 29 31 Idaho 11 25 Illinois
1, 992 3,365 Indiana 10 124 Iowa 0 239 Kansas 304 387 Kentucky 566 656
Louisiana 1, 180 1,003 Maine 20 230

Enclosure I Enclosure I

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 9

State FY 1999 FY 2000

Maryland 280 165 Massachusetts 527 276 Michigan 0 0 Minnesota b 518 249
Mississippi 568 742 Missouri 18 61 Montana 0 0 Nebraska 120 108 Nevada 33 1
New Hampshire 19 58 New Jersey 0 152 New Mexico b 0 0 New York 67 376 North
Carolina 968 1,084 North Dakota 0 0 Ohio 0 0 Oklahoma 0 0 Oregon 91 1,202
Pennsylvania 0 203 Rhode Island 0 0 South Carolina 84 350 South Dakota 0 0
Tennessee 22 0 Texas 0 0 Utah 96 12 Vermont 14 16 Virgin Islands 0 0
Virginia 0 0 Washington 396 423 West Virginia 22 14 Wisconsin 0 0 Wyoming 0
0

Total 9,352 13,970

Note: The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorized the states to exempt from
the work requirement up to 15 percent of their ABAWD population not residing
in a waived area or otherwise exempted from the work requirement.

a Third and fourth quarter data were not available. b Fourth quarter data
were not available.

Source: FNS.

Enclosure III Enclosure II

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 10

AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF ABAWDS PARTICIPATING IN A QUALIFYING EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING ACTIVITY, FISCAL YEAR 2000

Unwaived areas Waived areas Total State Workfare Employment

and training Workfare Employment and training Workfare Employment

and training Total

Alabama 259 0 0 0 259 0 259 Alaska 0 00 00 00 Arizona 10 2 11 1 22 3 24
Arkansas 0 00 00 00 California 22,669 1, 834 0.4 1 22,669 1, 835 24,504
Colorado 671 167 0 0 671 167 837 Connecticut a 6 11 0 6 6 18 24 Delaware 2
00 02 02 District o f C olumbia0 07 37 310 Florida 114 60 594 365 708 424
1,132 Georgia 257 62 0 0 257 62 319 Guam 0.2 0. 2 0 0 0.2 0. 2 0.3 Hawaii 0
60 20 88 Idaho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Illinois 0 0 3, 702 144 3,702 144 3,846 Indiana
61 116 9 156 71 272 342 Iowa 63 0 0 0 63 0 63 Kansas 0 00 00 00 Kentucky 206
0.2 0 0 206 0.2 206 Louisiana 40 9 123 23 163 32 195 Maine 7 2 1 0. 3 8 2 10
Maryland 0 18 0 7 0 25 25 Massachusetts 94 0 0 0 94 0 94 Michigan 177 0.4 0
0 177 0.4 177 Minnesota b 15 137 5 41 20 178 198 Mississippi 494 31 0 0 494
31 525 Missouri 0 33 0 0 0 33 33 Montana 0 310 0 61 0 371 371 Nebraska 23 0
0 0 23 0 23 Nevada 0 00 00 00 New Hampshire 147 4 0 0 147 4 151 New Jersey
637 4,261 176 1,506 813 5,768 6,581 New Mexico b 0 30 10 44 New York 20,275
883 3,258 200 23,533 1, 083 24,617 North Carolina 37 21 0 0 37 21 58 North D
akota0 20 00 22 Ohio 1,326 146 0 0 1,326 146 1,473 Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oregon 163 38 82 6 246 44 290 Pennsylvania 2 89 11 588 12 676 689 Rhode
Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 129 551 125 777 254 1,328 1,582

Enclosure III Enclosure II

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 11

Unwaived areas Waived areas Total State Workfare

Employment and training Workfare

Employment and training Workfare

Employment and training Total

South Dakota 24 2 0 0 24 2 26 Tennessee 278 61 29 6 306 68 374 Texas 415 18
373 12 788 29 817 Utah 44 99 4 0. 1 47 99 146 Vermont 9 20 09 211 Virgin
Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia 26 20 20 13 46 32 78 Washington 403 1 0 0 403
1 404 West Virginia 0 142 0 242 0 385 385 Wisconsin 269 90 91 0 360 90 450
Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 49,349 9, 231 8,623 4,161 57,972 13,392 71,364

Note: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 allows ABAWDs to meet the work requirement by (1) working a minimum of
80 hours per month; (2) participating in qualifying state employment and
training programs for 20 hours per week; or (3) participating in workfare,
public service work for which ABAWDs receive food stamp benefits. The act
excluded job search and job search training as allowable employment and
training program components. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a Third and fourth quarter data were not available. b Fourth quarter data
were not available.

Source: FNS.

Enclosure III Enclosure III

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 12

FUNDING FOR FOOD STAMP EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

Table 3: Appropriations and Expenditures for Employment and Training
Programs, Fiscal Years1997- 2000

(Dollars in thousands)

Fiscal year Base program appropriation Maintenance- of- effort

appropriation a Carryover of prior year funds Total available Total spent

1997 $79,000 b c $79,000 $73,917 1998 $81,000 $131,000 c $212,000 $84,487
1999 $84,000 $31,000 d $127,513 $242,513 $84,151 2000 $86,000 $86,000 d
$158,362 $330,362 $98,099 2001 $88,000 $106,000 d $232,263 $426,263 e

a To qualify for maintenance- of- effort funds in a given year, the states
are required to maintain their state- funded expenditures for employment and
training at a level no less than they did in fiscal year 1996. b Beginning
in fiscal year 1998, additional federal funding was made available for
states that met the maintenance- of- effort requirement in the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997. c The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorized the
Secretary of Agriculture to carry over any unspent base program funding and
maintenance- of- effort funding, effective in fiscal year 1998. d The
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 originally established maintenance- of- effort
funding at $131 million per year for fiscal years 1998- 2001. Subsequently,
the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (P.
L. 105- 185) reduced the funding to $31 million in fiscal year 1999 and $86
million in fiscal year 2000. Funding for fiscal year 2001 was reduced by $25
million in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 (P. L. 106-
387).

e Total spending data for fiscal year 2001 are not yet available. Source:
FNS.

Table 4: FNS' Allocation and the States' Expenditures of Funds for
Employment and Training Programs, Fiscal Year 2000

(Dollars in thousands)

State Base allocation Maintenance- of -effort

allocation a Total FY 2000 allocation Total

expenditures b Percent of allocation expended

Alabama $1,452 $1,453 $2,905 $994 34 Alaska c 182 182 364 73 20 Arizona 1,
141 1,141 2,282 718 31 Arkansas c 798 798 1,596 151 9 California 10,774
10,780 21,554 27,307 127 Colorado 479 479 958 2,274 237 Connecticut 1,293
1,294 2,587 1,364 53 Delaware 150 150 300 150 50 District of Columbia 846
847 1,693 372 22 Florida 3, 852 3,854 7,706 4,585 59

Enclosure III Enclosure III

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 13

State Base allocation Maintenance of effort

allocation a Total FY 2000 allocation Total

expenditures b Percent of allocation expended

Georgia 2, 372 2,373 4,745 2,089 44 Guam d 50 0 50 11 22 Hawaii 718 719
1,437 718 50 Idaho c 234 235 469 94 20 Illinois 5, 200 5,203 10,403 9, 843
95 Indiana 1, 386 1,386 2,772 1,116 40 Iowa 462 462 924 229 25 Kansas c 403
403 806 161 20 Kentucky 1,091 1,092 2,183 286 13 Louisiana 1, 230 1,231
2,461 1,075 44 Maine 555 555 1,110 144 13 Maryland 570 571 1,141 100 9
Massachusetts 998 998 1,996 553 28 Michigan 6,123 6,127 12,250 4, 706 38
Minnesota 944 944 1,888 944 50 Mississippi 1,517 1,517 3,034 1,894 62
Missouri 1, 385 1,386 2,771 981 35 Montana 204 204 408 533 131 Nebraska 290
290 580 620 107 Nevada c 476 477 953 191 20 New Hampshire 90 90 180 56 31
New Jersey 1,369 1,369 2,738 2,738 100 New Mexico 579 579 1,158 579 50 New
York 6,502 6,505 13,007 6, 502 50 North Carolina 2, 009 2,010 4,019 384 10
North Dakota 145 145 290 113 39 Ohio 3,328 3,330 6,658 3,328 50 Oklahoma c
1,381 1,382 2,763 95 3 Oregon 1,620 1,621 3,241 1,446 45 Pennsylvania 5, 606
5,609 11,215 5, 039 45 Rhode Island c 253 253 506 58 11 South Carolina 1,077
1,077 2,154 2,345 109 South Dakota 123 123 246 294 120 Tennessee 3,054 3,056
6,110 2,468 40 Texas 6, 517 6,521 13,038 4, 157 32 Utah 267 267 534 451 84
Vermont 306 306 612 149 24 Virgin Islands c 26 26 52 9 17 Virginia 1,938
1,939 3,877 981 25 Washington 739 739 1,478 1,509 102 West Virginia 1,092
1,093 2,185 126 6 Wisconsin 654 654 1,308 957 73 Wyoming c 154 154 308 43 14

Total $86,000 $86,000 $172,000 $98,099 57

a FNS allocates maintenance- of- effort funds among all states. However, the
states can spend this allocation only if their state- funded expenditures
for employment and training are at least at a level spent in fiscal year
1996. b FNS subsequently reallocated its base and maintenance- of- effort
allocations for fiscal year 2000 and prior years in response to states'
requests for additional funding, as allowed by the Food Stamp Act of 1977
(as amended). Expenditures data are preliminary as of February 2001.

Enclosure III Enclosure III

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 14

c Eight states and the Virgin Islands were eligible to spend no more than 20
percent of their allocation for fiscal year 2000 because they elected not to
serve ABAWDs. d Data were available for only the first three quarters of
fiscal year 2000.

Source: FNS.

Table 5: States' Eligibility for Federal Maintenance- of- Effort Funding for
Employment and Training Activities, Fiscal Years 1998 to 2000

(Dollars in thousands)

Spending toward maintenance- ofeffort requirement States eligible for
maintenance- of- effort

fundingt State

Maintenanceof- effort requirement FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY
2000

Number of years eligible

Alabama $26 $26 $0 $26 X X 2 Alaska 172 147 93 136 0 Arizona 0 475 0 0 X X X
3 Arkansas 116 152 19 39 X 1 California 3, 948 2,268 13,060 17,236 X X 2
Colorado 1,150 1,295 1,247 1,387 X X X 3 Connecticut 81 81 139 81 X X X 3
Delaware 264 209 287 73 X 1 District of Columbia 128 22 112 13 0 Florida 1,
069 1,011 1,106 1,069 X X 2 Georgia 509 519 144 122 X 1 Guam 33 11 17 59 X a
Hawaii 489 336 471 329 0 Idaho 180 228 372 515 X X X 3 Illinois 3, 412 6,617
3,552 3,531 X X X 3 Indiana 3, 443 3,807 3,848 4,884 X X X 3 Iowa 28 28 149
131 X X X 3 Kansas 0 274 408 74 X X X 3 Kentucky 381 0 0 0 0 Louisiana 0 0 0
0 X X X 3 Maine 164 279 255 376 X X X 3 Maryland 0 6135 X X X3 Massachusetts
0 0 0 0 X X X 3 Michigan 0 0 00 X X X3 Minnesota 1, 735 1,153 961 965 0
Mississippi 347 370 218 132 X 1 Missouri 0 0 0 0 X X X 3 Montana 222 348 20
258 X X 2 Nebraska 185 222 185 96 X X 2 Nevada 0 0 00 X X X2 New Hampshire
143 143 143 131 X X 2 New Jersey 0 1, 602 3,372 4,113 X X X 3 New Mexico 210
80 2,182 957 X X 2 New York 22,995 20,079 20,833 19,114 0 North Carolina 41
1, 011 3,206 3,227 X X X 3 North Dakota 0 0 0 0 X X X 3 Ohio 6,875 2,273
1,887 3,008 0

Enclosure III Enclosure III

GAO- 01- 391R Food Stamp Employment and Training 15

Spending toward maintenance- ofeffort requirement States eligible for
maintenance- of- effort

funds State

Maintenanceof- effort requirement FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY
2000

Number of years eligible

Oklahoma 37 59 88 0 X X 2 Oregon 0 688 0 525 X X X 3 Pennsylvania 5, 130
9,017 9,393 8,869 X X X 3 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 X X X 3 South Carolina 280
280 280 280 X X X 3 South Dakota 143 254 143 160 X X X 3 Tennessee 0 0 0 0 X
X X 3 Texas 3, 404 3,657 4,035 4,484 X X X 3 Utah 580 694 688 1,487 X X X 3
Vermont 1,519 2,135 2,224 2,332 X X X 3 Virgin Islands 0 12 13 17 X X X 3
Virginia 392 577 1,055 694 X X X 3 Washington 0 0 0 0 X X X 3 West Virginia
92 46 85 92 X 1 Wisconsin 17,089 2, 706 3,741 3,837 0 Wyoming 0 0 00 X X X3

Note: To qualify for maintenance- of- effort funds in a given fiscal year,
the states are required to maintain their state- funded expenditures for
employment and training at a level no lower than in fiscal year 1996.

a Guam did not have enough ABAWDs in fiscal years 1998 to 2000 to receive a
maintenance- of- effort allocation, regardless of spending toward the
maintenance- of- effort requirement, according to an FNS official.

Source: FNS. (130020)
*** End of document ***