1.) States Chose Some Farm Bill Options More Frequently than Others to Simplify Program Rules and Ease the Administrative Burden for Participants and Caseworkers

States chose four of the Farm Bill options with greater frequency than the  others. 2. Local Food Stamp Officials Reported Mixed Results for Farm Bill Options; These Results Ranged from Improvements to Complications

Local food stamp officials, who often have day-to-day contact with  frontline caseworkers and food stamp participants, reported mixed results  from implementing the Farm Bill options; the results ranged from  improvements to complications. Many Local Food Stamp Officials Reported That Certain Options Introduced Complications in Program Rules for Participants and Caseworkers

Many local officials reported on our surveys that three options—Expanded  Simplified Reporting, Transitional Benefits, and Simplified Determination  of Deductions—introduced complications in program rules for  participants and caseworkers. Officials told us that adopting the Expanded Simplified  Reporting option resulted in Food Stamp Program reporting rules that  differed in important ways from the reporting rules of other assistance  programs, such as Medicaid and TANF, depending on how their states  have structured these programs. However, the extent to which program costs might increase  as a result of alignment is unclear, and in two of the three states we  visited, state officials had little or no information on possible costs  associated with implementing such changes. Although they reported some improvements for both  caseworkers and participants from some options, no option received  consistently positive reports in all the areas where state officials expected  improvements when they selected the option. In fact, in many cases,  officials were as likely to report that an option resulted in no change as  they were to report improvements. Of all the options, the Expanded Simplified Reporting option offered the  most promise because it was selected by the most states, affects a large  number of participants, and has the potential to significantly streamline  the participant reporting process. The fact that local officials reported that  adopting this option actually complicated program rules in many states  reflects the challenge of trying to simplify requirements for one program  without efforts by states to adjust the rules of other related assistance  programs. Concerns regarding whether there are costs associated  with aligning participant reporting requirements may hinder a state’s  decision to make program changes that increase alignment. To view selected results of GAO’s Web-based  survey of food stamp adminstrators, go to   www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1058SP. GAO-04-346.
Why GAO Did This Study

Many individuals familiar with the Food Stamp Program view its rules as unnecessarily complex, creating an administrative burden for participants and caseworkers. In addition many participants receive benefits from other programs that have different program rules, adding to the complexity of accurately determining program benefits and eligibility. The 2002 Farm Bill introduced new options to help simplify the program. This report examines (1) which options states have chosen to implement and why, and (2) what changes local officials reported as a result of using these options. Selected results from GAO's web-based survey of food stamp administrators are provided in an e-supplement to this report, GAO-04-1058SP . Another e-supplement, GAO-04-1059SP , contains results from the local food stamp office surveys.

What GAO Found

As of January 2004, states chose four of the eight Farm Bill options with greater frequency than the others. These options provided states with more flexibility in requiring participants to report changes and in determining eligibility. The most common reasons state officials gave for choosing the eight options were to simplify program rules for participants and caseworkers. Local food stamp officials reported mixed results from implementing the Farm Bill options. Although they reported some improvements for both caseworkers and participants from some options, no option received consistent positive reports in all the areas where state officials expected improvements. In fact, in many cases, officials were as likely to report that an option resulted in no change as they were to report improvements. Moreover, many local officials reported that three options introduced complications in program rules. One option that offered the most promise because it was selected by most states and affects a large number of participants resulted in food stamp participant reporting rules that differed from Medicaid and TANF. These differences resulted in confusion for food stamp participants and caseworkers, and some changes were made that undermined the intended advantages of the option. These problems reflect the challenge of trying to simplify rules for one program without making the rules of other related programs the same. Concerns about whether there are costs associated with aligning reporting rules may hinder a state's decision to pursue alignment; yet the extent to which program costs might increase as a result of making reporting rules the same is unclear.