USVI Public Records

Document text

ED 438 962 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION REPORT NO PUB DATE NOTE AVAILABLE FROM PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT DOCUMENT RESUME Robertson, Robert E. Food Assistance: Financial Information on Services and Administrative Costs. United Accounting Office Report to Congressional General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Community, and Economic Development Div. GAO/RCED-00-66 2000-03-00 38p. U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 37050, Washington, DC 20013 (first copy is free; additional copies, $2 each). Tel: 202-512-6000; Fax: 202-512-6061; e-mail:info@www.gao.gov; Web site: http://www.gao.gov. Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) Reports Research (143) MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. Federal Programs; Financial Support; National Surveys; *Nutrition; Program Administration; Program Budgeting; *Program Costs; *State Federal Aid Nutrition Services; *Women Infants Children Supplemental Food Program PS 028 413 WIC Nutrition States General Committees. Resources, The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is a federally funded nutrition assistance program administered by the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). Responding to Congressional requests for information regarding program costs, this report provides information on: (1) funding sources and amounts, and in-kind contributions received by state and local WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations for WIC services and administration; (2) amount and type of expenditures made by these agencies and Indian tribal organizations; and (3) extent to which FNS and USDA identified questionable expenditures. Information was collected by surveying state-level WIC agencies in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 33 Indian tribal organizations, and 1,780 local WIC agencies. Findings indicate that state-level agencies and Indian tribal organizations received $1.08 billion in federal funds for fiscal year (FY) 1998. Another $57 million was received by state and local agencies and Indian tribal organizations from nonfederal sources. Local agencies received about $846 million. In-kind contributions were most often provided by local governments in the form of facilities, maintenance, utilities, and computers. Of the $1.14 billion available, about $1.1 billion was expended for WIC nutrition services and administration in FY 1998. The vast majority of expenditures for all agencies and Indian tribal organizations was for direct costs. Salary and benefit costs accounted for the largest percentage of direct costs. (Eight appendices describe the study methodology and contain data tables.) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Ignited States General Accounting Office Congressi nal CommAttees March 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as eceived from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. rmEdon C Nuttion F and -°:r:atratve Coate Contents Letter 3 Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 24 Appendix II: Characteristics of Local Agencies With and Without Additional Funds for Nutrition Services and Administration, FY 1998 26 Appendix III: Types of In-Kind Contributions Provided by Each State to the WIC Program, FY 1998 27 Appendix IV: Percent of Local Agencies Receiving In-Kind Contributions, by Type and Source, FY 1998 28 Appendix V: Percent of State-Level Agencies' Direct Expenses in Nutrition Services and Administration Categories, FY 1998 29 Appendix VI: State-Level WIC Agencies' Direct and Indirect Cost Expenditures for Nutrition Services and Administration, FY 1998 31 Appendix VII: Average Participant Expenses and Participant-to-Staff Ratio by Local Agency Characteristics, FY 1998 33 Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements 34 Tables Table 1: Amounts and Sources of Additional Nutrition Services and Administration Funds Provided to State-Level WIC Agencies by Their State Governments, Fiscal Year 1998 9 Table 2: Number of State-Level WIC Agencies Reporting In-Kind Contributions From Their States, Fiscal Year 1998 11 Table 3: Number of State-Level WIC Agencies Reporting Nutrition Services and Administration Indirect Cost Expenditures by Category, Fiscal Year 1998 16 3 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Figures Figure 1: Amount and Percentage of Additional Funds Provided to Local WIC Agencies From Various Nonfederal Sources, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions 10 Figure 2: Percent of Local WIC Agencies Receiving In-Kind Contributions From Various Sources, Fiscal Year 1998 12 Figure 3: Percent of Local WIC Agencies Receiving Various Types of In-Kind Contributions, Fiscal Year 1998 13 Figure 4: Amount and Percentage of Nutrition Services and Administration Expenditures by Type of Agency, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions 14 Figure 5: Amount and Percentage of State-Level Direct Cost Expenditures for Nutrition Services and Administration for Various Cost Categories, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions 15 Figure 6: Amount and Percentage of Local WIC Agencies' Direct Cost Expenditures Reported for Various Categories, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions 17 Figure 7: Amount and Percentage of Local WIC Agencies' Indirect Cost Expenditures by Type of Local WIC Agency, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions 18 Figure 8: Amount and Percentage of Nutrition Services and Administration Expenditures by Type of Local WIC Agency, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions 19 Figure 9: Amount and Percentage of Indian Tribal Organizations' Direct Cost Expenditures Reported for Various Categories, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions 20 Abbreviations FNS Food and Nutrition Service GAO General Accounting Office USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children 4 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration GAO 4.0miumeccountabliby *integrity* Reliability United States General Accounting Office Resources, Community, and Washington, D.C. 20548 Economic Development Division B-284414 March 6, 2000 The Honorable Richard G. Lugar Chairman The Honorable Tom Harkin Ranking Minority Member Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry United States Senate The Honorable William F. Goodling Chairman The Honorable William (Bill) Clay Ranking Minority Member Committee on Education and the Workforce House of Representatives The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is a federally funded nutrition assistance program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). This program provides supplemental foods; nutrition services, such as nutrition and breastfeeding counseling; and health care referrals to lower-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women; infants; and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk. FNS provides annual cash grants that in fiscal year 1998 supported program operations at 55 state-level WIC agencies (including agencies in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and 33 Indian tribal organizations.' Some of these state-level agenciesthose that operate the program at both the state and local levelsretain all of their WIC grants. Most state-level WIC agencies, however, retain a portion of their grants and pass on the remaining funds to the nearly 1,800 local WIC agencies. 'Although USDA considers these 33 Indian tribal organizations state-level agencies, in this report, we refer to them separately for analysis purposes. GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 In fiscal year 1998, the Congress appropriated about $3.9 billion for WIC. Almost three-fourths of these funds ($2.8 billion) were used to acquire food, and the remaining funds ($1.1 billion) were used for nutrition services and administration. In general, there are two categories of allowable nutrition services and administration costs: direct and indirect. According to the program's regulations, direct costs are those that can be identified specifically with WIC-related activities, such as salaries for staff who provide nutrition and breastfeeding counseling. Indirect costs are for services that benefit the program but are not easily linked specifically to WIC, such as salaries for staff providing accounting services for both WIC and non-WIC programs. In addition to federal funds, nonfederal resources may be used to support nutrition services and administration, such as funds from state or local governments, and/or in-kind contributions.2 To ensure that WIC funds are properly used, both FNS and USDA's Office of Inspector General conduct evaluations of program expenditures. FNS may disallow expenditures determined to be inappropriate and withhold federal nutrition services and administration funds, as well as apply sanctions. To help the Congress better understand the costs of administering WIC and delivering nutrition services, the William F. Good ling Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998 (P. L. 105-336) directed GAO to assess various cost aspects of WIC nutrition services and administration. This report is the first in a series responding to this request for information.' For fiscal year 1998, we are providing information on the (1) federal and nonfederal sources and amounts of funding and in-kind contributions received by state-level and local WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations for WIC nutrition services and administration; (2) amount and type of expenditures for nutrition services and administration made by these agencies and Indian tribal organizations; and (3) extent to which FNS and USDA identified questionable expenditures for nutrition services and administration during their evaluations of these activities. To respond to our first two objectives, we conducted three nationwide surveys of (1) the 55 state-level WIC agencies that operate in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto 'In this report "in-kind" refers to something of value, such as office space, equipment, supplies, and services, that is donated from public or private sources at no cost to WIC. 'Subsequent reports will include information on the types of costs and personnel time spent on delivering nutrition services; the quality of these services; and their impact on participants' health. 6 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; (2) all 33 Indian tribal organizations; and (3) 1,780 local WIC agencies. We received responses from all of the state-level WIC agencies (a 100-percent response rate); 25 of the 33 Indian tribal organizations (a response rate of almost 76 percent); and 1,416 of the 1,780 local WIC agencies (a response rate of almost 80 percent). We performed our work from February 1999 through January 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I contains a detailed description of the methodology we used to conduct this work. Results in Brief State-level WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations responding to our survey received federal funds totaling about $1.08 billion for WIC nutrition services and administration in fiscal year 1998. In addition to these federal funds, state-level agencies and local WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations reported receiving another $57 million for nutrition services and administration from nonfederal sources. Most of these additional funds came from state and local governments. Of the approximately $1.14 billion in total available resources, local WIC agencies received about $846 million. In addition to these funds, some state-level WIC and most Indian tribal organizations and local WIC agencies reported receiving in-kind contributions to help deliver WIC services. Most often, these in-kind contributions were provided by local governments in the form of facilities and maintenance; utilities; and computers and maintenance. Of the $1.14 billion available, about $1.1 billion was expended for WIC nutrition services and administration in fiscal year 1998. About three- fourths ($846 million) of these expenditures were made for local WIC agency operations. The 55 state-level WIC agencies responding to our survey reported that about $232 million, 21 percent, was for state-level operations. The 33 Indian tribal organizations spent a total of about $13 million in fiscal year 1998, of which about $9.5 million was expended by the Indian tribal organizations responding to our survey. The vast majority of expenditures by all agencies and Indian tribal organizations was for direct costs (91 percent for state-level WIC agencies, 95 percent for the local WIC agencies, and 88 percent for the Indian tribal organizations). Salary and benefit costs accounted for the largest percentage of direct costs for state- level and local WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations. 7 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 In its management evaluations of fiscal year 1998 operations, FNS found few WIC expenditures for nutrition services and administration that were questionable under the program's regulations. FNS conducted 41 WIC evaluations of state-level agencies and Indian tribal organizations' operations in fiscal year 1998. Of these 41 evaluations, 9 contained one or more questions about the program's expenditures. Five of the nine evaluations identified questionable expenditurestotaling $54,296made by three state-level WIC agencies and two Indian tribal organizations. This total amount represented less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the almost $79 million in combined expenditures for nutrition services and administration for these three state-level WIC agencies and two Indian tribal organizations. As of January 2000, USDA's Office of Inspector General had no reports available on WIC's fiscal year 1998 expenditures. However, the Office of Inspector General's audits are sometimes conducted several years after the year of the expenditures. Nutrition services and administration funds are typically used to pay the costs of client services, including nutrition and breastfeeding counseling; health care referrals; and program administration, such as planning and budgeting. In fiscal year 1998, according to our survey results, WIC services were provided at about 8,200 locations to a monthly average of about 7.3 million persons. In addition to the federal WIC grant, state-level and local WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations may receive cash assistance and in-kind contributions from nonfederal sources, such as state, county, city, and Indian tribal governments, as well as from private corporations and individuals. State-level WIC agencies retain a portion of these funds for costs incurred for state-level operations; they pass the bulk of these nutrition services and administration funds to local WIC agenciesusually agencies operated by local government, private nonprofit organizations, and Indian tribes not affiliated with the 33 Indian tribal organizations. In contrast, most of the 33 Indian tribal organizations and some of the state-level agencies operate WIC without delegating authority to local governments or private nonprofit organizations. In still some other Indian tribal organizations and states, local WIC operations are handled in part by the state-level WIC agency and in part by local governments and others. GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration 13-284414 According to FNS officials, governmentwide cost principles issued by the Office of Management and Budget are followed for charging costs to the WIC program. These principles recognize two broad classes of costs: direct and indirect.4 Direct costs are specifically identifiable with WIC: The salaries of state-level and local WIC agency and Indian tribal organization staff who provide nutrition and breastfeeding counseling to WIC participants are an example of direct costs. Indirect costs are for services that benefit multiple activities of the state-level and local WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations and may include accounting, automated data processing, communications, payroll, purchasing, and facilities maintenance services. Because their linkage to WIC and other programs is not easily identifiable, indirect costs are charged to programs using methodologies established under the governmentwide cost principles. Because of differences in the structure of state-level and local WIC agencies and their financial management and accounting policies and practices, the specific types of costs classified as indirect can vary dramatically. Typically, the amount of indirect costs that state-level orlocal WIC agencies are allowed to charge to a federal grant, including the WIC nutrition services and administration grant, is based on a cost rate that is expressed as a percentage of specific direct expenditures, such as salaries and benefits.' A state-level WIC agency obtains authorization to use a specific indirect cost rate by submitting its indirect cost rate proposal to its cognizant federal agency. This is an agency designated by the Office ofManagement and Budget to review and endorse such proposals on behalf of all federal agencies that have awarded grants to the state. For most state-level WIC agencies, this designated agency is the Department of Health and Human Services (other designated federal agencies for WIC include USDA and the Department of the Interior). The Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-87 specifies the methods that must be used to develop an indirect cost rate proposal. Indirect cost rates are typically established for specific time periods and are subject to revision at the end of that period. 47 C.F.R. 246.14 (1999) stipulates allowable direct and indirect nutrition services and administration expenditure. 5In the place of an indirect cost rate, some agencies have a cost allocation plan that distributes indirect (and, in some cases direct) costs to the program grant. In such cases, a narrative cost allocation methodology must be developed and submitted to the designated federal agency for review and endorsement. 9 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 FNS relies primarily on periodic management evaluations and financial reviews to ensure that federal WIC funds are properly used.' For fiscal year 1998 expenditures, FNS conducted 39 management evaluations of WIC-30 at state-level WIC agencies and 9 at Indian tribal organizationsand two financial reviews of WIC. If FNS determines that program funds provided to a state agency or Indian tribal organization were misused, it will assess a formal claim against the state agency in the amount of the misused funds. FNS may withhold up to 100 percent of an entity's nutrition services and administration funds and may apply sanctions.' USDAs Office of Inspector General also performs selected audits of state-level and local WIC agencies and other organizations involved in the program; however, these audits may sometimes be conducted several years after the year of the expenditures. Sources and Amounts of Nutrition Services and Administration Funding and In-Kind Contributions The 55 state-level WIC agencies and 25 Indian tribal organizations responding to our surveys received federal funds totaling about $1.08 billion for WIC nutrition services and administration in fiscal year 1998. In addition to these federal funds, about $57 million was received for nutrition services and administration by the state-level WIC agencies and local WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations responding to our surveys. Most of these additional funds came from state and local governments. Together, these federal and nonfederal funds for nutrition services and administration totaled about $1.14 billion in fiscal year 1998. Of this amount, about $846 million was provided to the local WIC agencies. In addition, most Indian tribal organizations and local WIC agencies received in-kind contributions to support their programs' nutrition services and administration. Sources of Funds for Nutrition Services and Administration Eleven of the 55 state-level WIC agencies reported that their state government provided funds for WIC nutrition services and administration in fiscal year 1998, in addition to their federal WIC funds. These additional funds totaled about $38 million; four states (New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington) received about 92 percent ($35 million) of these funds. As shown in table 1, these supplemental 'Not every state-level agency and tribal organization is subject to a management evaluation or financial review every year. '7 C.F.R. 246.23 (1999). 0 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 state funds ranged from $15,000 in West Virginia (less then 1 percent of its total nutrition services and administration funds) to $20 million in New York (about 22 percent of its total nutrition services and administration funds). Table 1: Amounts and Sources of Additional Nutrition Services and Administration Funds Provided to State-Level WIC Agencies by Their State Governments, Fiscal Year 1998 State-level WIC agency Amount of federal WIC Amount of additional nutrition services and funds provided by administration grant' state government Total federal and state government funds Percent of nutrition services and administration funds provided by state government District of Columbia Massachusetts Maryland Minnesota New Mexico New York Rhode Island° Tennessee Vermont Washington West Virginia° Total $3,006,398 $440,000 $3,446,398 12.77 16,612,979 9,844,185 26,457,164 37.21 13,265,219 200,000 13,465,219 1.49 13,688,076 3,176,502 16,864,578 18.84 7,334,574 1,313,000 8,647,574 15.18 70,998,409 20,070,487 91,068,896 22.04 3,626,256 65,000 3,691,256 1.76 20,486,157 855,184 21,341,341 4.01 2,634,707 90,903 2,725,770 3.33 21,510,227 1,993,062 23,503,289 8.48 9,299,104 15,000 9,314,104 0.16 $182,462,106 $38,063,323 $220,525,589 17.26 Fiscal year 1998 WIC grant amount reported by state-level WIC agency. b Fiscal year 1998 expenditures did not exceed the amount of the federal WIC grant. Source: GAO's survey of state-level WIC agencies. About 29 percent of the 1,416 local WIC agencies responding to our survey received a combined total of about $19 million for nutrition services and administration from nonfederal sources in fiscal year 1998.8 These additional funds represented about 12 percent of their $162 'About 48 percent of the local WIC agencies that received additional funds reported that their fiscal year 1998 expenditures were less than their total available funds. This suggests that these local agencies may not have used the additional funds available for nutrition services and administration in fiscal year 1998 or may have underreported their actual expenditures. I 1 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration D-284414 million in total nutrition services and administration funds received from all sources that year. Figure 1 shows the sources of the $19 million provided to these local WIC agencies. Figure 1: Amount and Percentage of Additional Funds Provided to Local WIC Agencies From Various Nonfederal Sources, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions Tribal governments $0.5 (2.7%) Self-generated income $0.3 (1.6%) Private funds $0.6 (3.2%) Other sources $2.6 (13.6%) Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. Source: GAO's survey of local WIC agencies. Local governments $15 (79%) Only 1 of the 25 Indian tribal organizations reported that in addition to its fiscal year 1998 federal WIC grant of $176,000, it received almost $54,000 for nutrition services and administration from its Indian tribal government. These additional funds represented about one-half of 1 percent of the 25 Indian tribal organizations' total nutrition services and administration funds in fiscal year 1998. Appendix II provides more information about the characteristics oflocal WIC agencies with and without additional funds for nutrition services and administration in fiscal year 1998. 12 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 In-Kind Contributions for Nutrition Services and Administration Some state-level and most Indian tribal organizations and local WIC agencies also reported receiving in-kind contributions to help deliver WIC services. Most often, these in-kind contributions were provided by local governments and were in the form of facilities and maintenance; utilities; and computers and maintenance. Eighteen state-level WIC agencies reported that their state governments provided in-kind contributions for nutrition services and administration. As shown in table 2, the most frequently provided contributions were bank services; facilities and maintenance; salary and benefits; and travel, training, and conferences. Table 2: Number of State-Level WIC Agencies Reporting In-Kind Contributions From Their States, Fiscal Year 1998 Type of in-kind contribution Number of state-level WIC agencies Bank services 6 Facilities (rent/mortgage) and maintenance 6 Salary and benefits, including consultants 6 Travel, training, and conferences 6 Computer/automatic data processing equipment and maintenance Utilities (excluding communications) 4 3 Communications services (e.g., telephone, Internet access) 2 Equipment and supplies, other than automatic data processing Vehicles and vehicle maintenance Insurance, bonding, etc. Interpreter and/or translation services Printing 2 2 1 1 1 Transportation/parking services (excluding vehicles and vehicle maintenance) 1 Source: GAO's survey of state-level WIC agencies. Four of the 18 state-level WIC agencies (the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Rhode Island) reporting that their states had provided in-kind contributions also reported receiving GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 additional funds for nutrition services and administration from their state governments in fiscal year 1998. Appendix III provides more information about the types of in-kind contributions for nutrition services and administration received by each of the 18 state-level WIC agencies in fiscal year 1998. About 68 percent of the 1,416 local WIC agencies responding to our survey received in-kind contributions from one or more sources in fiscal year 1998. As shown in figure 2, about 44 percent of these local WIC agencies reported receiving in-kind contributions from local governments. Figure 2: Percent of Local WIC Agencies Receiving In-Kind Contributions From Various Sources, Fiscal Year 1998 50 Percent of local WIC agencies 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 i-, c,-. :- o ,9 0 e' 44 G; J' 0 ., .. 4- 4, O Sources of in-kind contributions Source: GAO's survey of local WIC agencies. 1 4 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 Facilities and maintenance was the most frequently reported type of in-kind contribution for nutrition services and administration received by local WIC agencies (see fig. 3). Figure 3: Percent of Local WIC Agencies Receiving Various Types of In-Kind Contributions, Fiscal Year 1998 60 Percent of local WIC agencies 50 40 30 20 10 acac`0 co k`ge cry tii c- o 0, o o .c. .63. (I . 4. 61" grt; .41 co lc.)cy 4,- e eje 4, S Types of in-kind contributions Source: GAO's survey of local WIC agencies. Appendix IV shows the percent of local WIC agencies receiving in-kind contributions by type and source in fiscal year 1998. Fifteen of the 25 Indian tribal organizations reported receiving in-kind contributions from one or more sources in fiscal year 1998. The majority of these contributions were provided by Indian tribal agencies. The most frequently reported type of in-kind contributions received were facilities and maintenance (12 organizations), utilities (7 organizations), and communications and laboratory services (6 organizations each). 1 5 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 Amount and Type of Nutrition Services and Administration Expenditures Of the approximately $1.1 billion in total nutrition services and administration expenditures for fiscal year 1998, about $232 million, 21 percent, was spent for state-level expenses; $846 million, 77percent, was spent by local WIC agencies; and the remaining $13 million was spent by the 33 Indian tribal organizations, according to theresults of our survey of state-level WIC agencies and program data reported by FNS. (See fig. 4.) Figure 4: Amount and Percentage of Nutrition Services and Administration Expenditures by Type of Agency, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions State-level WIC agencies $232 (21%) Indian tribal organizations $13 (1%) Local WIC agencies $846 (77%) Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. Source: GAO's survey of state-level WIC agencies and FNS' program data. State-Level Expenditures for Nutrition Services and Administration Of the approximately $232 million spent by the 55 state-level WIC agencies for their state-level expenses, about $210 million, 91 percent, was for direct cost expenditures. The remaining $22 million was spent by 53 state-level WIC agencies' for indirect costs. 'Delaware and Louisiana reported no indirect WIC costs at the state level for fiscal year 1998. Delaware reported indirect costs for state-run local WIC agencies. 16 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 For direct cost expenditures, salary and benefits (excluding expenditures for contracted personnel) accounted for the largest percentage, as shown in figure 5. Figure 5: Amount and Percentage of State-Level Direct Cost Expenditures for Nutrition Services and Administration for Various Cost Categories, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions Salary and benefits $85 (40%) Equipment and supplies $24 (11%) Contracted personnel $12 (6%) Facilities and maintenance $7 (4%) Other expenditures $80 (38%) Notes: Other expenditures includes items such as data processing and banking services. Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. Source: GAO's survey of state-level WIC agencies. Facilities and maintenance was the most frequently cited indirect cost expenditure category-33 of the 53 state-level WIC agencies cited this category. (See table 3.) 17 GAO/ACED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 Table 3: Number of State-Level WIC Agencies Reporting Nutrition Services and Administration Indirect Cost Expenditures by Category, Fiscal Year 1998 Category Number of state-level WIC agencies Facilities (rent/mortgage) and maintenance 33 Salary and benefits 32 Communications services (e.g., telephone, Internet access) Utilities Insurance, bonding, etc. 28 27 23 Computer/automatic data processing equipment and maintenance 20 Printing 19 Equipment and supplies, other than automatic data processing Vehicles and vehicle maintenance Travel, training, and conferences 15 12 11 Transportation/parking services (excluding vehicles and vehicle maintenance) Bank services Interpreter and/or translation services 8 5 1 Source: GAO's survey of state-level WIC agencies. Of the 53 state-level WIC agencies that reported having indirect expenditures, the proportion of their total expenditures that were for indirect costs variedranging from a low of 2 percent in Indiana, South Carolina, and West Virginia to a high of 35 percent in Idaho.' Appendixes V and VI provide more information about direct cost expenditures made in various nutrition services and administration categories by each state-level WIC agency in fiscal year 1998 and the amount and percentage of direct and indirect cost expenditures by state- level WIC agencies in fiscal year 1998, respectively. Differences in the indirect cost rates and their application are, in part, responsible for the variations between indirect costs reported by the state-level agencies. 18 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 Local WIC Agency Expenditures for Nutrition Services and Administration In fiscal year 1998, local WIC agencies spent about $846 million, according to the survey responses of state-level WIC agencies. Of the 1,416 local WIC agencies responding to our survey, 1,370 reported spendingabout $665 million for nutrition services and administration in fiscal year 1998. Of this amount, about 95 percent ($629 million) was used for direct costs, and 5 percent ($35 million) was used for indirect costs, according to the survey responses of local WIC agencies. Most of the reported direct cost expenditures (82 percent) were for salary and benefits, as figure 6 shows. Figure 6: Amount and Percentage of Local WIC Agencies' Direct Cost Expenditures Reported for Various Categories, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions Facilities and maintenance $42 (7%) Equipment and supplies $28 (4%) Contracted personnel $13 (2%) Other expenditures $32 (5%) Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. Source: GAO's survey of local WIC agencies. Salary and benefits $512 (81%) Of the $35 million in indirect cost expenditures for nutritionservices and administration, local WIC agencies operated by local governments accounted for about half of the total in fiscal year 1998, as shown in figure 7. 19 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 Figure 7: Amount and Percentage of Local WIC Agencies' Indirect Cost Expenditures by Type of Local WIC Agency, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions Private nonprofit agencies $10 (29%) State government agencies $7 (19%) Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. .Source: GAO's survey of local WIC agencies. Other $1 (3%) Indian tribal agencies $0.3 (1%) Local government agencies $17 (49%) Indirect cost expenditures varied dramatically among the local WIC agencies, with 825 agencies (58 percent) reporting no indirect costs and 56 agencies (4 percent) reporting that over 20 percent of their total nutrition services and administration expenditures were for indirect costs. Local WIC agencies operated by local governments accounted for about half of the total $664 million in nutrition services and administration expenditures in fiscal year 1998, as shown in figure 8. 20 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 Figure 8: Amount and Percentage of Nutrition Services and Administration Expenditures by Type of Local WIC Agency, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions State government agencies $118 (18%) Indian tribal agencies $3 (0.5%) Other $14 (2%) Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. Source: GAO's survey of local WIC agencies. Local government agencies $320 (48%) Private nonprofit agencies $209 (31%) Appendix VII provides information on average expenditures per participant and participant-staff ratio by various characteristics of local WIC agencies. Indian Tribal Organizations' Expenditures for Nutrition Services and Administration Twenty-three of the 25 Indian tribal organizations that reported expenditure information in response to our survey spent a total of about $9.5 million in fiscal year 1998, 73 percent of the approximately $13 million in total nutrition services and administration expenses of the 33 Indian tribal organizations. Of the $9.5 million, about 88 percent ($8.4 million) was reported as being used for direct cost expenditures. Salary and benefits (excluding expenditures for contracted personnel) accounted for almost two-thirds (61 percent) of the Indian tribal organizations' direct cost expenditures. (See fig. 9.) 21 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 Figure 9: Amount and Percentage of Indian Tribal Organizations' Direct Cost Expenditures Reported for Various Categories, Fiscal Year 1998, Dollars in Millions Contracted personnel $0.1 (2%) Other $2.1 (26%) Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. Source: GAO's survey of Indian tribal organizations. Salary and benefits $5 (61%) Equipment and supplies $0.7 (8%) Facilities and maintenance $0.3 (4%) Twenty-three of the 25 Indian tribal organizations reported total indirect cost expenditures of about $1.1 million, about 12 percent, of the total $9.5 million they spent for nutrition services and administration in fiscal year 1998. Few Questionable Expenditures Were Identified by FNS for Nutrition Services and Administration FNS relies primarily on management evaluations and financial reviews to ensure that federal funds for WIC are properly used. For fiscal year 1998 expenditures, FNS conducted 39 management evaluations of WIC, and 2 financial reviews. Of these 41 evaluations (32 at state-level WIC agencies and 9 at Indian tribal organizations) 9 contained one or more questions about the program's expenditures. Five of the nine evaluations identified questionable expenditures totaling $54,296 that were made by three state- level WIC agencies and two Indian tribal organizations. This amount represented less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the almost $79 million in 22 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 combined expenditures for nutrition services and administration that were made by the three state-level WIC agencies and two Indian tribal organizations. The nature of the $54,296 in questionable expenditures is described below: The management evaluation for one state-level WIC agency questioned $5,409 in computer maintenance costs because adequate supporting documentation, as required by program regulations, was not available at the time of the review. At a second state-level WIC agency, $6,355 was identified as costs not relating to WIC. The wrong indirect cost rate was used to calculate overhead costs, which resulted in overcharges of about $8,800 at a third state-level WIC agency. A fourth agency, an Indian tribal organization, was identified as having exceeded its fiscal year 1997 grant by $33,691 and inappropriately charging that amount to its fiscal year 1998 grant. At the fifth agency, also an Indian tribal organization, $41 was identified as questionable because adequate supporting documentation was not provided. Questionable expenditures that did not identify a specific dollar amount fell into the three general categories described below: Incorrect method used to allocate shared costs. At one state-level WIC agency, shared costssuch as utilities, janitorial services, garbage disposal, pest control, copier maintenance and supplies, and telephoneswere all allocated according to the number of agency staff. However, according to federal guidance on indirect rate cost proposals, the costs for utilities, janitorial services, garbage disposal, and pest control should have been allocated on the basis of square footage; copier maintenance and supplies on the number of copies; and telephones on the number of telephone lines. At an Indian tribal organization, the nutritionist divides her time between WIC and other programs; however, some of the time she spent on other programs was charged to WIC. Inadequate documentation. The portion of two employees' salaries charged to WIC at one local WIC agency was not supported by acceptable personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation, as required by program regulations. At another state-level WIC agency, no documentation was available on how charges were allocated for 23 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 supplies purchased by the county business office for use by several county programs, including WIC. Inappropriate use of funds. At one state-level WIC agency, lunches provided to vendors during a training session were inappropriately paid with WIC funds. However, in this instance, FNS did not request reimbursement because the inclusion of the vendors' lunch was determined to be a misunderstanding by the state-levelagency of its use of WIC nutrition services and administration funding for vendor training activities. According to FNS officials, questionable nutrition services and administration expenditures are not a common occurrence because state- level WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations typically confer with FNS prior to making a new or nonroutine expenditure. In such instances, the planned expenditure might be disapproved by FNS, thus avoidingan inappropriate expenditure by a state-level or local WIC agency or Indian tribal organization. FNS does not maintain summary information on the number or nature of such requests by state-level WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations or the extent to which they are disapproved. USDA's Office of Inspector General also performs selected audits of state- level and local WIC agencies and other organizations involved in the program. As of January 2000, USDA's Office of Inspector General had no reports available on WIC's fiscal year 1998 expenditures. However, the Office of Inspector General's audits are sometimes conducted several years beyond the year of the expenditures. Agency Comments We provided USDA's Food and Nutrition Service with a draft of this report for review and comment. We met with Food and Nutrition Service officials, including the Director of the Supplemental Food Program Division and the Acting Director of WIC. The agency officials generally agreed with the information presented in this report. They provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; interested Members of Congress; the Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available upon request. 24 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration B-284414 If you have any questions about this report, please contact me or Thomas E. Slomba at (202) 512-5138. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII. Robert E. Robertson Associate Director, Food and Agriculture Issues 25 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix I Scope and Methodology To address the first two objectives of our review, we developed three written mail-out questionnaires for (1) state-level agencies administering the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); (2) local WIC agencies; and (3) Indian tribal organizations. We conducted pretests of the (1) state-level WIC agency survey at five state agencies managing WIC (Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas); (2) Indian tribal organization survey at one Indian tribal organization (Choctaw. Indian Tribal Organization); and (3) local WIC agency survey with directors of 12 local WIC agencies in six states (Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia). We visited these state and local WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizationto conduct each pretest. During these visits, we attempted to simulate the actual survey experience by asking the agency directors and staff to fillout the survey. We interviewed the director and staff to ensure that the (1) questions were readable and clear; (2) terms were precise; (3) survey did not place an undue burden on survey recipients; and (4) survey appeared to be independent and unbiased in its point of view. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) officials also reviewed each survey. In order to maximize the response to our surveys, we mailed a pre- notification letter to all of the 55 state-level agencies; 1,780 local WIC agencies; and 33 Indian tribal organizations in our survey about 1 week before we mailed the surveys. We also sent a reminder letter to nonrespondents about 4 weeks after the initial survey mailing and a replacement survey for those who had not responded after about 8 weeks. After reviewing all of the survey responses, we contacted agencies by telephone to clarify answers for selected questions. Our survey data represent the responses from all of the 55 state-level WIC agencies; 1,416 of the 1,780 local WIC agencies (an almost 80-percent response rate); and 25 of the 33 Indian tribal organizations (an almost 76-percent response rate). We also received aggregated information from state officials in South Dakota for 17 of their local WIC agencies that did not respond to our local WIC survey. We counted their data as representing one local WIC agency and adjusted the costs reported by respondents and the sample accordingly. To determine whether expenditures for nutrition services and administration by state-level and local WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations were questioned under the program's regulations (our third objective), we reviewed reports of management evaluations and financial reviews conducted for fiscal year 1998 expenditures by FNS and discussed questioned costs with FNS officials at headquarters and regional offices. 26 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix I Scope and Methodology We also reviewed previous reports and spoke with an official of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of Inspector General. In addition, we collected administrative and program information from USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services and from each of the 6 state and 12 local WIC agencies and 1 Indian tribal organization that we visited. We performed our work from February 1999 through January 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 27 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix II Characteristics of Local Agencies. With and Without Additional Funds for Nutrition Services and Administration, FY 1998 Characteristic Local WIC agencies with additional funds Local WIC agencies with no additional funds All local WIC agencies Type of local agency Percent state run 7.5 18.1 14.9 Percent local government 68.3 47.9 54.0 Percent private nonprofit 19.1 29.0 25.9 Percent Indian tribal agency 3.1 2.1 2.5 Other 1.9 2.9 2.5 Service area Percent urban 19,4 26.4 24.3 Percent suburban 9.1 7.4 7.6 Percent rural 60.0 55.6 56.1 Percent mixed 11.5 10.5 10.5 Clinics operated Average number 4.9 5.1 5.0 Range 1-41 1-110 1-110 Participants Average monthly participants (mean) 3,093 4,730 4,177 Percent pregnant women (mean) 11.9 11.6 11.7 Percent breastfeeding women (mean) 4.9 4.6 4.7 Percent postpartum women not breastfeeding (mean) 7.6 7.5 7.5 Percent infants (mean) 23.6 24.5 24.2 Percent children (mean) 51.9 51.8 51.8 Staffing Average number of full-time equivalent staff 10.6 14.1 13.1 Participant to staff ratio 293.9 295.9 294.9 In-kind contributions Percent receiving in-kind contribution from one or more sources 72.2 67.5 73.3 Note: Response rates for data presented in this table range from 89 to 100 percent, except for staffing data, which had response rates of 79 percent. Source: GAO's analysis of survey data from local WIC agencies. 28 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix III es of In-Kind Contributions Provided by Each State to the WIC Program, FY 1998 State-level WIC agency In-kind contribution AK AL AR CO DC' DE FL HI IL LA MA8 ME NJ NM8 PR RI8 VA WY Bank services X X X X X X Communication services (e.g., telephone, Internet access) Computer/automatic data processing equipment and maintenance X X X Equipment and supplies, other than automatic data processing X X Facilities (rent/mortgage) and maintenance X X X X X Insurance, bonding, etc. X Interpreter and/or translation services X Salary and benefits, including X X X X X X consultants Printing X Transportation and parking X services (excluding vehicles and maintenance) Travel, training, and X X X X X X conferences Utilities (excluding communications) Vehicles and maintenance Other X X a State-level WIC agency also received additional funds for WIC in fiscal year 1998 from state government. 29 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix IV Percent of Local Agencies Receiving In-Kind Contributions, by Type and Source, FY 1998 Type of provider In-kind contribution received by local WIC agency Local government Private, nonprofit Private, for-profit Indian tribal organization Other Advertising 9.9 5.7 4.4 0.9 0.9 Bank services 8.4 2.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 Communication services 15.0 5.6 1.1 1.3 1.8 Computer/automatic data processing 10.8 2.9 0.3 0.8 0.7 Equipment and supplies, other than automatic data processing 13.3 4.1 0.8 1.0 0.8 Facilities 35.1 15.5 2.4 2.3 3.3 Insurance, bonding etc. 15.3 3.4 0.3 0.8 0.7 Laboratory services 6.5 3.0 0.8 0.8 1.1 Salary and benefits, including consultants 11.7 4.0 0.6 1.2 1.3 Printing, including blank voucher stock 4.4 1.3 0.2' 0.4 0.2 Translation services 6.1 5.4 0.6 0.2 2.2 Transportation/parking services, excluding vehicles and vehicle maintenance 9.8 2.7 0.2 0.9 0.4 Travel,.training, and conferences 7.5 2.9 0.4 1.1 0.7 Utilities, excluding communications 23.6 7.0 1.1 1.7 1.6 Vehicles and vehicle maintenance 6.1 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.2 Other 2.8 1.9 2.0 0.1 1.2 Percent receiving one or more type of contribution from this source 44.1 23.9 10.0 2.8 8.7 30 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix V ercent of State-Level Agencies' irect Expenses in Nutrition Services n Administration Categories, FY 1998 Percent of direct cost expenditures Salary and benefits Facilities and (excluding related expenses, State-level WIC contract Contract Equipment and including utilities, agencies personnel personnel supplies rent, and telephone Other Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada 46.36 a 22.53 1.29 29.82 39.91 .76 18.71 33.92 6.70 63.81 0 25.28 4.55 6.37 22.86 62.22 2.50 .95 11.48 75.50 2.26 22.23 0 0 42.05 0 .16 5.09 52.69 70.94 .25 16.95 1.81 10.04 57.84 0 22.92 0 19.24 55.01 20.36 13.89 4.38 6.35 34.85 0 2.81 0 62.34 19.26 0 23.93 3.41 53.40 71.45 0 28.55 0 0 78.68 0 4.51 1.18 17.63 51.12 0 42.42 1.05 5.42 35.24 1.11 11.14 0 52.51 35.31 .90 3.83 .11 59.84 21.29 .71 63.99 13.01 1.00 49.85 0 13.85 1.90 34.39 30.61 39.82 1.92 23.30 4.35 34.86 32.82 .52 6.31 25.50 42.79 3.79 14.97 11.60 26.85 29.07 5.89 27.73 2.24 35.08 43.97 0 1.82 1.27 52.94 39.24 26.60 12.99 1.45 19.73 24.44 1.67 .57 2.59 70.73 20.84 1.30 36.56 1.14 41.15 49.97 10.94 10.00 6.89 22.21 38.18 4.86 13.45 2.02 41.48 57.72 10.84 19.77 6.14 5.53 47.19 22.14 29.05 0 1.63 57.72 .45 5.94 4.43 31.46 Continued 31 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix V Percent of State-Level Agencies' Direct Expenses in Nutrition Services and Administration Categories, FY 1998 Percent of direct cost expenditures Salary and benefits Facilities and (excluding related expenses, State-level WIC contract Contract Equipment and including utilities, agencies personnel personnel supplies rent, and telephone Other New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 67.64 0 17.01 8.29 7.06 47.95 4.83 7.91 .55 38.77 61.75 5.57 7.03 24.31 1.34 62.88 .24 3.02 0 33.85 49.21 14.12 5.63 2.08 28.96 54.40 1.06 30.76 5.00 8.79 41.29 3.60 16.36 0 38.76 54.96 8.59 5.93 3.85 26.67 34.16 26.21 1.89 3.03 34.71 16.53 8.65 11.68 .07 63.07 60.65 .40 7.80 6.12 25.02 62.32 2.71 6.02 1.51 27.45 48.01 1.70 7.01 42.25 1.04 17.44 45.31 a a 37.25 51.43 4.33 9.49 1.98 32.77 34.22 4.01 21.90 .25 39.62 50.64 2.17 12.84 3.30 31.05 48.94 2.47 6.82 27.70 14.08 51.19 0 6.48 8.41 33.93 31.41 0 9.44 3.10 56.05 25.20 5.28 1.41 9.19 58.92 36.92 0 4.55 2.60 55.93 64.75 0 4.23 5.75 25.27 60.43 14.32 25.26 0 0 Continued from Previous Page a Expenditure amount was not reported by state agency 32 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix VI State-Level WIC Agencies' Direct and Indirect Cost Expenditures for Nutrition Services and Administration, FY 1998 State-level WIC Direct cost expenditures Indirect cost expenditures agency Amount Percent of total Amount Percent of total Total expenditures Alabama $2,547,001 93 $184,235 7 $2,731,236 Alaska 1,817,502 97 61,289 3 1,878,791 American Samoa 549,821 89 64,656 11 614,477 Arizona 3,709,520 91 368,522 9 4,078,042 Arkansas 2,157,418 92 194,939 8 2,352,357 Californiaa 25,357,469 96 1,164,400 4 26,521,869 Colorado 1,376,677 84 258,682 16 1,635,359 Connecticut 1,597,488 87 230,655 13 1,828,143 Delaware 1,172,004 100 0 0 1,172,004 District of Columbia 1,282,179 90 135,271 10 1,417,450 Florida 7,997,220 80 2,039,888 20 10,037,108 Georgia 3,623,906 68 1,743,812 32 5,367,718 Guam 1,335,727 90 144,667 10 1,480,394 Hawaii 2,866,089 93 199,262 7 3,065,351 Idaho 1,222,808 65 659,972 35 1,882,780 Illinois 9,630,784 92 795,872 8 10,426,656 Indiana 3,001,629 98 76,259 2 3,077,888 Iowa 1,681,575 86 276,795 14 1,958,370 Kansas 1,716,883 91 176,401 9 1,893,284 Kentucky 2,802,484 96 129,555 4 2,932,039 Louisiana 2,974,174 100 0 0 2,974,174 Maine 1,109,703 95 56,636 5 1,166,339 Maryland 3,133,303 91 297,263 9 3,430,566 Massachusetts 6,480,091 96 287,682 4 6,767,773 Michigan 9,503,131 96 394,811 4 9,897,942 Minnesota 6,131,735 91 620,866 9 6,752,601 Mississippi 2,014,044 93 159,584 7 2,173,628 Missouri 4,226,069 88 573,931 12 4,800,000 Montana 669,919 80 162,585 20 832,504 Nebraska 973,306 83 202,079 17 1,175,385 Nevada 537,181 92 44,218 8 581,399 New Hampshire 777,196 95 43,417 5 820,613 Continued 33 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix VI State-Level WIC Agencies' Direct and Indirect Cost Expenditures for Nutrition Services and Administration, FY 1998 State-level WIC agency Direct cost expenditures Indirect cost expenditures Amount Percent of total Amount Percent of total Total expenditures New Jersey 6,178,956 96 278,407 4 6,457,363 New Mexico 1,408,967 92 116,980 8 1,525,947 New York 14,844,112 87 2,278,590 13 17,122,702 North Carolina 3,800,389 95 179,262 5 3,979,651 North Dakota 213,912 96 9,038 4 222,950 Ohio 5,112,816 89 644,074 11 5,756,890 Oklahoma 2,397,885 94 157,151 6 2,555,036 Oregon 3,368,193 81 776,930 19 4,145,123 Pennsylvania 7,796,563 92 723,594 8 8,520,157 Puerto Rico 2,807,837 96 118,419 4 2,926,256 Rhode Island 1,024,541 87 146,368 13 1,170,909 South Carolina 1,719,367 98 36,330 2 1,755,697 South Dakota 1,601,874 85 284,419 15 1,886,293 Tennessee 2,121,898 87 321,905 13 2,443,803 Texas 19,760,058 93 1,568,646 7 21,328,704 Utah 1,721,764 93 120,652 7 1,842,416 Vermont 439,275 72 168,759 28 608,034 Virgin Islands 1,642,412 89 207,492 11 1,849,904 Virginia 4,674,636 90 514,413 10 5,189,049 Washington 6,433,012 87 945,174 13 7,378,186 West Virginia 2,498,101 98 63,182 2 2,561,283 Wisconsin 1,417,754 94 85,255 6 1,503,009 Wyoming 642,345 83 130,604 17 772,949 Total $209,602,703 $21,623,848 $231,226,551 Continued from Previous Page a Expenditures reported do not include $21,867,695 that was spent at the state level for local WIC agency activities, including the operation of case management information system and the purchase of materials used by local agencies. This $21,867,695 was included in the $148,460,331 reported for local WIC agency expenditures. 34 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix VII Average Participant Expenses and Participant- to-Staff Ratio by Local Agency Characteristics, FY 1998 Local WIC agency characteristic Average participant expenditure for nutrition services and administration Participant-staff ratio Type of local agency State-run agency $137.44 283.6 Local government agency 134.39 300.3 Private nonprofit agency 134.15 298.0 Indian tribal agency 162.01 236.2 Service area Primarily urban areas 127.01 324.7 Primarily suburban areas 120.82 333.8 Primarily rural areas 140.31 269.5 Primarily mixed 144.06 318.9 Agency size Large (average monthly participation of 5,000 or more) 115.70 355.7 Medium (average monthly participation of 1,001 to 4,999) 127.36 298.6 Small (average monthly participation of 1,000 or less) 157.24 249.8 Funding Had additional funds 147.57 293.9 Had no additional funds 130.81 295.9 In-kind contributions Received in-kind contributions 131.98 294.0 Reported no in-kind contributions 144.26 297.0 Note: The response rate for data presented in this table ranges from 94 to 99 percent for average participant expenditures and from 67 to 88 percent for participant-staff ratio. 35 GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements GAO Contacts Robert E. Robertson (202) 512-5138 Thomas E. Slomba (202) 512-5138 Staff Acknowledgements In addition to those named above, Carolyn M. Boyce; Peter M. Bramble, Jr.; Patricia F. Donahue; Judy K. Hoovler; Roberto R. Pinero; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this report. 36 (150099) GAO/RCED-00-66 WIC Nutrition Services and Administration Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to: info@www.gao.gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http://www.gao.gov To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs Contact one: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system) PRINTED ON Qj RECYCLED PAPER 37 United States General Accounting ashington, Official Penalty Business Address Office 20548-000 Private Mb@ Correction $300 Requested U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) NOTICE Reproduction Basis O ERIC This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form. 1Z1 This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket"). EFF-089 (3/2000) P3 o2S 413