These 1.1 million affected households, which represent about 10 percent of all food stamp households, would have received more in food stamp benefits in the absence of the cap because they (1) had excess shelter expenses they could not deduct from their income and (2) were not receiving the maximum allowable food stamp benefit. Characteristics of Households and Participants Affected by the Cap on Excess Shelter Expense Deduction

In fiscal year 1995, the 1.1 million households affected by the cap on the deduction for excess shelter expenses differed in several aspects from households not affected by the cap. Household Composition

In fiscal year 1995, households affected by the excess shelter cap were more likely than households not affected to (1) contain children, (2) be headed by a single female, (3) have more members, and (4) have more noncitizen members. 6.) Affected households tended to be concentrated in the Northeast, 37.5 percent, and West, 27.9 percent, while not affected households tended to be located in the South, 41.5 percent. Food Stamp Benefit Increases in Absence of a Cap

Food stamp benefits for the 1.1 million households affected by the cap would have increased by about 12 percent, on average, or about $31 per month, in absence of the cap in fiscal year 1995. Households in urban areas would have received larger average monthly increases, $32, than in rural areas, $25. In the absence of the cap, total federal food stamp expenditures would have increased by approximately 1.9 percent, or $34.7 million monthly, for a total of $417 million, in fiscal year 1995. Of these 10 states, California and New York would have received almost half of these additional benefits. For our analyses, we compared the characteristics of households whose benefits were limited by the cap with those households whose benefits were not affected by the cap. To determine the extent to which food stamp benefits would have been higher in the absence of the cap, we recalculated the benefits that affected food stamp households would have received with no cap in place.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the legislative changes to the Food Stamp Program mandated by the 1996 welfare reform act; focusing on, for fiscal year (FY) 1995, the: (1) characteristics of households whose food stamp benefits were limited because of the cap on their deduction for excess shelter expenses; and (2) extent to which food stamp benefits would have been higher for these households if there had not been a cap.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) in FY 1995, households whose food stamp benefits were limited because of the cap on the deduction for excess shelter expenses differed in several key respects from households not affected by this cap; (2) nearly all households affected by the cap had children, while only slightly more than half of households not affected by the cap had children; (3) moreover, households affected by the cap were more likely to: (a) be headed by asingle female; (b) have noncitizen members; (c) have earned income; and (d) live in urban areas; (4) affected households also typically had more household members and received more in food stamp benefits than those not affected by the cap; (5) households affected by the cap tended to be located in the Northeast and West, while households not affected by the cap tended to be located in the South; (6) in the absence of the cap on the excess shelter expenses deduction in FY 1995, the average monthly food stamp benefit for affected households would have been about 12 percent, or $31, higher; (7) total federal food stamp expenditures would have increased by 1.9 percent, for a total of $417 million in FY 1995; (8) the largest increase would have been for households in the Northeast, where average shelter costs are the highest; (9) nationwide, households in urban areas would have received larger increases than those in rural areas; and (10) households in New York and California would have received almost half of these additional benefits.