oversight

Food Stamp Program: The Household Definition Is Not a Major Source of Caseworker Errors

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-07-26.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                    _   __   . ..__._.
                                    - __.... .--......._.-.--- --.   -___p-_------
.I II I\,* I !VlO
               *
                                              FOOD STAMP
                                              PROGRAM
                                              The Household
                                              Definition Is Not a
                                              Major Source of
                                              Caseworker Errors

                                                                                               E
                                                                                      I
                                                                                     II
                                                                                      141957




                                EE!3TRICTED--     Not to be released outside the
                                General Accounting OfPice unless specif5caJly
                                approved by the Office of Congressional
                                Belations.
                                              Hm                     RELEASED
  ^l."
   __..,I-._.I._._--".._  ---- _...,_.. - -_ _.,.
                     ___..-.
                         ..-
                   United States
GAO                General Accounting Office
                   Washington, D.C. 20648

                   Resources, Community, and
                   Economic Development Division

                   B-217883
                   July 26,199O
                   The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
                   Chairman,
                   The Honorable Richard Lugar
                   Ranking Minority Member, Committee
                     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
                   United States Senate
                   The Honorable Tom Harkin
                   Chairman, Subcommitteeon Nutrition
                     and Investigations, Committee on
                     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
                   United States Senate
                   The Honorable Charles Hatcher
                   Chairman, Subcommitteeon Domestic
                     Marketing, Consumer Relations and Nutrition
                   Committee on Agriculture
                   House of Representatives
                   This report is the first part of our responseto your request for informa-
                   tion on the household definition used in the Food Stamp Program. It dis-
                   cussesour evaluation of whether the current household definition used
                   to compute food stamp benefits is a significant causeof caseworker
                   errors. A secondreport, Food Stamp Program: Alternative Definitions of
                   a Household for Food Stamp Eligibility (GAO/WED-90-137), will be issued
                   shortly and will provide information on the historical evolution and
                   complexity of the current household definition; whether the definition
                   contributes to homelessness;and 11 alternative definitions and their
                   potential effects on participation and benefit payments, homelessness,
                   and program simplicity.


                   The current definition of a household doesnot significantly contribute
Results in Brief   to caseworker errors. We estimate, on the basis of a statistically valid
                   sample, that caseworkers,nationwide, made household definition errors
                   in about 1 percent, or between 0.4 million and 1.2 million, of the 80 mil-
                   lion food stamp issuancesin fiscal year 1988, the latest year for which
                   complete data were available. As a result, between $23 million and $75
                   million of the $10.3 billion in food stamp benefits issued were either




                   Page 1                      GAO/RCED-90-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
                                                                                                            f
                   \                                                                                            n,
             5217888                                                                                             b




             overpaid or underpaid to recipients becauseof household definition
             errors.’

             The Food Stamp Program, administered by the Food and Nutrition Ser-
Background   vice of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the nation’s largest
             food assistanceprogram, delivering about $11.1 billion in benefits to a
             monthly averageof 7.1 million households(18.6 million people) in fiscal
             year 1988. Since food stamp benefits are provided to householdsrather
             than to individuals, a key factor in determining applicants’ eligibility
             and benefits is how accurately caseworkersapply the household defini-
             tion. Under the current household definition, people who live together
             and who customarily purchase food and prepare meals together must
             generally form a single household. Several exceptions allow somefamily
             members and certain other people or groups to form separate food
             stamp householdswhile sharing housing.
             While the basis of the current household definitmn becameeffective in
             1977, the exceptions, which stem mostly from the’omnibus Budget and
             Reconciliation Acts of 1981 and 1982 and the 1slEmStewart B. McKinney
             HomelessAssistanceAct, must be applied by caseworkersto determine
             the proper composition of households.(Seeapp. II for a list of major
             exceptions in the current household definition.) Becausefood stamp
             benefits are allocated according to the size and economicresourcesof a
             household, determining household composition-the people who should
             be included in or excluded from a household-is a key element in
             making accurate eligibility and benefit determinations. Other key ele-
             ments include correctly establishing the income, resources(assets),and
             deductions or expensesof household members.
             The Food Stamp Act of 1977 established the quality control review
             system used in the Food Stamp Program. Under this system, each state
             is required to conduct quality control reviews by selecting a statistically
             valid sample of its food stamp caseload.Each state’s quality control
             staff must review the casesin the sample to verify the accuracy of the
             state’s benefit and eligibility determinations. From this information, the
             state determines its error rate and reports it to the Service.


             ‘This dollar value represents the total, or absolute value, of all overissuances plus all underis-
             suances-not the net amount of overissuances less underissuances. The $10.3 billion amount is for
             the benefits issued to food stamp cases that were subject to the Food and Nutrition Service’s quality
             control review during fiscal year 1988.



             Page 2                                GAO/RCED&lfJ2        Household Definition Caseworker Jbrora
                                c


                         IS217883




                         The results of each state’s quality control reviews are validated by the
                         Service’s reviewers. The reviewers select a subsampleof the casesfrom
                         each state’s quality control sample and determine if the state properly
                         reviewed the casesand reported the results. The Service then notifies
                         the state of its finding and applies a statistical procedure to calculate
                         the official error rate.


                         Either recipients or caseworkerscan causeincorrect eligibility determi-
How Food Stamp           nations resulting in over/under-issuancesof food stamp benefits. Recip-
Eligibility Errors Are   ient-causederrors occur when recipients do not provide information on
Caused,Tracked, and      changesin household membership or provide inaccurate information.
                         Caseworker errors occur when caseworkersmake calculation errors or
Categorized              misapply provisions of the Food Stamp Act or other administrative
                         provisions.
                         At the federal level, the Food and Nutrition Service tracks errors which
                         lead to improper food stamp benefit determination, and for analytical
                         purposes, groups them into several categories.We have compressedthe
                         Service’serror categoriesinto three major segments-financial, nonfi-
                         nancial, and other-to simplify their presentation in this report.
                         For fiscal year 1988-the latest year for which complete data were
                         available-the Service estimated that mistakes, both recipient- and
                         caseworker-caused,occurred in about 23.9 percent of all food stamp
                         cases,’resulting in total erroneous payments of about $1 billion (about
                         10 percent of the food stamp benefits paid). To ascertain the causeof
                         errors, the Service analyzes and reports on “variances”.3 Financial vari-
                         ances-those made in the calculation of income, deductions, or
                         resources-accounted for 87 percent of all variances. Nonfinancial vari-
                         ances-which include household composition errors-accounted for 11
                         percent of the variances, while the “other” errors category accounted
                         for the remaining 2 percent of the fiscal year 1988 variances.


                         2The Service estimated the food stamp overpayment error rate at 16.47 percent and the underis-
                         suance error rate at 8.42 percent of its food stamp issuances. This error rate is known as the “case
                         error rate.” Dollar overpayments and underissuances related to the case error rate are referred to as
                         the “dollar error rate.” The Service estimated its dollar error rate for overpayments at 7.42 percent
                         (about $763 million) and 2.63 percent (about $260 million) for underissuances.
                         “A variance occurs when information verified by quality control reviewers is different from the infor-
                         mation on which caseworkers made eligibility determinations or when food stamp policy has been
                         misapplied. Because of the way the states report data, several variances can occur in a single case.
                         The variance numbers which the Service reports reflect the relative frequency with which each vari-
                         ance is identified.



                         Page 3                               GAO/RCED-90-183 Household Defhdtion Caseworker Error
                                                                                                                  ‘T

                            c                                                                                          *
                                                                                                                              /

                       B-217883




                       According to USDA quality control officials, the Service’sway of catego-
                       rizing food stamp errors has been useful for its program management
                       purposes. However, by design, the Service’sQuality Control Data Base
                       doesnot track-and we could not determine directly from it-which
                       errors resulted from caseworkerswho misapplied the household defini-
                       tion. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, we created an error cate-
                       gory which we called “household definition errors.” By definition, this
                       category excludes all household composition errors causedby food
                       stamp recipients. For example, if a food stamp recipient failed to report
                       the birth of a child to the caseworker, a household composition error
                       would exist becausethe food stamp household would contain one less
                       person than it should. However, this error would not have been caused
                       by a caseworker who misapplied the definition becausethe caseworker
                       did not have accurate information on which to act. For us to classify an
                       error as a household definition error, one of three conditions had to be
                       met: the caseworker (1) did not acquire a piece of information that was
                       critical to making a proper determination, e.g., he/she did not determine
                       whether the people who lived together also purchased food and pre-
                       pared meals together; (2) had all the information required to make a
                       proper household determination but made an incorrect determination; or
                       (3) had all the information required to make a proper household deter-
                       mination but did not take any action, e.g.,the caseworker did not
                       include a child in a food stamp household after being informed of the
                       infant’s birth or adoption.4

                       The current definition of a food stamp household is complex and,
Household Definition   according to state officials, difficult to apply. However, caseworkers
Is Not a Major Cause   make few mistakes in applying the definition and thus it is not a major
of Errors              source of caseworker error.
                       We selecteda probability sample” of about 2,400 issuanceswhich con-
                       tained about 600 error casesdrawn from the Service’s fiscal year 1988
                       Quality Control Data Base.This data baseis used by the Service to iden-
                       tify the sourcesof food stamp errors. After selecting our sample, we
                       examined the quality control casefile to determine whether the
                       caseworker had made an error in applying the household definition. The

                       4While household definition errors are usually found within the errors which the Food and Nutrition
                       Service categorizes as household composition (nonfinancial) errors, we found a few household defini-
                       tion errors listed in other error categories tracked by the Service.
                       “A probability sample is a sample where each item in the universe has a known nonzero chance of
                       selection.



                       Page 4                               GAO/RCED-90-183 Household Defiuition Caseworker Errora
    w          *



.

        R.217883




        sampling technique we employed allowed us to form nationwide esti-
        mates of the number and value of incorrect food stamp issuanceswhich
        were causedby caseworkerswho misapplied the household definition.”
        From our examination of that sample, we estimated that, in fiscal year
        1988, caseworkersmade errors in applying the household definition in
        about 1 percent of the food stamp issuances.We estimated that, nation-
        wide, between 0.4 million and 1.2 million household definition errors
        were made in the nearly 80 million fiscal year 1988 food stamp issu-
        ances.Thus, household definition errors amounted to about 2 to 6 per-
        cent of the 19.1 million food stamp issuanceerrors which the Service
        estimated were made from all sourcesthat year. The combined over/
        under-issuancesmade as a result of these household definition errors
        amounted to between $23 million and $75 million of the $10.3 billion in
        food stamp benefits paid. (Seeapp. I for a detailed discussionof our
        methodology.)
        Generally, the state social service officials in the 12 states included in
        our sample believed that our estimate of the caseworker errors attribu-
        table to the household definition was representative of what occurred.
        They agreedthat the number was small and pointed out that
        caseworkerswere comfortable with applying the exceptions to the basic
        definition introduced by the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation and
        McKinney Acts. Although someofficials would prefer a household defi-
        nition which was simpler to administer or was uniform for several social
        assistanceprograms, they pointed out that applying any household defi-
        nition which groups people together, and doesnot entitle each person to
        separate benefits, requires training and the use of judgment on the
        caseworkers’ part. Becauseof this, someamount of caseworker error
        will be associatedwith any household definition.
        According to these state service officials, changing the current definition
        would probably changethe household definition error rate. Whether the
        rate would increaseor decreasewould depend on the provisions of the
        new definition. Someofficials stressedthat constant changesin the food
        stamp household definition result in increasederrors until caseworkers
        are trained on and becomefamiliar with applying the new definition.
        For this reason, most officials said that they prefer to work with a
        stable household definition even if they do not agree with all of its
        provisions.

        “If we applied the same review procedure to all fiscal year 1988 issuances, the results would lie
        between the upper and lower bounds of our estimate about 19 of 20 times.



        Page 6                                GAO/RCED-W-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
                       *                                                                       _
                                                                                                   .
                  B217883




                  USDA generally  agreedwith our finding that caseworkersmake few
Agency Comments   errors in applying the current household definition. It suggesteda few
                  minor technical changesto our draft report, which have been incorpo-
                  rated into the text where appropriate. The full text of USDA'S comments
                  is reproduced as appendix III of this report.

                  Our evaluation is basedon our estimate of the frequency that
                  caseworkersmisapply the household definition. This estimate was
                  developed by examining a probability sample of about 2,400 issuances
                  which contained about 500 error casesdrawn from the fiscal year 1988
                  Quality Control Data Base.This data basecontains information on all
                  types of food stamp issuanceerrors. The errors are reported by the
                  states and validated, compiled, and analyzed by the Service. These are
                  the samedata which the Service relies on in assessingoverall food
                  stamp issuanceerrors among the states. We also obtained the opinions
                  of food stamp officials in 13 states regarding the impact of the house-
                  hold definition on caseworker errors. (For more detailed information on
                  our objectives, scope,and methodology, seeapp. I.)
                  As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announceits contents
                  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after
                  the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copiesof this report to
                  the appropriate House and Senatecommittees and subcommittees,inter-
                  ested Membersof Congress,the Secretary of Agriculture, and other
                  interested parties.

                  We conducted this review between June 1989 and May 1990 in accor-
                  dance with generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards. If you
                  have any questions on the material in this report, please call me on (202)
                  275-5138.Major contributors are listed in appendix IV.

                  Sincerely yours,




                  John W. Harman
                  Director, Food and
                    Agriculture Issues




                  Page 0                     GAO/RCED-90-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
Page 7   GAO/RCED-!jO-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
Contents


Letter                                                                                                1

Appendix I                                                                                           10
Objectives, Scope,and
Methodology
Appendix II                                                                                          14
Major Exceptions to
the Food Stamp
Household Definition
Appendix III                                                                                         15
Comments From the
US. Department of
Agriculture
Appendix IV                                                                                          16
Major Contributors to
This Report
Table                   Table I. 1: Probability Sample of Food Stamp Error Cases                     12




                        Abbreviations

                        GAO       General Accounting Office
                        USDA      US. Department of Agriculture


                        Page 8                    GAO/RCED-90-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
    ,            *


b




        Page 9       GAO/RCED90-193 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
                                                                                       ,c
Appendix I
                                                                                            *
Objectives,Scope,‘md Methodology


              In responseto requests from the Chairman and Ranking Minority
              Member, SenateCommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; the
              Chairman, Subcommitteeon Nutrition and Investigations, SenateCom-
              mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; and the Chairman, Sub-
              committee on Domestic Marketing, ConsumerRelations and Nutrition,
              HouseCommittee on Agriculture, and as modified in subsequentdiscus-
              sions with their offices, we agreedto provide a nationwide estimate of
              the food stamp error rate causedby caseworkerswho misapplied the
              household definition.

              To gain an understanding of the problems that caseworkersexperience
              in applying the household definition as well as the strategies that state
              officials have developed to reduce those problems, we talked to food
              stamp program and quality control officials in 13 states-Alabama, Ari-
              zona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina,
              New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, and Washington. We
              also asked these officials for their assessmentsof the impact of the
              household definition on caseworker errors and asked them to comment
              orally on our estimate of the number and dollar value of issuanceerrors
              attributable to caseworkerswho misapplied the household definition.

              To determine the extent to which caseworker errors were attributable to
              the food stamp household definition, we reviewed casesextracted from
              the Service’sQuality Control Data Base.This data basecontains all of
              the different types of errors made by both caseworkersand participants
              but doesnot specifically identify errors that resulted from caseworkers
              who misapplied the household definition. Becausethe data base did not
              contain this information, after consulting with Service officials, we cre-
              ated an error category which we called “household definition errors.”
              For us to classify an error as a household definition error, one of three
              conditions had to be met: the caseworker (1) did not acquire a piece of
              information that was critical to making a proper determination, e.g., he/
              she did not determine whether the people who lived together also pur-
              chasedfood and prepared meals together; (2) had all the information
              required to make a proper household determination but made an incor-
              rect determination; or (3) had all the information required to make a
              proper household determination but did not take any action, e.g.,the
              caseworker did not include a child in a food stamp household after being
              informed of the infant’s birth or adoption.
              To estimate the number of errors caseworkersmade in fiscal year 1988
              benefit determinations due to misapplying the food stamp household



              Page 10                    GAO/RCED-90-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
    Appendix I
    Objectives, Scope,and Methodology




-
    definition, we drew a probability sample’ of casesfrom the Service’s
    fiscal year 1988 Quality Control Sample,the most recent year for which
    complete data were available for our review. The Quality Control
    Sample is a stratified sample of about 72,000 of the 80 million fiscal
    year 1988 food stamp issuances.The statistical-sampling technique
    which we used in selecting our sample allowed us to make estimates
    about the entire 80 million fiscal year 1988 food stamp issuanceson the
    basis of a sample of about 2,400 issuanceswhich contained about 500
    error casesL+
    To select our probability sample, we used a two-step processto draw
    cases.The Quality Control Sample is divided into 85 strata, someof
    which represent the food stamp issuancesof an entire state and others
    which represent only a portion of a state’s issuances.We selectedstrata
    for review after having assignedeach a probability of selection on the
    basis of the percentageof all fiscal year 1988 issuancescontained in
    that stratum. Thus, if a stratum contained 5 percent of the fiscal year
    1988 issuances,it had a 5-percent probability of selection each time we
    drew a stratum for our sample. Onceselected,a stratum was replaced
    into the group of strata that made up the universe so that it had a
    chanceof being selectedmore than once.
    Second,we selecteda simple random sample of casesfrom each stratum
    chosen.The sample size was set so that 30 error caseswould be
    expected to be found. For example, if 20 percent of the state’s quality
    control caseshad errors, we would expect,a sample of 150 casesto con-
    tain about 30 error cases,and we chosea random sample of 150 cases.If
    35 or fewer error caseswere in the stratum, we selectedall of the
    quality control casesrather than take a sample of them.
    We made 17 stratum selectionsusing this two-step method, and chosea
    sample of about 2,400 cases,of which about 500 were casesthat state
    quality control reviewers had determined contained errors, as shown in
    table I. 1.




    ‘A probability sample is a sample where each item in the universe has a known nonzcro chance of
    s&don.



    Page 11                             GAO/RCED-90-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
                                                                                                                                                         c
                                                              *                                                                                              R


                                                         Appendix I
                                                         ObJectivea, Scope, and Methodology




Table 1.1: Probability Sample of Food Stamp Error Cases
                                                                               Fiscal year 1999
                                                                                  issuance8 (in             Stratum quality               OAO samMe
Stratum identifIcationa                                                                millions)       control sample size            All case8 Error Case8
Alabama                  ._..                                                                   1.8                       1,931              126                  29
Arizona.i37j.-
_ _._. I_. .,..._.-.___._...  .-_.-_                                                              5                       1,616              142                  24
Georgia (02)                                                                                    1.1                         599              116                  31
ljlinois (24)                                                                                    .3                         376               96                  31
Illinois (41)                                                                                   1.3                         634              129                  38
Louisiana..^.-. _......      -.._---__                                                          2.7                       1,248              112                  34
Michigan (01)                        .--                                                        2.2                       1,279              157                  31
Michiaan’(Oi’j--                .._.            ..____                                          1.6                         828              155                  28
Missouri
 ._,.“.. “--.._ ._..-.-- ._ ---                                                                 1.5                       2,649             272b                  56b
North Carolina                                                                                  1.8                       1,328              173                  29”
New Hamoshire
          .._._ _.‘_______... ___. _..- ._______
                                                                                                 .l                         503              193                  28
Pennsylvania                                                                                    4.3                       1,323              178                  32
Texas
    .- ^__(03)
            . . ..__- .._.-.-_ .-_-                                                              .4                          99               99                  20
Texas (05)                                                                                       .7                         177              177                  32
Texas (08)                                                                                      1.2                         177              121                  29
Washmgton                                                                                       1.4                       2,600              156                  26
Total                                                                                                                                     2,402                  499
                                                         %tates with quality control samples composed of a number of strata are identified by a number in
                                                         parentheses. This number is the stratum code number of the stratum we selected for review.

                                                         bMissouri was selected twice (as the first and third strata selected) in our sampling procedure. There-
                                                         fore, we selected two independent subsamples of 136 issuances each. The first sample contained 23
                                                         error cases and the second 33.

                                                         ‘One North Carolina error case was unavailable for our review.


                                                         We assumedin our review procedure that casesthat state reviewers
                                                         found to be correct were actually correct. Although the number of error
                                                         casescould be understated as a result, in our opinion, the amount of the
                                                         understatement is likely to be small becausethe states’ quality control
                                                         reviews were validated by the Service.
                                                         Becausewe reviewed a probability sample of issuances,each estimate
                                                         developed from the sample has a measurableprecision.2We express this
                                                         precision using ranges formed by the lower and upper bounds of the 96
                                                         percent confidence interval. If we applied the samereview procedures to
                                                         all fiscal year 1988 issuances,the results of such a review would lie
                                     Y



                                                         ‘Our estimates were based on standard statistical formulas. (See, for example, William G. Cochran,
                                                         Sampling Techniques, 3rd edition equations 11.31 and 11.36 and 2nd edition equations 11.37 and
                                                         11.39.)



                                                         Page 12                                GAO/RCED-90-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
        .

    #                 c

u
            Appendix I
            Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




            between the lower and upper bounds of the confidence interval about 19
            out of 20 times. Becausewe observedno household definition errors in 4
            of the 17 strata selectedfor review, the ranges we formed from the con-
            fidence intervals for estimates related to such errors may be somewhat
            misstated. We are unable to statistically estimate the size of this mis-
            statement; however, we believe it to be small.




            Page 13                              GAO/RCEBBO-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
Appendix II

Major Exceptionsto the Food Stamp
HouseholdDefinition

                  The household definition contained in the Food Stamp Act of 1977 gen-
                  erally requires that people who live together and who customarily
                  purchase food and prepare meals together be counted as a single house-
                  hold. Related individuals such as spouses,parents and their children,
                  and siblings who live together are consideredto be purchasing food and
                  preparing meals together whether they do so or not. However, several
                  exceptions allow certain personsto form separate food stamp house-
                  holds. For example:
              . Parents having minor children and living with their parents or siblings
                can form separate householdswith their children if they purchase their
                food and prepare their meals separately from the relatives with whom
                they live.
              . Elderly or disabled people and their spousescan form separate house-
                holds from the relatives with whom they live if they purchase food and
                prepare meals separately.
              . Elderly disabled people who are unable to prepare their own meals can
                form householdswith their spousesseparate from relatives with whom
                they live if the gross income of the relatives doesnot exceed 166 percent
                of the poverty level.
              l Somehousehold members,such as college students who do not meet spe-
                cific eligibility requirements, illegal aliens, intentional program viola-
                tors, those refusing to provide their social security numbers, and those
                who have not complied with workfare requirements, are excluded by
                law from participating in the Food Stamp Program.
              l Roomersand live-in attendants are generally defined as nonmembersof
                the household with which they live. If otherwise qualified, they can
                form separate householdsapart from the families they live with.
              . Boarders-those residing with others and paying reasonablecompensa-
                tion for lodging and meals- are ineligible to participate in the Food
                Stamp Program independent of the household providing the board. They
                may participate as membersof the household they board with only at
                the request of that household.




                  Page 14                  GAO/RCED-90-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
Appendix III

CommentsFrom the U.S. Department
of Agriculture


                  United States                    Food and                       3101 Park Center Drive
                  Department of                    Nutrition                      Alexandria, VA 22302
                  Agriculture                      Service




               John W. Harman,    Director
               Food and Agriculture
               U.S. General Accounting
               411 G Street,    N.W.
                                           Issues
                                               Office
                                                                                   JUN  2 g 19~0

               Washington,   D.C.     20548
               Dear Mr. Harman:
               We have reviewed your draft   report entitled,  Food Stamp Prow                         .
                     Household Defbition  Is Not a Maior Source Of CaSeW0rb.X
               Brors.    RCED-90-183.
               In this study, State        quality   control      files    were examined to
               determine   whether the      current    household definition         is a
               significant   cause of      caseworker     errors.        The report confirms   our
               information   that few      errors   actually      result    from the household
               definition.
               On the whole, we have no problems with the report.          My staff                 has
               already   provided   comments   to yours on a few technical   details.
               Thank   you for giving    us the opportunity  to comment.
                                                Sincerely,




                                                Administritor




                     Page 16                            GAO/RCED-99-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
Appendix IV

Major Contributork to This Report


                        Gerald E. Killian, Assistant Director
Resources,              Ned L. Smith, Assignment Manager
Community, and          Jerome T. Moriarty, Deputy Assignment Manager
Economic                Karen E. Bracey, Assistant Director
                        Catherine T. Lojewski, Staff Evaluator
Development Division,
Washington, DC.

                        John E. Stanfield, Senior Evaluator-in-Charge
Atlanta Regional        Johnnie E. Barnes, Site Senior
Office                  Sherrill Y. Caldwell, Staff Evaluator
                        Troy D. Thompson, Staff Evaluator




(02321)O)               Page 16                   GAO/RCED-99-183 Household Definition Caseworker Errors
                -n-
r First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
          GAO       I
                        !l
                        !
                        i