Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: More Complete and Accurate Information Needed on Employment and Training Programs

SNAP is the nation's largest federally funded nutrition assistance program. In fiscal year 2017, it provided about $64 billion in benefits. To maintain eligibility for benefits, certain SNAP recipients must comply with the program's work requirements, which may include participating in a state's SNAP E&T program if required by the state.

This report examines (1) what is known about SNAP E&T program participants and outcomes over time and (2) the extent to which state SNAP E&T programs have partnered with other programs offering similar services. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; analyzed USDA data on SNAP recipients, work registrants, and SNAP E&T participants from fiscal years 2008 through 2016, the most recent data available; reviewed states' fiscal year 2017 SNAP E&T plans and outcome reports; and interviewed USDA officials and state officials in five states selected, in part, to reflect a range of SNAP E&T program characteristics.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T) programs, which are overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and administered by states, have served a small percentage of SNAP recipients over time, and information on participant characteristics and outcomes is limited. In an average month of fiscal year 2016, SNAP E&T served about 0.5 percent of the 43.5 million SNAP recipients. Further, since 2008, the percentage of SNAP recipients served by SNAP E&T has declined. Participation in SNAP E&T may be low, in part, because most SNAP recipients were exempt from work requirements, according to USDA data. In addition, SNAP recipients may participate in other activities to comply with work requirements. Although data on the number of recipients served in SNAP E&T are generally reliable, USDA lacks reliable data on participant characteristics and outcomes because of imprecise instructions on data collection forms and staff confusion at the state level. USDA has taken some steps to address these issues, but data reliability issues persist. As a result, USDA's ability to assess whether agency goals are being met through the SNAP E&T program is limited, as is the department's ability to monitor states' implementation of work requirements and ensure program integrity.

In fiscal year 2018, most state SNAP agencies partnered with workforce development system entities, such as community colleges and workforce agencies, to provide services to SNAP E&T participants, according to USDA data. Regional and state officials reported that state SNAP agencies often have used these partnerships to leverage non-federal funding sources and provide additional capacity and expertise to help expand SNAP E&T services. However, 3 states operated their own SNAP E&T programs without partnering with any other program, and a total of 20 states lacked partnerships with workforce agencies, according to USDA data for fiscal year 2018. Federal regulations require that SNAP E&T services be delivered through the state's workforce development system unless the services are not available locally through this system. USDA and state officials described challenges to forming effective partnerships with workforce agencies, including perceived disincentives to serving SNAP recipients. However, states that are not fully leveraging resources available through the workforce development system may miss opportunities to provide a wider variety of services to SNAP E&T participants and serve a greater number of SNAP recipients through SNAP E&T.

GAO is making four recommendations, including that USDA take additional steps to address SNAP E&T data reliability issues and to help states leverage available workforce development system resources. USDA officials generally agreed with our recommendations.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest  federally funded nutrition assistance program in the United States. In  fiscal year 2017, the program provided approximately $64 billion in  benefits to about 42 million individuals in more than 20 million  households. SNAP is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s  (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and administered by the states.  To be eligible for benefits, certain SNAP recipients must comply with the  program’s work requirements, including registering for work and  participating in certain work programs if required by the state agency.  For example, a state SNAP agency may assign a SNAP recipient to  participate in a state-administered SNAP Employment and Training (E&T)  program as a condition of SNAP eligibility. Federal requirements for such  programs were first enacted in 1985, and these programs are intended to  help individuals in SNAP households acquire skills, training, employment,  or experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular employment.  As such, FNS considers increasing participation in state SNAP E&T  programs a strategy for helping SNAP recipients achieve self-sufficiency.  State agencies have flexibility in designing SNAP E&T programs and may  partner with local entities, such as nonprofit community-based social  service providers and community colleges, to leverage existing services.

In recent years, the Congress and FNS have made changes to federal  requirements for state SNAP E&T programs. For example, the  Agricultural Act of 2014 required that states report additional data on  SNAP E&T participant characteristics and outcomes. You asked us to  review several aspects of SNAP E&T.

This report examines (1) what is known about SNAP E&T program  participants and outcomes over time and (2) the extent to which state  SNAP E&T programs have partnered with other programs offering similar  services.

To address our first objective, we analyzed data on SNAP E&T  participation from three FNS data sources, as well as data on participant  outcomes from one of these sources. First, we analyzed aggregate data  on SNAP E&T participants collected from state SNAP agencies for fiscal  years 2008 through 2016, the most recent data available. Second, for the  same time period, we analyzed Quality Control data on individual SNAP  recipients, work registrants, and SNAP E&T participants. Finally, we also  reviewed and analyzed aggregate outcome and participation data from  state SNAP agencies’ fiscal year 2017 outcome and participant  characteristics reports. To assess the reliability of these data, we  interviewed FNS and state officials, performed data testing, and reviewed  relevant documentation. We determined these data to be sufficiently  reliable to identify the number of average monthly SNAP E&T  participants, work registrants, and SNAP recipients, and to assess  change in the size of these groups over time.

To address our second objective, we reviewed all fiscal year 2017 SNAP  E&T state plans and analyzed data from FNS on state SNAP agency  partnerships for fiscal year 2018. To assess the reliability of these data,  we interviewed FNS and state officials and reviewed relevant  documentation. We determined these data to be sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of this report.

To address both objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and  regulations, as well as guidance and research from FNS, the USDA  Office of the Inspector General, and our prior work on SNAP E&T  programs. We interviewed relevant FNS officials from each of the seven FNS regions. We also conducted interviews with SNAP state agency  officials in five states, selected based on several criteria to ensure our  sample included state SNAP E&T programs with different service delivery  approaches and other program characteristics, as well as geographic  diversity. We visited those states (four of the five) in which services are  provided through partnerships with local providers and interviewed  selected local program staff with knowledge of SNAP E&T program  operations, participant characteristics, and coordination with the state  SNAP agency. For additional contextual information on SNAP E&T  program trends, we also conducted background interviews with state  officials from seven other state SNAP E&T programs, as well as  representatives from national organizations with knowledge of the SNAP  E&T program. Information collected from state and local SNAP E&T  officials during our site visits and interviews cannot be generalized to all  SNAP E&T officials nationwide. For additional information on the report’s  scope and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2017 to November  2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

All SNAP recipients ages 16 through 59, unless exempted by law or  regulation, must comply with general work requirements. (See fig. 1.)  These requirements generally include registering for work, reporting to an  employer if referred by a state agency, accepting an offer of a suitable  job, not voluntarily quitting a job or reducing work hours below 30 hours a  week, or participating in a SNAP E&T program or a workfare program—in  which recipients perform work on behalf of the state—if assigned by the  state agency. SNAP recipients are exempt from complying with these  work requirements if they meet certain criteria, such as being responsible for caring for a dependent child under age 6 or an incapacitated person.  In addition, per federal law, those who are employed for 30 or more hours  per week are exempt from the work requirements. SNAP recipients who  are subject to the work requirements—known as work registrants—may  lose their eligibility for benefits if they fail to comply with the requirements  without good cause.

In addition to meeting the general work requirements, able-bodied adults  without dependents (ABAWDs) must work or participate in a work  program 20 hours or more per week, or participate in workfare, which is  performing work to earn the value of their SNAP benefits. Participation  in SNAP E&T, which is a type of work program, is one way for ABAWDs  to meet the 20-hour-per-week ABAWD work requirement, but other work  programs are acceptable as well. Unless ABAWDs meet these work  requirements or are determined to be exempt, they are limited to 3  months of SNAP benefits in a 36-month period. (See fig. 2.)

At the request of states, FNS may waive the ABAWD time limit for  ABAWDs located in certain areas of a state or an entire state when  certain circumstances are met. For example, a waiver may be granted if  the area has an unemployment rate of over 10 percent or the number of  jobs available is insufficient to provide employment for these individuals. If  the time limit is waived, ABAWDs are not required to meet the ABAWD  work requirement in order to receive SNAP for more than 3 months in a  36-month period, but they must still comply with the general work  requirements.

Federal requirements for state SNAP E&T programs were first enacted in  1985 and provide state SNAP agencies with flexibility in designing their  SNAP E&T programs, including whom to serve and what services to offer.  The state can require some or all SNAP work registrants to participate in  the SNAP E&T program as a condition of eligibility, an approach  commonly referred to as a mandatory program. In mandatory programs,  individuals can be sanctioned if they fail to participate in an assigned  SNAP E&T activity. State SNAP agencies also may elect to exempt  categories and individuals from participating in SNAP E&T, such as those  living in rural areas or experiencing homelessness. In addition, states  may exempt all work registrants from participation in SNAP E&T and only  serve volunteers, an approach commonly referred to as a voluntary  program. States also determine which types of services to provide  participants through their SNAP E&T programs, although they must  provide at least one from a federally determined list. This list includes job  search programs, job search training programs, workfare, programs  designed to improve employability through work experience or training,  education programs to improve basic skills and employability, job  retention services, and programs to improve self-sufficiency through self- employment.

There are three types of federal funding streams for state SNAP E&T  programs: 100 percent funds—formula grants for program administration,  including planning, implementing, and operating a SNAP E&T program;  50 percent federal reimbursement funds; and ABAWD pledge funds— grants to states that pledge to serve all of their at-risk ABAWDs. While  the federal allocation for 100 percent funds has generally been capped at  $90 million over the last decade, some states do not obligate or expend  their full allocation, and as a result, the following year FNS reallocates  these funds to other states that request additional funds, according to  FNS officials. Total federal expenditures on SNAP E&T programs  increased from about $282 million in fiscal year 2007 to about $337  million in fiscal year 2016, according to FNS data (see fig. 3). Federal 50  percent reimbursement funds, which are generally not capped, constitute  the largest portion of federal expenditures on SNAP E&T and were  responsible for the majority of the increase in total federal SNAP E&T  expenditures over the last decade. These funds are used for program  administrative costs for operating SNAP E&T programs, as well as SNAP  E&T participant expenses, such as transportation and dependent care  costs.

In 2014, FNS created the Office of Employment and Training to provide  support and oversight for the SNAP E&T program. Specifically, FNS  expanded its headquarters staff dedicated to SNAP E&T from one to six  full-time employees, and added a dedicated SNAP E&T official in each  FNS regional office to provide technical assistance to states. FNS has  also developed resources, such as a SNAP E&T Operations Handbook,  intended to help states implement and expand their SNAP E&T programs.

To inform its program support and oversight, FNS collects information on  SNAP recipients and work registrants, as well as SNAP E&T program  participants, services, and expenditures. More specifically, FNS  periodically collects data from states on the total number of work  registrants, ABAWDs, SNAP E&T participants, and participants in each  type of SNAP E&T service. FNS also collects data from states on a  sample of all households participating in SNAP each month as part of the  Quality Control process. The Quality Control data include characteristics  of SNAP recipients, including whether they are work registrants, for  example. In addition, as a result of requirements in the Agricultural Act of  2014, FNS began collecting annual SNAP E&T outcome and participant  characteristics data from states in January 2018. Furthermore, FNS  collects quarterly information from states on SNAP E&T expenditures.

States are also required to submit an annual SNAP E&T plan to FNS,  including information on the services they plan to offer during the year  and their projected budget and program participation numbers. Guidance  on plan requirements is provided in an FNS handbook for states. FNS  national and regional officials review the plans to ensure compliance with  requirements, and plans must be approved by regional officials before  SNAP E&T funding is allocated to a state.

State SNAP E&T Programs Have Served a Small Percentage of Recipients over Time and Little Is Known about Participants and Outcomes

State SNAP E&T programs have served a small and decreasing  percentage of overall SNAP recipients over time, and although these data  are generally reliable, FNS data on SNAP E&T program participant  characteristics and outcomes are not reliable. State SNAP E&T programs  have served a small percentage of SNAP recipients over the last decade  potentially due in part to certain policy changes during that time, such as  the increasing number of states moving from mandatory to voluntary  SNAP E&T programs. The number of SNAP recipients served by SNAP  E&T programs has also potentially been low because a limited number of  those referred to state programs go on to participate in services. FNS’s  lack of reliable SNAP E&T data, as well as the agency’s lack of a plan for  using newly reported participant characteristics and outcome data to  assess program performance, constrain FNS’s ability to understand the  extent to which agency goals are being met.

State SNAP E&T Programs Have Served a Small and Decreasing Percentage of SNAP Recipients over the Last Decade, Due to Various Factors

According to FNS data, among the approximately 43.5 million total SNAP  recipients, only a small percentage—0.5 percent, or about 200,000—were  served by state SNAP E&T programs in an average month of fiscal year  2016, due to several factors. (See fig. 4.) First, according to FNS data,  most SNAP recipients are exempt from work requirements for various  reasons, under federal law and regulation. For example, according to  FNS data, almost two-thirds of SNAP recipients were children, elderly, or  adults with a disability in an average month of fiscal year 2016, and these  groups generally are exempt from work requirements. As a result of  federal exemptions, in an average month of fiscal year 2016, about 14  percent of SNAP recipients, or about 6.1 million individuals, were work  registrants who were subject to work requirements, according to FNS  data. Further, state SNAP agencies may elect to exempt individuals for  whom participation is judged to be impractical or not cost effective.  Moreover, SNAP work registrants may participate in other activities to  comply with work requirements, such as other federal- and state-funded  E&T programs.

In recent years, the number and percentage of SNAP recipients and work  registrants participating in SNAP E&T programs has decreased,  according to FNS data. From fiscal years 2008 through 2016, the average  monthly number of SNAP E&T participants decreased from about  256,000 to about 207,000, or by 19 percent, according to state data on  SNAP E&T participants that were reported to FNS. (See fig. 5.) However,  the data also show that over the same time period, the average monthly  number of SNAP recipients increased from about 27.8 million to about  43.5 million, and work registrants increased from about 3.2 million to  about 6.1 million. As a result, the percentage of total SNAP recipients  participating in SNAP E&T programs decreased from about 0.9 percent to  about 0.5 percent, and the percentage of work registrants participating in  these programs decreased from approximately 8.1 percent to  approximately 3.4 percent.

The decline in SNAP E&T participation in recent years may have been  influenced by certain policy changes, including states’ widespread use of  waivers for ABAWDs. According to FNS data, from fiscal years 2008  through 2012, the number of states with statewide waivers due to  economic conditions increased from 7 to 46 states, potentially enabling  ABAWDS in these states to continue receiving SNAP benefits without  meeting ABAWD work requirements. As a result, these waivers  potentially reduced the number of ABAWDs nationwide who may  otherwise have participated in SNAP E&T programs in order to continue  receiving SNAP benefits. Further, according to FNS data, from fiscal  years 2011 through 2015, the majority of states continued to operate  under statewide waivers of the ABAWD time limit.

According to FNS data, states have also increasingly moved from  mandatory to voluntary SNAP E&T programs in recent years, another  policy change that may have influenced SNAP E&T participation. In  fiscal year 2010, 36 states operated mandatory programs; however, by  fiscal year 2017, 19 states operated mandatory programs. (See fig. 6.)  When states move to a voluntary program, they generally experience a  decline in SNAP E&T participation, according to FNS officials and our  analysis of FNS data. Specifically, of the 21 states that changed from a  mandatory to a voluntary program from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal  year 2016, 13 experienced a decrease in SNAP E&T participation in the  year following the change—ranging from a 21 percent decrease to a 93  percent decrease. This trend was generally inconsistent with the trend  in work registrants, as 9 of the 13 states that changed from a mandatory  to a voluntary program and experienced a decrease in SNAP E&T  participation also experienced an increase in their total number of SNAP  work registrants during the same time period. Furthermore, voluntary  programs are generally smaller overall than mandatory programs,  according to our analysis of FNS data. In fiscal year 2016, for example,  the 31 states operating voluntary programs together served less than half  of the total number of SNAP E&T participants served by the 22 states  operating mandatory programs, although these two groups of states had  similar numbers of new work registrants.

FNS officials told us that there are various reasons states may move to  voluntary programs. For example, FNS officials said that many states  have reported to them that offering employer-driven, skills-based,  intensive employment and training services, such as vocational training or  work experience, through voluntary programs yields more engaged  participants with stronger outcomes. FNS officials stated that they have  been actively encouraging states to offer these types of services because  they believe these types of services are more effective in moving SNAP  recipients, who may be more likely to have barriers to employment,  toward self-sufficiency. However, they noted that SNAP E&T funding may  not be sufficient to provide these types of services in mandatory programs  that require participation by SNAP recipients and thus have higher  participation. In addition, FNS officials told us that voluntary programs are  less administratively burdensome than mandatory programs, as they  allow states to focus on serving motivated participants rather than  sanctioning non-compliant individuals.

In addition, participation rates are low for SNAP recipients referred to the  SNAP E&T program, according to FNS officials, state program officials,  and available data, regardless of whether the state operates a mandatory  or voluntary program. FNS officials said that engaging SNAP recipients  who are referred to the program is a challenge across all states—a point  confirmed by the states we selected and available data. Among the 11  states that reported data to FNS on SNAP E&T participation by those  referred to the program, which included states operating mandatory and  voluntary programs, the percentage of SNAP recipients who were sent a  referral letter but did not participate in any activity ranged from 35 to 98  percent in fiscal year 2017. For 8 of these states, about 70 percent or  more of SNAP recipients who were sent a referral letter did not participate  in any activity.

FNS officials, state officials, and SNAP E&T service providers in our  selected states indicated that participation by SNAP recipients referred to  SNAP E&T may be low for various reasons. For example, FNS officials  told us that some recipients face barriers to participation, such as a lack  of transportation, childcare, or treatment for mental health issues, yet they  have not been exempted by the state. For example, SNAP E&T providers  and state officials in our selected states noted that SNAP recipients in  rural areas, in particular, experience challenges participating in the E&T  program due to a lack of transportation to E&T services, as well as the  limited range of available services and employment opportunities. State  officials and providers in all five of the states we selected also noted that  SNAP recipients with mental health needs or substance abuse issues  usually require additional services to participate in the SNAP E&T  program, such as intensive case management or treatment. Lack of  awareness of E&T services may also affect participation, as three SNAP  E&T providers we spoke with said that SNAP recipients can be transient,  and as a result, may not receive referral letters provided by mail. Further,  some SNAP recipients may decide not to participate, despite the potential  loss of SNAP benefits, or others face certain barriers to employment that  may deter them from participating. For example, formerly incarcerated  SNAP recipients may be discouraged from participating in SNAP E&T  due to past struggles finding employers willing to hire those with a  criminal background.

Low participation rates are common across other employment and  training programs serving similar populations, and although FNS has not  researched how to address this issue in SNAP E&T, other agencies have  assessed ways to improve participation in these programs. For example,  in our past work, we found that states faced challenges with low  participation in employment and training activities by Temporary  Assistance for Needy Families cash assistance recipients. Recognizing  that states would benefit from strategies on how to increase engagement  in such activities, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services  contracted for research on behavioral interventions that affect attendance  rates for employment and training services. Researchers found that  strategies such as sending text messages to participants—in addition to  letters in the mail—could increase the likelihood that they would attend  program activities, particularly when communications encouraged  recipients to make a detailed plan to participate. FNS officials stated that  they are aware of research on strategies to address low participation in  E&T programs; however, they noted that they have not researched  causes of low participation in the SNAP E&T program. FNS officials  added that they believe states could take steps to make enrolling and  participating in SNAP E&T activities less burdensome for SNAP  recipients.

Further, FNS officials acknowledged that states could potentially benefit  from technical assistance on increasing the rates at which referred SNAP  recipients participate in SNAP E&T activities, but the agency’s SNAP E&T  technical assistance resources have generally not focused on this issue.  In a recent policy brief, FNS indicated that collecting data on SNAP E&T  participation can help state agencies and providers determine where  attrition is occurring and point towards processes or services that need  improvement. However, the brief did not provide strategies for improving  processes or services to reduce attrition, and FNS officials acknowledged  that they generally have not focused their resources on getting recipients  to initially engage with service providers. Rather, FNS has focused its  technical assistance resources on an approach intended to improve  participation among those recipients who engage with the SNAP E&T  program. Specifically, according to FNS officials, the agency’s resources  have focused on encouraging SNAP E&T providers to offer more  intensive services, including skills-based training, as these services may  be better able to address SNAP recipients’ barriers to employment.  Officials noted that they believe these types of services may be more  responsive to SNAP recipients’ needs, which could increase participation  in E&T.

Assisting state efforts to increase the level of participation for SNAP  recipients who are referred to the E&T program could help FNS achieve  agency goals, as well as help SNAP recipients move toward self- sufficiency. Specifically, USDA’s fiscal year 2018 strategic plan includes  increased participation in SNAP E&T as a strategy for supporting SNAP  recipients in achieving self-sufficiency. Similarly, in a 2016 letter to  states, FNS noted that expanding SNAP recipients’ access to  employment and training services is critical to helping them transition off  the SNAP program by becoming economically self-sufficient. If states  continue to struggle with low participation in SNAP E&T, and FNS does  not expand its technical assistance to include a broader array of  strategies to increase participation, both FNS’s ability to meet its strategic  goals, and the program’s ability to help recipients achieve self-sufficiency,  will be hindered.

Information on SNAP E&T Participant Characteristics and Outcomes Is Not Reliable

Although data on the number of overall participants in SNAP E&T  programs in an average month from one FNS dataset are generally  reliable, data on SNAP E&T program participant characteristics and  outcomes are not reliable, according to our analysis of state data on  SNAP E&T programs reported to FNS and our discussions with FNS and  state officials. Specifically, in our review of the three FNS datasets that  include state-reported information on SNAP E&T, we found several  issues that affect the reliability of these data. According to our analysis,  these data reliability issues include widely varying counts of SNAP E&T  participants, ABAWDs, and work registrants across the datasets;  missing or incomplete data on work registrants, ABAWDs, SNAP E&T  participant characteristics and outcomes, and SNAP E&T services within  the datasets; and inconsistencies within and between quarterly and  annual reports of SNAP E&T participants in one of the datasets. For  example, according to FNS officials, some states inaccurately reported  participation in a single SNAP E&T service that exceeded the state’s total  number of SNAP E&T participants.

FNS has taken steps to address some of the SNAP E&T data limitations,  including providing additional training and guidance to states. For  example, FNS provided training to states in July 2014 and September  2018 on how to accurately report SNAP E&T participant information  through one of the state-reported datasets on SNAP E&T. In addition, in  response to state questions regarding how to collect new outcome  measures on SNAP E&T required by the Agricultural Act of 2014, FNS  issued two memoranda in 2016 and 2017 providing additional policy  clarifications. Recently, in 2018, FNS issued two memoranda providing  clarifications on work requirements for ABAWDs and on SNAP E&T, in  part to improve the reliability of data collected.

Even with these efforts, our analysis suggests that FNS continues to lack  reliable data on SNAP E&T programs for at least two reasons: imprecise  instructions on data collection forms and staff confusion at the state level.

Imprecise instructions on data collection forms. According to our  analysis, state-reported data on SNAP E&T participants and  characteristics are not reliable due to imprecise instructions on the  respective data collection forms. For example, the form used by states  to collect information on SNAP recipients nationwide asks states to  indicate if recipients are work registrants, and if so, participate in  employment and training programs. Although FNS officials told us that  this was intended to capture SNAP E&T participants alone, the form  does not specify this. As a result, FNS officials explained that they  believe states are incorrectly reporting SNAP recipients participating  in any E&T program. Without a reliable link to SNAP E&T  participation, FNS is unable to use this source, which provides  detailed information on SNAP recipients’ demographic, educational,  and economic characteristics, to analyze SNAP E&T participant  characteristics. Similarly, in the case of another state-reported data  source, we found that the form used to collect data on the types of  SNAP E&T services participants receive does not list or define  required services. According to FNS officials, states report widely  varying SNAP E&T services within the same categories.

Staff confusion at the state level. According to FNS officials, there  has been widespread confusion among states regarding the need to  track ABAWDs when waivers are in place. Consequently, some states  were not tracking ABAWD participation or properly documenting  SNAP recipients’ ABAWD status in recent years, according to FNS  officials and some of the state SNAP agency officials we spoke with.  FNS noted the importance of accurately tracking ABAWDs following  the expiration of the waivers and reinstatement of the time limit in a  March 2015 memorandum to regional directors. Further, FNS officials  told us that states should have continued to track ABAWDs even if the  state was under a statewide ABAWD waiver. FNS noted in its 2015  memorandum that states that failed to accurately track ABAWDs  risked potential overpayments, as ABAWDs who fail to meet work  requirements are ineligible for benefits. Further, although we found  generally reliable SNAP E&T participation data in one FNS dataset,  staff confusion has also likely affected these participation data. FNS  officials told us that some states may mistakenly include those  referred into SNAP E&T programs who did not participate in a  program activity in their count of SNAP E&T participants. Finally, in  the case of SNAP E&T data on outcomes, FNS regional officials told  us that state-level staff were confused by the two different definitions  for completion of a SNAP E&T activity used by FNS—an issue which  may have affected the reliability of the outcome data.

FNS has acknowledged that it is important to have reliable data on the  SNAP E&T program for program oversight. Recently, in August and  September 2018, FNS presented information to states at a national  conference and in a webinar regarding the interactions of the different  state-reported SNAP E&T data sources, and the importance of these data  for funding and planning purposes. In a July 17, 2009 memorandum, FNS  also stated that it is important that the agency collect reliable data on  SNAP E&T to satisfy the increasing demands of Congress, advocacy  groups, and the public for an accurate picture of the types of activities  provided and participation patterns in those activities. This is generally  consistent with federal internal control standards and our previous work  on SNAP E&T. Federal internal control standards state that agencies  should maintain quality data in order to produce and share quality  information with stakeholders to help achieve agency goals. Further, in  our 2003 report on SNAP E&T, we found that no nationwide data existed  on whether SNAP E&T programs helped participants obtain employment,  and we recommended that FNS collect nationwide data on program  participants and require states to collect outcome measures.

However, at present, the lack of reliable state-reported data on SNAP  E&T participant characteristics and outcomes hinders FNS’ ability to  effectively oversee and monitor the SNAP E&T program. Without such  information, states, FNS, and the Congress are unable to fully assess  whether agency goals are being met through the SNAP E&T program.  Further, the lack of reliable state-reported data on work registrants and  ABAWDs affects FNS’s ability to monitor states’ implementation of  program rules, including work requirements, and ensure program  integrity. In addition, as data on work registrants and ABAWDs are used  to allocate federal funds to states for SNAP E&T, unreliable estimates of  these groups have funding implications.

FNS’s ability to understand the extent to which agency goals are being  met is further hampered because FNS has not yet determined how it will  use newly reported data to assess the performance of state SNAP E&T  programs. As a result of provisions in the Agricultural Act of 2014, FNS  required states to report new data on SNAP E&T participants’ outcomes,  such as the median quarterly earnings of certain program participants,  and participant characteristics, such as the percentage of participants  who have received a high school diploma. In addition, the Act requires  that FNS assess the effectiveness of states’ performance. In the  preamble to the relevant interim final rule, FNS described at a high level  how it intends to use the data, including identifying which program  activities are most successful at moving individuals into employment.  However, FNS officials told us that they were not yet certain how they will  use the data to make such determinations. In addition, regional officials  we spoke with stated that the current data might not allow FNS to answer  questions about whether the program is achieving its goals.

Similarly, state SNAP E&T officials we spoke with during our review did  not know how the recently collected data related to program performance.  Specifically, state officials in all five states we selected indicated that they  were not certain how FNS will use these data to assess states’  performance. Officials in three states also said that a lack of clarity about  how these data relate to program goals has led to confusion.

FNS officials told us that they have not determined how they will use the  newly reported data or whether the current data are sufficient, in part,  because the agency has instead focused its resources on assisting the  states in submitting the data to meet the new reporting requirements.  According to FNS regional and national officials, states required extensive  technical assistance to obtain the requisite data and calculate the  reporting measures. For example, one regional official said that his office  had been providing the states technical assistance for a year and a half to  prepare them for the new reporting requirements. States we spoke with  also indicated that the data were time-consuming and challenging to  obtain. For example, many states struggled to obtain data sharing  agreements with workforce agencies for the required employment data.  According to FNS officials, after receiving the first round of reports in  January 2018, FNS officials continued to provide technical assistance to  states to improve the quality of the data, and FNS required states to  submit revised reports in May. However, as of August 2018, one state  and one territory had not submitted the required reports to FNS,  according to FNS officials.

In the absence of FNS taking steps to determine how it will use the newly  reported data to assess state effectiveness, questions about whether  SNAP E&T programs meet their goals will remain unanswered. Further,  states may continue to be challenged to report these data, and without  information from FNS on how state performance will be assessed, states  may lack clarity on how collecting these data will help contribute to  program goals. As of October 2018, FNS officials said that they are  exploring ways to improve their ability to collect and analyze all of the  program data necessary to do a comprehensive assessment of state  SNAP E&T. Our prior work has emphasized the importance of  establishing how performance data relates to program goals. In addition, federal internal control standards state that management should  determine whether performance measures for the defined objectives are  appropriate for evaluating the agency’s performance in achieving those  objectives. Federal internal control standards also state that  management should communicate necessary quality information to  relevant internal and external parties to help the agency achieve its  objectives.

States Have Increasingly Partnered with Various E&T Providers, but Some States Have Not Leveraged Available Workforce Development System Resources

States Have Increasingly Partnered with Other Entities to Provide SNAP E&T Services

In recent years, state SNAP agencies have increasingly partnered with  other state and local organizations, such as nonprofit community-based  social service providers, community colleges, and workforce agencies, to  provide services to SNAP E&T participants, according to FNS officials  and states we selected for our review. In fiscal year 2018, 50 state SNAP  agencies partnered with at least one other organization to deliver SNAP  E&T services, with the majority partnering with more than one, according  to an analysis by FNS (see fig. 7). In that year, 36 states partnered with  community-based social service providers, 33 states had partnerships with workforce agencies, and 24 states partnered with community  colleges.

FNS officials in all seven regions said that states have increasingly used  an approach FNS refers to as third party partnerships in recent years to  leverage outside funding to serve SNAP E&T participants. In this model,  according to FNS officials, third party organizations use non-federal  funding to provide allowable E&T services and supports to SNAP  recipients, and state SNAP agencies are then eligible for a federal  reimbursement of 50 percent of these expenditures. FNS has promoted  this third party partnership model through various technical assistance  resources provided to states, including an operations handbook and  webinars, and has added a dedicated position for a SNAP E&T official in  each regional office, in part, to help develop these partnerships. Federal  50 percent reimbursement funds expended increased from nearly $182  million to more than $223 million, or by 23 percent, from fiscal year 2007  to fiscal year 2016.

According to FNS national officials as well as officials in some FNS  regions and states, partnerships play a critical role in SNAP E&T  programs because state SNAP agencies may lack the capacity,  resources, and expertise to provide the type of intensive employment and  training services FNS considers most likely to lead to self-sufficiency for  SNAP recipients. For example, two of our selected states reported that  they have partnered with community colleges to train participants for local  in-demand occupations, including information technology, healthcare, and  welding. According to officials in one FNS regional office, community- based social service providers and community colleges may have staff  with expertise in workforce development, which SNAP agencies may not  have, and this enables SNAP agencies to expand their programs and  services without the expense of growing their own staff. According to  officials in some FNS regions and some of our selected states, partnering  with workforce agencies has enabled some states to provide training to  participants using Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)  funds and supportive services using SNAP E&T funds, maximizing their  ability to address participants’ needs. Officials in one of the states we  visited also said that partnering with the workforce agency allows them to  ensure basic E&T services, such as job search assistance, are available  to SNAP recipients across all counties in their state. (See fig. 8.)

FNS officials also said that these partnerships better position states to  improve their program outcomes by tapping into providers currently  serving communities that include SNAP recipients. For example, one of  our selected states partnered with nonprofit community-based social  service providers experienced in working with homeless and previously  incarcerated populations. Officials in this state said that the providers  tailor E&T services based on their knowledge of these populations’  unique barriers to employment. Further, officials in three of our five  selected states said that some of the community-based social service  organizations they partner with provide SNAP E&T participants with  additional supportive services, including transitional housing, clothing,  financial advising, and mental and physical health services, to address a  broader set of barriers to employment.

Some States Do Not Leverage Workforce Development System Resources for SNAP E&T, and FNS Has Not Assessed State Efforts to Utilize these Resources

Although states are increasingly partnering with external entities to  provide SNAP E&T services, according to FNS data for fiscal year 2018,  20 state SNAP agencies have not partnered with workforce agencies for  SNAP E&T. According to FNS officials, the nationwide network of more  than 2,500 American Job Centers, which are operated by state and local  workforce agencies, can help to fill service gaps in areas lacking  community based organizations or community colleges. However,  despite the broad availability of E&T services such as job search  assistance through American Job Centers, 12 state SNAP agencies  directly provided job search or job search training for their SNAP E&T  programs, according to their fiscal year 2017 state SNAP E&T plans.

In addition, some states have not yet fully leveraged resources from the  broader workforce development system, which includes workforce  agencies, community-based organizations, and community colleges, to  provide SNAP E&T services. For example, FNS data for fiscal year 2018  show that three states’ SNAP agencies operated their own SNAP E&T  programs in fiscal year 2018 and did not involve existing workforce  development system entities in the provision of these services. According  to their fiscal year 2017 state plans, these states each offered one or two  types of SNAP E&T services, and the services they offered—primarily job  search and job search training—are considered less intensive by FNS  officials. In contrast, states with workforce development system  partnerships offered a broader range of services, as well as more  intensive services, such as vocational education. For example, all 36  state SNAP agencies that offered vocational education did so through  workforce development system partnerships. As previously noted, FNS  officials have said that intensive services are likely more effective in  moving SNAP E&T participants, who may be more likely to have barriers  to employment, toward self-sufficiency.

Overlap and a lack of coordination in federally-funded E&T programs is a  long-standing concern, and relatedly, state SNAP agencies are required  to make use of workforce development system resources for SNAP E&T,  when possible. In our prior work, we found that SNAP E&T was 1 of 47  federally funded E&T programs, nearly all of which overlapped with at  least one other program by providing similar services to similar  populations. We noted that overlap among federal E&T programs raises  questions about the efficient use of resources, and we highlighted the  value of coordination between these programs to ensure efficient and  effective use of resources. Consistent with our findings, federal  regulations require that each component of a state agency’s SNAP E&T  program be delivered through its statewide workforce development  system, unless the component is not available locally through such a  system.

FNS national and regional officials, as well as state officials, described  challenges states face in forming effective workforce development system  partnerships. FNS officials said that challenges are often caused by  differences in workforce agency and SNAP E&T program target  populations and service delivery approaches. According to FNS, SNAP  E&T participants often have more barriers to employment, such as low  literacy and limited work experience, than the broader population served  by workforce agencies. Because those with employment barriers could  adversely impact the workforce agencies’ employment and earnings  performance, which could jeopardize agencies’ workforce program  funding, workforce agency staff are sometimes reluctant to serve SNAP  E&T participants, according to FNS national and regional officials in three  of the seven regions, as well as officials in one of our selected states.  For example, officials in one region said that workforce agency staff had  stopped serving SNAP E&T participants in the past when they realized  the participants needed more supportive services or time in workforce  programs to meet employment goals.

Recognizing these challenges, in recent years, USDA has urged state  SNAP agencies to collaborate with workforce agencies and others to  improve coordination of E&T services. For example, in March 2016,  USDA and the Department of Labor issued a joint letter encouraging state  SNAP agencies and state and local workforce agencies to work together  to develop shared strategies to better connect SNAP recipients with E&T  opportunities through American Job Centers. FNS has also provided  states with technical assistance materials on SNAP E&T and WIOA  partnerships, which describe respective program requirements and how  SNAP E&T and WIOA-funded workforce programs can complement one  another.

However, FNS has not ensured that all states take steps to identify  potential workforce development system partners. Federal internal control  standards state that agencies should collect complete and reliable  information to ensure effective monitoring. FNS officials told us that they  do not independently assess the availability of states’ workforce  development system partners but instead rely on states to document this  information in their state SNAP E&T plans, a key tool used by FNS for  program monitoring. However, we found that 24 states did not provide  information in their fiscal year 2017 SNAP E&T plans that would allow  FNS to verify whether these states had assessed available workforce  development system providers. For example, the states’ plans did not  describe existing workforce development services in the state, despite  FNS guidance that directs states to describe the statewide workforce  development system and identify the E&T services that will be delivered  through this system in their plans.

States that are not fully leveraging resources available through the  workforce development system may miss opportunities to provide a wider  variety of services to SNAP E&T participants and serve a greater number  of SNAP recipients through SNAP E&T programs. If state SNAP agencies  do not assess workforce development system resources available in their  state, they may lack awareness of potential partners and the resources  they offer, potentially leading to an inefficient use of resources. In  addition, without complete and reliable information on states’ available  workforce development system resources, FNS is not able to ensure that  states are complying with the requirement to deliver SNAP E&T services  through their state workforce development systems.

FNS has made strides in recent years to provide additional support and  oversight of states’ SNAP E&T programs, yet the agency lacks complete  and accurate information on these programs, which may limit the  effectiveness of its efforts. For example, SNAP E&T programs have  served a small percentage of SNAP recipients over time, and while FNS  recognizes that states lack information on strategies for increasing  participation among those referred to the SNAP E&T program, it has not  provided technical assistance in this area. As a result, FNS may miss  opportunities to help more SNAP recipients receive program services  intended to increase their self-sufficiency, a USDA strategic goal. FNS’s  ability to assess whether the program is assisting the department in  meeting this goal is also hindered because FNS lacks reliable data on  SNAP E&T participant characteristics and outcomes. Without reliable  data on SNAP recipients subject to work requirements and participation in  SNAP E&T, the agency’s ability to monitor states’ implementation of  program rules to ensure recipients are not receiving benefits for which  they are ineligible is also limited. Further, because FNS has not yet  determined how it will use the newly required outcome and participant  characteristics data to assess state SNAP E&T programs, questions  about program performance remain unanswered. In addition, without  information from FNS on how state performance will be assessed, states  will continue to lack clarity on how reporting these data will help contribute  to program goals. Finally, because partnerships can be a crucial source  of additional capacity, resources, and expertise for SNAP E&T programs,  states that are not fully leveraging available workforce development  system resources may miss opportunities to serve a greater number of  SNAP recipients through SNAP E&T and provide a wider variety of  services to SNAP E&T participants. In addition, states may provide  overlapping or duplicative services and use resources inefficiently,  because FNS has not ensured that all states take steps to identify  potential workforce development system partners.

We are making the following four recommendations to FNS:  The Administrator of FNS should identify and disseminate strategies to  states and service providers for increasing the participation of SNAP  recipients referred to the SNAP E&T program. (Recommendation 1)

The Administrator of FNS should take additional steps to address data  reliability issues in the state-reported data on SNAP E&T participant  characteristics and outcomes, including steps to address imprecise  instructions on data collection forms and staff confusion at the state level.  (Recommendation 2)

The Administrator of FNS should determine and communicate to states  how the agency will use newly reported outcome and participant  characteristics data to assess the effectiveness of state SNAP E&T  programs. (Recommendation 3)

The Administrator of FNS should take additional steps to assist states in  leveraging available workforce development system resources. Such  steps should include ensuring that state SNAP E&T plans provide the  agency with sufficient information to verify that states have assessed  available workforce development system providers. (Recommendation 4)

We provided a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. On  November 5, 2018, the Deputy Associate Administrator for SNAP and  FNS officials from SNAP’s Office of Employment and Training provided  us with the agency’s oral comments. FNS officials told us that they  generally agreed with the recommendations in the report. They noted that  they have been implementing strategies to help states improve their  SNAP E&T programs, including expanding the reach of the programs and  improving the reliability of state reported data. FNS officials stated that  the agency plans to build on these current efforts to address the  recommendations. We acknowledge the agency’s ongoing efforts in our  report but continue to believe that additional action is necessary to  address our recommendations. FNS also provided technical comments,  which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of the  USDA, congressional committees, and other interested parties. In  addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  https://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page   of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix II.

This appendix discusses in detail our methodology for addressing our two  research objectives examining (1) what is known about Supplemental  Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) employment and training (E&T)  program participants and outcomes over time and (2) the extent to which  state SNAP E&T programs have partnered with other programs offering  similar services. We scoped our review of state SNAP E&T programs to  include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin  Islands.

In addition to the methods we discuss below, to address both our  research objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and  guidance; interviewed United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)  Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) officials in its headquarters and seven  regional offices; and reviewed relevant research from FNS and the USDA  Office of Inspector General, as well as our prior work on SNAP E&T  programs. Further, we interviewed representatives of a range of  nationwide organizations knowledgeable about SNAP E&T and state  officials from seven state SNAP E&T programs: Idaho, Louisiana, New  York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, and the District of  Columbia. We also analyzed SNAP E&T expenditures using form FNS- 778 data for fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the most recent data  available. The form FNS-778—Federal Financial Report—is a form used  by FNS to collect quarterly expenditure data for state SNAP E&T  programs. To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed FNS and  state officials, performed data testing, and reviewed relevant  documentation. We determined these data to be sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of our report. We excluded from our review the SNAP E&T  pilot programs that were authorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014  because these are being evaluated separately by FNS.

To address our first objective, we analyzed data on SNAP E&T  participation from three FNS data sources. First, we analyzed aggregate  data on SNAP E&T participants collected from state SNAP agencies for  fiscal years 2008 through 2016, the most recent data available. Second,  for the same time period, we analyzed Quality Control data on individual  SNAP recipients, work registrants, and SNAP E&T participants. Finally,  we reviewed and analyzed aggregate participation data from state SNAP  agencies’ fiscal year 2017 outcome and participant characteristics  reports.

We analyzed the average monthly number of SNAP recipients  participating in SNAP E&T using the form FNS-583 data. The form FNS- 583—U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service SNAP  Employment and Training (E&T) Program Activity Report—is used by  FNS to collect quarterly and annual participation data for state SNAP E&T  programs. To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed FNS and  state officials, performed data testing, and reviewed relevant  documentation. Data testing included checks for missing data elements,  duplicative data, and values outside a designated range. We determined  the data were sufficiently reliable to identify the number of average  monthly SNAP E&T participants and to assess change over time.

To further examine what is known about participation in SNAP E&T, we  also assessed form FNS-583 data on work registrants and able-bodied  adults without dependents (ABAWDs) participating in SNAP E&T for fiscal  years 2008 through 2016. To assess the reliability of these data, we  interviewed FNS and state officials, performed data testing, and reviewed  relevant documentation. We determined these data to be unreliable for  the purposes of our report. As described above, for example, FNS  officials learned in recent years that there was widespread confusion  among states regarding the need to track ABAWDs when waivers were in  place. Consequently, some states were not tracking ABAWD participation  or properly documenting SNAP recipients’ ABAWD status.

We analyzed SNAP Quality Control data on individual SNAP recipients,  work registrants, and SNAP E&T participants. The SNAP Quality Control  database contains detailed demographic, economic, and SNAP eligibility  information for a nationally representative sample of SNAP households.  We estimated the number of SNAP recipients and work registrants for  fiscal years 2008 and 2016 using the public use Quality Control dataset  and calculated confidence intervals to determine if the change over time  was statistically significant (see table 1). To assess the reliability of these  data, we interviewed officials from FNS and the contractor responsible for  maintaining the Quality Control dataset, as well as state officials;  reviewed relevant technical documentation; and conducted data testing.  For example, we compared the estimates we produced for fiscal years  2008 and 2016 to the publicly reported estimates in the annual  Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program  Households reports for those years. We determined that the data, and the  corresponding estimates in these reports, were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes. As a result, for fiscal years 2009 through 2015, we relied on the  estimates of SNAP recipients and work registrants published in the  reports.

We also analyzed SNAP Quality Control data on SNAP E&T participants  for fiscal year 2016. To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed  officials from FNS and the contractor responsible for maintaining the Quality Control dataset, as well as state officials; reviewed relevant  technical documentation; and conducted data testing. For example, we  compared the estimate of SNAP E&T participants from the SNAP Quality  Control dataset to the number of SNAP E&T participants reported by  states on the FNS-583, which we had determined was reliable. From our  review, we determined the Quality Control SNAP E&T participation data  to be unreliable for the purposes of our report. As described above, for  example, the form used by states to collect information on SNAP  recipients nationwide asks states to indicate if recipients participate in  employment and training programs. Although FNS officials told us that  this was intended to capture SNAP E&T participants alone, the form does  not specify this, and FNS officials said that some states are incorrectly  reporting SNAP recipients participating in any E&T program.

To determine the percentage of SNAP recipients and work registrants  that participate in SNAP E&T, we used the data that we had determined  were reliable. Specifically, we used the Quality Control data on SNAP  recipients and work registrants, as well as the form FNS-583 data on  SNAP E&T participants, for fiscal years 2008 through 2016.

SNAP E&T Outcome and Participant Characteristics Data

We also reviewed and analyzed fiscal year 2017 outcome and participant  characteristics data reported by state SNAP agencies in the SNAP E&T  Annual Report Federal Fiscal Year 2017. These data include information  on SNAP E&T participants’ outcomes, such as the median quarterly  earnings of program participants, and participant characteristics, such as  the percentage of participants who have received a high school diploma.  Certain outcome data were only collected by FNS for two quarters of  fiscal year 2017, whereas participant characteristics data were collected  for the entire year. We received copies of these data reports from FNS as  states submitted their initial reports to FNS in early 2018. Subsequent to  FNS’ review of these initial reports and their efforts to help states improve  the accuracy and consistency of their reporting, FNS provided us with  updated versions of the reports for many of the states. We used the  reports to describe rates at which SNAP recipients referred to the SNAP  E&T program participated in services—data that were reported by 11  states. We did not validate the accuracy of these data.

State SNAP E&T Plans and FNS Program Characteristics Data

To address our second objective on the extent to which state SNAP E&T  programs have partnered with other programs offering similar services,  we reviewed fiscal year 2017 SNAP E&T state plans for all 53 state  SNAP agencies. Specifically, we reviewed the plans to determine which  services states planned to offer through partnerships with other programs  in that year and the extent to which states documented their use of  available workforce development system resources. To supplement our  review of the plans, we also analyzed fiscal year 2018 summary data  from FNS on the number of state SNAP agencies that partnered with  community-based organizations, workforce agencies, and community  colleges, as well as the number with state SNAP agency-operated SNAP  E&T programs. We also analyzed fiscal year 2010 and 2017 summary  data from FNS on mandatory and voluntary programs to determine how  the number of state SNAP agencies with each program type changed  over time. To assess the reliability of the FNS summary data, we  interviewed FNS and state officials and reviewed relevant documentation.  We determined these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  this report.

To help inform both of our objectives and gather additional information  about state SNAP E&T programs, we selected five states: Delaware,  Oregon, Kansas, Texas, and Virginia. We selected these states based on  several criteria to ensure our sample included state SNAP E&T programs  with different service delivery approaches and other program  characteristics, as well as geographic diversity. Specifically, we  considered state SNAP E&T participation and expenditures, including  utilization of federal 50 percent reimbursement funds. In addition, we  considered whether the state operated a mandatory or voluntary SNAP  E&T program, a county- or state-administered program, and opted to be  an ABAWD pledge state. We also considered whether the state submitted  its SNAP E&T plan as part of a Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act  Combined State Plan.

Using semi-structured questions, we interviewed officials from the state  agencies responsible for administering SNAP in the five selected states.  We gathered information on SNAP E&T administration at the state level,  including information on partnerships; program participation and  expenditures; data collection efforts, including those related to assessing  program outcomes; and any challenges to administering the program, as  well as efforts to address such challenges.

We conducted site visits to our selected states in which services are  provided through partnerships with local providers—Delaware, Oregon,  Texas, and Virginia—and interviewed selected local program staff with  knowledge of SNAP E&T program operations, participant characteristics,  and coordination with the state SNAP agency who provide SNAP E&T  services in both urban and rural areas. We conducted these visits in  February and March 2018. During each site visit, we used semi- structured questions to gather information on the goals and mission of the  providers’ organizations, types of services provided to SNAP E&T  participants, needs and characteristics of SNAP E&T participants and  how these might differ from those of other clientele, sources of funding  used to provide services to SNAP E&T participants, and efforts to  coordinate with the state SNAP agency. The local program staff we  interviewed included representatives of workforce agencies, non-profit  community-based organizations, a for-profit company, and community  colleges. Information collected from state and local SNAP E&T officials  during our site visits cannot be generalized to all SNAP E&T officials  nationwide.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Rachel Frisk (Assistant Director),  Kristen Jones (Analyst-in-Charge), Morgan Jones, and Kelly Snow made  key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Alex  Galuten, Mimi Nguyen, Sam Portnow, Julia Robertson, Monica Savoy,  Almeta Spencer, Jeff Tessin, Kathleen van Gelder, Nicholas Weeks, and  Jessica L. Yutzy.

To be eligible for benefits, some Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients must comply with work requirements, which may include participating in a state’s SNAP Employment and Training program. These programs are intended to help recipients become self-sufficient.

We found that only a small number of SNAP recipients participated in these programs—less than 1% per month on average in 2016. However, USDA has limited data on these programs, so it can’t monitor whether recipients are still eligible to receive benefits, or are achieving self-sufficiency.

We recommended that USDA collect better data on these programs.