All States Use Mail and About Half of States Use or Have Begun Developing On- line Services and Call Centers to Provide Access to the Food Stamp Program

According to our survey, almost all states allow households to submit  applications, report changes, and submit recertifications through the mail,  and 26 states have implemented or are developing systems to allow  households to perform these tasks on-line. States have taken a variety of actions to  help households use on-line services and call centers, such as sending  informational mailings, holding community meetings, and using  community partners to assist households. Mail-In Procedures. On-line services available (14)
Not using on-line services (25)

		Almost Half of States Are Using or Developing Call Centers and Using Telephone Interviews as an Alternative to Visiting the Local Assistance Office

Many states are using call centers, telephone interviews, or other  technologies to help households access food stamp benefits or  information without visiting a local assistance office. Few evaluations have been conducted that identify the effect  of alternative methods on food stamp program access, decision accuracy,  or administrative costs. Few evaluations have been conducted in part because evaluating the  effectiveness of alternative methods is challenging, given that limited data  are available, states are using a combination of methods, and studies can  be costly to conduct. Federal and State Officials Report Alternative Methods Help Some Households Access Food Stamp Benefits, but Technology and Staffing Can Present Challenges

Despite the limited information on the effects of alternative methods,  federal and state officials report that alternative methods, such as the  availability of telephone interviews, can help many types of households by  making it easier for them to complete the food stamp application or  recertification process. Increased flexibility. However, some state and local officials and community partners we  interviewed said certain types of households may have difficulty using  certain alternative methods. Officials in the five states we reviewed did not believe that  the use of alternative methods had increased fraud in the program. Finger imaging. Our limited analysis of FNS data for the five states we reviewed found no  considerable fluctuations in the rate of procedural denials between fiscal  years 2000 and 2005. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To understand what alternatives states are using to improve program  access and what is known about the results of using these methods, we  examined: (1) what alternative methods to the traditional application and  recertification process are states using to increase program access; (2)  what is known about the results of these methods, particularly on program  access for target groups, decision accuracy, and administrative costs; and  (3) what actions have states taken to maintain program integrity while  implementing alternative methods.
Why GAO Did This Study

One in 12 Americans participates in the federal Food Stamp Program, administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). States have begun offering individuals alternatives to visiting the local assistance office to apply for and maintain benefits, such as mail-in procedures, call centers, and on-line services. GAO was asked to examine: (1) what alternative methods states are using to increase program access; (2) what is known about the results of these methods, particularly on program access for target groups, decision accuracy, and administrative costs; and (3) what actions states have taken to maintain program integrity while implementing alternative methods. GAO surveyed state food stamp administrators, reviewed five states in depth, analyzed FNS data and reports, and interviewed program officials and stakeholders.

What GAO Found

All states use mail and about half of states use or have begun developing on-line services and call centers to provide access to the food stamp program. Almost all states allow households to submit applications, report changes, and submit recertifications through the mail, and 26 states have implemented or are developing systems for households to perform these tasks on-line. Almost half of the states are using or developing call centers and states also are allowing households to participate in telephone interviews instead of an in-office interview. States have taken a variety of actions to help households use on-line services and call centers, such as sending informational mailings, holding community meetings, and using community partners. Insufficient information is available to determine the results of using alternative methods. Few evaluations have been conducted identifying the effect of alternative methods on program access, decision accuracy, or administrative costs. Evaluating the effectiveness of alternative methods is challenging in part because limited data are available, states are using a combination of methods, and studies can be costly to conduct. Federal and state officials reported that while they believe alternative methods can help households in several ways, such as increasing flexibility and efficiency in the application process, certain types of households may have difficulty using or accessing alternative methods. In addition, technology and staffing challenges may hinder the use of alternative methods. To maintain program integrity while implementing alternative methods, the states GAO reviewed used a variety of strategies, such as using software to verify the information households submit, communicating with other states to detect fraud, or using finger imaging. Although there has been some concern that without frequent in-person interaction with caseworkers, households may not submit required documents on time and thus be denied benefits on procedural grounds ("procedural denials"), GAO's limited analysis of FNS data found no considerable fluctuations in the rate of procedural denials in the five states between fiscal years 2000 and 2005. The states GAO reviewed have instituted several approaches to prevent procedural denials.