Summary: The Secretary of Agriculture has legislative authority to test ways to increase the efficiency of the Food Stamp Program and improve the delivery of benefits. In 1976, the Department of Agriculture considered testing alternative identification requirements both at the time food coupons are issued and at the time they are redeemed, but the Department has not as yet initiated the testing. Under current program procedures, the head of a household approved for food stamp benefits is issued an identification card. States may use photographs on the identification cards, but may not delay or deny benefits to households whose members are unwilling to be photographed. Recipients are required to show the identification cards when obtaining their food coupons and when redeeming the coupons at a retail store. Retailers are not required to ask for food stamp identification cards. In order to tighten the identification requirements, the Department should study several alternative identification measures. The Department should be able to obtain considerable information about the costs and benefits of photo- identification cards by studying the experiences at locations using this method. Tests should also be conducted on the following possibilities: perforating coupons with a household's food stamp identification number, stamping the identification number on the outside of each coupon book, and having recipients sign larger denomination coupons and then countersign when redeeming them. Another promising alternative would be to use photo-identification cards in conjunction with identification numbers perforated into or stamped on coupon books. The combination of photo-identification cards and identification numbers on coupon books would provide controls over both food coupon issuance and redemption. Households receiving their food coupons through the mail might not need photographs on their identification cards, however, because the purpose of the photograph is to identify recipients when they obtain their coupons. In conclusion, it was suggested that the Department should consider, test, and evaluate as many different alternatives and combinations as practicable.
