This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-256 
entitled 'Supports For Low-Income Families: States Serve a Broad Range 
of Families through a Complex and Changing System' which was released 
on January 26, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 
Finance, U.S. Senate:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

January 2004:

Supports for Low-Income Families:

States Serve a Broad Range of Families through a Complex and Changing 
System:

GAO-04-256:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-256, a report to Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate

Why GAO Did This Study:

Over the last decade, the Congress has made significant changes in 
numerous federal programs that support low-income families, including 
changes that have shifted program emphases from providing cash 
assistance to providing services that promote employment and economic 
independence. As a result of some of the federal policy changes, the 
support system is more decentralized than before. This heightens the 
importance of understanding policy choices and practices at the state 
and local levels as well as those at the federal level. 

To provide the Congress with information on this system, GAO agreed to 
address the following questions: (1) To what extent do states provide 
supports for low-income families? (2) How have states structured 
programs to support low-income families? (3) What changes have states 
made to supports for low-income families in recent years? Our review 
focused primarily on supports for which states make many of the key 
decisions about eligibility, benefit amounts, and service provision. 
To obtain this information, GAO conducted a mail survey of the social 
service directors in the 50 states and the District of Columbia; 
conducted site visits in New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 
Washington, and Wisconsin; and reviewed federal reports and other 
relevant literature. 

What GAO Found:

States use an array of federal and state funds to provide a wide range 
of benefits and services that can support the work efforts of low-
income families, although the types of supports and coverage of the 
eligible population vary among the states and sometimes within states. 
For instance, most states subsidize several types of child care, 
subsidize use of public transportation, and offer employment services 
in at least one location in the state, but somewhat fewer states 
subsidize child care for sick children, assist with the purchase of 
used cars, or offer employment retention bonuses to parents who find 
and maintain jobs. The five states we visited structured the 
eligibility criteria and benefits of many supports in ways that allow 
them to serve a broad range of low-income families, including families 
on and off welfare and families who are working and those who are not 
currently working. The specific support structures vary, however, by 
state and type of support. These differences create a complex national 
picture of supports that provide an assortment of benefits and 
services to a range of populations.

Over the last several years, many states have expanded the 
availability of supports that promote employment and economic 
independence for low-income families. State officials reported that 
both the number of support services available and the number of 
recipients have increased. However, state officials express 
uncertainty about their continued ability to provide this level of 
support. As states plan for the future of supports in the current 
state fiscal environment, officials reported that they are considering 
changes that could limit the availability and provision of supports 
for low-income families. Overall, it its probable that the support 
system will continue to change as the federal and state governments 
further amend policies and respond to changes in the demand for 
services and cyclical fiscal conditions.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-256

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact Cynthia M. Fagnoni 
(202) 512-7215 or fagnonic@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

States Provide a Wide Range of Supports to Low-Income Families although 
Extent of Receipt Varies:

Selected States Have Structured Supports to Serve a Broad Range of Low-
Income Families in a Coordinated Manner:

Many States Have Expanded Supports in Recent Years, but Express 
Uncertainty about the Future:

Concluding Observations:

Agency Comments:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Appendix II: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Supports, by 
State and Type of Support:

Appendix III: Changes in the Number of Recipients and Availability of 
Supports between State FY 2000 and Spring 2003:

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Related GAO Products:

Tables:

Table 1: Roles of Federal and State Governments in Selected Supports 
for Low-Income Families:

Table 2: Most Common Public Funding Sources, by Type of Support:

Table 3: Number of States in Which Administrative Authority for Each 
Type of Support Is at the State or County/Local Level:

Table 4: Number of States Offering Specific Types of Services in at 
Least One Location in the State:

Table 5: Maximum Income Eligibility Level for Receipt of Supports as a 
Percentage of the FPL, by Site Visit State and by Support:

Table 6: Number of States Reporting That Funds Were Reduced for Support 
Services to Redirect Funds to TANF Cash Assistance between State Fiscal 
Year 2000 and Spring 2003:

Table 7: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Subsidized Child 
Care, by State and Type of Child Care:

Table 8: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Transportation 
Assistance, by State and Type of Assistance:

Table 9: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Job Retention 
and Career Advancement Services, by State and Type of Service:

Table 10: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Utility 
Assistance, by State and Type of Assistance:

Table 11: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Health 
Assistance, by State and Type of Assistance:

Table 12: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in the 
Number of Recipients of Each Type of Support, by State:

Table 13: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in the 
Number or Type of Services Provided, by State:

Table 14: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in 
Outreach Efforts, by State:

Table 15: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in the 
Size of the Eligible Population as a Result of Changes in Eligibility 
Criteria of Each Type of Support, by State:

Table 16: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in 
Provider Payments, by State:

Table 17: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in 
Copayments for Subsidized Child Care, Medicaid, and SCHIP, by State:

Figures:

Figure 1: Time Line of Changes in Programs for Low-Income Families:

Figure 2: Number of States That Provide Selected Supports, by Type of 
Support Provided and Share of Applicants Who Receive the Support:

Figure 3: Average Monthly and Annual Family Benefits per Support, by 
Site Visit State:

Figure 4: Relationship between Provider Payments and Copayments for 
Supports, as Illustrated for Child Care Subsidies:

Figure 5: Trends in the TANF Caseload and Federal TANF Block Grant 
since 1997:

Figure 6: National TANF/MOE Expenditures in Fiscal Years 1998 and 2002:

Figure 7: Trends in Annual TANF Spending Relative to TANF Funding:

Figure 8: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Number of 
Recipients of Each Type of Support between State Fiscal Year 2000 and 
Spring 2003:

Figure 9: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Changes in the Number or Type of Services Provided 
between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003:

Figure 10: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Changes in Outreach Efforts between State Fiscal 
Year 2000 and Spring 2003:

Figure 11: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Changes in Support Eligibility Criteria between 
State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003:

Figure 12: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Provider Payment Changes between State Fiscal Year 
2000 and Spring 2003:

Figure 13: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Copayment Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 
and Spring 2003:

Abbreviations:

OBRA: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act:

CCDF: Child Care and Development Fund:

EITC: earned income tax credit:

FPL: federal poverty level:

LIHEAP: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program:

PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
Act of 1996:

SCHIP: State Children's Health Insurance Program:

SSBG: Social Services Block Grant:

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:

WIA: Workforce Investment Act:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

January 26, 2004:

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Finance: 
United States Senate:

The Honorable Max Baucus: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Finance 
United States Senate:

The federal government expends over $100 billion annually to assist 
tens of millions of low-income families nationwide through numerous 
federal programs and block grants. Over the last decade, the Congress 
has made significant changes in this support system. These changes have 
(1) shifted program emphases from cash assistance to services that 
promote employment and economic independence and (2) provided states 
greater authority and flexibility to use funds and structure the design 
of program benefits and service delivery. Some of the more dramatic 
changes occurred with the passage of welfare reform legislation in 
1996. Most prominently, this legislation ended the 61-year-old federal 
entitlement to assistance for eligible needy families with children and 
created in its place the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
block grant. TANF provides states with federal funds that are to be 
used along with states' own funds for programs and services that help 
low-income parents support their families and take steps toward 
employment. To emphasize the temporary nature of TANF assistance, the 
law restricts most families to a lifetime limit of 60 months of federal 
cash assistance. This legislation and other federal policy changes 
throughout the last decade also modified the Food Stamp Program, 
consolidated and expanded child care subsidy programs, revised and 
expanded health insurance for children and families, consolidated 
employment and training programs, and expanded support for low-income 
workers through the tax code.

As a result of some of these federal policy changes, the support system 
is more decentralized than before. This heightens the importance of 
understanding policy choices and practices at the state and local 
levels, as well as those at the federal level, in order to describe the 
nation's current support system for low-income families. To provide you 
with information on this system, we agreed with your staff to address 
the following questions: (1) To what extent do states provide supports 
for low-income families? (2) How have states structured programs to 
support low-income families? (3) What changes have states made to 
supports for low-income families in recent years?

In addressing these questions, we focused on some of the many federal 
and state programs that provide assistance to low-income 
families.[Footnote 1] We selected key supports that include not only 
those that assist low-income families by providing cash income but also 
those that subsidize some of the expenses associated with work outside 
of the home, such as child care and transportation, or help with work 
and family needs in other ways, such as by subsidizing utility 
expenses. Our review focused primarily on the following programs and 
types of supports, for which states make many of the decisions about 
eligibility, benefit amounts, and service provision:

* income assistance provided through TANF cash assistance, TANF 
diversion[Footnote 2] assistance, and state tax credits;

* job retention and advancement services;

* Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and 
other health-related programs, including substance abuse, mental 
health, and domestic violence programs;

* subsidized child care;

* transportation support services; and:

* utility assistance.

Our review also discusses the federal earned income tax credit (EITC), 
food stamps, and rental housing assistance to some extent because these 
are important components of the overall set of supports for low-income 
families.

For those programs about which states make key decisions, we obtained 
information through a mail survey administered to directors of social 
services in all 50 states and the District of Columbia[Footnote 3] in 
spring 2003, and through site visits between December 2002 and March 
2003 in five states (New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, 
and Wisconsin). For our site visits, we selected states that 
demonstrated an effort to assist low-income families with support 
services and that, as a group, were geographically and programmatically 
diverse. For those programs about which states make key decisions, we 
obtained information directly from state officials because limited 
information is collected at the national level on states' provision of 
support services. For other programs, we relied on a review of federal 
reports and other relevant literature. In both the survey and the site 
visits, we asked officials about recent programmatic changes that had 
occurred in their support programs, which we defined as changes that 
occurred in these programs since 2000. Although the fiscal climate in 
many states changed during this time period, we chose this time period 
only to capture program changes that had occurred in the last few 
years, not specifically to capture changes related to the fiscal 
climate. Because of the changing fiscal conditions, however, some 
states were in the process of making programmatic changes at the time 
of our survey and site visits. Although we asked officials to report on 
decisions that had already been made and, in the site visits, to report 
on their expectations for the future, we cannot comment on any actual 
changes that may have occurred after our fieldwork was completed in 
spring 2003. We conducted our work from December 2002 through November 
2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

Results in Brief:

States use an array of federal and state funds to provide a wide range 
of supports to low-income families, although the types of supports and 
coverage of the eligible population vary among the states. States 
indicated during our site visits that they have used their increased 
flexibility to modify supports in ways they believe more effectively 
promote employment and economic independence. For instance, to better 
enable parents to work, states have subsidized not only child care for 
preschool-age children, but many have also subsidized evening and 
weekend child care and care for infants. However, our 50-state survey 
showed that variation in the ways that states have chosen to exercise 
their increased flexibility has resulted in differences across states, 
and sometimes within states, in the specific supports that are offered 
and in coverage of the low-income population. For example, subsidized 
child care for sick children is offered in fewer states than other 
types of subsidized child care. Further, in the area of transportation 
support services, in most states that provide bus passes or other 
assistance with public transportation, almost all eligible families who 
seek this assistance receive it, but in a number of states that provide 
help with car repair expenses, less than half of the eligible families 
seeking this assistance receive it.

Each of the five states we visited structured supports to serve a broad 
range of low-income families in a coordinated manner. The five states 
we visited structured eligibility criteria and benefits to serve a 
broad range of low-income families, including families on and off 
welfare and families who are working and those who may be seeking 
employment. These states established eligibility criteria for several 
support services, such as subsidized child care, transportation support 
services, and job retention and advancement services, to assist 
families with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. 
(Two hundred percent of the federal poverty level is about $31,000 for 
a family of three.) States structured some of the benefits so that 
families with higher incomes receive smaller benefit amounts or must 
contribute some of their income toward the cost of a service. In 
addition, our selected states took steps to deliver services in a 
coordinated manner to facilitate families' access to supports. In all 
of the states we visited, families can gain access to multiple supports 
in a single local office, and in some of the states, families can gain 
access to multiple supports through a single caseworker.

Most of the changes states have made to supports for low-income 
families since 2000 have expanded the availability of supports, 
although state officials expressed concern about the future of 
supports. Though many federal policy changes affected supports over the 
past decade, welfare reform played an integral role in changing a 
variety of supports for low-income families. Since 2001, state 
officials reported that the number of support services available and 
the number of recipients have increased. Further, states have also made 
changes in support structures, such as income eligibility criteria, 
that allow a broader range of working parents to gain access to 
supports. Although many of the changes expanded the availability of 
supports, some officials reported changes that limit the availability 
of some supports for low-income families. Given the fiscal crises that 
states currently face, officials reported that they are considering 
future changes that would likely limit the availability of supports for 
low-income families. Many officials expressed concern that these 
changes may erode the progress they have made in recent years to 
promote employment and economic independence.

Background:

Supports for low-income families are funded, designed, and administered 
by a combination of federal and state governments. Recent changes to 
federal laws have modified supports for low-income families in many 
ways and, in some cases, have altered the roles of the federal and 
state governments in the provision of these supports. Changing economic 
conditions have also affected the provision of supports for low-income 
families.

Roles of Federal and State Governments in Providing Supports for Low-
Income Families:

Both the federal and state governments are involved in the provision of 
supports for low-income families, but the relative roles that the 
federal and state governments play with regard to funding and design 
vary by the type of support. Specifically, supports for low-income 
families vary in terms of whether they are funded with federal funds, 
state funds, or a combination; whether funding is fixed; and the extent 
to which the federal government, state governments, or a combination is 
responsible for determining eligibility rules, availability, and 
benefit structures. In addition, some supports, such as food stamps and 
Medicaid, are entitlements, for which eligible applicants are 
guaranteed receipt. For other supports, such as subsidized child care 
and transportation assistance, provision of the supports is not 
mandatory and receipt is not guaranteed. Table 1 illustrates the 
relative roles of the federal and state governments in the funding and 
design of supports, and indicates whether the supports are 
entitlements.

Table 1: Roles of Federal and State Governments in Selected Supports 
for Low-Income Families:

Support: Federal EITC; 
Funding[A]: All federal; 
Design[B]: All federal; 
Entitlement: Yes.

Support: Section 8 rental housing; 
Funding[A]: All federal; 
Design[B]: Mostly federal; 
Entitlement: No.

Support: Food Stamp Program; 
Funding[A]: Mostly federal; 
Design[B]: Mostly federal; 
Entitlement: Yes.

Support: Medicaid; 
Funding[A]: Federal/state; 
Design[B]: Federal/state; 
Entitlement: Yes.

Support: SCHIP; 
Funding[A]: Federal/state; 
Design[B]: Federal/state; 
Entitlement: No.

Support: Utility assistance; 
Funding[A]: Federal/state; 
Design[B]: Federal/state; 
Entitlement: No.

Support: TANF cash assistance; 
Funding[A]: Federal/state; 
Design[B]: Some federal/more state; 
Entitlement: No.

Support: Subsidized child care; 
Funding[A]: Federal/state; 
Design[B]: Some federal/more state; 
Entitlement: No.

Support: Health-related services (substance abuse and mental health); 
Funding[A]: Federal/state; 
Design[B]: Some federal/more state; 
Entitlement: No.

Support: Domestic violence programs; 
Funding[A]: Federal/state; 
Design[B]: Mostly state; 
Entitlement: No.

Support: Job retention and advancement services; 
Funding[A]: Federal/state; 
Design[B]: Mostly state; 
Entitlement: No.

Support: Transportation support services; 
Funding[A]: Federal/state; 
Design[B]: Mostly state; 
Entitlement: No.

Support: State tax credits; 
Funding[A]: All state; 
Design[B]: All state; 
Entitlement: Yes. 

Source: GAO.

[A] Defined as the level of government that supplies the primary source 
of funding for the support.

[B] Defined as the level of government that is primarily responsible 
for availability, eligibility, and benefit amount determination.

[End of table]

Changes in Programs for Low-Income Families:

Several federal programs for low-income families have been enacted or 
significantly revised in the last decade, as detailed below and in 
figure 1:

Figure 1: Time Line of Changes in Programs for Low-Income Families:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* 1990--Federal EITC expansion--In 1990, as part of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act (1990 OBRA), the Congress changed the qualification 
standards and substantially increased the size of the EITC, at least in 
part to increase the progressivity of the overall federal tax system by 
reducing the federal tax burden of qualified low-income workers. In 
1991, the first year that these changes were in effect, the number of 
families receiving the EITC increased by 1.4 million families to a 
total of 13.9 million, and they claimed a total of $11.2 billion in 
credits, which was an increase of $3.8 billion over 1990.

* 1993--Federal EITC expansion--As part of the August 1993 Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act (1993 OBRA), the Congress increased the size 
of the maximum EITC for families with children, beginning in 1994, and 
extended coverage to very-low-income workers without children. The 
number of taxpayers claiming the EITC and total program costs increased 
steadily between tax years 1990 and 1994, partly because of both the 
1990 and the 1993 OBRA expansions.

* 1996--PRWORA--With the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the Congress made 
sweeping changes to federal welfare policy for needy families. PRWORA 
ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and 
authorized the TANF block grant to states at $16.5 billion annually. 
TANF provides temporary cash assistance and emphasizes work and 
responsibility over dependence on government benefits. PRWORA also 
combined several existing child care programs into one program designed 
to provide states with more flexible funding for subsidizing the child 
care needs of low-income families who are working or receiving 
education or training in preparation for employment. In fiscal year 
2003, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) provided states with 
up to $4.8 billion in federal funds for these purposes. In addition, 
PRWORA severed the link between cash assistance and Medicaid benefits 
and restricted legal immigrants' access to public welfare benefits.

* 1997--SCHIP--The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 
was created under Title XXI of the Social Security Act for states to 
offer coverage to children in families with incomes up to 200 percent 
of the federal poverty level (FPL) who do not qualify for Medicaid. 
Congress appropriated $40 billion in federal funds over 10 years (from 
fiscal year 1998 to 2007), to provide each state an annual allotment, 
which can be spent over 3 years, for SCHIP expenditures. State SCHIP 
expenditures are matched by federal payments up to the state's annual 
appropriated allotment. The federal share of each state's SCHIP 
expenditures ranges from 65 to 83 percent; the federal share of total 
SCHIP expenditures is about 72 percent. In designing their SCHIP 
programs, most states chose to establish separate, stand-alone 
components, often concurrent with a Medicaid expansion.

* 1998--WIA--The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was passed in 1998 to 
consolidate services of many employment and training programs, 
mandating that states and localities use a centralized service delivery 
structure - the one-stop center system - to provide access to most 
federally funded employment and training assistance. Under WIA, the 
federal government appropriates funds to states each year, and states 
have three years to spend those funds. In each fiscal year from 2000 to 
2002, approximately $3.9 billion in federal WIA funds was appropriated 
to the states.

* 1998--Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act--Under the 1998 
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, provisions were put in 
place to provide public housing agencies with increased flexibility 
while also increasing accountability. In addition, the Act facilitated 
the implementation of mixed-income communities, aimed to reduce the 
concentrations of poverty in public housing, and created incentives and 
opportunities for residents to work and become self-sufficient. 
Further, the Act introduced a new Section 8 housing voucher program 
designed to be more market-driven and accommodated the replacement or 
revitalization of severely distressed public housing projects. Most 
provisions in the Act became effective October 1, 1999.

* 2001--Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act--As part of 
the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the 
Congress introduced several marriage tax penalty relief provisions, 
including one that affects the structure of the EITC. This provision 
increased the EITC phase-out start and end points for married couple 
joint tax returns by $3,000, with the increase phased in over a 7-year 
period starting in calendar year 2002.

* 2002--Farm Bill Changes to Food Stamps--The Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002, reauthorized the Food Stamp Program through 
fiscal year 2007. The law also introduced a variety of changes to the 
Food Stamp Program, including the expansion of eligibility for certain 
groups of noncitizens, the addition of a provision that allows states 
to provide "transitional" food stamp benefits for up to 5 months for 
families leaving TANF, and the addition of a number of other state 
options to ease access to the program and administrative burdens on 
applicants/recipients and program operators.

Changing Fiscal Conditions:

Though the last decade brought significant economic expansion across 
the country, recently states have dealt with changing fiscal 
conditions, and consequently, states are now facing one of their most 
challenging budgetary situations in years. Most states are required to 
balance their operating budgets, and since their revenues have been 
much lower than forecast, state officials have struggled to bring 
expenditures into line with available resources. A state's need to cut 
spending or increase revenues can be mitigated if it has accumulated 
surplus balances in reserve. States accumulated significant reserves 
during the late 1990s. However, these reserves have dropped appreciably 
as states address their fiscal crises. Because of the recent fiscal 
changes at both federal and state levels, support programs have also 
undergone cyclical spending changes in recent years. For example, 
because the amount of the TANF block grant is fixed, as caseloads 
decline--as they did in all states through the late 1990s--states have 
additional resources to expand their programs and create reserves. 
However, as caseloads increase--as they have in some states since 2000-
-or other factors cause program costs to rise, states bear most of 
their TANF program's fiscal risks.

States Provide a Wide Range of Supports to Low-Income Families although 
Extent of Receipt Varies:

States draw on a mixture of federal and state funds to provide low-
income families with a wide range of supports, although the specific 
types of supports offered and the extent to which eligible families are 
able to receive the supports they seek vary by state and sometimes 
within states. The supports available to low-income families range from 
those that address basic needs to those intended to promote economic 
independence, and include subsidized child care, cash assistance, 
transportation support services, utility assistance, health services, 
job retention and advancement services, and tax credits, as well as 
various other supports. As shown in table 2, state officials responding 
to our 50-state survey reported using state funds and federal TANF 
funds for most or all of the supports listed, but they also used other 
federal funding sources specific to each type of support. In 
particular, states used Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and 
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds for subsidized child care, Job 
Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds for transportation support 
services, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds for 
utility assistance, and WIA funds for both job retention and 
advancement services and transportation support services. State 
officials also reported that county or local funds were used for 
transportation support services. Clearly, of the supports listed in the 
table, transportation support services draw on the largest number of 
different funding sources,[Footnote 4] and of the federal funding 
sources identified, TANF funds appear to be the most flexible, as 
states are using them to provide several different types of supports in 
addition to cash assistance.

Table 2: Most Common Public Funding Sources, by Type of Support:

Funding sources: TANF block grant; 
Subsidized child care: Yes; 
Job retention and career advancement services: Yes; 
Transportation support services: Yes; 
Utility assistance: Yes.

Funding sources: WIA funding; 
Subsidized child care: No; 
Job retention and career advancement services: Yes; 
Transportation support services: Yes; 
Utility assistance: No.

Funding sources: SSBG; 
Subsidized child care: Yes; 
Job retention and career advancement services: No; 
Transportation support services: No; 
Utility assistance: No.

Funding sources: CCDF; 
Subsidized child care: Yes; 
Job retention and career advancement services: No; 
Transportation support services: No; 
Utility assistance: No.

Funding sources: JARC grants; 
Subsidized child care: No; 
Job retention and career advancement services: No; 
Transportation support services: Yes; 
Utility assistance: No.

Funding sources: LIHEAP; 
Subsidized child care: No; 
Job retention and career advancement services: No; 
Transportation support services: No; 
Utility assistance: Yes.

Funding sources: State funding; 
Subsidized child care: Yes; 
Job retention and career advancement services: Yes; 
Transportation support services: Yes; 
Utility assistance: No.

Funding sources: County/local funding; 
Subsidized child care: No; 
Job retention and career advancement services: No; 
Transportation support services: Yes; 
Utility assistance: No. 

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Note: Not all states responded to each question.

[End of table]

Supports for low-income families are also administered at different 
levels of government within each state. In most states, officials 
reported that supports were administered at the state level, although 
in some states, county or local governments administered supports, as 
shown in table 3.

Table 3: Number of States in Which Administrative Authority for Each 
Type of Support Is at the State or County/Local Level:

Type of support: Subsidized child care; 
Entity with administrative authority: State: 43; 
Entity with administrative authority: County/local: 3; 
Entity with administrative authority: Other[A]: 2; 
Entity with administrative authority: Don't know: 0; 
Entity with administrative authority: Total respondents[B]: 48.

Type of support: Job retention and advancement; 
Entity with administrative authority: State: 29; 
Entity with administrative authority: County/local: 9; 
Entity with administrative authority: Other[A]: 3; 
Entity with administrative authority: Don't know: 1; 
Entity with administrative authority: Total respondents[B]: 42.

Type of support: Transportation support services; 
Entity with administrative authority: State: 33; 
Entity with administrative authority: County/local: 9; 
Entity with administrative authority: Other[A]: 7; 
Entity with administrative authority: Don't know: 0; 
Entity with administrative authority: Total respondents[B]: 49.

Type of support: Utility assistance; 
Entity with administrative authority: State: 39; 
Entity with administrative authority: County/local: 4; 
Entity with administrative authority: Other[A]: 5; 
Entity with administrative authority: Don't know: 0; 
Entity with administrative authority: Total respondents[B]: 48.

Type of support: TANF cash assistance; 
Entity with administrative authority: State: 40; 
Entity with administrative authority: County/local: 6; 
Entity with administrative authority: Other[A]: 4; 
Entity with administrative authority: Don't know: 0; 
Entity with administrative authority: Total respondents[B]: 50. 


Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

[A] Examples of "other" responses include responses from the District 
of Columbia and those from states in which administrative authority 
differs depending on the specific support provided. For instance, a 
state might provide some types of transportation support services, 
while its counties provide other types of transportation support 
services.

[B] Not all states responded to each question.

[End of table]

States offered a wide variety of supports, although not every specific 
type was offered in every state, according to officials responding to 
our 50-state survey. (See table 4.) For example, most states subsidized 
several types of child care, subsidized individuals' public 
transportation costs, and offered employment services in at least one 
location in the state, but somewhat fewer states subsidized child care 
for sick children, assisted with the purchase of used cars, or offered 
employment retention bonuses to parents who found and kept jobs. Many 
of the state officials responding to our survey also indicated that 
when their states do provide supports, the supports are often not 
available in all areas of the state, although most officials reported 
that there were not differences in access to supports in urban and 
rural areas. In several instances, state officials were not able to 
provide complete information on the extent to which supports were 
offered.

Table 4: Number of States Offering Specific Types of Services in at 
Least One Location in the State:

Type of service: Child care subsidies: 

Type of service: Infant care; 
Offered: 49; 
Not offered: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Total respondents[A]: 49.

Type of service: Daytime child care; 
Offered: 49; 
Not offered: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Total respondents[A]: 49.

Type of service: Before/after school care; 
Offered: 49; 
Not offered: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Total respondents[A]: 49.

Type of service: Evening/weekend child care; 
Offered: 49; 
Not offered: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Total respondents[A]: 49.

Type of service: Special needs child care; 
Offered: 46; 
Not offered: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Total respondents[A]: 48.

Type of service: Child care for sick children; 
Offered: 29; 
Not offered: 14; 
Don't know: 2; 
Total respondents[A]: 45.

Type of service: Transportation support services: 

Type of service: Public transit subsidies (e.g., bus passes); 
Offered: 43; 
Not offered: 4; 
Don't know: 2; 
Total respondents[A]: 49.

Type of service: Van/shuttle service; 
Offered: 39; 
Not offered: 5; 
Don't know: 3; 
Total respondents[A]: 47.

Type of service: Car repairs; 
Offered: 43; 
Not offered: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Total respondents[A]: 46.

Type of service: Car insurance; 
Offered: 37; 
Not offered: 2; 
Don't know: 2; 
Total respondents[A]: 41.

Type of service: Fuel vouchers; 
Offered: 33; 
Not offered: 7; 
Don't know: 6; 
Total respondents[A]: 46.

Type of service: Establishment of public transit route; 
Offered: 30; 
Not offered: 8; 
Don't know: 6; 
Total respondents[A]: 44.

Type of service: Used cars; 
Offered: 31; 
Not offered: 11; 
Don't know: 2; 
Total respondents[A]: 44.

Type of service: Carpool matching; 
Offered: 17; 
Not offered: 14; 
Don't know: 10; 
Total respondents[A]: 41.

Type of service: Job retention and advancement services: 

Type of service: Employment services (e.g., job search); 
Offered: 44; 
Not offered: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Total respondents[A]: 46.

Type of service: Post-employment case management; 
Offered: 43; 
Not offered: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Total respondents[A]: 45.

Type of service: Training; 
Offered: 42; 
Not offered: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Total respondents[A]: 46.

Type of service: Education; 
Offered: 40; 
Not offered: 4; 
Don't know: 1; 
Total respondents[A]: 45.

Type of service: Mentoring and peer relationships; 
Offered: 31; 
Not offered: 9; 
Don't know: 4; 
Total respondents[A]: 44.

Type of service: Employment retention bonuses; 
Offered: 23; 
Not offered: 19; 
Don't know: 3; 
Total respondents[A]: 45.

Type of service: Utility assistance: 

Type of service: Heating; 
Offered: 46; 
Not offered: 1; 
Don't know: 2; 
Total respondents[A]: 49.

Type of service: Electricity; 
Offered: 41; 
Not offered: 2; 
Don't know: 3; 
Total respondents[A]: 46.

Type of service: Telephone; 
Offered: 27; 
Not offered: 7; 
Don't know: 9; 
Total respondents[A]: 43.

Type of service: Air conditioning/home cooling; 
Offered: 30; 
Not offered: 11; 
Don't know: 3; 
Total respondents[A]: 44.

Type of service: Weatherization/conservation; 
Offered: 44; 
Not offered: 1; 
Don't know: 4; 
Total respondents[A]: 49.

Type of service: Water; 
Offered: 17; 
Not offered: 17; 
Don't know: 9; 
Total respondents[A]: 43.

Type of service: Plumbing/septic; 
Offered: 8; 
Not offered: 21; 
Don't know: 11; 
Total respondents[A]: 40.

Type of service: Health assistance: 

Type of service: Domestic violence program; 
Offered: 42; 
Not offered: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Total respondents[A]: 44.

Type of service: Mental health treatment; 
Offered: 45; 
Not offered: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Total respondents[A]: 46.

Type of service: Substance abuse treatment; 
Offered: 44; 
Not offered: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Total respondents[A]: 46. 

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

[A] Not all states responded to each question.

[End of table]

According to data collected through our survey, although states may 
offer supports, not all eligible families who apply for supports 
receive them, as illustrated in figure 2. For the most part, state 
officials who could provide the data reported that a majority of 
eligible families who applied for supports did receive them, especially 
subsidized child care and utility assistance. However, it is worth 
noting that officials in some states reported that less than half of 
eligible applicants received certain types of transportation support 
services and job retention and advancement services. For nearly every 
type of support, an official in at least one state reported that less 
than half of eligible applicants received that type of support. The 
most common reasons cited for eligible applicants not receiving 
supports were an insufficient supply of services, insufficient state or 
federal funding, and the applicants' physical or logistical 
difficulties gaining access to the supports that were offered. Figure 2 
also illustrates that several officials responding to our survey did 
not know the extent to which eligible applicants received some types of 
supports. The officials reported, most frequently, that the reasons 
they did not have this information were that services varied broadly by 
locality and that data were not available or not complete at the state 
level. Further, figure 2 refers only to the eligible families who apply 
for supports and does not include families who would be eligible but 
who do not apply for them.

Figure 2: Number of States That Provide Selected Supports, by Type of 
Support Provided and Share of Applicants Who Receive the Support:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Figure 2 provides information on the extent to which states serve 
families who apply for and are eligible for supports under the states' 
eligibility criteria, set within federal guidelines. For example, while 
states are allowed to set income eligibility thresholds for subsidized 
child care up to 85 percent of state median income, most states set 
thresholds at lower levels. Figure 2 does not include families who 
would be eligible but who do not apply for supports.

[A] Not all states responded to each question.

[End of figure]

In some cases, whether a family receives support services may depend on 
whether the family is receiving cash assistance. In the past, receipt 
of support services sometimes was linked to receipt of cash assistance, 
and as a result, cash assistance recipients may have been more likely 
to receive supports than other low-income families. However, as the 
emphasis of support programs has shifted toward promoting employment 
and economic self-sufficiency for a broader population, states have 
targeted some supports to low-income families who are not receiving 
cash assistance. In our 50-state survey, only a limited number of state 
officials were able to provide information on the extent to which low-
income families receiving each type of support were also currently 
receiving TANF cash assistance. Among those who did provide this 
information, most reported that transportation support services and job 
retention and advancement services were received primarily by families 
also receiving TANF cash assistance, while subsidized child care and 
utility assistance were received primarily by families not receiving 
TANF cash assistance.

In addition to the supports discussed above, states offer several other 
supports to low-income families. In particular:

* TANF cash assistance is provided in all states for eligible low-
income families.

* Short-term cash benefits are provided to low-income families in 39 
states, according to our survey. These benefits are provided through 
TANF diversion programs, state emergency assistance programs, or other 
programs. TANF diversion programs provide low-income families who are 
eligible for TANF cash assistance with short-term cash or in-kind 
benefits, on a case-by-case basis, in lieu of TANF cash assistance. 
State emergency assistance programs provide similar short-term support 
outside of TANF.

* State tax credits for low-income families were offered by almost half 
of the states in 2002, according to our survey, with the most 
frequently provided type of state tax credits--child care tax credits-
-provided by 23 states. In addition, 19 states reported offering a 
state earned income tax credit, and 7 states reported offering a 
housing credit.

* While Medicaid and SCHIP services are offered in nearly all states, 
12 states reported in our survey that they offered additional health 
insurance programs so that low-income families not eligible for 
Medicaid or SCHIP could obtain health insurance for a reduced fee.

* Some other key supports for low-income families are available 
nationally, such as food stamps, the federal EITC, and housing 
assistance.

In our site visits, several states mentioned other supports they 
consider to be important for low-income families, namely, before-and 
after-school programs and child support enforcement programs. Oklahoma 
contracts with several different organizations to provide after-school 
programs that focus on mentoring, teen pregnancy prevention, drug abuse 
prevention, and the overall goals of promoting child well-being and 
strengthening families. Several states consider child support to be a 
significant income support for welfare families. Wisconsin has 
established a unique program through waivers that allows welfare 
recipients to receive the entire amount of child support collected on 
their behalf each month. Though several states mentioned before-and 
after-school programs and child support efforts as important supports 
for low-income families, some of the states we visited noted supports 
that were more distinctive. For example, Oklahoma has gained national 
prominence because of its efforts to create programs that focus on 
supporting marriage and family formation through welfare reform.

Selected States Have Structured Supports to Serve a Broad Range of Low-
Income Families in a Coordinated Manner:

On the whole, the five states we visited structured their supports to 
serve a broad range of low-income families in a coordinated manner, 
although the specific structures varied by state and type of support. 
Officials reported that they structured the eligibility criteria and 
benefits of many supports in ways that allow them to serve families 
with different levels of income and employment. For example, while the 
income eligibility criteria for supports like TANF cash assistance 
typically limit receipt to families with the lowest incomes, the states 
we visited reported that for other supports, such as subsidized child 
care and transportation support services, the maximum income 
eligibility thresholds are often set at higher income levels in order 
to provide support for a broader range of low-income families, 
including some with earned income. Families with higher incomes, 
though, might receive smaller benefit amounts or might be required to 
pay for part of the cost of a service. State officials in the five 
states we visited also reported that they have made efforts to deliver 
supports to low-income families in a coordinated manner, such as by 
allowing families to access multiple supports through a single 
caseworker or a single application form.

States We Visited Have Structured Supports to Serve a Broad Range of 
Low-Income Families:

The five states we visited established income eligibility criteria that 
allow a broad range of families with different levels of income to gain 
access to supports. Because each state establishes its own maximum 
income eligibility levels for many supports, such as subsidized child 
care and utility assistance, the population eligible for each support 
differs across the states.[Footnote 5] As shown in table 5, in 
Oklahoma, families with incomes below 110 percent of the FPL are 
eligible for utility assistance, while in Wisconsin, families with 
incomes up to 150 percent of the FPL are eligible for this support. 
Overall, the five states we visited set the maximum income eligibility 
levels for many supports at 200 percent of the FPL or higher, as shown 
in table 5. In fiscal year 2003, 200 percent of the FPL was equivalent 
to approximately $31,000 for a family of three, which means that 
families whose annual incomes were less than or equal to $31,000 would 
be eligible for these supports as long as they met other eligibility 
criteria, such as having dependent children or not having other means 
of support. Setting higher income eligibility thresholds for some 
supports allows states to serve both families with very low incomes as 
well as families who may be working and earning somewhat higher 
incomes, which can assist families transitioning from welfare to work 
as well as other working families who have not received welfare.

While New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin set 200 percent of the 
FPL as the maximum income eligibility level for several supports, in 
Oklahoma and Washington, income eligibility criteria varied widely by 
support. These two states set the maximum income eligibility level at 
200 percent of the FPL or higher for subsidized child care but set it 
lower for other supports. Washington officials reported that income 
eligibility criteria for supports in their state were deliberately 
graduated to ensure that as families' incomes rose, they would not lose 
eligibility for several supports simultaneously. According to 
officials, this approach attempts to minimize the potential work 
disincentive associated with losing eligibility for several supports at 
once, as families with increasing earnings instead lose eligibility for 
supports gradually.

Table 5: Maximum Income Eligibility Level for Receipt of Supports as a 
Percentage of the FPL, by Site Visit State and by Support:

State: New York; 
Subsidized child care: 200; 
TANF diversion: 200; 
Transportation assistance: 200; 
Utility assistance: 213[A]; 
Job retention and advancement services: 200.

State: North Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: 236[A]; 
TANF diversion: 200; 
Transportation assistance: 200; 
Utility assistance: 130; 
Job retention and advancement services: 200.

State: Oklahoma; 
Subsidized child care: 227[A]; 
TANF diversion: 130; 
Transportation assistance: No maximum; 
Utility assistance: 110; 
Job retention and advancement services: Differs by program.

State: Washington; 
Subsidized child care: 200; 
TANF diversion: Same as TANF cash[B]; 
Transportation assistance: 150; 
Utility assistance: 125; 
Job retention and advancement services: Differs by program.

State: Wisconsin; 
Subsidized child care: 200; 
TANF diversion: Not available; 
Transportation assistance: 200; 
Utility assistance: 150; 
Job retention and advancement services: 200. 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by site visit states.

Note: The maximum income eligibility levels shown for transportation 
assistance and job retention and advancement services were reported for 
specific programs serving low-income families. These do not necessarily 
represent eligibility criteria for all transportation and job retention 
and advancement programs offered in these states.

[A] The state's maximum income eligibility level is based on a 
percentage of state median income. These levels have been converted to 
a percentage of FPL for consistency.

[B] In Washington, the maximum monthly TANF cash assistance grant for a 
family of three is $546. Because Washington has a 50 percent earned 
income disregard, a family of three would be eligibile for at least $1 
of TANF cash assistance if its monthly earned income was less than 
$1092, which is equivalent to 86 percent of the FPL.

[End of table]

Across the five states we visited, the form of supports for low-income 
families and the frequency of provision varied by state and support. 
Supports for low-income families can take several different forms, 
including cash benefits, vouchers, in-kind benefits, and services. For 
example, families might receive cash benefits through TANF cash 
assistance, vouchers to pay for public transportation, wood to heat 
their homes in the winter, or job-search assistance services. In 
addition, the frequency of support provision, or how often a family 
receives a support, varies depending on how the support is structured. 
Some supports, such as TANF cash assistance, are provided on a monthly 
basis, while other supports, such as utility assistance and tax 
credits, are provided on a one-time basis or once annually.

When structuring supports, states also make decisions about the benefit 
amounts provided to eligible families.[Footnote 6] In the five states 
we visited, the average benefit amount provided to support recipients 
varied by state and support, as shown in figure 3. For example, though 
in all five of the states we visited the average monthly benefit for 
subsidized child care was larger than the average monthly benefits for 
other supports, the benefit value differed across states, with the most 
significant difference between two states equaling approximately $300. 
Although average benefits provide some idea of the value of each 
support to a recipient family, because many supports are structured to 
provide benefits to a broad range of families with different income 
levels and family sizes, individual family benefits often differ from 
the average family benefit.[Footnote 7]

Figure 3: Average Monthly and Annual Family Benefits per Support, by 
Site Visit State:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

To determine each individual family's benefits for supports, such as 
subsidized child care and TANF cash assistance, states often use a 
sliding scale, which adjusts the benefit amount received based on a 
range of factors, including family size and income. By using a sliding 
scale to determine benefit amounts, states are able to serve a broader 
range of low-income families with varied benefits. For other supports, 
such as utility assistance, while some states use a sliding scale 
method to determine each family's benefit, other states provide each 
family with a flat grant. For example, North Carolina determines the 
flat grant for utility assistance recipients by dividing the number of 
eligible applicant families into the total funding available each year.

When structuring benefit amounts, states also make decisions about the 
structures of payments to service providers and cost-sharing with 
recipient families.[Footnote 8] Though families receive benefits 
directly from the state for some supports, such as TANF cash 
assistance, states pay benefits through vouchers or directly to service 
providers for several other supports, such as subsidized child care and 
utility assistance. These provider payments consist of the family's 
calculated benefit amount, and payments are also typically based on the 
rate charged by the provider for the service. For example, federal 
regulations direct states to pay market rates to child care providers 
receiving child care subsidies, but each state is responsible for 
completing its own market rate survey and determining what rates will 
be paid to each provider. In North Carolina and Oklahoma, child care 
centers are assigned "star" ratings based on quality and other factors, 
and the state sets provider payment rates based on type of provider, 
market rates, and star levels, such that higher-quality providers 
receive larger payments relative to other providers.

Concerning cost sharing, state policymakers sometimes require families 
to pay part of the support cost, or a copayment, for services, as shown 
in figure 4. In the five states we visited, states typically pay a 
portion of each family's cost for subsidized child care and SCHIP 
services, but some or all recipient families must also pay copayments 
for these services. By having either some or all recipient families pay 
copayments, the state is likely able to serve a broader range of 
families with available funds. For example, Wisconsin's BadgerCare 
program, which provides health insurance for families whose incomes 
make them ineligible for Medicaid, requires recipients with incomes 
over 150 percent of the FPL to pay monthly premiums as well as 
copayments for certain BadgerCare services.

Figure 4: Relationship between Provider Payments and Copayments for 
Supports, as Illustrated for Child Care Subsidies:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Selected States Deliver Supports in a Coordinated Manner:

Each of the five states we visited made efforts to deliver supports in 
a coordinated manner. In each of these states, several supports for 
low-income families were colocated at local offices, thereby providing 
families with a single access point for a variety of supports. Across 
the five states, supports that were typically colocated in local 
offices included TANF cash assistance and TANF diversion, subsidized 
child care, transportation support services, food stamps, Medicaid, and 
SCHIP. For example, in North Carolina, each local social service office 
includes staff members who assist with applications and determine 
eligibility for food stamps, TANF cash assistance, TANF diversion, 
subsidized child care, Medicaid, SCHIP, utility assistance, 
transportation support services, and emergency assistance. This 
colocation of supports at local offices is similar to our previously 
reported findings on the colocation of support services, such as food 
stamps, TANF cash assistance, and Medicaid, at WIA one-stop centers, 
which provide employment and training assistance.[Footnote 9] Though 
this trend toward increased colocation of supports seems to be taking 
place in many states in a variety of local offices, officials in 
several of the states we visited reported that housing assistance often 
is not colocated with other supports for low-income families, in some 
cases because the supports are administered by separate state or local 
agencies.

When supports are colocated in a single location, it is likely that 
caseworkers also help coordinate the provision of supports for low-
income families. In each of the five states we visited, state officials 
reported that the delivery of supports was sometimes coordinated among 
multiple caseworkers or directly coordinated by a single caseworker who 
provides families with case management services, assistance in 
identifying support needs, and eligibility determination. States cited 
several examples of coordinated case management, including the 
following:

* In Washington's local offices, a single caseworker determines an 
applicant family's eligibility for TANF cash assistance, food stamps, 
General Assistance,[Footnote 10] emergency assistance, and health 
insurance programs, such as Medicaid and SCHIP.

* North Carolina and Washington colocated substance abuse caseworkers 
in the local offices that provide TANF cash assistance in order to 
improve caseworkers' abilities to coordinate the delivery of these 
services for families who need services from both programs. In contrast 
to these efforts to improve coordination between substance abuse 
caseworkers and staff delivering other supports for low-income 
families, Washington officials noted that less coordination existed 
between mental health staff and staff delivering other low-income 
supports.

* Wisconsin provides a case management program that assists low-income 
families not receiving TANF cash assistance with the coordination of 
supports. Wisconsin implemented this case management program in order 
to improve access and delivery of supports to low-income families who 
have left TANF cash assistance or are not receiving TANF cash 
assistance, as many studies have reported that these families are less 
likely to receive the supports for which they are eligible than are 
families receiving TANF cash assistance.

To provide coordinated case management and streamlined supports, states 
typically combine funding streams from several different programs, 
which can prove challenging. For example, in 2002, Oklahoma combined 
funding streams from several different programs when the state adopted 
a "one family, one caseworker" philosophy for low-income families 
receiving TANF cash assistance, food stamps, and subsidized child care. 
Oklahoma officials reported that although they initially faced the 
challenge of determining how to allocate caseworker costs to each 
separate support program, officials addressed this challenge by 
surveying caseworkers engaged in the provision of these supports at 
several points in time to determine the amount of time they spent 
delivering each support.

In three of the five states we visited, officials reported that 
integrated applications, which allow a family to apply for several 
supports at once, and integrated computer systems, which store 
information on recipients of several different supports, have been 
implemented to help coordinate the delivery of supports. In particular, 
families in Oklahoma apply for TANF cash assistance, subsidized child 
care, Medicaid, and food stamps through a single, comprehensive 
application. Further, though some state officials noted that the 
development of computer systems that simultaneously comply with the 
rules of several federal programs continued to be a challenge, 
Washington officials reported that they designed both an integrated 
application and a single computer system to coordinate the delivery of 
several supports for low-income families and to gather data on support 
recipients. In addition, Wisconsin has implemented a computer system 
that allows simultaneous application and eligibility determination for 
many supports for low-income families, excluding housing assistance and 
utility assistance.[Footnote 11] Concerning utility assistance, 
Wisconsin officials noted that the use of both a separate computer 
system and application somewhat prohibits its coordination with other 
supports, but the ease of applying for utility assistance on a 
straightforward application that gathers only the information related 
to a family's eligibility for utility assistance may also improve 
families' ability to access this support.

In the states we visited, the delivery of some supports is also 
coordinated through categorical eligibility rules, which make 
recipients of certain supports automatically eligible to receive other 
supports. For example, in North Carolina, families who receive food 
stamps are automatically qualified to receive utility assistance and 
federal telephone assistance.[Footnote 12] Further, in Washington, 
families who receive any of the support programs administered by the 
Washington Department of Social and Health Services are automatically 
eligible to receive state-funded telephone assistance. This direct link 
between receipt of two or more separate support programs can facilitate 
low-income families' access to these supports.

Although efforts to deliver supports for low-income families in a 
coordinated manner were under way statewide in the five states we 
visited, because of local variation in offices and staff, the level of 
support coordination might differ within the state. For example, North 
Carolina officials reported that variation exists in how counties 
organize and coordinate the provision of food stamps with other support 
services. In all counties, food stamps are colocated in the same local 
offices with other supports. However, in some counties, separate staff 
provide each type of support, while in other counties individual staff 
provide both food stamps and other supports. Also, though efforts to 
coordinate the delivery of some supports were apparent in all five of 
the states we visited, state officials also reported instances where 
support coordination was not occurring or had been reduced and cited 
challenges to support coordination, such as the complexities of 
combining multiple funding streams and satisfying the various 
requirements of separate federal programs.

Many States Have Expanded Supports in Recent Years, but Express 
Uncertainty about the Future:

Over the last several years, states have made substantial changes in 
their supports for low-income families, with most of these changes 
expanding the provision and receipt of supports, but state officials 
expressed uncertainty about their continued ability to provide the 
current level of support. Though many federal policy changes affecting 
support programs have occurred in the last decade, welfare reform 
played a central role in changes to a broad range of supports for low-
income families. States made significant changes to the structure of 
their welfare programs in order to focus their new TANF cash assistance 
programs on the goals of employment and economic independence. To 
further this effort, states began spending increased amounts of funds 
on work supports for a broad range of low-income families. Since 2000, 
states have implemented many programmatic changes that affect the 
availability of supports for low-income families. While, in general, 
the availability of supports has increased during this time period, 
according to officials, as states have responded to recent fiscal 
constraints, they have made additional changes that limit the provision 
of some supports to low-income families. Further, as states plan for 
the future of supports in the current fiscal environment, officials 
reported that they are considering changes that would likely limit the 
availability and provision of supports for low-income families.

Welfare Reform Played an Integral Role in the Expansion of Supports for 
Low-Income Families:

Since the enactment of PRWORA, welfare caseloads have fallen 
dramatically, and TANF spending on support services for low-income 
families has increased. Under TANF, states have the flexibility to 
provide both income maintenance and work support services that help 
low-income families find and maintain employment. In addition, as 
allowed under the TANF block grant structure, states are also able to 
set aside or reserve TANF funds for use in later years.[Footnote 13] 
Figure 5 shows that as states implemented their TANF programs during 
the strong economy of the late 1990s, the number of TANF cash 
assistance recipients decreased significantly, while the annual amount 
of federal funds provided to the states for TANF remained constant, as 
provided for under the fixed amount of the block grant. This resulted 
in a significant amount of funds available to states for supports and 
other services or saving for future use.

Figure 5: Trends in the TANF Caseload and Federal TANF Block Grant 
since 1997:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Caseload is measured as number of assistance recipients. TANF 
regulations define assistance as benefits designed to meet a family's 
ongoing basic needs. In most instances, families receiving assistance 
are those receiving monthly cash payments.

[End of figure]

As TANF cash assistance caseloads fell, states shifted their spending 
priorities from cash assistance to support services.[Footnote 14] As 
illustrated in figure 6, states decreased the share of TANF 
expenditures[Footnote 15] for cash assistance between fiscal years 1998 
and 2002 and increased the share spent on services. Specifically, 
spending on cash assistance decreased from 58 percent of TANF 
expenditures in fiscal year 1998 to 33 percent in fiscal year 2002. 
Over the same time period, the proportion of TANF expenditures on child 
care increased from 9 percent to 19 percent.[Footnote 16] The 
proportion of TANF expenditures for workforce development also 
increased, from 7 percent in 1998 to 10 percent in 2002. In addition to 
this increased emphasis on spending on supports, states reported 
leaving some TANF funds unspent, although the amount varied by 
state.[Footnote 17]

Figure 6: National TANF/MOE Expenditures in Fiscal Years 1998 and 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Consistent with figure 6, several state officials reported that their 
support program expansions in the last several years were often funded 
with TANF dollars that the states had accumulated as a result of 
falling TANF cash assistance caseloads. However, some state officials 
responding to our survey indicated a reversal in this spending trend, 
which may be due in part to increasing cash assistance 
caseloads.[Footnote 18] Approximately half of the state officials 
responding to our survey reported that since 2000 the number of TANF 
cash assistance recipients had increased (23 states), while about half 
of the officials reported that the number of recipients had decreased 
(24 states). Officials from two states reported no change in the number 
of recipients. Officials from 9 states with increased cash assistance 
caseloads reported that between 2000 and the time of survey completion 
in spring 2003, funding of other supports was reduced in order to 
redirect funds to TANF cash assistance. Among these 9 states, TANF 
funding was most commonly reduced for job training, basic education for 
adults, and transportation, while funds were less often redirected from 
child care, job search, and case management, as table 6 displays.

Table 6: Number of States Reporting That Funds Were Reduced for Support 
Services to Redirect Funds to TANF Cash Assistance between State Fiscal 
Year 2000 and Spring 2003:

Support service for which funding was reduced: Job training; Number of 
states reducing funds for support: 7.

Support service for which funding was reduced: Basic education for 
adults; Number of states reducing funds for support: 5.

Support service for which funding was reduced: Transportation; Number 
of states reducing funds for support: 5.

Support service for which funding was reduced: Child care; Number of 
states reducing funds for support: 3.

Support service for which funding was reduced: Job search; Number of 
states reducing funds for support: 3.

Support service for which funding was reduced: Case management; Number 
of states reducing funds for support: 2.

Support service for which funding was reduced: Total number of states 
indicating at least one of the above; Number of states reducing funds 
for support: 9.

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Note: Thirty-nine states reported that they had not redirected funds to 
TANF cash assistance.

[End of table]

During our site visits, several officials explained that they no longer 
have sufficient TANF funds set aside to continue to fund support 
programs at current levels, which is consistent with TANF spending 
trends at the national level. As shown in figure 7, since 2001, states 
have spent more TANF funds than they received in their annual awards. 
To support this level of spending, states are drawing more heavily upon 
their TANF balances.

Figure 7: Trends in Annual TANF Spending Relative to TANF Funding:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Includes expenditures from states' TANF programs and from TANF 
funds transferred to the CCDF and SSBG as allowed by law. See GAO-03-
1094.

[End of figure]

Many States Have Expanded Supports since 2000:

Many states reported in our 50-state survey that the availability of 
supports and the number of families receiving supports have increased 
since 2000. Figure 8 shows that in most states the number of families 
receiving assistance with child care, transportation, utilities, and 
job retention and advancement increased. While the number of recipients 
can increase as a result of changes in the needs of the population, it 
can also increase because of changes in state policies that affect the 
availability of supports.

Figure 8: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Number of 
Recipients of Each Type of Support between State Fiscal Year 2000 and 
Spring 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: The survey did not collect data on the number of recipients of 
Medicaid and SCHIP.

For a complete list of the states reporting these changes, see appendix 
III.

[A] Not all states responded to each question.

[End of figure]

States can expand or limit the availability of supports by increasing 
or decreasing the number of benefits and services available or the 
types of services provided. Most states reported that the number or 
types of child care subsidies, transportation support services, and job 
retention and advancement services stayed the same or increased between 
state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003, an outcome that we have 
characterized as causing the availability of these supports to stay the 
same or increase, as shown in figure 9. Few states decreased the number 
or type of services provided, with the notable exception of Medicaid 
services, which were decreased in 16 states.

Few changes were reported in the provision of state tax credits. 
According to officials responding to our 50-state survey, none of their 
state earned income tax credits, child care tax credits, or housing 
credits were eliminated, reduced, or suspended between state tax years 
2000 and 2002.

Figure 9: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Changes in the Number or Type of Services Provided 
between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: For a complete list of the states reporting these changes, see 
appendix III.

[A] Not all states responded to each question.

[End of figure]

States can affect the availability of supports indirectly by changing 
low-income families' awareness of supports through outreach efforts, 
such as billboards, fliers, and radio announcements. By increasing or 
decreasing outreach efforts, states may affect low-income families' 
awareness of supports and the number of low-income families applying. 
States' outreach efforts for most supports increased or stayed the same 
between state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003, an outcome that we have 
characterized as causing availability to increase or stay the same, as 
shown in figure 10. Outreach efforts for Medicaid and SCHIP, however, 
decreased in 11 and 15 states, respectively. Officials in one of the 
states we visited explained that they had cut back on outreach efforts 
for their Medicaid and SCHIP programs because of budget constraints and 
a decrease in the number of doctors who would accept patients covered 
by Medicaid or SCHIP.

Figure 10: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Changes in Outreach Efforts between State Fiscal 
Year 2000 and Spring 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: For a complete list of the states reporting changes, see appendix 
III.

[A] Not all states responded to each question.

[End of figure]

Since 2000, states generally have modified income eligibility criteria 
in ways that expanded the availability of support services. However, 
some states reported changes to income eligibility criteria in recent 
years that limited the availability of some supports. (See fig. 11.) 
Changes to eligibility criteria often affect the number of families 
receiving supports, as such changes affect the size of the eligible 
population. In our site visit states, officials often noted that recent 
changes in federal support policies, such as those for Medicaid, SCHIP, 
and food stamps, have allowed states to expand their income eligibility 
criteria to cover a broader range of low-income families with these 
supports. Further, as shown in figure 11, most states responding to our 
50-state survey reported that as a result of changes in income 
eligibility criteria between state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003, 
the eligible populations for utility assistance, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
increased. For other supports, such as subsidized child care, 
transportation support services, and job retention and advancement 
services, survey responses were mixed, and though several states 
reported that the eligible population increased because of changes in 
eligibility criteria between state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003, a 
substantial number of states reported that changes in eligibility 
criteria caused the eligible population to stay the same or decrease, 
as shown in figure 11. These mixed responses concerning changes in 
subsidized child care income eligibility criteria are similar to those 
we previously reported in May 2003.[Footnote 19] In that study, we 
surveyed subsidized child care officials directly about changes to 
income eligibility criteria between state fiscal year 2001 and the 
spring of 2003, and a majority of respondents reporting changes noted 
that these resulted in narrowed coverage.

Figure 11: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Changes in Support Eligibility Criteria between 
State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: For a complete list of the states reporting these changes, see 
appendix III.

[A] Not all states responded to each question.

[End of figure]

Since 2000, many states also modified provider payments in ways that 
expanded the availability of supports for low-income families, but a 
small number of states modified these payments in ways that limited the 
provision of supports or decreased support availability, as shown in 
figure 12.[Footnote 20] A majority of the states responding to our 50-
state survey reported that provider payments for SCHIP, Medicaid, job 
retention and advancement services, utility assistance, and subsidized 
child care increased between state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003, 
though some states reported that provider payments for many of these 
supports decreased during the same time period.

Figure 12: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Provider Payment Changes between State Fiscal Year 
2000 and Spring 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: For a complete list of the states reporting these changes, see 
appendix III.

[A] Not all states responded to each question.

[End of figure]

Regarding changes to copayments, most states responding to our survey 
reported that families' copayments for SCHIP, Medicaid, and subsidized 
child care stayed the same between state fiscal year 2000 and spring 
2003, while some states reported that families' copayments increased 
during that time. We have classified increases in copayments as 
decreasing the availability of supports because as families' copayments 
increase, fewer families may be able to afford to participate in the 
support program. (See fig. 13.) Both North Carolina and Washington 
officials reported in our site visits that since state fiscal year 
2001, they have increased families' copayments for subsidized child 
care. These findings are similar to those we previously reported that 
showed several states increased families' copayments for subsidized 
child care between state fiscal year 2001 and the spring of 2003, 
resulting in decreased availability of subsidized child care.[Footnote 
21]

Figure 13: Number of States Reporting Changes in the Availability of 
Supports because of Copayment Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 
and Spring 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: Copayments are most commonly required for these three supports.

For a complete list of the states reporting these changes, see appendix 
III.

[A] Not all states responded to each question.

[End of figure]

State officials also reported a few changes to the delivery of supports 
since 2000 in both written responses to our 50-state survey and our 
five site visits, and of those who reported changes to delivery, most 
of the changes expanded the provision of supports to low-income 
families. For example, Washington officials reported that the number of 
family violence counselors colocated in local offices with other 
supports for low-income families increased between state fiscal year 
2000 and the spring of 2003. Similarly, South Carolina officials 
responding to our survey noted that they have expanded utility 
assistance delivery in recent years by adding more offices and staff 
and by colocating staff in WIA one-stop centers. Concerning 
transportation support services for low-income families, officials from 
both North Carolina and Georgia reported that they have made efforts to 
expand and coordinate services in recent years. In contrast, North 
Carolina officials also reported during our site visit that the number 
of substance abuse caseworkers colocated in local offices with other 
supports for low-income families was reduced in 2002 because of budget 
cuts.

States Are Considering Changes That Would Limit Supports in the Future:

During our site visits, officials expressed concern that the progress 
they have made in recent years to promote employment and economic 
independence for low-income families may erode, given the fiscal crises 
that states currently face. Officials in several of the states we 
visited explained that their support program expansions in the last 
several years, which were funded with TANF dollars that the states had 
accumulated because of falling TANF cash assistance caseloads, may be 
at risk. These states reported that without sufficient TANF funds to 
continue these efforts, some support programs face elimination. 
Oklahoma officials explained that their budget cuts are due not only to 
declining TANF reserves, but also to decreased state revenues. Although 
Oklahoma still has TANF reserves, officials there stated that these 
would probably be depleted soon and they, too, might need to cut back 
on services that had been expanded.

Many states added written comments to our 50-state survey that 
expressed concern about the future of supports. Half of the states 
surveyed reported that the current economic, budget, or funding 
situations in their states might limit the provision of supports in the 
near future. In addition, a small number of states reported that 
decisions had already been made to implement changes in supports 
between the summer of 2003 and the end of their state's fiscal year 
2004. These changes include reducing the number or type of services 
offered, changing the eligibility criteria to limit the number of 
families eligible for supports, decreasing payment amounts made to 
service providers, increasing the copayment amounts that families pay, 
and decreasing outreach efforts. Planned changes were particularly 
prevalent for Medicaid and subsidized child care programs.

Concluding Observations:

Overall, supports for low-income families have undergone many changes 
over the past several years, and they will likely continue to evolve as 
federal and state governments further develop policies and respond to 
cyclical fiscal conditions and changes in the demand for services. With 
a focus on promoting employment and economic independence, states have 
adjusted support programs to provide not only services to families 
receiving TANF cash assistance but also services to other low-income 
families not receiving TANF cash assistance. States have used TANF 
funds to experiment with new support programs and have recognized that 
supports like subsidized child care are an increasingly important 
support for low-income working families. Most recently, states have 
faced fiscal crises and tough choices about reducing their supports for 
low-income families. The emphasis on moving people into work, though, 
remains a priority. As states continue to adjust supports for low-
income families in efforts to move forward with the reforms of the last 
decade and improve efficiency, access, and coordination, they will also 
continue to face the pressures of competing priorities and fiscal 
constraints.

Agency Comments:

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) for the department's review and comment. HHS 
agreed with the findings and conclusions of the report. HHS also noted 
that to address the fiscal uncertainty that some states face, 
reauthorization of the TANF and child care programs by the Congress 
will enable states to know with certainty the level of federal TANF and 
child care resources that will be available to support low-income 
families over the next 5 years. HHS's written comments appear in 
appendix IV. HHS and an expert on supports for low-income families also 
provided technical comments, which we have incorporated where 
appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of HHS, relevant 
congressional committees, and others who are interested. Copies will be 
made available to others upon request, and this report will also be 
available on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me on (202) 512-7215. Additional GAO contacts and 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.

Cynthia M. Fagnoni: 
Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security:

Signed by Cynthia M. Fagnoni: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

We designed our study to provide information on (1) the extent to which 
states provide supports for low-income families, (2) how states have 
structured programs to support low-income families, and (3) the changes 
states have made to supports for low-income families in recent years. 
To obtain information about these objectives, we conducted a mail 
survey of the social services agency directors in each state and the 
District of Columbia, conducted in-person interviews with state 
officials in five states, and reviewed information available from prior 
GAO work and relevant federal agencies.

We conducted our work between December 2002 and November 2003, in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Survey of State Social Services Directors:

To obtain information on the extent to which states provide supports 
for low-income families and how this has changed in the last few years, 
we conducted a survey of support programs in each state and the 
District of Columbia. We pretested our survey instrument with state 
social service directors in four states: Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, 
and Virginia. Surveys were mailed to state social service directors in 
April 2003, and follow-up phone calls were made to states whose surveys 
were not received by May 5, 2003. The survey was addressed to the state 
social service agency directors and instructed them to have the staff 
members most knowledgeable about their states' support programs 
complete the survey. We received responses from the District of 
Columbia and all states except Michigan, providing a 98 percent 
response rate. We did not independently verify the information obtained 
through the survey. Data from the surveys were double-keyed to ensure 
data entry accuracy, and the information was analyzed using statistical 
software. The survey included questions about the provision and receipt 
of the states' child care subsidies, transportation support services, 
utility assistance, job retention and advancement services, health 
assistance (including public health insurance, domestic violence 
programs, substance abuse treatment programs, and mental health 
treatment programs), and income assistance (including state tax 
credits, TANF cash assistance, and TANF diversion programs). The survey 
also included questions on recent changes in the availability and 
structure of these support programs. Respondents who frequently 
answered "don't know" were prompted to answer questions regarding their 
reasons for this response. The officials reported most frequently that 
the reasons they did not have this information were that services 
varied broadly by locality and that data were not available or not 
complete at the state level.

State Site Visits:

To obtain information about each assignment objective and, in 
particular, to gain a deeper understanding of how selected states have 
structured programs to support low-income families, we interviewed 
state officials in New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, and 
Wisconsin. In selecting these states for our in-depth fieldwork, we 
included those that appeared, based on their federal and state TANF 
expenditures, to provide support services, and we also included states 
that, when viewed as a group, provide variation across characteristics 
such as state median income, poverty rate, population, and geographic 
location.

The interviews were administered using a semistructured interview guide 
that included questions about the structure and receipt of states' 
child care subsidies, transportation support services, utility 
assistance, job retention and advancement services, health assistance 
(including public health insurance, domestic violence programs, 
substance abuse treatment programs, and mental health treatment 
programs), and income assistance (including state tax credits, TANF 
cash assistance, and TANF diversion programs). The survey also included 
questions about efforts to coordinate supports and recent changes in 
the availability and structure of support programs. We also encouraged 
state officials to share information about any additional programs that 
they believed were important for low-income families in their states. 
During our site visits we spoke with program administrators or program 
analysts for each type of support program as well as budget and data 
analysts. For example, we spoke not only with social services 
officials, but in most states we also spoke with transportation 
officials, tax officials, Medicaid officials, and so on, if these 
supports were provided by separate state agencies.

To ensure that our understanding of the availability and 
characteristics of supports for low-income families was accurate and 
objective, following our site visits we conducted phone interviews with 
advocacy organizations that either included low-income families in 
their membership or that work directly with low-income families in 
promoting issues related to supports.[Footnote 22]

Some limitations exist in any methodology that gathers information 
about programs undergoing change, such as those included in this 
review. Results presented in our report represent only the conditions 
present in the states we visited at the time of our site visits, 
between December 2002 and April 2003. Although, as we have presented, 
state officials reported on their expectations of program changes in 
the near future, we cannot comment on any actual changes that may have 
occurred after our fieldwork was completed. Furthermore, we cannot 
generalize our findings beyond the five states we visited, but we have 
used these data for illustrative purposes.

Review of Federal Reports:

To obtain information about policies, participation rates, and other 
characteristics of the support programs that are administered largely 
at the federal level, such as food stamps, rental housing assistance, 
and the federal EITC, we reviewed reports and information readily 
available from prior GAO work and relevant federal agencies.

Reliability of Data Obtained from HHS and Treasury:

To determine the completeness and accuracy of data obtained from HHS 
and Treasury, we reviewed related documentation and conducted tests of 
the data for obvious omissions and errors. In addition, we interviewed 
knowledgeable agency officials regarding the HHS data. We determined 
that the data were sufficiently reliable for use in this report.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Supports, by 
State and Type of Support:

Tables 7 through 11 display individual state responses to survey 
questions regarding the extent to which eligible low-income families 
who apply for supports actually receive supports. These data are 
summarized graphically in figure 2 in the report.

Table 7: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Subsidized Child Care, by State and Type of Child Care:

State: Alabama; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/ after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Alaska; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Arizona; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Almost none; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Almost none; 
Before/ after school child care: Almost none; 
Evening and weekend child care: Almost none; 
Special needs child care: Almost none; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Arkansas; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: California; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: More than half; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: More than half; 
Before/after school child care: More than half; 
Evening and weekend child care: More than half; 
Special needs child care: More than half; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Colorado; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: More than half; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: More than half; 
Before/after school child care: More than half; 
Evening and weekend child care: More than half; 
Special needs child care: More than half; 
Child care for sick children: More than half.

State: Connecticut; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Delaware; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: District of Columbia; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: Florida; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/ after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Georgia; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: Hawaii; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: Idaho; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: Illinois; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Indiana; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Iowa; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: More than half; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: More than half; 
Before/ after school child care: More than half; 
Evening and weekend child care: More than half; 
Special needs child care: More than half; 
Child care for sick children: More than half.

State: Kansas; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: Kentucky; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Less than half; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Less than half; 
Before/after school child care: Less than half; 
Evening and weekend child care: Less than half; 
Special needs child care: Less than half; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Louisiana; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: [Empty]; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: Maine; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: [Empty]; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: [Empty]; 
Before/after school child care: [Empty]; 
Evening and weekend child care: [Empty]; 
Special needs child care: [Empty]; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Maryland; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/ after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: Massachusetts; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: About half; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: More than half; 
Before/after school child care: More than half; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Minnesota; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/ after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: Mississippi; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Almost none.

State: Missouri; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: [Empty]; 
Before/after school child care: [Empty]; 
Evening and weekend child care: [Empty]; 
Special needs child care: [Empty]; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Montana; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Almost none; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Almost none; 
Before/ after school child care: Almost none; 
Evening and weekend child care: Almost none; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Nebraska; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: Nevada; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/ after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: New Hampshire; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: New Jersey; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/ after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: New Mexico; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/ after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: New York; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/ after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: North Carolina; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: North Dakota; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: [Empty]; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Ohio; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: [Empty]; 
Before/after school child care: [Empty]; 
Evening and weekend child care: [Empty]; 
Special needs child care: [Empty]; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Oklahoma; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: Oregon; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: More than half; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: More than half; 
Before/ after school child care: More than half; 
Evening and weekend child care: More than half; 
Special needs child care: More than half; 
Child care for sick children: More than half.

State: Pennsylvania; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: Rhode Island; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: More than half; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: More than half; 
Before/after school child care: More than half; 
Evening and weekend child care: More than half; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: South Carolina; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: South Dakota; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

State: Tennessee; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: [Empty]; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: [Empty]; 
Before/after school child care: [Empty]; 
Evening and weekend child care: [Empty]; 
Special needs child care: [Empty]; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: [Empty]; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: [Empty]; 
Before/after school child care: [Empty]; 
Evening and weekend child care: [Empty]; 
Special needs child care: [Empty]; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Utah; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: [Empty]; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: [Empty]; 
Before/after school child care: [Empty]; 
Evening and weekend child care: [Empty]; 
Special needs child care: [Empty]; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Vermont; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: Virginia; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: Don't know; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: Don't know; 
Before/ after school child care: Don't know; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: Don't know; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: Washington; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: [Empty].

State: West Virginia; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: More than half; 
Special needs child care: Almost none; 
Child care for sick children: Almost none.

State: Wisconsin; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: More than half; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: More than half; 
Before/after school child care: About half; 
Evening and weekend child care: Don't know; 
Special needs child care: More than half; 
Child care for sick children: Don't know.

State: Wyoming; 
Infant care for children aged 0-2 years: All or almost all; 
Daytime child care for children aged 2-5 years: All or almost all; 
Before/after school child care: All or almost all; 
Evening and weekend child care: All or almost all; 
Special needs child care: All or almost all; 
Child care for sick children: All or almost all.

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 2.

States were asked, "Currently, in your state, approximately what 
percentage of eligible low-income families who apply for some type of 
subsidized child care service actually receives it?" Response 
categories were defined as follows: 

all or almost all (86-100%); 
more than half (61-85%); 
about half (41-60%); 
less than half (16-40%); 
almost none (1-15%); 
don't know.

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states indicating previously that a 
service was not subsidized in at least one locality in the state were 
not asked about the extent to which eligible applicants received 
services.

[End of table]

Table 8: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Transportation 
Assistance, by State and Type of Assistance:

State: Alabama; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: [Empty]; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Alaska; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: All or almost all; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Arizona; 
Public transit subsidies: Almost none; 
Van/shuttle service: Almost none; 
Car repairs: Almost none; 
Car insurance: Almost none; 
Fuel vouchers: Almost none; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: Almost none.

State: Arkansas; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: California; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: Colorado; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Connecticut; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: More than half; 
Fuel vouchers: All or almost all; 
Establishment of public transit route: All or almost all; 
Used cars: More than half; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Delaware; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: More than half; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: District of Columbia; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: [Empty]; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Florida; 
Public transit subsidies: About half; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: About half; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Georgia; 
Public transit subsidies: About half; 
Van/shuttle service: About half; 
Car repairs: Less than half; 
Car insurance: Less than half; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Hawaii; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: [Empty]; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Idaho; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Illinois; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Less than half; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Almost none; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Indiana; 
Public transit subsidies: More than half; 
Van/shuttle service: Less than half; 
Car repairs: About half; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: About half; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: Less than half; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Iowa; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Less than half; 
Car insurance: Less than half; 
Fuel vouchers: Less than half; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Less than half; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Kansas; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Kentucky; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Louisiana; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: Almost none; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Maine; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: [Empty]; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: All or almost all; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Maryland; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: Massachusetts; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: Less than half; 
Car repairs: Almost none; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: Almost none; 
Establishment of public transit route: Almost none; 
Used cars: Almost none; 
Carpool matching: Almost none.

State: Minnesota; 
Public transit subsidies: More than half; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: [Empty]; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: More than half; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Mississippi; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: Almost none; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Missouri; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: Almost none; 
Car repairs: About half; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Montana; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: All or almost all; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: All or almost all; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Nebraska; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Nevada; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: Almost none; 
Car insurance: Almost none; 
Fuel vouchers: Almost none; 
Establishment of public transit route: Almost none; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: New Hampshire; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: About half; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: New Jersey; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: New Mexico; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: More than half; 
Car insurance: More than half; 
Fuel vouchers: All or almost all; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: Almost none; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: New York; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: North Carolina; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: All or almost all; 
Establishment of public transit route: All or almost all; 
Used cars: About half; 
Carpool matching: Less than half.

State: North Dakota; 
Public transit subsidies: More than half; 
Van/ shuttle service: About half; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: More than half; 
Establishment of public transit route: Less than half; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: Less than half.

State: Ohio; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: Oklahoma; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Oregon; 
Public transit subsidies: About half; 
Van/shuttle service: Almost none; 
Car repairs: Less than half; 
Car insurance: Almost none; 
Fuel vouchers: About half; 
Establishment of public transit route: Almost none; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: Almost none.

State: Pennsylvania; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: All or almost all; 
Establishment of public transit route: All or almost all; 
Used cars: All or almost all; 
Carpool matching: All or almost all.

State: Rhode Island; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: [Empty]; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: South Carolina; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/ shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: South Dakota; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: [Empty]; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Tennessee; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: [Empty]; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: Utah; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: More than half; 
Car repairs: More than half; 
Car insurance: Less than half; 
Fuel vouchers: More than half; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: Almost none; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Vermont; 
Public transit subsidies: All or almost all; 
Van/ shuttle service: All or almost all; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: More than half; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: All or almost all.

State: Virginia; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: [Empty]; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: [Empty]; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Washington; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: All or almost all; 
Car insurance: All or almost all; 
Fuel vouchers: All or almost all; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: West Virginia; 
Public transit subsidies: [Empty]; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: About half; 
Car insurance: [Empty]; 
Fuel vouchers: About half; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: Almost none; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

State: Wisconsin; 
Public transit subsidies: Don't know; 
Van/shuttle service: Don't know; 
Car repairs: Don't know; 
Car insurance: Don't know; 
Fuel vouchers: Don't know; 
Establishment of public transit route: Don't know; 
Used cars: Don't know; 
Carpool matching: Don't know.

State: Wyoming; 
Public transit subsidies: Almost none; 
Van/shuttle service: [Empty]; 
Car repairs: Almost none; 
Car insurance: Almost none; 
Fuel vouchers: Almost none; 
Establishment of public transit route: [Empty]; 
Used cars: [Empty]; 
Carpool matching: [Empty].

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 2.

States were asked, "Currently, in your state, approximately what 
percentage of eligible low-income families who apply for some type of 
transportation support service actually receives it?" Response 
categories were defined as follows: 
all or almost all (86-100%); 
more than half (61-85%); 
about half (41-60%); 
less than half (16-40%); 
almost none (1-15%); 
don't know.

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states indicating previously that a 
service was not subsidized in at least one locality in the state were 
not asked about the extent to which eligible applicants received 
services.

[End of table]

Table 9: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Job Retention 
and Career Advancement Services, by State and Type of Service:

State: Alabama; 
Employment services: More than half; 
Post-employment case management: More than half; 
Training: Less than half; 
Education: About half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Almost none; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Alaska; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post-employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: Less than half; 
Education: Less than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Almost none; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Arizona; 
Employment services: More than half; 
Post-employment case management: Less than half; 
Training: Less than half; 
Education: Less than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Almost none; 
Employment retention bonuses: Almost none.

State: Arkansas; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: Don't know; 
Training: Don't know; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Don't know; 
Employment retention bonuses: Don't know.

State: California; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Colorado; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: Don't know; 
Training: Don't know; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Don't know; 
Employment retention bonuses: Don't know.

State: Connecticut; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: Don't know; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Delaware; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: All or almost all.

State: District of Columbia; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post-employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: All or almost all; 
Employment retention bonuses: All or almost all.

State: Florida; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: More than half; 
Training: About half; 
Education: About half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Don't know; 
Employment retention bonuses: Don't know.

State: Georgia; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Hawaii; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post-employment case management: Less than half; 
Training: More than half; 
Education: More than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Idaho; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post-employment case management: Almost none; 
Training: Almost none; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Almost none; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Illinois; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: Less than half; 
Training: Less than half; 
Education: Less than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Less than half; 
Employment retention bonuses: Less than half.

State: Indiana; 
Employment services: More than half; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: More than half; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: More than half.

State: Iowa; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: ..

State: Kansas; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post-employment case management: Don't know; 
Training: Less than half; 
Education: Less than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Don't know; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Kentucky; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Louisiana; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: Don't know; 
Training: Don't know; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Don't know; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Maine; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post-employment case management: More than half; 
Training: More than half; 
Education: More than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Less than half; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Maryland; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: More than half; 
Training: More than half; 
Education: More than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Less than half; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Massachusetts; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: About half; 
Training: More than half; 
Education: More than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Almost none; 
Employment retention bonuses: More than half.

State: Minnesota; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: Less than half; 
Training: Almost none; 
Education: Less than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Almost none; 
Employment retention bonuses: Almost none.

State: Mississippi; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: More than half; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: About half; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Missouri; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Less than half; 
Employment retention bonuses: Almost none.

State: Montana; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post-employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Nebraska; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Nevada; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: New Hampshire; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: New Jersey; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: Don't know; 
Training: Don't know; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Don't know; 
Employment retention bonuses: Don't know.

State: New Mexico; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: All or almost all; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: New York; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: Don't know; 
Training: Don't know; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Don't know; 
Employment retention bonuses: Don't know.

State: North Carolina; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: All or almost all; 
Employment retention bonuses: More than half.

State: North Dakota; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: Less than half; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Less than half; 
Employment retention bonuses: Less than half.

State: Ohio; 
Employment services: More than half; 
Post-employment case management: Less than half; 
Training: Less than half; 
Education: More than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Less than half; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Oklahoma; 
Employment services: Less than half; 
Post-employment case management: Almost none; 
Training: Less than half; 
Education: Almost none; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Oregon; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post-employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: All or almost all; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Pennsylvania; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: All or almost all; 
Employment retention bonuses: All or almost all.

State: Rhode Island; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: Don't know; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: South Carolina; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: South Dakota; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Tennessee; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: [Empty]; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: Don't know; 
Training: Don't know; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: Don't know; 
Employment retention bonuses: Don't know.

State: Utah; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post-employment case management: More than half; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: More than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: More than half; 
Employment retention bonuses: More than half.

State: Vermont; 
Employment services: Don't know; 
Post-employment case management: Don't know; 
Training: Don't know; 
Education: Don't know; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: Virginia; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: Less than half; 
Education: Less than half; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: About half; 
Employment retention bonuses: Almost none.

State: Washington; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: All or almost all; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

State: West Virginia; 
Employment services: [Empty]; 
Post-employment case management: More than half; 
Training: [Empty]; 
Education: [Empty]; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: About half.

State: Wisconsin; 
Employment services: All or almost all; 
Post- employment case management: All or almost all; 
Training: All or almost all; 
Education: All or almost all; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: All or almost all; 
Employment retention bonuses: All or almost all.

State: Wyoming; 
Employment services: About half; 
Post-employment case management: Almost none; 
Training: Less than half; 
Education: Almost none; 
Mentoring and peer relationships: [Empty]; 
Employment retention bonuses: [Empty].

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 2.

States were asked, "Currently, approximately what percentage of 
eligible low-income families who apply for some type of job retention 
and career advancement service actually receives it in your state?" 
Response categories were defined as follows: 
all or almost all (86- 100%); 
more than half (61-85%); 
about half (41-60%); 
less than half (16-40%); 
almost none (1-15%); 
don't know.

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states indicating previously that a 
service was not subsidized in at least one locality in the state were 
not asked about the extent to which eligible applicants received 
services.

[End of table]

Table 10: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Utility 
Assistance, by State and Type of Assistance:

State: Alabama; 
Heating: Less than half; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Less than half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Less than half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Alaska; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Arizona; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: Don't know; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Arkansas; 
Heating: [Empty]; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: [Empty]; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: California; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Colorado; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: Less than half; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: More than half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Connecticut; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Almost none; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Delaware; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: [Empty]; 
Water: Don't know; 
Plumbing/ septic: Don't know.

State: District of Columbia; 
Heating: Less than half; 
Electricity: Less than half; 
Telephone: Less than half; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Less than half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Less than half; 
Water: Less than half; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Florida; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: [Empty]; 
Water: Don't know; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Georgia; 
Heating: Less than half; 
Electricity: Less than half; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Less than half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Less than half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Hawaii; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: More than half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: About half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Idaho; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: All or almost all; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: All or almost all; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Illinois; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: More than half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Indiana; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: All or almost all; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: All or almost all; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Iowa; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: More than half; 
Plumbing/septic: More than half.

State: Kansas; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: All or almost all; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Kentucky; 
Heating: About half; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Less than half; 
Weatherization/ energy conservation: Less than half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Louisiana; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: All or almost all; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: More than half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Maine; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: About half; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: About half; 
Water: Less than half; 
Plumbing/septic: Less than half.

State: Maryland; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: All or almost all; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Almost none; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Massachusetts; 
Heating: [Empty]; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: [Empty]; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Minnesota; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Less than half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Mississippi; 
Heating: [Empty]; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: [Empty]; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Missouri; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: About half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Almost none; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Montana; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Almost none; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Nebraska; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Nevada; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: New Hampshire; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: New Jersey; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: New Mexico; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: More than half; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: More than half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: More than half; 
Water: More than half; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: New York; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/ energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: All or almost all; 
Plumbing/ septic: All or almost all.

State: North Carolina; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: About half; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: More than half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: More than half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: About half.

State: North Dakota; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: All or almost all; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Ohio; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/ energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: Don't know; 
Plumbing/septic: Don't know.

State: Oklahoma; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: Don't know; 
Plumbing/septic: Don't know.

State: Oregon; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: Don't know; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: Don't know; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Pennsylvania; 
Heating: [Empty]; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: [Empty]; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Rhode Island; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: Less than half; 
Telephone: All or almost all; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: All or almost all; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: South Carolina; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: All or almost all; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: More than half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: More than half; 
Water: More than half; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: South Dakota; 
Heating: Don't know; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Don't know; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Tennessee; 
Heating: About half; 
Electricity: About half; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: About half; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: About half; 
Water: Don't know; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: More than half; 
Water: All or almost all; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Utah; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: All or almost all; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: All or almost all; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: About half; 
Water: All or almost all; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Vermont; 
Heating: More than half; 
Electricity: More than half; 
Telephone: All or almost all; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: About half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/ septic: [Empty].

State: Virginia; 
Heating: [Empty]; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: [Empty]; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Washington; 
Heating: Less than half; 
Electricity: [Empty]; 
Telephone: [Empty]; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: [Empty]; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Almost none; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: West Virginia; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: All or almost all; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: All or almost all; 
Water: All or almost all; 
Plumbing/septic: Don't know.

State: Wisconsin; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: Don't know; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: Don't know; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: All or almost all; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

State: Wyoming; 
Heating: All or almost all; 
Electricity: All or almost all; 
Telephone: All or almost all; 
Air conditioning/home cooling: All or almost all; 
Weatherization/energy conservation: Less than half; 
Water: [Empty]; 
Plumbing/septic: [Empty].

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 2.

States were asked, "Currently, in your state, approximately what 
percentage of eligible low-income families who apply for some type of 
utility assistance service actually receives it?" Response categories 
were defined as follows: 
all or almost all (86-100%); 
more than half (61-85%); 
about half (41-60%); 
less than half (16-40%); 
almost none (1- 15%); 
don't know.

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states indicating previously that a 
service was not subsidized in at least one locality in the state were 
not asked about the extent to which eligible applicants received 
services.

[End of table]

Table 11: Proportion of Eligible Applicants Who Receive Health 
Assistance, by State and Type of Assistance:

Alabama; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Alaska; 
Domestic violence programs: More than half; 
Mental health treatment: About half; 
Substance abuse treatment: All or almost all.

Arizona; 
Domestic violence programs: Less than half; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: All or almost all.

Arkansas; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

California; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Colorado; 
Domestic violence programs: Less than half; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: More than half.

Connecticut; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: [Empty]; 
Substance abuse treatment: [Empty].

Delaware; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

District of Columbia; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: Less than half.

Florida; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: All or almost all.

Georgia; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: Less than half; 
Substance abuse treatment: All or almost all.

Hawaii; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Idaho; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: All or almost all.

Illinois; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: More than half.

Indiana; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: All or almost all.

Iowa; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Kansas; 
Domestic violence programs: [Empty]; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: [Empty].

Kentucky; 
Domestic violence programs: More than half; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: [Empty].

Louisiana; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Maine; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Maryland; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Massachusetts; 
Domestic violence programs: [Empty]; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: All or almost all.

Minnesota; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: More than half.

Mississippi; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Missouri; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: More than half; 
Substance abuse treatment: More than half.

Montana; 
Domestic violence programs: About half; 
Mental health treatment: Less than half; 
Substance abuse treatment: Less than half.

Nebraska; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Nevada; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: [Empty].

New Hampshire; 
Domestic violence programs: [Empty]; 
Mental health treatment: More than half; 
Substance abuse treatment: Almost none.

New Jersey; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

New Mexico; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

New York; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

North Carolina; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

North Dakota; 
Domestic violence programs: More than half; 
Mental health treatment: More than half; 
Substance abuse treatment: More than half.

Ohio; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Oklahoma; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: More than half.

Oregon; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: More than half; 
Substance abuse treatment: More than half.

Pennsylvania; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: All or almost all.

Rhode Island; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: More than half; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

South Carolina; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

South Dakota; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: More than half.

Tennessee; 
Domestic violence programs: [Empty]; 
Mental health treatment: [Empty]; 
Substance abuse treatment: [Empty].

Texas; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Less than half; 
Substance abuse treatment: All or almost all.

Utah; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Vermont; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: [Empty].

Virginia; 
Domestic violence programs: Don't know; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Washington; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

West Virginia; 
Domestic violence programs: All or almost all; 
Mental health treatment: [Empty]; 
Substance abuse treatment: [Empty].

Wisconsin; 
Domestic violence programs: [Empty]; 
Mental health treatment: Don't know; 
Substance abuse treatment: More than half.

Wyoming; 
Domestic violence programs: [Empty]; 
Mental health treatment: All or almost all; 
Substance abuse treatment: Don't know.

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 2.

States were asked, "Currently, in your state, approximately what 
percentage of eligible low-income families who apply for substance 
abuse treatment actually receives it?" "Currently, in your state, 
approximately what percentage of eligible low-income families who 
apply for mental health treatment actually receives it?" "Overall in 
your state, approximately what percentage of eligible low-income 
families who apply for domestic violence programs currently obtains 
services or assistance?" Response categories were defined as follows: 
all or almost all (86-100%); 
more than half (61-85%); 
about half (41-60%); 
less than half (16-40%); 
almost none (1-15%); 
don't know.

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states indicating previously that a 
service was not subsidized in at least one locality in the state were 
not asked about the extent to which eligible applicants received 
services.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Changes in the Number of Recipients and Availability of 
Supports between State FY 2000 and Spring 2003:

Tables 12 through 17 provide information on changes between state 
fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003 that states reported in the number of 
support recipients and in the number or type of services provided, 
state outreach efforts, eligibility criteria, provider payments, and 
families' copayments. The data in these tables are summarized in 
figures 8 through 13 in the report.

Table 12: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in 
the Number of Recipients of Each Type of Support, by State:

State: Alabama; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Alaska; 
Subsidized child care: [Empty]; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Arizona; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Arkansas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: California; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Colorado; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Connecticut; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Delaware; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: District of Columbia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Florida; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Georgia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Hawaii; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Idaho; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Illinois; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Indiana; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Iowa; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Kansas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Kentucky; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Louisiana; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Maine; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Maryland; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Massachusetts; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Minnesota; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Mississippi; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Missouri; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Montana; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Nebraska; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Nevada; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: New Hampshire; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: New Jersey; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: New Mexico; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: New York; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: North Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: North Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Ohio; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Oklahoma; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Oregon; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Pennsylvania; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Rhode Island; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: South Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: South Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Tennessee; 
Subsidized child care: [Empty]; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Utah; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Vermont; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Washington; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: West Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Wisconsin; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Wyoming; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 8.

States were asked, "Comparing state fiscal year 2000 with the present, 
to what extent has the number of [support type] recipients increased, 
decreased, or stayed the same?":

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states that did not have a particular 
support in both state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003 were not asked 
about changes in these supports.

[End of table]

Table 13: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in the 
Number or Type of Services Provided, by State:

State: Alabama; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Alaska; 
Subsidized child care: [Empty]; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Arizona; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Arkansas; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: California; 
Subsidized child care: Not applicable; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Colorado; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Connecticut; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Delaware; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: District of Columbia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Florida; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Georgia; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: ..

State: Hawaii; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Idaho; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Illinois; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Indiana; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Iowa; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Kansas; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Kentucky; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Louisiana; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Maine; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Maryland; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Massachusetts; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: [Empty]; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Minnesota; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Mississippi; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Missouri; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Montana; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Nebraska; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Nevada; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: New Hampshire; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: New Jersey; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: New Mexico; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: New York; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: North Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: North Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Ohio; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Oklahoma; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Oregon; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Pennsylvania; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Not applicable; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Rhode Island; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: South Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: South Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Tennessee; 
Subsidized child care: [Empty]; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: [Empty]; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Utah; 
Subsidized child care: Not applicable; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Vermont; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Not applicable; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Washington; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: West Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Wisconsin; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Wyoming; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 9.

States were asked, "Comparing state fiscal year 2000 with the present, 
to what extent did the number or type of [support type] services 
provided change in your state?":

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states that did not have a particular 
support in both state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003 were not asked 
about changes in these supports.

[End of table]

Table 14: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in 
Outreach Efforts, by State:

State: Alabama; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Alaska; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Arizona; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Arkansas; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: California; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: Not applicable; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Colorado; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Connecticut; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Delaware; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: District of Columbia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Florida; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Georgia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Hawaii; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Idaho; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Illinois; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Indiana; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Iowa; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Kansas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Kentucky; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Louisiana; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Maine; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Maryland; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Massachusetts; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: [Empty]; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Minnesota; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Mississippi; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Missouri; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Montana; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Nebraska; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Nevada; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: ..

State: New Hampshire; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: New Jersey; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: New Mexico; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: New York; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: North Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: North Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Ohio; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Oklahoma; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Oregon; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Pennsylvania; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Rhode Island; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: South Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: South Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Tennessee; 
Subsidized child care: [Empty]; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: [Empty]; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Utah; 
Subsidized child care: Not applicable; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Vermont; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Washington; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: West Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Wisconsin; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Wyoming; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 10.

States were asked, "Comparing state fiscal year 2000 with the present, 
to what extent did the outreach efforts for [support type] services 
change in your state?":

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states that did not have a particular 
support in both state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003 were not asked 
about changes in these supports.

[End of table]

Table 15: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in 
the Size of the Eligible Population as a Result of Changes in 
Eligibility Criteria of Each Type of Support, by State:

State: Alabama; 
Subsidized child care: Don't know; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Not applicable; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Alaska; 
Subsidized child care: [Empty]; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Arizona; 
Subsidized child care: Not applicable; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Arkansas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Not applicable; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: California; 
Subsidized child care: Not applicable; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Colorado; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Connecticut; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Not applicable; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Delaware; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: District of Columbia; 
Subsidized child care: Not applicable; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Florida; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Georgia; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Hawaii; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Idaho; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Illinois; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Indiana; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Iowa; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Not applicable; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Kansas; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Not applicable; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Kentucky; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Not applicable; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Louisiana; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Maine; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Not applicable; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Maryland; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Massachusetts; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: [Empty]; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Minnesota; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Mississippi; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Missouri; 
Subsidized child care: Not applicable; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Montana; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Nebraska; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Nevada; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: New Hampshire; 
Subsidized child care: Don't know; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: New Jersey; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: New Mexico; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: New York; 
Subsidized child care: Don't know; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: North Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: North Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Ohio; 
Subsidized child care: Not applicable; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Oklahoma; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Oregon; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Pennsylvania; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Not applicable; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Rhode Island; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: South Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Don't know; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: South Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Tennessee; 
Subsidized child care: [Empty]; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: [Empty]; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Utah; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Vermont; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Not applicable; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Don't know; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Not applicable; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Washington; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: West Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Wisconsin; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Wyoming; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 11.

States were asked, "Comparing state fiscal year 2000 with the present, 
to what extent did the size of the eligible population change as a 
result of changes in state eligibility criteria for [support type]?":

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states that did not have a particular 
support in both state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003 were not asked 
about changes in these supports.

[End of table]

Table 16: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in 
Provider Payments, by State:

State: Alabama; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Alaska; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Arizona; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Arkansas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Not applicable; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: California; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Colorado; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Connecticut; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Delaware; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: [Empty]; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: District of Columbia; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Florida; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Georgia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Hawaii; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Idaho; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Illinois; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Indiana; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Iowa; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Kansas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Kentucky; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Louisiana; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Maine; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Maryland; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Massachusetts; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: [Empty]; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Minnesota; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Mississippi; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Missouri; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Montana; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Nebraska; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Nevada; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: New Hampshire; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: New Jersey; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Not applicable; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: New Mexico; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: New York; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: North Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Decreased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: North Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Ohio; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Oklahoma; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Oregon; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Pennsylvania; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: Rhode Island; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: South Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Increased.

State: South Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Tennessee; 
Subsidized child care: [Empty]; 
Transportation support services: [Empty]; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: [Empty]; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Don't know; 
Utility assistance: Don't know; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Don't know; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Utah; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

State: Vermont; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Washington; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Not applicable; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Not applicable.

State: West Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Decreased; 
Utility assistance: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same; 
Job retention and advancement services: Decreased.

State: Wisconsin; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Increased; 
Utility assistance: [Empty]; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty]; 
Job retention and advancement services: Don't know.

State: Wyoming; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Transportation support services: Stayed same; 
Utility assistance: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased; 
Job retention and advancement services: Stayed same.

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 12.

States were asked, "Comparing state fiscal year 2000 with the present, 
to what extent did provider payment rates change for [support type] 
services in your state?":

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states that did not have a particular 
support in both state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003 were not asked 
about changes in these supports.

[End of table]

Table 17: Changes between State Fiscal Year 2000 and Spring 2003 in 
Copayments for Subsidized Child Care, Medicaid, and SCHIP, by State:

State: Alabama; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Alaska; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Arizona; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Arkansas; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: California; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Colorado; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Decreased.

State: Connecticut; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Delaware; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: District of Columbia; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Florida; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Georgia; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Not applicable.

State: Hawaii; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Idaho; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Illinois; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Indiana; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Iowa; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Kansas; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Not applicable.

State: Kentucky; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Increased.

State: Louisiana; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Maine; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Maryland; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Massachusetts; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Minnesota; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Mississippi; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Don't know.

State: Missouri; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Montana; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Nebraska; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Nevada; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Don't know; 
SCHIP: Don't know.

State: New Hampshire; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased.

State: New Jersey; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: Not applicable.

State: New Mexico; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: New York; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Not applicable.

State: North Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: North Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Ohio; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Oklahoma; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Oregon; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: [Empty]; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Pennsylvania; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Not applicable.

State: Rhode Island; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: South Carolina; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: South Dakota; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Not applicable.

State: Tennessee; 
Subsidized child care: [Empty]; 
Medicaid: [Empty]; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Texas; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Not applicable; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Utah; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Increased; 
SCHIP: Not applicable.

State: Vermont; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Decreased; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Increased.

State: Washington; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Decreased.

State: West Virginia; 
Subsidized child care: Increased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

State: Wisconsin; 
Subsidized child care: Stayed same; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: [Empty].

State: Wyoming; 
Subsidized child care: Decreased; 
Medicaid: Stayed same; 
SCHIP: Stayed same.

Source: GAO survey, spring 2003.

Notes: These data are summarized in figure 13, although in the figure, 
state responses are characterized as increasing or decreasing the 
availability of supports. Therefore, states shown in the table as 
increasing copayments are shown in figure 13 as decreasing the 
availability of supports.

States were asked, "Comparing state fiscal year 2000 with the present, 
to what extent did co-payments for [support type] services change in 
your state?":

Michigan did not respond to our survey.

Cells left blank indicate that the state did not answer or was not 
asked the question. For example, states that did not have a particular 
support in both state fiscal year 2000 and spring 2003 were not asked 
about changes in these supports. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:	
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:

DEC 23 2003:

Ms. Cynthia M. Fagnoni:

Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security:

United States General Accounting Office W
ashington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Ms. Fagnoni:

Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report entitled, 
"Supports For Low-Income Families: States Serve a Broad Range of 
Families Through a Complex and Changing System." The comments represent 
the tentative position of the Department and are subject to 
reevaluation when the final version of this report is received.

The Department provided several technical comments directly to your 
staff.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report before its publication.

Sincerely,

Dara Corrigan:

Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General:

Signed by Dara Corrigan:

Enclosure:

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's 
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's 
designated focal point and coordinator for General Accounting Office 
reports. OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these 
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.

Comments of the Department of Health and Human Services on the General 
Accounting Office's Draft Report, "Supports For Low-Income Families: 
States Serve a Broad Range of Families Through a Complex and Changing 
System" (GAO-04-256):

The Department of Health and Human Services appreciates the opportunity 
to comment on the General Accounting Office's draft report.

The report demonstrates that States provide a wide range of employment 
services and benefits, such as child care and transportation, that 
enable families to work and move toward self-sufficiency. Eligibility 
criteria and benefits are structured to serve a broad range of low-
income families, including families on and off welfare. These support 
systems vary substantially among States, creating a complex national 
picture that will continue to evolve. The "Highlights" summary and the 
graphical representations use helpful formats for conveying this 
important information. While States have expanded the availability of 
support services in recent years, the current State fiscal environment 
may result in future reductions in some of these support services.

We agree with the findings and conclusions of the report. To address 
the fiscal uncertainty that some States face, reauthorization of the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Child Care 
programs by Congress will enable States to know with certainty the 
level of Federal TANF and child care resources that will be available 
to support low-income families over the next five years.

[End of section]

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Gale Harris (202) 512-7235, harrisg@gao.gov Heather McCallum (202) 512-
2890, mccallumh@gao.gov:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Kathy Larin, Angela Miles, Cathy Pardee, and Rachel Weber made 
significant contributions to this report. In addition, Alison Martin 
and Elsie Picyk provided technical assistance in the development and 
implementation of the 50-state survey, Patrick Dibattista provided 
writing assistance, and Marc Molino and Avy Ashery assisted with the 
graphics.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products:

Welfare Reform: Information on TANF Balances. GAO-03-1094. Washington, 
D.C.: September 8, 2003.

Welfare Reform: Information on Changing Labor Market and State Fiscal 
Conditions. GAO-03-977. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003.

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts 
among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles 
Persist. GAO-03-697. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003.

Child Care: Recent State Policy Changes Affecting the Availability of 
Assistance for Low-Income Families. GAO-03-588. Washington, D.C.: May 
5, 2003.

Child Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting Reimbursement Rates 
and Providing Access for Low-Income Children. GAO-02-894. Washington, 
D.C.: September 18, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate 
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective 
Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.

Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Work Support Services to 
Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-
615T. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2002.

Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Services to Many Low-Income 
Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-564. Washington, 
D.C.: April 5, 2002.

Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on 
Modernizing Information Systems. GAO-02-121. Washington, D.C.: January 
31, 2002.

Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome 
and Can Be Simplified. GAO-02-58. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2001.

Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal 
Partnership. GAO-01-828. Washington, D.C.: August 10, 2001:

Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated 
Federal Effort. HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2000.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Congressional Research Service has identified more than 80 
programs that provide aid--in cash and noncash form--that is directed 
primarily to persons with limited income. See Congressional Research 
Service, Cash and Noncash Benefits for Person with Limited Income: 
Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY1998-FY2000 
(Washington, D.C., 2001). 

[2] TANF diversion programs provide low-income families who are 
eligible for TANF cash assistance with short-term cash or in-kind 
benefits, on a case-by-case basis, in lieu of TANF cash assistance.

[3] Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia responded to our 
survey, although they did not all respond to every survey question. 
Michigan did not respond at all, because of lack of staff time. The 
survey was addressed to the state social service agency directors and 
instructed them to have the staff members most knowledgeable about 
their states' support programs complete the survey. 

[4] In addition to the funding sources listed in table 2, Medicaid and 
SCHIP are both significant sources of funding for transportation to and 
from medical services for low-income populations.

[5] As previously noted, states are able to adjust income eligibility 
criteria, within federal guidelines, for some supports for low-income 
families, but for other supports, such as food stamps and the federal 
EITC, the federal government sets income eligibility rules. 

[6] As previously noted, states are able to adjust the benefit amounts, 
within federal guidelines, for some supports for low-income families, 
but for other supports, such as food stamps and the federal EITC, the 
federal government sets benefit amounts. 

[7] Though states were able to provide average benefit data per 
support, they were unable to provide the average total benefits per 
family. States typically do not have unified systems of data collection 
that would allow them to track all of the various supports individual 
families receive, especially when these supports are administered by 
different state agencies. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare 
Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated Federal 
Effort, HEHS-00-48 (Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2000).

[8] For more information on the structures of payments to service 
providers and cost sharing with recipient families, see U.S. General 
Accounting Office, Child Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting 
Reimbursement Rates and Providing Access for Low-Income Children, GAO-
02-894 (Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2002).

[9] Specifically, in U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce 
Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services 
for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective 
Approaches, GAO-02-696 (Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002), we reported 
that in 2001, 16 states provided TANF cash assistance in a majority of 
their one-stops, 20 states conducted Medicaid eligibility determination 
in at least some of their one-stops, and 26 states conducted food stamp 
eligibility determination in at least some of their one-stops. 

[10] Washington's General Assistance program provides cash assistance 
benefits to families and individuals who are unable to work because of 
incapacity and who do not qualify for other federal-and state-funded 
cash assistance programs.

[11] For a more detailed discussion of the use of computer systems as a 
tool to streamline eligibility determination, see U.S. General 
Accounting Office, Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial 
Eligibility Is Cumbersome and Can Be Simplified, GAO-02-58 (Washington, 
D.C.: November 2, 2001). For further discussion of the use of computer 
systems in human services, including initiatives in other states and 
obstacles to systems modernization, see HEHS-00-48.

[12] North Carolina's use of categorical eligibility for LIHEAP 
applicants already receiving food stamps is consistent with what we 
reported in GAO-02-58. In that report, we found that Nebraska also 
exercised this option, which is allowed under federal law. 

[13] For more information on TANF reserves, see U.S. General Accounting 
Office, Welfare Reform: Information on TANF Balances, GAO-03-1094 
(Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2003) and U.S. General Accounting 
Office, Welfare Reform: Information on Changing Labor Market and State 
Fiscal Conditions, GAO-03-977 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003). 

[14] See GAO-02-615T Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Work 
Support Services to Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive Cash 
Assistance, April 10, 2002.

[15] These data include federal TANF funds and state maintenance of 
effort (MOE) dollars. To qualify for their full TANF allotments each 
year, states must spend a certain amount of state money, referred to as 
MOE funds. MOE requirements were calculated based on states' pre-PRWORA 
welfare spending.

[16] TANF and state MOE expenditures on child care include both funds 
directly spent on child care (labeled Child care in the figure) and 
funds transferred to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) 
(labeled Transfer to CCDF in the figure). Some TANF funds transferred 
to the CCDF may not yet have been expended. 

[17] For more information on unspent TANF funds, see GAO-03-1094 and 
GAO-03-977. 

[18] The recent increases in caseloads have been small in some states, 
compared with the declines of the 1990s.

[19] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Care: Recent State 
Policy Changes Affecting the Availability of Assistance for Low-Income 
Families, GAO-03-588 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2003), p.26. 

[20] We have classified increases in provider payments as increasing 
the availability of supports because the higher payments would tend to 
encourage more providers to participate. 

[21] See GAO-03-588, page 26.

[22] The organizations that we interviewed were Community Voices Heard 
(New York), Community Action Project of Tulsa (Oklahoma), Fremont 
Public Association (Washington), and Wisconsin Council on Children and 
Families (Wisconsin). We contacted an organization in North Carolina 
but were unable to obtain an interview. 

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: