In fiscal year 1996, the states returned about $121.6 million, or about 3.3 percent, of that year’s $3.7 billion WIC grant for reallocation to the states in the next fiscal year. Some of the reasons cited by the WIC directors for not spending all available federal funds related to the structure of the WIC program. Some of these states prohibit agency expenditures that exceed their available funding. As a result, they were unable to certify and serve a number of eligible individuals and did not spend the associated grant funds. WIC Access for Working Women

On the basis of our nationwide survey of randomly selected local WIC agencies, we reported in October 1997 that these agencies have implemented a variety of strategies to increase the accessibility of their clinics for working women. The most frequently cited strategies—used by every agency—are scheduling appointments instead of taking participants on a first-come, first-served basis and allowing other persons to pick up participants’ WIC vouchers. We estimated that about 66 percent of local WIC agencies have taken steps to expedite clinic visits for working women. Containing Program Costs

In September 1997, we reported that the states have used a variety of initiatives to control WIC costs. These two practices are (1) contracting with manufacturers to obtain rebates on WIC foods in addition to infant formula and (2) limiting authorized food selections by, for example, requiring participants to select brands of foods that have the lowest cost. Our survey also collected information on the practices that the states are using to ensure that program participants meet the program’s income and residency requirements.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed its three recently completed reviews of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), focusing on: (1) the reasons that states had for not spending all of their federal grant funds; (2) efforts of WIC agencies to improve access to WIC benefits for working women; and (3) various practices states use to lower the costs of WIC and ensure that the incomes of WIC applicants' meet the program's eligibility requirements for participation.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) states had unspent WIC funds for a variety of reasons; (2) in fiscal year 1996, these funds totalled about $121.6 million, or about 3.3 percent of that year's $3.7 billion WIC grants; (3) some of these reasons were associated with the way WIC is structured; (4) virtually all the directors of local WIC agencies report that their clinics have taken steps to improve access to WIC benefits for working women; (5) the two most frequently cited strategies are: (a) scheduling appointments instead of taking participants on a first-come, first-served basis; and (b) allowing a person other than the participant to pick up the food vouchers, as well as nutrition information, and to pass these benefits on to the participant; (6) the states are using a variety of cost containment initiatives that have saved millions of dollars annually for WIC and enabled more individuals to participate in the program; and (7) some of these initiatives include obtaining rebates on WIC foods, limiting participants' food choices to lowest-cost items, and limiting the number of stores that participate in WIC.