k

April 2012

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, 

familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, 

or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer 

Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

National Survey of WIC Participants II

Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

Authors:

Gary Huang, Daniel M. Geller,

Marcia Harrington, and Pedro Saavedra

Submitted by:

ICF Macro

11785 Beltsville Drive, Suite 300

Calverton, Maryland 20705

Submitted to:

USDA, Food and Nutrition Service

3101 Park Center Drive

Alexandria, Virginia 22302

Project Director:

Daniel M. Geller

Gary Huang

Project Officer: 

Sheku G. Kamara (through 1/11)

Karen Castellanos-Brown

This study was conducted under contract number: AG-3198-D-07-0105 with the Food and Nutrition Service.

This report is available on the Food and Nutrition Service website: http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora.

Suggested citation:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, National Survey of 

WIC Participants II: Technical Report, by Gary Huang, et al. Project Officers: Sheku G. Kamara, Karen

Castellanos-Brown, Alexandria, VA: 2012.

April 2012

Special Nutrition Programs

Report No. CN-10-NSWP-II-R2

iii National Survey of WIC Participants II

CONTENTS

Introduction iii

Chapter 1. Participant Characteristics: Telephone Survey 1

1.1 Overview 1

1.2 Study Methodology 1

Source of Data 1

Survey Content 2

Sample Design and Weights 2

1.3 Data Collection 10

1.4 Analysis: Participant Characteristics 13

Data Processing and Editing 14

Tabulation and Analysis 21

1.5 Non-Response Bias Analysis 22

Chapter 2. Improper Payment Estimation: In-Person Survey 27

2.1 Overview 27

2.2 Study Methodology 27

Source of Data 28

Survey Content 32

Sample Design & Weights 33

2.3 Data Collection 40

Category 41

Residency and Identity 41

Economic Unit 42

Income and Adjunctive Income 43

Redemption Data Processing 49

2.4 Analysis of Improper Payment Estimates 50

Certification Error Case Counts & Rates 54

2.5 Special Issues in Improper Payment Analysis 60

Special Case Review Study 61

Economic Unit Determination 64

Calculating EU Income/Assets 64

Determining Income Eligibility 72

Identifying Other Types of Error 72

Estimate Dollar Error 74

Demographics of Eligibility Error Cases 77

Expired Certification Error 80

2.6 Denied New Applicants Survey 84

2.7 Termination/Discontinuation Survey 85
National Survey of WIC Participants II iv

Chapter 3. State and Local Agency Surveys 87

3.1 Overview 87

3.2 Study Methodology 87

Source of Data 87

Survey Content 87

Sample Design & Weights 88

3.3 Data Collection 91

3.4 Analysis 92

Appendices

Appendix I-A: Telephone Survey (Version A—Women)

Appendix I-B: Telephone Survey (Version B—Infant and Child)

Appendix I-C: Non-response Bias Analysis

Appendix I-C1: Response and Cooperation Rates

Appendix I-C2: Item Non-response

Appendix I-C3: Original Weights and Raked Weights

Appendix I-C4: Race/Ethnicity (Using California Coding)

Appendix II-A: In-person Survey (Version A—Women)

Appendix II-B: In-person Survey (Version B—Infants and Children)

Appendix II-C: Denials Survey Instrument

Appendix II-D: Terminations/Discontinuations Survey Instrument

Appendix II-E: Communications to States for Redemption Data and Data Issues

Appendix II-F: Communications to States for Denials

Appendix II-G: Non-response Analysis

Appendix II-H: Contending Reasons against Denial and Termination/Discontinuation

Appendix III-A: State Agencies Survey

Appendix III-B: Local Agencies Survey
LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1-1: Estimates of Error 2

Exhibit 1-2: Sample Requirements 4

Exhibit 1-3: Count of Sampled Sampling Clusters in the Sampled States 5

Exhibit 1-4: Survey Completion Rates by WIC Category and Nonresponse Type 12

Exhibit 1-5: Weighted Ns and Percentage Distributions of Participant Samples and Subsamples 

Completing the Telephone and In-Home Surveys by WIC Category 13

Exhibit 1-6: New Food Security Labels from ERS Website 19

Exhibit 1-7: Food Security Status Levels by Labeling/ Scoring System: Total In-Home 

Survey Sample 20

Exhibit 1-8: Response Rates and Missing Data Rates by Combined Race/Ethnicity—All States 

Recoded to Match California 24

Exhibit 1-9: Response Rates and Missing Data Rates by Race/Ethnicity—All States 

Except California 25

Exhibit 2-1: Sample Sizes and Response Rates: Data Collection Components, WIC Program 

Categories, and Nonresponse Subcategories 29

Exhibit 2-2: Income and Program Release Forms and Undocumented Employment 

Information Form 30

Exhibit 2-3a: Estimates of Error and Precision in Design 33

Exhibit 2-3b: Sample Requirements 34

Exhibit 2-3c: Estimates of Error and Precision in Results 34

Exhibit 2-4: In-Person Nonresponse Adjustment Cells 40

Exhibit 2-5: Residency and Identity Proofs Collected 42

Exhibit 2-6: WIC Income Eligibility Guidelines (Effective from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) 44

Exhibit 2-7: Sources of Income Used to Determine Eligibility 45

Exhibit 2-8: List of Adjunctively Eligible Programs Accepted by Each State 48

Exhibit 2-9: Program Categories, Demographics, and Food Security: Percentage Distribution of 

WIC Participants in In-Person Interview 51

Exhibit 2-10: Median and Mean Monthly Income by Economic Unit for Income-Eligible WIC 

Participants (Adjunctively Eligible Excluded) 54

Exhibit 2-11: Process of Identifying Erroneous Certification, by Eligibility Criteria 55

Exhibit 2-12a: Pre-rebate May 2009 and Annualized Estimates of Mean and Total Redeemed 

Dollar Amounts, by WIC Category 58

Exhibit 2-12b: Infant Formula Rebate Adjustment: May 2009 and Annualized Rebate Values and 

Post-rebate Food Costs for Infants 59

Exhibit 2-12c: Post-rebate May 2009 and Annualized Estimates of Mean and Total Redeemed 

Dollar Amounts, by WIC Category 59
Exhibit 2-13a: Pre-rebate Estimates of Annualized Dollar Amounts of Income Eligibility Error 

by WIC Category 60

Exhibit 2-13b: Post-rebate Estimates of Annualized Dollar Amounts of Income Eligibility Error 

by WIC Category 60

Exhibit 2-14a: Number and Percentage of Respondents by WIC Category: Adjunctive Eligibility 

Established in the In-Person Interview and Income Eligibility Determined in the Special 

Case Review 61

Exhibit 2-14b: Unweighted number of respondents by State: Special Case Reviews 63

Exhibit 2-15: Distribution of the Unweighted Number of Respondents by Final Eligibility Status 

(from Modified Result of Computerized Income Check) and Adjunctive Eligibility (from In-Person 

Interview), by Special Case Review Study Category 64

Exhibit 2-16: Mean and Median Monthly Income of Economic Unit (EU) With and Without 

Cases of Very High Income: Adjunctively Eligible vs. Adjunctively Ineligible Participants and 

EU Size 67

Exhibit 2-17: List of the 18 Cases That Reported Incomes* Without Any Documentation 69

Exhibit 2-18: List of 12 Cases That Reported Incomes with Pay Periods of “Others” 70

Exhibit 2-19: List of the Seven Cases Identified as Having Excessively High Incomes 71

Exhibit 2-20a: Comparison of Six Cases with Very High Income vs. the Rest of the Sample: 

Percentage by Demographics and Food Security Categories 71

Exhibit 2-20b: Estimates Excluding the Six Cases of Very High Income: Income Eligibility 

Case Error and Pre-rebate Dollar Error 72

Exhibit 2-21a: List of Category Error Cases (Infant over 12 Months) by State: Unweighted 

Dollar Error with Two Alternative Calculations 73

Exhibit 2-21b: Category Error (Infant over 12 Months) Annualized Total Dollar Amount: 

Two Alternative Calculations 73

Exhibit 2-22: Monthly and Cumulative WIC Food Benefit Costs: FY 2009 74

Exhibit 2-23a: Constant Parameters Used in Calculation 76

Exhibit 2-23b: Estimated WIC Infant Average Rebate Value and Post-Rebate Food Cost 

(Infant n = 2,157,909) 76

Exhibit 2-23c: Estimated WIC Infant Total Rebate Value and Post-Rebate Food Cost 

(Infant n = 2,157,909) 76

Exhibit 2-23d: Infant Formula Rebate Adjusted Estimates: May 2009 and Annualized Rebate 

Values and Post-Rebate Food Costs for Infants 77

Exhibit 2-24: Demographic and Program Background Variables: Participants With Income 

Eligibility Error and Participants Without the Error 78

Exhibit 2-25a: Certification Dates Collected from State Agency: Prior to or After April 1, 2009 82

Exhibit 2-25b: Length in Program (Days Receiving WIC Benefits) by WIC Category 82

Exhibit 2-25c: Expired Certification Error Case Count and Rate by WIC Category 82

Exhibit 2-25d: Listing of 30 Cases of Expired Certification Error by State and WIC Category 83
INTRODUCTION

The Second National Survey of WIC Participants II (NSWP-II) sought to meet three goals:

1. Explore the characteristics and experiences of WIC participants;

2. Provide information on the policies, procedures, operations, and staff of State and local WIC 

agencies; and

3. Estimate the annual cost of erroneous payments caused by WIC certification error.

To that end, NSWP-II has involved six surveys, taking place during 2008 and 2009 as listed 

below. When possible, the information collected in some of these surveys was used to inform the 

data collection and reporting of the other surveys. For example, information from the State 

Agency survey was used to: (1) collect information about which programs established adjunctive 

and automatic eligibility—which was used in the in-person interviews; (2) ascertain which term 

agencies used for food instruments/checks/vouchers—which was used in the participant 

telephone interview; and (3) determine compliance with State regulations by local WIC agencies.

Population Mode of Survey Goal Met Report Generated

WIC Participants Telephone Goal 1 Volume 1

WIC State Agencies Mail Goal 2 Volume 2

WIC Local Agencies Web-based Goal 2 Volume 2

WIC Participants In-person Goal 3 Volume 3

Denied WIC Applicants Telephone Goal 3 Volume 3

Terminated/Discontinued WIC 

Participants Telephone Goal 3 Volume 3

Additionally, the NSWP-II in-person survey generated data informed the development of a 

statistical model for updating estimates of erroneous payments in the WIC program that may

allow it to calculate erroneous payments for the next 10 years. Technical procedures and the 

results of the modeling development are presented in a separate document.

In all, three NSWP-II reports have been prepared. In Volume 1: Participant Characteristics, the 

attitudes, behaviors and demographic attributes of WIC participants interviewed by telephone 

were reported; in Volume 2: State & Local Agencies, the practices and profiles of State and local 

agencies were reported; and in Volume 3: Improper Payments, estimates of eligibility error and 

dollar error across the WIC Program based on in-person interviews of WIC participants (a subset 

of the telephone respondents) were made.

This technical volume integrates the technical details that were presented separately in the three 

component reports. For each component report, technical details are presented, including the 

survey methods, sampling and sample weighting, data collection, survey instruments, and data 

analyses. The chapters are organized with the participant telephone interviews first, followed by 

the participant in-person interviews assessing improper payments (including the surveys of 
denied new applicants and terminated/discontinued participants that were relevant to improper 

payments). The last chapter deals with the State and local agency surveys.
CHAPTER 1. PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS:

TELEPHONE SURVEY

1.1 Overview

The NSWP-II telephone survey of WIC participants consisted of 2,538 interviews with 

participants selected in a multi-stage sample, with probability proportional to size. First, 40 

sample clusters—located in 23 separate States as some States were selected multiple times—

were selected from the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia. The clusters were 

selected with Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) based on the number of WIC participants, 

with Probability Minimum Replacement. For efficiency in interviewing, States were divided into 

clusters of local WIC agencies. Within clusters, local agencies were first selected (two per 

cluster, with the exception of one very large agency that was sampled three times); then clinics 

(two per local agency, with some exceptions described below); and finally participants, in 

proportion to the number of participants within each category (i.e., pregnant, breastfeeding, 

postpartum, infants, and children) in the sampled clinic. 

1.2 Study Methodology

Source of Data

The source of data for the sample was participants’ WIC records from the 23 sampled States: 

Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. In July 2009, these States were 

asked to submit detailed participant-level data for all participants in sampled WIC clinics who 

received food vouchers for use during April or May 2009. The sample was selected from 

participants who received food vouchers that were valid for redemption at any time during 

May 2009. Terminated/Discontinued participants were identified by comparing April data with 

May data. The following data were requested and received: 

 WIC category (pregnant, breastfeeding, postpartum, infant, child);

 Type of food package issued and valid dates of use;

 Participant ID, name, contact information, date of birth, gender, race/ethnicity;

 Family Economic Unit/Household ID number (if available);

 Parent/guardian of WIC participant (if infant or child);

 Proof of identification/residency/adjunctive eligibility/income provided;

 Dates of original and most recent certification;

 Language spoken by WIC participant (if known); and

 Number of persons in family economic unit. 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 2

Survey Content

The telephone survey with WIC participants lasted 25 minutes, on average. Confidentiality was 

ensured for all participants, and respondents were asked for their help in improving the WIC 

Program with the feedback derived from this survey. Major subjects addressed by the telephone 

survey were as follows:

 WIC Program Participation. Whether sampled participants used the WIC Program before 

and if not, why not.

 Barriers to Participation in WIC. What participants think prevents their eligible family 

members or friends from participating in the Program.

 Rating of WIC Food Benefits. Rating of food benefits, food items not redeemed, 

appropriateness of quantities, places where WIC items were purchased.

 Rating of WIC Services. Overall satisfaction as well as specific satisfaction with location, 

staff, operating hours, waiting times, etc.

 Food Security. Level of food security, including participation in other food programs.

 Health Insurance Coverage. Whether or not adults and children in the household are 

covered by health insurance.

 Breastfeeding. Number of children breastfed; and duration, current practices, and factors 

behind breastfeeding decisions.

 Nutrition Education. Group sessions and individual counseling received, and 

perceived usefulness.

Sample Design and Weights

The sample design process started first with sample allocations, followed by the selection of a 

sample of States; creation and selection of clusters; selection of agencies within clusters; clinics; 

and participants.

The sampling design and sample sizes required for this study were driven by the required 

estimates of case error and improper payments. Exhibit 1-1 presents the assumed estimates of 

error rate and other estimates used to calculate the sample size. For resulting estimates of case 

error, see Exhibit 2-3c.

Exhibit 1-1: Estimates of Error

Parameter Population

Assumed 

Estimate Probability

Confidence 

Interval

Estimates Combined Categories 50% 95% 4.0%

Estimates Separate Categories 50% 95% 7.5%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

To calculate the required sample size, n, for the assumed estimates presented above, the desired 

sample size was first calculated for a simple random sample of WIC participants across the 

nation (specifically for the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia). For the estimate 

of erroneous payments, the size of the simple random sample (SRS) with a 95 percent confidence 

interval (CI) of ±4 percent was calculated as follows:

d ≤ z

where d is the confidence interval, is the standard error, and z is the z value corresponding 

to the 95 percent CI.

Dividing both sides of the equation by z = 1.96 and substituting in d = 4, the standard error for 

the estimate must be no greater than 2.04 percentage points to say with 95 percent confidence 

that the estimate is within 4 percent of the true value. The standard deviation (σ) of a single 

dichotomous event reaches its maximum when the probability of the occurrence of the event is 

0.5. This is expressed as follows:

= 2.04 percentage points = 0.0204

= 0.0204

= 0.0204

n = (.50)2/(.0204)2= 601

Thus, a sample size of 601 WIC participants is needed at the 95 percent confidence level with a 

precision of ±4 percentage points. Once sample size was obtained from an SRS, researchers 

multiplied by the design effect to get the needed sample size given the design.

For all estimates obtained in the telephone survey, researchers assumed a design effect of 2.99 

for the combined WIC categories and 2.39 for separated WIC categories. Exhibit 1-2 shows the 

sample size requirements. (The assumed design effects are based on the average design effects 

for several key estimates in the original NSWP-I survey).

 The number in the third column is the calculation of the number of cases needed (for the 

combined WIC categories and each of the separate categories) if a random sample was to 

be selected. 

 The fourth column shows the number that would be needed (again for the whole sample or 

for each category) given the assumed design effects. 

n



n



n



n

p(1 p)

n

.5(1.5)
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 4

 Finally, the fifth column multiplies the number needed for each category by the number of 

categories (five). These numbers represent the number of participants in each category. 

Exhibit 1-2: Sample Requirements

Parameter Population Random Sample

With Design 

Effect Per Cell Total Needed

Estimates Combined WIC Categories 601 1,797 1,797

Estimates Separate WIC Categories 171 409 2,045

The overall sample was increased from just over 2,000 WIC participants to 2,400 participants 

in order to meet sampling requirements for the erroneous payment estimates.

Selection of States

The primary sampling units (PSUs) were States, selected with Probabilities Proportional to Size 

(PPS) using randomized systematic sampling with Probability Minimum Replacement (PMR).1

The use of PMR meant that multiple selections of the larger States were likely. This was done so 

that the probability of selection of any participants in a given category would be approximately 

equal. States selected multiple times had more local agencies selected (two agencies, each time). 

PPS sampling uses a measure of size (MOS) so that the probability of selecting a State is 

proportional to the measure of size. The size measure for the States was the average of the 

proportion of participants in each of the five categories found in the State. Note that the samples 

are States, not State agencies, which means that participants from ITOs are counted in the 

context of the States in which they belong.

The previous study selected 40 States, allowing States to be selected multiple times. This fits 

well with the desired sample size of 2,400 telephone surveys. The number of State selections was 

determined by working backwards. The 2,400 interviews corresponded to 480 in each of the five 

participant categories. This could mean 3 in each of 160 clinics, with 2 clinics per local agency 

and 2 local agencies per State for each time the State was selected (40 × 2 × 2 × 3 × 5 = 2,400); 

this would preserve the number of State hits as the previous study preserved some continuity that 

allowed comparisons between the studies.

A sample of 40 States, with States capable of being selected more than once, was drawn from the 

48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. Exhibit 1-3 presents the sampled 

States, the region, and clusters sampled given the size of the State. The number of times a State 

was sampled determined the number of clusters sampled within that State. Whereas many States 

were sampled once, 7 States were sampled multiple times for a total of 23 separate 

sampled States.

 

1 Randomized systematic sampling is the method proposed by Goodman and Kish in 1950, but with the added feature that 

multiple selections may occur for large States; i.e., a feature Chromy called Probability Minimum Replacement (1979).
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 1-3: Count of Sampled Sampling Clusters in the Sampled States

Sampled State Region Clusters

Massachusetts 1 1

New York 1 3

Maryland 2 1

New Jersey 2 1

Pennsylvania 2 1

Virginia 2 1

Alabama 3 1

Florida 3 3

Georgia 3 2

North Carolina 3 1

Tennessee 3 1

Illinois 4 2

Indiana 4 1

Michigan 4 1

Ohio 4 2

Louisiana 5 1

Texas 5 5

Colorado 6 1

Kansas 6 1

Missouri 6 1

Arizona 7 1

California 7 7

Washington 7 1

The approach is as follows:

Let Ti be the measure of size for State i. Let T be the sum of all the measures of size for the 

49 States, including the District of Columbia. This means—

ei = 40Ti / T

—to be the expectation of State i.

The expectation is the same as a probability if ei < 1, and if it is greater than 1, the integer part of 

e represents the minimum number of times the State can be selected, and the fractional part 

represents the probability that it will be selected an additional time.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 6

Now to order the 49 PSUs, the ones in the same WIC region are grouped together. Given that the 

States are in the desired order (the order guarantees proportional representation by the ordering 

variable), researchers select a random number r between 0 and 1.

If lim(x) means the largest integer less than or equal to x, then—

c0 = r and

ci = e1 + e2 + ... + ei.

Finally, let si = lim(ci) – lim(ci-1) and si defines the number of times PSUi is selected.

Creation and Selection of Clusters

For efficiency in interviewing, the sampled States were divided into clusters. Clusters are 

combinations of local agencies within a sampled State. Clusters were created such that no single 

local agency constituted more than half of the total cluster size and, to the extent possible, they 

were geographically compact. Similar to the State measure of size, the cluster measure of size 

(MOS) was defined as the average of the proportions of each category of WIC participants 

within a cluster relative to the State total of each category.

The equation is the following:

where, P = Pregnant,

B = Breastfeeding,

N=Postpartum Non-breastfeeding,

I = Infants, and

C = Children

As previously stated, the number of times a State was sampled determined the number of clusters 

sampled in that State. Most of the 23 States sampled only had one cluster sampled with 

probability proportional to size based on the cluster size described earlier. In seven of the States, 

two or more clusters were sampled with PPS: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia, 

Illinois, and Ohio. In preparation for sampling of clusters, States were generally divided into 

geographic clusters based on administrative regions (if applicable), and number of local 

agencies. The number of clusters per State ranged from two to 11, with most having four to 

seven clusters. Arizona was divided into only two clusters to ensure that no single local agency 

constituted more than half of the cluster size. New York was divided into 11 clusters, with four 

in New York City alone. Geographic clustering was not done in California and Texas due to the 

5



















    



State

cluster

State

cluster

State

cluster

State

cluster

State

cluster

C

C

I

I

N

N

B

B

P

P

Cluster Size
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

large number of clusters to be sampled in each (seven and five, respectively) and the magnitude 

of local agencies. These local agencies were sampled directly and arranged into groups to 

facilitate interview assignments. Clustering would have been difficult and would not have 

yielded any gains in efficiency.

Selection of Agencies

Two local agencies were sampled with PPS from each cluster. Calculations of the local agency 

MOS were similar to the State and cluster size calculations. Instead of applying the proportions 

of each category of WIC participants within a cluster relative to the State totals, the cluster totals 

were used in the calculations of proportions. The size measure was multiplied by two to ensure 

the sampling of two local agencies from each sampling cluster. For example, with three clusters 

in New York, six local agencies were selected.

As noted, agencies were sampled directly in California and Texas, with two agencies sampled for 

each time the State was sampled with probability proportional to size. Calculations for the local 

agency MOS were done based on State totals instead of cluster totals. Sampling of agencies in 

these States occurred with probability minimum replacement, so that sampling of very large local 

agencies could occur more than once. One very large California local agency was sampled three 

times. Thus, across all States and clusters, 78 separate local agencies were sampled.

Selection of Clinics

Prior to the selection of the clinics, a total of 2,400 WIC participants were allocated across all 

local agencies sampled, with each of the five categories of WIC participants receiving 

480 participants. For all but the one local agency sampled multiple times, 30 participants were 

sampled across the five categories within each local agency. (The large California local agency 

received 90 WIC participants, or three times the normal allocation). Allocation of the 

30 participants per local agency occurred according to their distribution across categories of 

participants in the local agency relative to the distribution of participants among all sampled 

local agencies.

The initial allocation was defined as:

Where— Ai = the allocation to category i, and i equals one of the five categories of 

WIC participants:

Ni = the number of participants in category i for the sampled local agency

Ti = the number of participants in category i across all sampled local agencies

  



















 

5

1

30

i

i

i

i

i

i
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 8

An iterative rounding algorithm was used in order to obtain exactly 480 participants 

per category.

Thus, if, for example, a local agency had more participants in one category compared with the 

remaining four categories, or more in a category compared with the remaining sampled local 

agencies, a greater share of the 30 participants would be allocated to that category.

Once sampling of local agencies occurred, clinic-level data were obtained for each of the five 

categories of WIC participants. The clinic size is similar to the other size calculations above with 

a few major differences. Each clinic-level proportion was weighted by the local agency 

allocation within that category. The adjusted proportions were then divided by 15—half the 

number of participants within each local agency.

Wherever possible, two clinics were sampled with PPS from each local agency. If a local agency 

had only one clinic, sampling of that clinic was automatic and the participant allocation at the 

local agency level remained as before. When local agencies had one extremely large clinic and 

several small clinics, they were collapsed at the local agency level. If a local agency had only 

two clinics and the clinics were both sufficiently large (greater than 60 total participants per 

clinic), the 30 participants were allocated 15 to each clinic. However, the partial allocations 

(i.e., the number of participants in each category) could vary from clinic to clinic, with a 

rounding algorithm used to decide the final allocations. In local agencies with multiple clinics, 

two clinics were sampled with PPS, and the same total number of participants was allocated to 

each. However, if one of the two sufficiently large clinics selected had 70 percent or more of the 

total participants in the local agency, researchers allocated the 30 participants proportionally 

among the two clinics. This occurred once.

Selection of Participants

After the selection of WIC clinics and several months before data collection, lists of participants 

enrolled during two consecutive months (April and May 2009) were obtained from all clinics 

sampled. The later month was to be the target month.

Participants were classified into the five categories. If a participant changed categories within the 

target month, the most recent category was used. Thus, if an infant became a child during 

the month, receiving some food vouchers as an infant and some as a child, he was considered a 

child for sampling purposes.

Each participant in a clinic was assigned a random number. Sorted by that number, participants 

underwent a selection process by the first n from each category (where n is the allocation of

participants at the clinic level described earlier). The remaining participants in a category 

remained in their order of selection and acted as replacements, so that if a participant (or the 

participant’s parent/guardian) refused to respond or could not be located, the next one in line was 

selected.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Weighting

Each State was sampled with PPS, using a size measure that was the average of the proportion of 

participants in each of the five categories. This average was then multiplied by the number of 

States allocated to the sample (40) and its inverse was used as the PSU weight. Note that the 

result would be smaller than 1.00 if selection of the PSU occurred more than once. PSU weights 

that were lower than 1 were set to 1.

Similarly the clusters were also sampled with PPS, using a similar measure of size (MOS). 

The MOS was then multiplied by the number of sampled clusters. For California and Texas, 

where no clustering occurred, this weight was 1. Local agency probabilities of selection were 

two times the local agency MOS. In California and Texas the local agency probabilities of 

selection were twice the number of clusters selected (14 and 10, respectively) times the local 

agency MOS. When selection of clinics occurred, their probabilities of selection were two times 

the local agency MOS.

For the participants, calculations for the probability of selection were the number of participants 

sampled from the category divided by the total number of participants from the category 

receiving issuance each month. Calculations for intermediate probability of selection of the clinic 

also may have occurred.

Therefore, the initial weight for a participant was the inverse of their probability of selection. 

The probability of selecting a participant Pijkrt, is the probability of selection of a participant in 

State i, cluster j, agency k, clinic r, and participant category t. This would be equal to Pijkrt = Pi Pj

Pk Pr Pt, where Pi is the probability of selecting the State, Pj the probability of selecting the 

cluster given the selection of the State, Pk the probability of selecting the agency given the 

selection of the cluster, Pr the probability of selecting the clinic (or 1 if clinics are not sampled) 

given the selection of the agency, and Pt is the probability of selecting the participant given the 

selection of the agency or clinic.

Trimming of weights is desirable here because extreme weights lead to large variances. For each 

category, weights will max at three times the median weight, and the reduction will spread out 

over the entire category.

Potential problems for the telephone survey by weight adjustments were addressed via poststratification. The idea in post-stratification is to use relevant population parameters as the

reference (specifically each variable’s marginal totals known as control totals) to adjust the 

survey data weight and correct the cell frequency distributions of the key variables that are 

biased or unreliable because of undercoverage and/or non-response (Battaglia et al., 2005). 

With that adjustment, it was possible to generate estimates with less bias and greater precision. 

National totals of participants by WIC category were obtained and the final weights were 

adjusted to sum to the known totals.

Because the sampling design involved clusters and weights, it was necessary to take into account 

design effects in all estimates of standard errors and any significance tests. In order to do this, we 

used the delete-a-group jackknife procedure2for statistical significance tests. We defined

 

2 Kott, P.S. (2001). The delete-a-group jackknife. Journal of Official Statistics, 17 (4):521-526.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 10

replicate groups (i.e., subsets of the sample), with 40 for the telephone survey and 40 for the 

in-person survey (with additional adjustments upon non-response analysis). For each replicate 

group, a replicate weight was created. For the members of a given replicate group, each had a 

value of 0 for the corresponding replicate weight; and for the rest in the sample, each had a 

positive replicate weight which added up to the population for each of the five WIC program

categories. By comparing results using the replicate weights, the variances of the different point 

estimates and the statistical significance were in turn estimated.

1.3 Data Collection

A field interviewer was assigned to each sampling cluster to complete 60 telephone interviews of 

sampled participants. In all, the interviewers completed telephone interviews of 2,538 WIC 

participants, a bit more than the 2,400 planned in order to assure that there would be sufficient 

numbers of respondents by category and local agency for both the telephone interview and the 

in-person interview (since the latter group was sampled from the telephone respondents). Copies 

of the telephone survey instruments are in Appendices I-A and I-B. There were two versions 

developed, both very similar. However, one was for sampled pregnant, breastfeeding, and 

postpartum women while the other was for the parent/guardian of a sampled infant or child. 

Instruments were also translated into Spanish.

The interviews were conducted using computer-assisted personal interviewing between late 

September 2009 and January 2010 by 40 interviewers, 25 (62.5%) of whom were bilingual 

(English-Spanish). Field interviewers participated in a 4-day training immediately prior to the 

start of interviewing. The training covered topics including the WIC Program and the population 

served; WIC eligibility requirements; use of laptop computers and interview software; 

respondent cooperation; professional conduct; protection of confidential information and secure 

data transfer; and record-keeping. 

Demand for other languages for interviewing was limited and scattered; telephone interpreting 

was offered for Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese) and Vietnamese for approximately five 

interviews. Telephone interpreting was also made available in Spanish for non-bilingual 

interviewers. 

Based on the completion status of the interviews, respondents to the telephone interview were 

classified into four groups: complete, partially complete, refused, or unreachable. Due to 

problems associated with incomplete or out-of-date addresses and telephone numbers provided 

by the States (not entirely surprising for a mobile population), a 51.3 percent response rate was 

achieved, resulting in 2,538 completed and usable telephone interviews. Excluding those persons 

who were unreachable from the denominator3yields a cooperation rate of 78.0 percent. 

See Exhibit 1-4.

 

3 Eight telephone attempts were completed before replacing a sampled participant. Whenever possible, interviewers tried to 

locate participants with non-working or missing telephone numbers in person, at the provided address. Many persons were not at 

the address provided or were difficult to locate in large multi-unit apartment buildings when no apartment number was provided. 

Through the investigative efforts of the interviewers, many of these persons were located successfully and interviewed. Those

who completed the telephone portion of the interview in person received a $10 gift card to their choice of Walmart or Target by 

mail. In addition, gift cards were provided to those who expressed concern about cell phone charges before scheduling or at a

time during the telephone interview screening.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

During the data collection period, a problem was encountered which was not anticipated in the 

planning stages, or in discussions with the States: the contact information of participants 

(addresses and telephone numbers) was frequently out of date. While policies on what is required 

differ among the States, participants do not always provide address changes to local WIC offices, 

although all States do require some proof of residence during the original certification. 

Furthermore, addresses in multi-unit buildings may lack apartment numbers. Since vouchers are 

picked up in person, rather than mailed, failure to report apartment units or changes in address 

seem to have no impact on benefits. The problem seemed to reflect the realities of dealing with a 

low-income population—a group that is somewhat mobile by nature. Telephone numbers, which 

are generally not susceptible to any verification at time of certification, were even more of a 

problem, especially since many people have abandoned landlines in favor of cell phones. Cell 

phone plans can be closed or numbers changed, and prepaid plans make changes simple. Even 

when correct, telephone access can be a problem. Caller ID makes it easy for people to ignore 

calls from unknown numbers. Some accounts have privacy features, such that calls from 

unknown numbers are blocked.

As a result, locating sampled participants to schedule an interview was often a challenge. If data 

collectors could not reach a person by phone, they would make an in-person call at the address 

and, if they did not have an apartment number or if the person had moved, they inquired of 

neighbors. Data collectors were instructed to attempt calls at different times of the day (within an 

8 a.m. to 8 p.m. window) and at different times of the week. They were also told not to leave 

more than two voicemail messages within a 4 day period to avoid appearance of harassment. 

If the data collector could not locate a participant by these means, they were instructed to see if 

more current information could be obtained from the local WIC clinic. This latter step was taken 

by about a half dozen of the data collectors, but ultimately did not yield much 

improved information.

As might be expected, it was much more difficult finding participants in large urban areas than in 

suburban areas, smaller towns, or rural areas. As data collection proceeded, data collectors were 

reassigned to put some of our most accomplished staff in areas where participants were most 

difficult to reach.

Exhibit 1-4 displays response rates by WIC program category and nonresponse type.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 12

Exhibit 1-4: Survey Completion Rates by WIC Category and Nonresponse Type

4,946 WIC Participants 

Sampled for the 

Telephone Survey 

(completed n=2,538)

78 Local

Agencies

148 Local

Clinics

40 Sampling Clusters

(in 23 State)

Pregnant

Sampled =974(100%)

Unreachable =30.7%

Refused =3.6%

Partial =12.0%

Complete =53.7%

Breastfeeding

Sampled =943(100%)

Unreachable =31.6%

Refused =3.3%

Partial =8.9%

Complete =56.2%

Postpartum

Sampled=1,015(100%)

Unreachable =39.1%

Refused =3.0%

Partial =9.7%

Complete =48.3%

Infants

Sampled=1,048(100%)

Unreachable =37.5%

Refused =4.0%

Partial =11.5%

Complete =46.9%

Children

Sampled =966(100%)

Unreachable =31.8%

Refused =4.0%

Partial =8.6%

Complete =55.6%

1,489 WIC Participants 

Sampled for the 

In-person Interview 

(completed n=1,210)

Pregnant

Sampled =312(100%)

Refused =12.8%

Partial =6.7%

Complete =80.4%

Breastfeeding

Sampled =304(100%)

Refused =10.2%

Partial =4.9%

Complete =84.9%

Postpartum

Sampled =274(100%)

Refused =14.6%

Partial =3.6%

Complete =81.8%

Infants

Sampled =285(100%)

Refused =15.1%

Partial =5.6%

Complete =79.3%

Children

Sampled =314(100%)

Refused =14.3%

Partial =5.7%

Complete =79.9%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

1.4 Analysis: Participant Characteristics

An integrated dataset that included pre-coded data obtained from States, a telephone survey of 

WIC participants, and an in-home survey with 1,210 respondents comprising approximately half 

of the respondents who completed the telephone survey, were analyzed in this study. The dataset 

contained a total of 2,560 records for sampled participants who completed the telephone survey. 

Exhibit 1-5 displays the numbers and weightings of the telephone survey sample, and the 

in-home survey subsample by WIC program category. 

Exhibit 1-5: Weighted Ns and Percentage Distributions of Participant Samples and 

Subsamples Completing the Telephone and In-Home Surveys by WIC Category

Sample Components WIC Category

Unweighted

n

Weighted

n

Weighted

%

Std error

Weighted

%

Total (Telephone)

Pregnant 517 977,875 10.61 0.10

Breastfeeding 519 610,440 6.63 0.09

Postpartum 490 637,086 6.91 0.03

Infant 495 2,234,610 24.25 0.13

Child 539 4,753,728 51.59 0.17

Total 2560 9,213,739 100.00

Completed In-home 

Pregnant 251 489,087 10.95 0.38

Breastfeeding 258 311,365 6.97 0.27

Postpartum 224 295,577 6.62 0.24

Infant 226 1,072,430 24.00 0.66

Child 251 2,299,322 51.46 0.97

Total 1210 4,467,781 100.00

Did Not Complete InHome

Pregnant 266 488,788 10.30 0.39

Breastfeeding 261 299,075 6.30 0.24

Postpartum 266 341,510 7.20 0.25

Infant 269 1,162,180 24.49 0.66

Child 288 2,454,406 51.72 0.93

Total 1,350 4,745,959 100.00

Pearson Chi-Square 1.06

P value 0.63

Note: Statistics are weighted by the telephone survey weights.

A Chi-square significance test was conducted and results show that there was no statistically 

significant difference in WIC category distribution between participants who completed the inhome survey and those who did not complete the in-home survey (χ2 = 1.06 and p = .63). This 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 14

suggests that for in-person interview, there was no selection bias by program categories with 

sample weighting.

Data from the telephone survey were the main source for the analysis of participants’ 

demographic characteristics and their experiences with the program. Additional data on 

household size and structure were obtained from the in-home survey, whose respondents were 

asked to name and describe each person living in the household (up to 20) in terms of age, sex, 

and relationship with the sampled participant, and indicate whether or not the person was part of 

the family economic unit.

Data Processing and Editing

Data processing included data cleaning, formatting, labeling, and coding. Raw data items were 

recoded and new or composite variables were reconstructed and used in the analysis. 

The definitions of these variables and details of how they were manipulated in the analysis are 

presented below. 

Participant Age

With raw data on participants’ birth day, month, year, and corresponding certification day, 

month, and year, the days between the birth day and the date of the survey were calculated and 

the results were converted into age in years and months. For children, age is presented as 1 

through 5 years; for infants, months of age are presented in five levels comparable to those used 

in NSWP I (0–3 months, 4–5 months, 6–8 months, 9–11 months, and 12 months and older).4

Missing data occurred on birth day and month for a very small number of cases. Imputation was 

applied involving imposing a value of 15 to the missing day and a random assignment of 1 

through 12 to the missing month. Out-of-range values on birth year (e.g., 8 and 9 instead of 2008 

and 2009 respectively) were corrected for 9 cases as well.

Participant Race

Following Census racial categories, there were seven racial groups in the original variable on 

participants’ race: African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian American, 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, White, Others, and Multiracial. The subgroups 

Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Others, and Multiracial, however, had small sizes, 

producing low cell frequencies when breaking up a program measure (e.g., breastfeeding) by 

race. To address this issue, the categories of Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander were combined into one subgroup labeled “Asian and Pacific Islander,” while Other and 

Multiracial categories were also combined into one subgroup labeled “Other/Multiracial.”

Still, many measures collapsed by the recoded race indicator had low cell frequencies for smaller 

racial groups, particularly American Indian and Alaska Native.

 

4

Some States allow a transition period for infant benefits for up to 30 days beyond their first birthday.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

15 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Education and Language

To consolidate information, the original eight levels of education of WIC women and 

parent/guardians was recoded into three categories; i.e., less than high school, high school 

completion, and more than high school. Likewise, participant native language background was 

recoded into three categories: English, Spanish, and others.

Food Program Participation

Data were collected to measure respondents’ participation in other food assistance programs. 

The original items, coded in binary format, indicate whether or not the respondent participated in 

each of the nine programs (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP), National School Breakfast Program (NSBP), Summer Food 

Service Program (SFSP), Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), 

Temporary Assistant for Needy Families (TANF), Child and Adult Care Food Program 

(CACFP), local/community food bank, and Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP, 

past and present). Additionally, two composite variables were developed and used based on 

participation in food assistance programs. Focusing on SNAP participation, one variable 

identified three categories of participation: participation in no other food assistance program, 

participation in other food assistance programs including SNAP, and participation in other food 

assistance programs excluding SNAP.

Program Benefits

The value of WIC program benefits was assessed using a large set of data items relating to 

respondents’ perception of WIC benefits, with six levels of responses ranging from 0

(“not valuable at all”) through 5 (“extremely valuable”). 

Program Satisfaction

The original variables on program satisfaction measured WIC services and location of facility 

using a five-point scale (1 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor 

dissatisfied, 4 = somewhat dissatisfied, 5 = very dissatisfied). Two additional sets of data items 

addressed food benefits (3 items, specifically dealing with quantity, foods you like to eat, and 

choices in sizes/brands available) and specific services (12 items dealing with clinic staff, 

customer service, location, and facility), all on a five-point scale (1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 

3 = good, 4 = fair, and 5 = poor). The responses were tabulated by program or demographic 

characteristics.

As discussed in the WIC Benefits Ratings subsection of Section 3.3, the original responses 

relating to services and facility location were first analyzed and then collapsed into the two broad 

categories of “satisfied” and “dissatisfied”. Similarly, responses relating to food benefits and 

related specific service features, were combined into “satisfied” (for responses of “excellent,”

“very good,” or “good”) and “dissatisfied” for “fair” and “poor” responses. To consolidate the 

information, a composite measure was developed for each of the two sets of data items. 

Each item was reversely scaled into a low-to-high value scheme representing increasing 

satisfaction level (0=Poor, 1=Fair, 2=Good, 3=Very Good, and 4=Excellent). The composite 

variables of satisfaction with coupon and special services (named COMPSATISCP2 and 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 16

COMPSATISSPEC2, respectively) were built by averaging scores for each set of original items. 

Further, a comprehensive indicator of program satisfaction is created (COMPSATISTOT2) by 

averaging the values from the two composite variables and the original items of satisfaction with 

WIC service and location/facilities (also reversely recoded).

Perception of Food Quantity

Two sets of data items measured respondents’ perception of whether the quantities of 11 specific 

food items available in food packages were too little or too much, respectively (see Appendix IA for specific food items). Responses of yes or no (response indicating ‘too much’ or ‘too little’ 

of the food or ‘no’ were recoded 1 and 0 respectively). Two composite indicators were 

constructed for each food item (for too much and too little, respectively) by summing the 

affirmative responses (Yes) of each item in each set.

Length of Breastfeeding

Four measures were created for length of breastfeeding based on the original data items, 

including:

 Days of breastfeeding of the last child by women and guardians

 Days of exclusive breastfeeding of the last child by women and guardians

 Days of breastfeeding of the current child, excluding those who were having their 

first pregnancy

 Days of exclusive breastfeeding of the current child, excluding those who were having their 

first pregnancy.

The original measurement of length in weeks or months was converted into days as the final 

measure. Another measure of number of months planning to breastfeed, asked of only pregnant 

women, was reported only in months.

Number of Children

Two measures on the number of children were created relevant to, respectively, the respondent’s 

nuclear family and the household. The nuclear family included the WIC woman and her own 

child(ren); or alternatively, the custodial guardian and WIC child(ren) or infants sampled in the 

telephone survey, and their siblings. The household, in contrast, included all the persons named 

by the in-home interview respondent (a WIC woman or an adult custodial guardian of a WIC 

child/infant): the respondent, other adults, children, and infants.

Note that the in-home interview data on household size and structure were more systematic and 

detailed on determining household composition than the telephone survey. In the in-home 

interview, respondents were asked to name all persons in the household (up to 20; the data 

collected showed a maximum of 14), and to describe each member in terms of age; sex; extended 

family relationship (grandparent, uncle, aunt, cousin, nephew, and stepchild/parent) as well as 

non-family relationship with the sampled WIC participant (foster child/parent and non-relatives). 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

17 National Survey of WIC Participants II

The number of children was determined by counting household members whose ages were 

under 18. 

In telephone interviews, respondents were only asked about the number of their own children 

(including the first pregnancy/child at the time of the interview). The number of children in the 

nuclear family was constructed by first identifying pregnant women (in WIC category 1) who 

reported the first-time pregnancy (not yet undelivered at the time of the interview). For these 

cases, the nuclear family has no child. For respondents in other WIC categories, the family 

would have one or more children, as reported by WIC women or adult respondents. 

Consequently, nuclear families without children are identified as those of first-time 

pregnant women.

The binary indicator of households with children versus without children derived from the 

in-home interview was relevant to food security measurement, which requires determination of 

whether there is a household member under the age of 18. With this household indicator, FNS’ 

scoring protocols for households with and without children were applied to develop food security 

scale scores (see also Food Security measurement).

Food Security

Following FNS guidelines on food security measures (FNS, 2000), two sets of food security 

indicators were developed: status levels and scale scores. The procedure involved the 

following steps:

 Assigning values to missing Level 2 screener follow-up items: the three Level-2 screeners 

(P0534b, P0534f, and P0534j) were first recoded into binary format with 1 indicating food 

insecure and 0 indicating non food-insecure (or food secure). Missing data on the paired 

follow-up items were assigned values. Specifically, if a screener was negative (indicating no 

food insecurity), the missing follow-up item was assigned zero (negative), whereas if the 

screener was positive (indicating food insecurity), then the follow-up item was missing.

 Binary recoding: all 18 food security items were recoded into binary format according to the 

prescribed ERS protocol. For the first six items (p0534a_1-p0534a_6, referred to as the Stage 

1 items by ERS), values smaller than three were coded as 1 (affirming food insecurity); 

otherwise zero (for food security). For the remaining four three-category items (Stage 2 

items), if the values equaled three they were recoded zero (negative answer). The eight 

original binary variables remained binary.

 Imputing missing data: possibly food insecure cases were identified by the primary screener 

(P0533>1). Of them, one case had missing data on all but the first two items (P0534a_1 and 

P0534a-2), and nine cases had missing data on one or more of the last four items (P0534h

through P0534l). As the ERS Guide specifies,

5

imputation must consider the order of food 

insecurity severity for the 18 items.6Two conditions must both be met for imputing the 

missing data with a 1 (indicating food insecure): (1) at least one affirmative response occurs 

among the more severe items relative to the item with missing data; and (2) the response on 

 

5 Bickel, Gary, Mark Nord, Cristofer Price, William Hamilton, and John Cook: Guide to Measuring Household Food Security, 

Revised 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Alexandria VA. March, 2000.

6 We took the severity order developed by ERS based on the 1998 national population study.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 18

any of the less severe items is not food secure. If one or both conditions are not met, a zero 

(food secure) is assigned to the missing item. Missing data were coded by: (1) summing the 

values of items that implied more severe food insecurity—if the sum was greater than 1, then 

it was coded as 1 (food insecure) since at least one item of greater severity was responded to 

affirmatively7and the first condition was met); (2) summing the values of less severe items 

to identify any negative response (if the sum equals the number of these items, then the 

second condition was met). As appropriate, either a code of 1 (food insecure) was entered in 

place of the item with missing data or a code of 0 (food secure).

 Generating the raw food security score: this score was obtained by adding the counts of 

affirmative answers (coded as 1) of all the 18 items. 

 Determining food security status levels: applying the two FNS schemes for determining food 

secure status, households with at least one child (based on information from the in-home 

interview data) were labeled respectively with four levels of food security. The levels were: 

0 = ”high,” 1 = ”marginal,” 2 = ”low,” and 3 = ”very low” food security.

 Assigning food security scale score: also applying the two different scoring schemes in the 

FNS guidelines, a food security scale score was developed based on the raw scores for 

households with and without children.

 Screening out cases that are food secure: primary screening (with P0533 value = 1, “have 

enough food”) was used to identify households that were food secure. These households were 

assigned 0 for both FS status level and scale score.

The estimated food security status levels in this study may not be directly comparable with those 

of the prior NSWP-I study (National Survey of WIC Participants 1, USDA, 2001) because of 

differences in the questionnaires and scoring algorithms. The primary screening question used in 

this study was—

13. Now thinking about how your family eats generally, which of the following 

statements best describes the food you had to eat in your household during the last 

12 months? Your household... [READ LIST]? [CHECK ONE ONLY]

 Have enough to eat [SKIP TO Q35]

 Sometimes not have enough to eat, or

 Often not have enough to eat.

Respondents who selected “Have enough to eat” were considered food secure and skipped for 

the remaining food security questions. In the prior study, the screening question also asked about 

household food sufficiency over the past 12 months; but with different response wording: the 

response “enough to eat the kinds of food wanted” was determined as food secure and skipped 

for the remaining food security module (EIC Participant and Program Characteristics II, 

USDA, 2001).

 

7

If any missing data occurs on a more severe item, we assigned zero (negative) to the item, likewise with less severe items.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

19 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Another difference is in labeling food security status and related scoring changes. Following the 

new labels prescribed by ERS,8the approach shown in Exhibit 1-6 was used:

Exhibit 1-6: New Food Security Labels from ERS Website

New Label Description of Conditions in the Household

High food security No reported indications of food-access problems or limitations

Marginal food security

One or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food 

sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of 

changes in diets or food intake

Low food security Reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no 

indication of reduced food intake

Very low food security Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced 

food intake

In the NSWP-I study, the old labeling scheme was used, as follows:

 Food secure

 Food insecure without hunger

 Food insecure with hunger, moderate

 Food insecure with hunger, severe.

In addition, the scoring procedure differed by the labeling scheme. With the label changes, the 

revised scoring scheme was used to generate food security status level. Note that, due to the low 

frequency and low rate of “marginally food secure” (1.06%), this category was combined with 

the “high food secure” category, with a new label “high or marginal food secure” or simply 

“food secure.”

Comparisons of the different labeling and related scoring schemes for food security measurement 

were compared with the in-home interview data weighted with an initial set of sampling weights 

and replicated weights.9

The weighted and unweighted counts of participants by food security status levels using different 

scoring/labeling systems are presented in Exhibit 1-7.

 

8

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm, viewed as of 06/12/2010.

9 These weights were finalized for the analysis of improper payments with the in-home interview data.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 20

Exhibit 1-7: Food Security Status Levels by Labeling/

Scoring System: Total In-Home Survey Sample

Food Security Status Indicator

Unweighted n 

(1,210)

Weighted n 

(9,113,617) Percent (100) S.E. of Percent

Food Secure—Previous Scoring (FSSTATUS1)

Food secure 989 7,564,559 83.0 1.7

Food insecure without hunger 118 845,803 9.3 1.2

Food insecure with moderate 

hunger 82 576,646 6.3 1.1

Food insecure with severe hunger 21 126,609 1.4 0.5

Food Secure—New Scoring (FSSTATUS2)

High food security 968 7,466,421 81.9 1.70

Marginal food security 21 98,138 1.1 0.42

Low food security 118 845,803 9.3 1.22

Very low food security 103 703,255 7.7 1.26

Food Secure—New Scoring (FSSTATUS) with High and Marginal Food Security Combined

High or marginal food security 989 7,564,559 83.0 1.71

Low food security 118 845,803 9.3 1.22

Very low food security 103 703,255 7.7 1.26

Because the indicator of a household with a child or children versus one without children was 

derived from the in-home interview data, the food security measure was available only for 1,210 

cases that participated in the in-home survey. The number of cases available for tabulations of 

the measure by demographic and program variables may vary due to missing data on 

those variables.

There were 22 cases that participated in the in-home survey that had missing data on food 

security. The data were entered for each food security item by assigning values from cases 

(called donors) that had valid data and were in the same State, agency, clinic, and WIC 

categories as each of the 22 cases. The donors were defined as telephone interview respondents 

who were not selected for the in-home interview. There were two instances where a donor was 

chosen from the other clinic within the same local agency due to insufficient cases in the same 

clinic. The donors were randomly sorted within donor cell and each donor could be selected only 

once. Only 4 of the 22 cases resulted in the full battery of food security questions; the others 

were food secure based on the screening.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

21 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Household Structure

An array of household structure indictors were developed for use with the in-home interview 

data. For each named household member, relationships with the respondents were documented 

by two sets of variables, for WIC children/infants and WIC women. Available only for the 1,210 

in-home interview cases, the indicators used to determine household size were—

 Household size: the total number of household members, including relatives and 

nonrelatives (fostered child/parent and children under temporary care) (HHSIZE).

 Number of children in the household: all household members who are under 18, including 

relatives and nonrelatives (KIDN).

 Number of parents: parents or foster parents for the WIC child/infant, plus the spouse of the 

WIC woman (PARENTN).

 Number of grandparents: grandparents to the WIC child/infant or the woman (GRANDN).

 Number of non-biological members: members who are not relatives of the WIC 

child/infant or woman (NONBIO).

 Number of relatives: members who are cousins, nephews, uncles, aunts, grandparents 

(RELATN).

 Number of foster members: foster children or foster parents (FOSTERN).

 Generations: Number of generations; a score of “2” if no grandparent named to the 

child/infant or the woman; “3” if one or more grandparents named for the WIC child/infant; 

“4” if one or more grandparents named for the WIC woman (GEN4). (Scores of 0 and 1 were 

not used.)

 Single parent households: households that have only one parent (SINGLEPARENT).

 WIC mother: for child or infant cases, named member who is a female parent and 

participated in WIC (WICMOM).

 Teen mother: for child or infant cases, named member who is a female parent and age under 

18 (TEENMOM).

 Nuclear family: households without relatives (NUCLEARFAM).

Tabulation and Analysis

The participant characteristics analysis entailed two statistical procedures. One- or two-way 

cross-tabulations were run to examine, respectively, descriptive statistics of key variables and 

bivariate associations between two categorical variables. Pearson chi-square tests were used in 

two-way cross-tabulations to help determine if associations between pairs of variables were 

statistically significant (at p ≤ .05).

Comparisons of means was performed to examine differences in continuous measures between 

two or more categories. To determine statistically significant differences, each category’s 

estimates of the means at the 95 percent confidence level is presented.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 22

SAS 9.2 PROC SURVEYFREQ and SURVEYMEANS on ICF Macro’s UNIX system used the 

jackknife replicate weights method to compensate for the complex sample design effects and to 

obtain accurate variance estimates. Adjusted sampling weights obtained via post-stratification 

were also used in all the procedures to correct biases generated by unproportional sampling 

selection and unit nonresponses.

1.5 Non-Response Bias Analysis

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires non-response bias analysis whenever the 

survey response rate is less than 80 percent. The response rate for the telephone survey of 

participants in this study was 51.3 percent (Exhibit 1-8).10 To a large extent, the response rate 

reflects the source of information for the sampling frame. States obtain contact information on 

applicants during initial application and/or at recertification. Participants, however, receive their 

vouchers—which are exchangeable for nutritious food at WIC offices—in person. 

Since vouchers are picked up at WIC offices, the need to maintain current contact information is 

minimized and contact information in State files may legitimately be 6 to 18 months out of date. 

In conducting the telephone survey among WIC participants, it was found that 4.4 percent of 

telephone numbers were no longer current, being either disconnected (temporarily or otherwise) 

or not in service at all. Another 14.0 percent rang with no voicemail or human answering the call, 

making it impossible to know if the participant had been reached. Attempts that were made to 

locate sampled participants by other means—including visiting their reported residences—were 

sometimes successful, but addresses changed as well. In this case, a follow-up was done, as 

specified in the research design, asking whoever resided at that address or a neighbor to help 

locate the sampled participant. Sometimes, this was achieved with the help of an updated 

telephone number, but frequently the interview was conducted in person at the discovered 

address, or at yet another address where the sampled participants were located. 

This process was quite effective as a whole, as suggested by the difference between the response 

rate and the ultimately achieved cooperation rate of 78.0 percent. The response rate was 

determined using American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) calculation,

11

defined as the number of completed interviews divided by the sum of (1) completed interviews

plus partial interviews, and (2) refusals and non-contacts. (Note that RR1 also includes cases of 

unknown eligibility in the denominator, but researchers had no such cases). The cooperation rate, 

using AAPOR calculation, is the number of completed interviews divided by the sum of 

(1) completed and partial interviews, (2) refusals, and (3) others who could be identified and 

contacted (thus excluding those for whom current contact information was unavailable).

Despite the efforts to locate respondents for whom contact information was no longer current, 

both the response rate and the cooperation rate (excluding those who could not be located) 

remained below 80 percent. Thus, non-response bias analysis was conducted without sample 

weighting in order to examine both the amount of non-response and the extent to which 

respondents differed from non-respondents on key background variables. 

 

10 Non-response bias analysis for the in-person survey results is presented in Appendix II-G.

11 American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome 

Rates for Surveys, 2009 Revision. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.aapor.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Resourcesfor

Researchers/StandardDefinitions/StandardDefinitions2009new.pdf
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

23 National Survey of WIC Participants II

The non-response bias analysis relied on participant category, which was part of the sampling 

frame, and on several characteristics available for both respondents and non-respondents12

including: race/ethnicity, gender, family size, months since the recent certification, and whether 

the participant lived in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or a non-MSA. Two additional 

variables were examined (participants’ category and region of the country), but the response 

rates for these were irrelevant. That is because the design included sequential replacements of 

non-respondents, meaning that each non-respondent was replaced by a participant from the same 

WIC Category and Local Agency (and thereby, region). As a result, the number in each WIC 

category (i.e., pregnant women, postpartum, breastfeeding, infant and child) and the number in 

each Local Agency were held constant by the replacement procedure. And, since every nonrespondent was replaced by another participant from the same region, that would not have 

introduced any response-rate bias by region.

The response rates were compared for each of the categories in these variables, and the 

differences within categories were tested for significance (Appendix I-C1).

In addition, these items were used to ascertain whether those variables related to responding 

would affect estimates of at least some substantive variables. Had any variable been significantly 

related to responding, researchers would have investigated further. Race/ethnicity was the only 

variable related to both responding and to key outcome variables.

The key outcome variables were chosen to represent the most relevant outcomes that could have 

a potential relationship to the response rates. The following key outcome variables were chosen:

 Item #7: Satisfaction with WIC staff and services (Very Satisfied/Satisfied vs. Neither/ 

Somewhat Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied) 

 Item #7A: Satisfaction with location and building facility services (Very Satisfied/ Satisfied 

vs. Neither/Somewhat Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied)

 Item #8: Ratings of the various aspects of WIC staff, services, and facilities (Excellent/Very 

Good/Good vs. Fair/Poor)

 Item #9: Satisfaction with various food benefits (Excellent/Very Good/Good vs. Fair/Poor) 

 Item #18: Attendance at any group education session (Yes vs. No)

 Item #24: One-on-one nutrition counseling (Yes vs. No)

 Item #32: Various food programs received (Yes vs. No)

 Item #33: Food security screener status (Have enough to eat vs. Sometimes do not have 

enough to eat/Often do not have enough to eat)

 

12 States were able to provide only limited demographic data on the sample frame, including both respondents and nonrespondents. While we collected additional data on respondents, these were not available for non-respondents, and could not be 

used for the non-response bias analysis.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 24

These items were chosen to represent a cross-section of all major topics covered in the telephone 

survey, excluding basic demographic questions. Additional items in the instrument were largely 

sub-categories or refinements of these items or were items that applied only to participants in 

some categories, such as breastfeeding women, pregnant women, or women who have children.

Cross-tabulations of race/ethnicity and these key outcome items revealed significant differences 

for: some of the ratings of the various aspects of WIC staff, services, and facilities; a few 

questions on satisfaction with various food benefits; some food programs received; as well as the 

food security screener item (Appendix I-C4).

Non-response bias is most serious if a variable is significantly different for respondents and nonrespondents, and, among respondents, is significantly associated with one or more key outcome 

variables. Only the race/ethnicity variable was found to meet these conditions. Exhibit 1-9

indicates the different response rates for the various racial/ethnic groups, based on the combined 

race/ethnicity coding used by California. In addition, a cross-tabulation of race/ethnicity and 

outcome items revealed significant differences by race/ethnicity for some of the outcomes.13

Later on, it will be seen that, in ruling out any bias associated with race/ethnicity, comparisons 

were made using every variable in the telephone survey. 

Exhibit 1-8: Response Rates and Missing Data Rates by Combined

Race/Ethnicity—All States Recoded to Match California

Race/Ethnicity

Total

%

White

%

Black or 

African 

American

%

Asian 

American, 

American 

Indiana

%

Other

%

Hispanic

%

Unreachable 29.1 35.9 32.6 40.3 35.9 34.2

Refused 3.9 3.6 8.3 4.5 2.7 3.6

Partially Complete 12.4 10.8 13.6 14.9 9.0 10.9

Response Rate* 54.7 49.7 45.5 40.3 52.5 51.3

Total (unweighted 

n=4,946) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

* For response rate Chi-square = 29.59, p<.0001, suggesting that response rate differed statistically significantly between racialethnic groups

a Asian American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander

 

13 Satisfied with food benefits providing the right quantity of food, Chi-square = 24.81, p<.0001; Satisfied with food benefits 

offering foods that you like to eat, Chi-square = 71.64, p<.0001; Satisfied with food benefits offering food choices in sizes and 

brands, Chi-square = 39.88, p<.0001, Attended any group seminars, Chi-square = 116.28, p<.0001; and Having enough to eat 

during last 12 months, Chi-square = 19.41, p<.01.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

25 National Survey of WIC Participants II

In order to include the entire sample, Hispanic origin and race were combined in this analysis. 

This is because California provided its data on race/ethnicity as a single variable in which 

Hispanic was treated as a race, rather than following the usual practice asking respondents if they 

are Hispanic after identifying their race in a separate question. The other States were therefore 

recoded to match the California race/ethnicity coding approach. At this point, it was also 

determined that the State-provided ethnicity and the self-reported ethnicity did not always match. 

The overall match rate was 68.7 percent, which means 31.3 percent of the State-provided 

ethnicity did not match the self-reported ethnicity. If California is removed, the match rate goes 

up to 80.5 percent. 

Exhibit 1-9 provides non-response information using current coding for race/ethnicity (and thus, 

data) for all States except California. Since the results did not differ from those including 

California, our subsequent procedures and weighting included California.

Exhibit 1-9: Response Rates and Missing Data Rates

by Race/Ethnicity—All States Except California

Race/Ethnicity

Total

%

White

Black or 

African 

American

Asian 

American, 

American 

Indiana Other Hispanic

Yes

%

Yes

%

Yes

%

Yes

%

Yes

%

Unreachable 32.6 35.4 26.0 36.3 34.8 33.0

Refused 3.4 3.1 2.4 4.2 2.6 3.3

Partially 

Complete 10.5 11.4 12.0 16.5 9.5 11.4

Response 

Rate* 53.5 50.1 59.6 43.0 53.1 52.2

Total

(unweighted 

n =4,007)

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

* For response rate: Chi-Square=26.16, p<.0001, suggesting that response rate differed statistically significantly between racialethnic groups.

a Asian American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander

The sample of respondents was weighted using preliminary weights, and the estimates using 

self-reported race/ethnicity were closer (within 4 percentage points) to the percentages found in 

the FNS’s WIC Participant and Program Characteristics report (2008)14 than those using the 

State-provided race/ethnicity. This discrepancy persisted, even when race/ethnicity from the 

initial sample (sampled respondents and non-respondents without including replacements) was 

used instead of the final sample (with respondents only, including replacements). In addition, to 

include data from California, the State-provided data did not permit separation of Hispanic 

participants by race. These factors made non-response adjustments less appealing than post-

 

14 http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/published/wic/FILES/pc2008.pdf, viewed as of 12/23/2011.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 26

stratification or raking.15 Since FNS reports presented race and ethnicity separately, raking was 

the more appropriate technique. Some respondents declined to answer the questions on race or 

Hispanic origin. Hotdeck imputation was performed for these cases so the raking could be done 

effectively. This procedure is commonly used, and can be found in the documentation of the 

State and Local Youth Risk Behavior Surveys Weighting Procedures,16 or in the National 

Household Education Surveys.17 The weights were raked on race and Hispanic status separately 

and all key outcome variable estimates were calculated using the two sets of weights: the original 

unadjusted weights and the raked weights. 

The largest difference between the results of the two different weighting procedures was 

1.5 percent, and the bulk of the differences were under 1 percent (Appendix I-C3). None of the 

differences were such that they would have led to substantively incorrect conclusions. Given that 

there is no guarantee that the self-reported survey of race and Hispanic status would match 

the administrative data, that there are two sources for race and ethnicity that do not fully agree, 

and that raked weights and unadjusted weights provided very similar results, researchers 

recommend using the original unadjusted weights—and, as stated, including a comparison of 

Responses and Non-response Rates by Relevant Characteristics (Appendix I-C1) and Difference 

Between Original Weights and Raked Weights on Relevant Measures (Appendix I-C3).

Finally, examined item non-response for every item to fulfill Guideline 3.2.10 of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys18 that requires item 

non-response analysis if the item response rate is less than 70 percent. Researchers recoded data 

so that a missing value indicated item non-response rather than being due to a skip pattern. 

No item was found that had a response rate lower than 70 percent. In fact, none of the items had 

a missing value rate higher than 2.5 percent (Appendix I-C2). As the rate of item non-response 

was not found to be lower than 70 percent for any individual item, item non-response bias 

analysis was not conducted.

 

15 Raking is a form of iterative post-stratification, frequently used when totals come from different tables. In this case, different 

tables presented race and Hispanic status. 

16 Retrieved from http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/yrbs/2007%20YRBS%20Weighting%20Procedures.pdf

17 NCES. (1997). An overview of the National Household Education Surveys: 1991, 1993, 1995 and 1996.

18 Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/statpolicy/standards_stat_surveys.pdf
CHAPTER 2. IMPROPER PAYMENT ESTIMATION:

IN-PERSON SURVEY

2.1 Overview

A main goal of NSWP-II was to estimate the annual cost of erroneous payments caused by WIC 

certification error in fulfillment of the requirements of the 2002 Improper Payments Information 

Act. This law and subsequent Office of Management and Budget and executive directives 

stipulate that agencies must review all programs and activities and identify significant erroneous 

payments, defined as annual payment errors exceeding both 2.5 percent of program payments 

and $10 million. The term “certification error” is used for a broader concept that includes income 

eligibility error (error due to household income higher than WIC eligibility requirement) and

other errors, such as expired certification error or error from incorrectly denying or terminating 

participants. In this study, the case and dollar error estimates are reported for income eligibility 

error only. Other types of errors were explored, with tentative results presented in Volume 3 

appendices, and not included in the formal improper payment statistics. 

To make this estimation, it is first necessary to understand the eligibility requirements of the 

WIC program as spelled out in the Federal Register in the Code of Federal Regulations

(7 CFR §246.7), which is updated on January 1 of each year. 

Taking a random sample of approximately half of the WIC telephone respondents, researchers 

conducted in-person interviews with 1,210 WIC participants in order to review hard copies of the 

proofs that participants showed to gain eligibility and certification at their local agency or clinic.

In this way, the eligibility of each WIC participant was reviewed for proper or improper 

determination.

2.2 Study Methodology

A two-part survey was administered from September 2009 to February 2010 to WIC participants 

who received benefits in May 2009, to gauge satisfaction with the WIC Program and to 

determine erroneous payments based on the assessments of eligibility for certification for WIC 

benefits. The survey consisted of two interviews: (1) a telephone interview of 2,538 WIC 

participants19 and (2) an in-person interview with 1,210 randomly selected respondents from the 

first interview. The telephone interview was described in the preceding chapter. The in-person 

interview focused on improper payments, the subject of this chapter.

The in-person interviews were conducted in order to solicit and review documents or “proofs”

that participants had originally submitted to gain eligibility in the WIC Program

(see AppendicesII-A and II-B for instruments). The proofs shown during these interviews were 

used to determine if the standards set by FNS and/or the State agency had been met or not. Thus, 

the eligibility of each WIC participant was determined to be correct or improper and the number 

of case errors was determined. Translating case error into dollar error required obtaining the 

 

19 A total of 2,538 were actually interviewed to ensure sufficient completes by program category within sampled local agencies 

and clinics.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 28

actual redemption data for respondents from State WIC programs for the period from May 

through July 2009.

Incorrectly determined denials and terminations/discontinuations constitute a form of WIC 

program underpayment, which contributes to improper payments. However, ascertaining the 

dollar amounts associated with them was not feasible. Therefore, the scope of the study was 

limited to exploring potential sources of underpayment error, with brief telephone surveys 

conducted with two distinct groups (see Appendices II-C and II-D for instruments):

 Denied new applicants or new applicant denials—defined in this study as new WIC 

applicants who were denied benefits.20

 Terminations/discontinuations—defined in this study as WIC participants whose eligibility 

had ended in May 2009 who were not recertified.

Source of Data

In-Person Interview

In-person interviews were conducted with 1,210 randomly sampled WIC participants nationwide 

from September 2009 through early February 2010. Forty-four field interviewers administered 

the in-person interviews using laptops equipped with computer-assisted personal interviewing 

(CAPI) software. Field interviewers were each assigned a geographic cluster or area in which 

they were expected to complete approximately 30 in-person interviews each. The interviews 

lasted approximately 30 minutes or less and usually took place at the WIC participant’s 

residence. However, on occasion, at the respondent or interviewer’s request, interviews were 

conducted at another, more convenient, location such as a library or fast food chain restaurant. 

Respondents received a cash incentive of $20 for their time.21

To meet the language needs of the WIC population, 27 of the field interviewers were bilingual, 

in English and Spanish. In addition, the services of third-party telephone translators in the 

languages of Mandarin/Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Spanish were retained.

Field interviewers each received 31⁄2 days of intensive training immediately prior to the start of 

data collection. They were instructed on recruitment and interviewing techniques, the WIC 

Program, data entry using CAPI on laptops, privacy and security measures, recordkeeping, and 

the various survey instruments. Respondents for the in-person interview were randomly chosen 

from respondents who completed the telephone survey and asked if they would participate at the 

conclusion of the telephone survey. This method worked effectively, and resulted in an overall 

response rate of 81.3 percent and a cooperation rate of 86.622 percent for the in-person interview. 

 

20 States that maintained new applicant denial information provided records from May 2009; States that did not keep such records

at the State level submitted the names of denials for a 30-day period largely in the month of August 2009, depending on how 

quickly they were able to start gathering data.

21 The incentive was paid even if a respondent discontinued the interview or opted not to answer all the questions. All persons 

receiving the $20 remittance were required to sign a receipt for the incentive in order to satisfy basic accounting requirements.

22 The completion rate is the total number of completes (1,210) divided by the total number of selected (1,489); the cooperation

rate treated partial interviews as respondents (e.g., see American Association of Public Opinion Research, 

http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions2&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=

3156), or one minus the total refusal rate for this study. The difference between the two rates is attributable to those who agreed 

to the in-person interview but could not be located when interviewers appeared for or attempted to confirm the appointment.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

29 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 2-1 details the sample sizes and nonresponse counts and rates by WIC category, 

nonresponse subcategory, and data collection components.

Exhibit 2-1: Sample Sizes and Response Rates: Data Collection

Components, WIC Program Categories, and Nonresponse Subcategories

4,946 WIC Participants 

Sampled for the 

Telephone Survey 

(completed n=2,538)

78 Local

Agencies

148 Local

Clinics

40 Sampling Clusters

(in 23 State)

Pregnant

Sampled =974(100%)

Unreachable =30.7%

Refused =3.6%

Partial =12.0%

Complete =53.7%

Breastfeeding

Sampled =943(100%)

Unreachable =31.6%

Refused =3.3%

Partial =8.9%

Complete =56.2%

Postpartum

Sampled=1,015(100%)

Unreachable =39.1%

Refused =3.0%

Partial =9.7%

Complete =48.3%

Infants

Sampled=1,048(100%)

Unreachable =37.5%

Refused =4.0%

Partial =11.5%

Complete =46.9%

Children

Sampled =966(100%)

Unreachable =31.8%

Refused =4.0%

Partial =8.6%

Complete =55.6%

1,489 WIC Participants 

Sampled for the 

In-person Interview 

(completed n=1,210)

Pregnant

Sampled =312(100%)

Refused =12.8%

Partial =6.7%

Complete =80.4%

Breastfeeding

Sampled =304(100%)

Refused =10.2%

Partial =4.9%

Complete =84.9%

Postpartum

Sampled =274(100%)

Refused =14.6%

Partial =3.6%

Complete =81.8%

Infants

Sampled =285(100%)

Refused =15.1%

Partial =5.6%

Complete =79.3%

Children

Sampled =314(100%)

Refused =14.3%

Partial =5.7%

Complete =79.9%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 30

Questions for the in-person survey (see Appendices II-A and II-B), centered on establishing the 

size of the economic unit and validating proofs of residency, identification and income 

(or adjunctive income).23 Field interviewers recorded the type of proof, document number, and 

the start and expiration dates, if evident. For income documentation, this process was quite 

involved. It entailed asking participants about 22 potential sources of income for each member of 

the economic unit, including the nature of the source (wages, alimony, unemployment 

compensation, etc.), the dollar amount, and frequency to be able to calculate a yearly total.

If respondents were unable to produce clear-cut documentation of their eligibility, they were 

asked to sign a release form allowing researchers to retrieve third-party verification of their 

declared income sources and/or participation in other adjunctive eligibility programs. The release 

form could be an income release form, an undocumented employment information form, and/or a 

program release form, depending on the participant’s eligibility information from the State files. 

These are described in Exhibit 2-2.

Exhibit 2-2: Income and Program Release Forms

and Undocumented Employment Information Form

Type of Form Description

Income Release Form Release form authorizing ICF Macro to retrieve third-party verification of 

employment and gross pay of WIC participants for Spring 2009.

Undocumented 

Employment 

Information Form

WIC participants who were unable to provide employment verification (usually 

because of self-employment) filled out this form, which enumerated their work 

responsibilities, title (i.e., painter, babysitter), pay, and hours worked for 

Spring 2009. 

Program Release Form Release form authorizing ICF Macro to receive third-party verification of program 

participation in an accepted adjunctive program in Spring 2009.

The release forms were collected by the field interviewers and returned for verification by 

researchers through third parties.

State-Provided Program Eligibility and Redemption Data

The basic design for NSWP-II was a departure from that used in NSWP-I, which sampled new 

applicants/certificants/recertificants at local agencies using intercept interviews. Intercept 

interviews, while convenient, raise several issues and potential sampling and non-sampling 

biases, including various external factors that affect the ability to contact participants.24

Most importantly, it could affect the behaviors of respondents, staff, and interviewers, such as by 

causing staff to become more attentive to regulations and requirements than usual or otherwise 

changing their behavior. Thus, for NSWP-II, researchers sampled food vouchers for a single 

 

23 Applicants who currently receive SNAP, TANF, or Medicaid are considered adjunctively income eligible and their actual 

income need not be further documented, as those programs have already done so. In addition, States may declare applicants 

automatically income eligible if they participate in State-administered programs that regularly document income and have 

income eligibility guidelines at or below WIC income guidelines. In this report, adjunctive eligibility refers to either adjunctive or 

automatic eligibility. 

24 For example, the selection of a single date or a few adjacent dates can introduce bias resulting from agency workload variation, 

weather, or various other external factors (e.g., near holiday, school closing). Also, sampling may not be as random as it appears, 

because of inadvertent bias associated with the appointment schedule, length of time applicants spend there, or the selection of 

participants with children in tow.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

31 National Survey of WIC Participants II

month. This had the benefit of including participants who were certified in many of the previous 

months, as well as those newly certified or recertified. It also helped avoid follow-up calls that 

would have been necessary to capture changes in status.

In June 2009, shortly after OMB approved the data collection, States were asked to provide all 

active vouchers to participants that were redeemable in April and May 2009—that is, all food 

instruments issued to current, temporary, expired, and presumed eligible certificants—from the 

sampled clinics and local agencies. The samples of participants, terminations/discontinuations, 

and, in some States, denied new applicants were selected from these data. Participants from 

vouchers redeemable in May and terminated/discontinued participants who received food 

issuances in April but none in May were sampled (Appendix II-E contains the data request letter 

sent to the States).

Only five States maintained new applicant denial information in their databases: Alabama, 

Arizona, Louisiana, New York, and Virginia. Their denied applications were sampled for 

May 2009. Local agencies and clinics were asked to help identify denied new applicants in the 

remaining States.25 Logs were provided for use in recording a list of denied new applicants 

for 30 days, mostly in August 2009, but sometimes extending into September 200926

(see Appendix II-F).

Clinics recorded the name of the applicants, all contact information, and the reason for denial. 

The applicants were intended to be sampled and later interviewed by telephone. In the majority 

of the States, there were so few names that sampling was irrelevant. In some clinics, there were 

no denied new applicants for the month. It is not clear whether this is a general pattern of selfselection or whether the timing of the study—during a strong economic recession—contributed 

to the low numbers. It is important to note that applicants who inquire about eligibility criteria 

over the telephone, and based on the communication decide not to submit an application are not 

considered applicants and therefore are not considered denied.

To collect the redemption information, States were asked to pull redemption records for all 

participants with food vouchers in May 2009. Redemption data were obtained on the entire 

sample frame, rather than being limited to the sample of those interviewed. Since WIC clients 

have up to 30 days to cash in their food vouchers, and vendors and banks have up to 60 days to 

turn them in, it was not practical to ask States to extract these data until January 2010.

Redemption data were requested from the States primarily during January to February 2010. 

States were asked to provide those data approximately 1 month later. Several States were late in 

doing so and did not comply until April or May 2010. North Carolina was unable to provide 

redemption records because of major system difficulties.27 Redemption information obtained 

 

25 Tennessee has a system whereby applications are entered in real time and the applicant is immediately informed of the 

decision. The centralized regional offices, which maintain the processing systems, do not retain information on denied new 

applicants. The State objected to keeping lists at the clinic or agency level, as offices that enter applications into the systems 

handle multiple State and Federal assistance programs and are not staffed by the U.S. Department of Health. Thus, Tennessee 

was excluded from the denied new applicant sample.

26 North Carolina could not meet the timetable for providing data for the study and did not do so until nearly November 2009. 

Denied new applicant lists from North Carolina were similarly delayed by 30 days in October–November 2009.

27 In consultation with FNS, North Carolina was permitted to skip the redemption request when it became clear that the State 

would simply be unable to provide the data within any conceivably acceptable timeframe. ICF Macro used the multiple 

imputation procedure to impute redemption values for North Carolina cases (see Section 3.5: Redemption Data Processing). 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 32

included voucher number and type, maximum redemption value, actual redeemed dollar amount, 

issuance and redemption dates, along with client information previously provided to enable 

records to be matched with the initial sample (see Appendix II-E).

Survey Content

In-Person Interviews of Participants

The purpose of the in-person interviews with participants was to review program eligibility 

information and obtain supporting documentation to verify whether eligibility was correctly 

determined, and if not, determine whether there was an erroneous payment. To qualify for WIC 

benefits, applicants must meet WIC’s identification, residential, categorical, nutritional, and 

income requirements. This study substantiated identification, residential, income (including 

adjunctive income), and some categorical eligibility information.

In-person interviews did not assess nutritional risk eligibility or categorical eligibility beyond 

that of establishing the ages of participating infants and children. Assessing category error 

among women, i.e. determining whether each woman was correctly classified by WIC category 

(pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum) was not attempted since it would have required a more 

intrusive effort (e.g. medical document check). Data collectors observed gender and age of 

respondents during interviews and found no evidence of error.

To assess eligibility, field interviewers were asked to request and record selected information 

from four basic sources of documentation from the WIC participants: (1) identification, (2) proof 

of residence, (3) household size or family economic unit, and (4) proof of income or adjunctive 

eligibility. The field interviewer was directed by the computer-assisted software on what types of 

evidence were acceptable for each requirement, something that varied by State. To determine 

income or adjunctive income eligibility, WIC participants were asked to show either 

(1) documentation of household gross income at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty 

level (FPL) or other criteria set by the State, or (2) evidence—such as an award letter, voucher or 

participation card from certain Federal or State means-tested programs—that meets the WIC 

income requirements.28

Denial and Terminations/Discontinuation Interviews

Interviews with denied new applicants and discontinued participants sought to establish, via a 

short telephone survey, whether respondents perceived they had been correctly declared 

ineligible for WIC. The study did not directly identify erroneous denials and terminations/

discontinuations. Therefore, the surveys asked targeted questions about whether respondents had 

been denied eligibility for reasons of identification, residency, income or anything else. If so, 

respondents were asked if they agreed with the decision; if not, they were asked what specific 

document they had shown and if the document showed their name, address, photo, and other 

identifying information. Respondents were also asked whether they could “see the point” for the 

denial, a question that drove to the issue of fairness of the denial decision. They were also asked 

if they had appealed the decision and, if so, the outcome of that appeal. A few demographic 

 

28 In some interviews, where the evidence presented was not clear cut, interviewers asked for both income and adjunctive income 

proofs as an added precaution.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

33 National Survey of WIC Participants II

questions were asked as well (copies of surveys for new applicant denials and 

terminations/discontinuations are in Appendices II-C and II-D).

Sample Design & Weights

This section describes the sampling design and allocation for both the telephone survey of 

participants and the in-person survey (which was a sub-sample of the participants in the 

telephone survey). The sample design includes the sample allocation, selection of the sample of 

States, sample creation and selection of clusters, selection of WIC agencies, clinics, and 

participants, and weighting. Since the in-person survey is a subsample of the telephone survey, it 

becomes necessary to discuss both when the methodology is presented.

Sample Allocations

The sampling design and sample sizes required for this study were driven by the required 

estimates of case error and improper payments. Exhibit 2-3a presents the assumed estimates of 

error rate and other estimates used to calculate the sample size. In each case, the percentage of 

ineligibles among participants was estimated, with an estimate of 10 percent as a conservative 

figure. For the entire population of participants, the revised Contract required a 90 percent 

confidence interval with an error margin of plus or minus 2 percent around the estimate of the 

rate of erroneous certifications, and the same estimates around the rates of erroneous payments. 

For each of the categories of participants (pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, postpartum 

women, infants, and children) the design called for a 90 percent confidence interval plus or 

minus 5 percent.

Exhibit 2-3a: Estimates of Error and Precision in Design

Parameter Population

Assumed 

Estimate Probability

Confidence 

Interval

Error rates Combined categories 10% 90% ±2%

Error rates Separate categories 10% 90% ±5%

To calculate the needed sample sizes, n, for the required estimates, the sample size needed for a 

simple random sample of WIC participants across the nation (specifically for the 48 contiguous 

States and the District of Columbia) was first calculated. This resulted in a simple random 

sample (SRS) of 609 respondents for the estimate of erroneous payment with a 90 percent 

confidence interval, plus or minus a 2 percent error margin (without a finite population 

correction). Once we obtained the sample size from an SRS, we multiplied it by the design effect 

to get the needed sample size given the design.

For all estimates obtained for the In-person survey, a design effect of 1.97 was assumed for the 

combined WIC categories and 1.63 for the separate WIC categories. Exhibit 2-3b shows the 

sample size requirements. The assumed design effects are based on the average design effects for 

several key estimates in the NSWP-I survey.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 34

Exhibit 2-3b: Sample Requirements

Parameter Population Random Sample

With Design 

Effect per Cell Total Needed

Error Rates Combined WIC Categories 609 1,199 1,199

Error Rates Separate WIC Categories 97 159 795

The third column shows the number of cases needed (for the combined WIC categories and each 

of the separate categories) if a random sample was to be selected. The fourth column shows the 

cases needed (again for the whole sample or for each category) given the assumed design effects. 

Finally, the fifth column multiplies the number needed for each category by the number of 

categories (5) for the separate WIC categories. Exhibit 2-3c presents the resulting estimates of 

income eligibility error counts and rates for the five categories from the in-person survey data 

analysis. The confidence interval estimates for the WIC program was narrower than ±2.0 percent 

and by program categories were narrower than ±5 percent, meeting the expected precision levels 

as specified in the sample design.

Exhibit 2-3c: Estimates of Error and Precision in Results

WIC Category

Number of Respondents in 

Error (Unweighted)

Number of

All WIC 

Participants

in Error Percent

95% 

Confidence 

Interval

Pregnant 7 31,750 3.31% ±3.06%

Breastfeeding 9 30,174 5.18% ±3.95%

Postpartum 6 13,538 2.14% ±1.98%

Infant 11 114,091 5.29% ±3.22%

Child 6 88,399 1.85% ±2.17%

Total 39 277,952 3.05% ±1.63%

Ultimately, the allocations were made for 480 participants per category for the telephone survey 

(2,400 overall) and 240 participants per category for the in-person survey (1,200 in all).

The in-person survey sample had a total of 1,210 completed interviews, and it was a subset of the 

original telephone survey of 2,538 WIC participants.

Selection of States

The primary sampling units (PSUs) were States, selected with probability proportionate to size 

(PPS) and probability minimum replacement (PMR).29 The use of PMR meant that multiple 

selections of the larger States were likely. This was done so that the probability of selection of 

any participants in a given category would be approximately equal. States selected multiple times 

had more local agencies selected (2 agencies, each time).

 

29 Probability Minimum Replacement was implemented using the method proposed by Goodman and Kish in 1950, but with the 

added feature that multiple selections may occur for large States.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

35 National Survey of WIC Participants II

The primary sampling units (PSUs) were States, selected with probability proportionate to size 

(PPS) with probability minimum replacement (i.e. the large PSUs could be selected more than 

once). A measure of size was used that would yield the same number of participants in each of 

the five categories.

PPS sampling uses a measure of size (MOS) so that the probability of selecting a State is 

proportional to the MOS. The MOS for the States was the average of the proportion of 

participants in each of the five categories found in the State. Note that the sampling units are 

States, not State agencies, which means that participants from ITOs are counted in the context of 

the States in which they belong. A sample of 40 State clusters, not necessarily unique and 

different States, was selected from the 48 contiguous United States, including the District of 

Columbia, so that the total number of actual geographic States in the sample was 23. Exhibit 2-4 

presents the sampled States by FNS region and the number of clusters sampled given the size of 

the State. The number of times a State was sampled determined the number of clusters sampled 

within that State. Seven States were sampled multiple times for a total of 23 separate sample 

States.

The following is a description of the sampling approach. Let ti represent the measure of size for 

State i. This was defined as the average of the proportion of participants in each category that 

were found in the State. 

5



















    



Nation

State

Nation

State

Nation

State

Nation

State

Nation

State

C

C

I

I

N

N

B

B

P

P

State Size

Where P = Pregnant,

B = Breastfeeding,

N = Postpartum Non-breastfeeding,

I = Infants, and

C = Children, the five categories of WIC participants.

Let T be the sum of all the measures of size for the 48 States. Now we define—

ei = 40ti / T

—to be the selection expectation of State i.

The expectation is the same as a probability if ei < 1, and if it is greater than 1, the integer part of 

e represents the minimum number of times the State can be selected, and the fractional part 

represents the probability that it will be selected an additional time.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 36

To order the 48 PSUs, grouped together by WIC region, given that the States are in the desired 

order (where the order guarantees proportional representation by the ordering variable), a 

random number r between 0 and 1 is selected.

If lim(x)—the limiting value of x—means the largest integer less than or equal to x, then we can 

define—

c0 = r and

ci = e1 + e2 + ... + ei.

Finally, let si = lim(ci) – lim(ci-1), where si defines the number of times PSUi is selected.

As previously stated, the number of times a State was sampled determined the number of clusters 

sampled in that State (see Exhibit 1-3). Most of the 23 States sampled had only one cluster with 

PPS based on the cluster size described earlier. Seven of the sample States had two or more 

clusters sampled.

Selection of Agencies

In preparation for sampling of clusters most States were divided into multiple regions based on 

geography, administrative areas (if applicable), and number of local agencies. The regions were 

used for sampling clusters of local agencies in which an interviewer would work. The number of 

regions per State ranged from 2 to 11. Arizona was divided into only two regions to ensure that 

no single local agency constituted more than half of the size. New York was divided into 

11 regions, with 4 regions in New York City alone; most States had 4 to 7 regions. California 

and Texas were not divided into regions for sampling of clusters due to the large number of 

clusters to be sampled in each (7 and 5, respectively) and the magnitude of several local 

agencies. In these States, we sampled local agencies directly and then grouped them to facilitate 

interview assignments. Using geographical regions would have been complicated and would not 

have yielded any gains in efficiency.

Two local agencies were sampled with PPS from each cluster. Calculations of the local agency 

MOS were similar to the State and cluster size calculation described above. The MOS was 

multiplied by two in order to sample two local agencies from each research cluster sampled.

Agencies were sampled directly in California and Texas, with two agencies selected for each 

time the State was sampled with PPS. Calculations for the local agency MOS were done based 

on State totals instead of cluster totals. Sampling of agencies in these States occurred with 

probability minimum replacement, so that sampling of very large local agencies could occur 

more than once. 

The goal was to sample 80 local agencies, two for each of the 40 State clusters. One very large 

California local agency was sampled three times. Thus, across all States and clusters, 78 separate 

local agencies were sampled.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

37 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Selection of Clinics

Thirty participants were allocated for each local agency, with the exception of one large 

California agency that was sampled three times, and was thus allocated 90 participants. 

Each local agency was not allocated the same number of participants in each category.

The distribution of the 30 participants from a local agency by category depended on the 

distribution of participants across categories in the local agency relative to the distribution of 

participants among all sampled local agencies. 

The initial allocation was determined as follows:

  



















 

5

1

30

i

i

i

i

i

i

Where Ai = the allocation to category i, and i equals one of the five categories of WIC 

participants

Ni = the number of participants in category i for the sampled local agency

Ti = the number of participants in category i across all sampled local agencies.

An iterative rounding algorithm was used in order to obtain exactly 480 participants per 

category. Thus, if for example, a local agency had a larger proportion of participants in the 

sampled agencies in one category compared with the remaining four categories, or more in a 

category compared with the remaining sampled local agencies, we would allocate more of the 

30 participants to that category.

Once sampling of local agencies occurred, clinic-level data were obtained for each of the five 

categories of WIC participants. The clinic size is similar to the other size calculations above with 

a few major differences. Each clinic-level proportion was weighted by the local agency 

allocation within the category. The adjusted proportions were then divided by 15, half the 

number of participants within each local agency.

Wherever possible, two clinics were sampled with PPS from each local agency. If a local agency 

had only one clinic, sampling of that clinic was automatic and the participant allocation at the 

local agency level remained as before. When local agencies had one extremely large clinic and 

several small clinics, they were collapsed at the local-agency level. If a local agency had only 

two clinics and the clinics were both sufficiently large (greater than 60 total participants per 

clinic), the 30 participants were allocated 15 to each clinic. However, the partial allocations 

(i.e., the number of participants in each category) could vary from clinic to clinic, with a 

rounding algorithm used to decide the final allocations. In local agencies with multiple clinics, 

two clinics were sampled with PPS and the same total number of participants was allocated to 

each. However, if one of the two sufficiently large clinics selected had 70 percent or more of the 

total participants in the local agency, the 30 participants were allocated proportionally among the 

2 clinics. This occurred once.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 38

Selection of Participants

After the selection of WIC clinics, the lists of respondents were obtained from all the clinics 

sampled in 2 consecutive months (April and May 2009)—several months before data collection. 

The later month was the target month.

Participants were classified into the five categories: Pregnant, Breastfeeding, and Postpartum 

women, Children, and Infants. If a participant changed categories within the target month, the 

most recent category was used. Thus, if an infant became a child during the month, receiving 

some vouchers (food instruments) as an infant and some as a child, that infant was considered a 

child for sampling purposes.

Each participant in a clinic was assigned a random number. Sorted by that number, participants 

underwent a selection process by the first n from each category (where n is the allocation of 

participants at the clinic level). The remaining participants in a category were retained in their 

order of selection and acted as replacements; so if a participant (or the participant’s mother) 

refused to respond or could not be located, the next one in line was selected. Once a participant 

completed a telephone survey, they became eligible for the In-person audit. The first n / 2

respondents were selected to participate in the audit. In other words, if six participants were to be 

sampled from a given category, each participant in turn was asked to participate in the audit until 

three agreed. If any refused to participate, the next telephone respondent was selected.

Weighting of the In-Person Interview

In order to calculate the weights, the first step was the calculation of the probabilities of selection 

at each sampling stage. This section describes the weighting of the in-person survey, though 

some of the steps overlap with some in the weighting of the telephone survey. States were 

sampled with PPS using a size measure that was the average of the proportion of participants in 

each of the five participant categories. This average was then multiplied by the number of States 

(clusters) allocated to the sample (40), and the inverse was as the PSU weight. Note that since it 

is the inverse, the number will be smaller than 1 if selection of the PSU occurred more than once. 

However, any PSU weight that was lower than 1 was set to 1.

Similarly the clusters were also sampled with PPS using a similar MOS. The MOS was then 

multiplied by the number of research clusters sampled. For California and Texas, where no 

regional clustering occurred, this weight is 1. Local agency probabilities of selection were two 

times that of the local agency MOS divided by the sum of the MOS for the agencies in the 

cluster. In California and Texas the local agency’s probabilities of selection were twice the 

number of clusters selected (14 and 10, respectively) times the ratio of the local agency MOS to 

the sum of the MOS for all local agencies in the State. When clinics were selected, their 

probabilities of selection were two times the ratio of the clinic MOS to the local agency MOS.

For the telephone participants the probability of selection was calculated by dividing the number 

of participants sampled from the category by the total number of eligible participants from the 

category receiving WIC benefits from the clinic. Calculations were done for intermediate 

probability of selection of the clinics as well.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

39 National Survey of WIC Participants II

For the in-person audit participants, the probability of selection was calculated by dividing the 

number of participants sampled from the category by the total number of completed telephone 

participants from the category of eligible participants receiving WIC benefits from the clinic. 

The initial weight for an in-person participant was the inverse of their probability of selection. 

The probability of selecting a participant Pijkrt, is the probability of selection of a participant in 

State i, cluster j, agency k, clinic r, participant category t, and telephone participant q. This is 

equal to the product of the individual probabilities, i.e., Pi Pj Pk Pr Pt Pq, which denote the 

probability of selection of, respectively, the State, the cluster in the selected State, the agency in 

the selected cluster, the clinic in the selected agency, the telephone participant within the selected 

agency or clinic, and the in-person participant if selected for the telephone survey. 

A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted on the in-person participants sample to detect any 

nonresponse and coverage problems with the sample, and to adjust the in-person sample weights. 

The relationship between responding to the in-person survey and key variables in telephone 

survey and State administrative files was examined. The variable “Participated in the food stamp 

program” (SNAP) was significantly associated with responding to the in-person survey (39.6% 

of non-respondents to the survey participated in SNAP, in contrast to 51.5% of survey 

respondents).

The significant relationship between participation in the food stamp program (SNAP) and 

responding to the in-person survey may lead to a bias in the in-person data. Among in-person 

respondents, crosstabs comparing SNAP participants and key analysis variables were produced 

to test for any significant relationship which may indicate bias. A nonresponse bias adjustment 

was applied to the respondent in-person weights to account for the bias.

This adjustment in essence takes the weights for those telephone participants sampled for the 

in-person survey and who refused, and spreads their weight over the responding participants in a 

particular nonresponse adjustment cell. Nonresponse adjustment cells were defined by crossing 

WIC category and SNAP participation, for a total of 10 cells seen in Exhibit 2-4. For example, in 

the cell defined as pregnant women participating in SNAP, the weight of the non-responding 

pregnant women would be distributed over the responding pregnant women and the nonrespondent’s weight would be set to zero.

A set of 20 replicate weights for in-person survey analysis were created with adjustments based 

on the sample adjustments described above.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 40

Exhibit 2-4: In-Person Nonresponse Adjustment Cells

WIC Category Participation in SNAP Cell Number

Pregnant Women

Yes 1

No 2

Breastfeeding

Yes 3

No 4

Post Partum 

Yes 5

No 6

Child

Yes 7

No 8

Infant

Yes 9

No 10

After the nonresponse adjustment, the In-person survey weights were checked for extreme 

weights within each WIC category. Large weights, any weights in a WIC category that were 

greater than three times the median weight, were trimmed. There were 14 cases with large 

weights and their weights were trimmed, set equal to three times the median.

30 After trimming, 

the in-person weights were then poststratified to national WIC population totals within WIC 

category. The idea is to use relevant population parameters as the reference to adjust the survey 

data weight and correct the cell frequency distributions of the key variables that are biased or 

unreliable because of undercoverage and/or nonresponse. With both the nonresponse and 

poststratification adjustments, we are able to generate estimates with less bias and greater 

precision. We obtained national totals by WIC category and adjusted the final weights to sum to 

those known totals.

2.3 Data Collection

Participant eligibility for WIC benefits is assessed using five basic criteria established in the 

Federal regulations and implemented by State WIC programs. These are: (1) categorical 

eligibility–the category of the applicant; (2) residential eligibility–place where the applicant 

lives; (3) proof of identity; (4) nutritional risk eligibility, and (5) income (or adjunctive income) 

status. Nutritional risk eligibility was not assessed in this study. This chapter describes the 

assessment and analysis of the other four eligibility requirements.

 

30 This routine process with survey data is frequently needed because of the unequal probability of sample selection and 

adjustments used to reduce sampling bias. Because some weights are rather large, the design effect may be larger and the 

effective sample size smaller than what the original design intended to achieve. Weight trimming usually reduces the variances 

by a greater amount, so that the mean squared deviations of the estimate is likely to be reduced. Available at 

http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2005/Files/JSM2005-000926.pdf.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

41 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Category

To receive WIC benefits, an applicant must be either a pregnant woman (any time during 

pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after the birth of an infant or the end of pregnancy); a breastfeeding 

woman (up to 1 year after delivery of baby); a postpartum woman who is not breastfeeding 

(up to 6 months after the birth of an infant or end of pregnancy); an infant (birth to 12 months); 

or a child (1 to 5 years old). Many States allow up to 30 days of leeway in the cut-off dates of 

these definitions, as permitted by Federal regulations. States that do not allow a leeway operate 

by the set periods defined by the legislation.

Birth dates of respondents were collected and the ages of infants and children were examined as 

of May 1, 2009, to ascertain if they were eligible for participation by age (i.e., under 5 years old). 

If so, further checks were made to see if participants were correctly classified as an infant or 

child, taking into account the possible 2 to 4 weeks of leeway granted by the State. 

The categorical eligibility of women participants was not assessed by researchers because it 

would require extensive effort to check respondents’ medical records or other evidence for 

pregnancy and postnatal experience. Data collectors did, however, conduct on-site observation 

and found no evidence of category errors among women.

Residency and Identity

Federal regulations require that agencies check the residency and identity of participants or, in 

the case of infants or children, the identity of the parent or guardian. If the applicant is a migrant 

farm worker, homeless individual, or victim of theft, loss or disaster, agencies are permitted to 

fulfill the requirement by having the applicant confirm in writing his/her residency or identity 

(7 CFR §246.7 (2) (i)). Beyond these instructions, State agencies are allowed to decide what they 

consider to be acceptable proofs of residency and identity.

For the survey, a list of the residency and identity proofs most commonly accepted by States was 

developed. Then, proofs provided by the respondents were reviewed during the in-person 

interview and later classified as shown in Exhibit 2-5. It is noteworthy that in many States, WIC 

folders (containing the official WIC participant identification documents issued by WIC agencies 

which show eligibility based on extant documentation in the official case file) are considered 

permissible proofs of residency and identification for subsequent recertification of WIC 

participants. As such, WIC folders were placed as an item on the list of acceptable proofs.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 42

Exhibit 2-5: Residency and Identity Proofs Collected

Residency Proofs Identification Proofs

 State-issued license or ID w/ address  State-issued license or ID

 State/Federal correspondence w/address  U.S. passport w/photo

 WIC folder  Foreign passport w/photo

 Checkbook w/address  WIC folder

 Rent or mortgage receipt, lease w/address  W-2 form or Tax bill w/name

 Utility or tax bill w/address  Birth certificate

 Documents from public school w/address  Social Services letter w/ name

 Written statement from reliable third party 

(e.g., non-profit aid organization)

 Social Security or Green Card

 Hospital or immunization record

 Other: SPECIFY  Other: SPECIFY

Economic Unit

Ascertaining the exact size of a participant’s family economic unit (or household)31 is especially 

important to the determination of income, since the larger the economic unit, the more income is 

allowed. In the survey of State agencies, the States reported that they use the national WIC 

Program definition without much variation. According to that definition, a family economic unit 

is “a group of related or nonrelated individuals who are living together as one economic unit.”

To ascertain economic unit, all members living in the same household were asked about their 

age, and their relationship to the sampled individual, be it a spouse, child, cousin, partner, etc. 

In an effort to make the national definition more user-friendly for respondents, during the 

interview, the concept was restated in one of two ways depending on the age of the household 

member being referred to:

 If the household member was 15 years old or older, interviewers asked—

Do you consider [NAME] to be part of your family group—that is, you are sharing income 

and expenses as if you were a family—OR do you feel that you each keep your income and 

expenses and food separately?

 If the household member was 14 years old or younger, interviewers asked—

Do you consider [NAME] to be part of your family group—that is, you are responsible for 

taking care of them as if you were all in the same family?

If the answer was “Yes” in either case, the person was considered part of the economic unit; if

“No,” then the person was not.

 

31 FNS Instruction 803-3, Rev. 1, defines and addresses the concept of family/economic unit. Family is specifically defined in 

Section 246.2 of the Federal WIC regulations—803-3/Rev 1 allows use of the terms family and economic unit interchangeably.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

43 National Survey of WIC Participants II

The only exception to this was a child in the temporary care of friends or relatives. Since the 

individual State policy varied in treatment of such children, and the information had been 

gathered in the State WIC Agency Survey, researchers applied the rules of the individual States 

when calculating the size of the economic unit. It was found that 11 of the sampled States 

consider such children part of the economic unit,32 8 consider them as separate,33 and 4 leave it 

to the local WIC agency to decide.34 The latter four were included under the rule used by a 

majority of the States, which was to consider those children part of the economic unit.

Income and Adjunctive Income

Federal regulations provide the basis for establishing income eligibility for WIC applicants and 

require all State agencies to establish guidelines and definitions of income sources to help local 

agencies and clinics determine an applicant’s eligibility (7 CFR §246.7(d) (1)). As an alternative 

to direct income documentation, regulations mandate adjunctive income eligibility for 

individuals who participate in SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and—at the State’s discretion, any 

State-administered program that routinely requires income documentation—“provided that those 

programs have income eligibility guidelines at or below the State agency’s program income 

guidelines” (7 CFR §246.7(d) (2) (vi)).

Income

To be eligible on the basis of income, applicant gross income for the family economic unit had to 

fall at or below 185 percent of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines, which are shown in 

Exhibit 2-6 for the 2008-2009 program year.35 Since the income guidelines increase with the size 

of the family, the definition of family economic unit becomes an important part of the equation.

 

32 Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. 

33 Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, and Virginia. This includes States that count the children 

as part of their absent parent’s household and States that count the children as an economic unit unto themselves, with 

separate income.

34 Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee.

35 Accessed http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/incomeguidelines08-09.htm. It is appropriate to use the Federal Poverty 

Income Guideline to check income eligibility even for cases certified prior to July 1 2008 (e.g., 30 infants were found certified by 

that date), because virtually all EUs' incomes were reported for recent times before the interview (conducted in June through the 

end of 2009) as few were able to produce income documents months earlier. 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 44

Exhibit 2-6: WIC Income Eligibility Guidelines

(Effective from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009)

The 48 Contiguous States, DC, and the Territories

Persons in Family or 

Household Size Annual Monthly

Twice 

Monthly Biweekly Weekly

1 19,240 1,604 802 740 370

2 25,900 2,159 1,080 997 499

3 32,560 2,714 1,357 1,253 627

4 39,220 3,269 1,635 1,509 755

5 45,880 3,824 1,912 1,765 883

6 52,540 4,379 2,190 2,021 1,011

7 59,200 4,934 2,467 2,277 1,139

8 65,860 5,489 2,745 2,534 1,267

Each additional member add +6,660 +555 +278 +257 +129

Note: Since Alaska and Hawaii were not sampled areas, their special income guidelines are not shown.

Federal regulations (CFR) give States options for counting sources of income (depending on the 

guidelines used to calculate income), but emphasize the importance of clarity and consistency in 

determining eligibility throughout the State. As a result, each State has a unique set of income 

sources that determine eligibility, which are largely similar across States. The details 

of the sources of income, which were derived from the State WIC Agency Survey 

(7 CFR §246.7(d) (2) (iii)), are shown on Exhibit 2-7.

During the in-person surveys, to analyze income, respondents were asked about specific sources 

of income for every member in the family economic unit. For each family member, participants 

were asked about 22 possible sources of income, regardless of whether the State considered the 

source countable in their income guidelines or not. Then, during analysis of income data, the 

income sources that were not countable toward income based on the States’ individual criteria 

were removed (See Exhibit 2-7). The countable income sources were then summed to create a 

measure of total income for the household.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

45 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 2-7: Sources of Income Used to Determine Eligibility

Income source

N of States in sample

Not counted Counted

Wages, Salary, Fees 1 22

Military Pay* 21 2

Tips and Bonuses 1 22

Self-Employment 1 22

Unemployment Comp. 1 22

Workers Comp. 4 19

Child Support 1 22

Commissions 2 21

Alimony 1 22

Social Security 1 22

Private Pension 1 22

Medical Assistance 17 6

SSI—Federal Govt. 3 20

SSI—State-issued 4 19

Income from Estates 2 21

Net Royalties 1 22

Other Cash Income 2 21

Energy assistance 18 5

Net Rental Income 4 19

Dividends or Interest 2 21

Income from Trusts 2 21

Other 17 6

* Defined as Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) for military pay
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 46

Income Timeframe

The time period used to calculate income—whether the current or the past 12 months—is left up 

to States who, in turn, often leave the decision up to the local WIC agency or clinic. 

Field interviewers asked for proofs of income for the month when the participant had been most 

recently certified. (This most recent certification date had been provided by State WIC agencies 

as part of the pre-coded information, and it populated automatically on field interviewers’ 

computer screen). Owing to necessary time lags due to sampling, requesting and receiving 

participant data from States, and carrying out data collection, the dates of (re)certification ranged 

between 5 and 19 months earlier.36 If respondents were unable to provide income documents for 

that period of time, current eligibility documents were accepted. The timeframe used for analysis 

depended on the document shown as income source. If the source indicated a full-time 

amount, it was multiplied by 2,080 (i.e., 40 hours × 52 weeks); if part-time, by 1,040 

(i.e., 20 hours × 52 weeks); if weekly, by 52; if biweekly, by 26; if bimonthly, by 24; if monthly, 

by 12; and if yearly, by 1. These income conversion procedures were based on workplace 

conventions across States, taking into consideration vacations and other leave.

Determination of Eligibility

The determination of income eligibility or ineligibility was done by obtaining proof of claimed 

income and assessing the total income of the family economic unit relative to its size. Income 

was summed for all members of the family economic unit for a specified period, and then 

multiplied by the expected frequency that the income would be received during the year, as 

described above.

Follow-up Procedures When Evidence Was Lacking

When evidence of income was lacking, a follow-up was conducted. When it was difficult to 

resolve uncertain cases for a significant number of cases, researchers went to the State WIC 

agency directly to ask for documentation of the proof that the agency had on file. This was quite 

successful in resolving about 80 cases. The documentation that the State provided was reviewed 

and its eligibility evidence was considered correct if it met any of the following criteria:

1. The State provided evidence of an eligible income type37 and dollar amount at or below the 

amount permitted for the family economic unit of the participant, and the evidence consisted 

of one of the following:

a. Scanned copy of the income item(s);

b. Scanned copy of the original application form showing the exact income amount, source 

and frequency of income, along with a notation by the local agency that at least one of the 

above acceptable supporting forms of documentation was shown; or

c. Screen print taken from the State’s WIC computer system of application data showing the 

exact income amount and the frequency of income, with similar notation that at least one 

of the above acceptable supporting forms of documentation was shown.

 

36 The May 2009 participant sample theoretically included infants certified as far back as June 2008. Data collection took place

from September 2009 through January 2010. This yields the upper limit of 19 months. 

37 Such as paystub, tax return, W-2 form, letter from employer or other as specified by State and deemed acceptable.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

47 National Survey of WIC Participants II

2. The State noted exact income information from the local agency which, while not specifying 

the type of income proof shown, gave a detailed recording of the income amount and 

frequency (e.g., $291.13 per week) that led researchers to believe that a specific income 

document was seen at certification.

3. The State provided a scanned copy of a signed Self-Declaration of Income letter in which 

WIC participants attested to migrant or homeless status (< 5 cases).

4. The State records showed that temporary eligibility was awarded and did not continue 

beyond 30 days, as applicant did not return with proper documents.

Adjunctive Income Eligibility

To qualify based on adjunctive (or automatic) income eligibility, an applicant—or someone in 

the economic unit—must be a current participant in SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, or other 

State-administered program approved by the State as meeting certain guidelines, e.g., Children’s 

Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and free or reduced breakfast and lunch program. In the 

survey of State WIC agencies, the list of eligible programs for all States was collected 

(see Exhibit 2-8).
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 48

Exhibit 2-8: List of Adjunctively Eligible Programs Accepted by States

Adjunctive program

N of States in Sample

Eligibility not 

established

Eligibility

established

Medicaid 1 22

SNAP 1 22

TANF 1 22

CHIP 18 5

Free & Reduced 

Breakfast/Lunch 18 5

 * Other adjunctive eligibility programs were rarely established include: FDPIR, 

 Section 8 Housing, SSI, Head Start, and Refugee Resettlement Program.

Determination of Eligibility

Proofs of adjunctive income eligibility submitted by each participant were compared to the list of 

acceptable programs for each State, using the actual program names specific to each State 

(e.g., Medicaid in California is Medi-Cal). If the ID number provided seemed similar to other 

Medicaid numbers, the proof was considered valid. As noted earlier, many program participation 

cards did not visually show dates; therefore, a missing date was not a reason to consider a 

proof invalid.

Eligibility Timeframe

Similar to the time period used for income, the participant was first asked for proofs of income 

for the month when they had been most recently certified—a date that had been programmed 

into interviewers’ CAPI laptops. If a respondent was unable to provide income documents for the 

last certification period, they were asked to provide current proofs of program participation 

instead. In many cases, especially in the case of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards, no date 

could be ascertained from the proof. However, this was not determined to be evidence of 

improper payments.

Follow-up Procedures When Lacking Evidence

During follow-up when eligibility evidence was lacking, the original intent was to use the 

Program (information) release forms that were signed by respondents to verify their participation 

in Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, and other assistance programs. This proved not to be feasible since 

Social Security numbers are used by these assistance programs to identify participants and the 

research contractor had been directed not to collect Social Security numbers.

As an alternative, State WIC agencies were contacted for the eligibility verification on record. 

This helped resolve about 160 cases. State-provided documentation was treated as evidence of 

proper adjunctive eligibility if the State could provide the individual’s adjunctive program and 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

49 National Survey of WIC Participants II

ID number for Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, or other qualified adjunctive programs for the 

May 2009 period, or for the current (April/May 2010) period if the State’s system did not allow 

checks of past eligibility (e.g., CA, NJ, and PA). Individuals who were not determined to be in 

error were subject to computerized income eligibility check (see Special Issues in Improper 

Payment Analysis for listing of special review cases by States).

Redemption Data Processing

Redemption Data Request

Redemption data were requested from the States for the months of May through September 

200938 in the clinics sampled. The data contained the WIC participant ID, the date of voucher 

issuance, the date the voucher was redeemed, the date of voucher expiration, the value of the 

redeemed voucher, and the maximum value that could be redeemed. The data received was at the 

voucher issuance level not the WIC participant level. Each WIC participant had multiple voucher 

issuances per month requested. It is important to note that New York State had implemented a 

new food package in early 2009 and the redemption data for that State contained fruit and 

vegetable cash value vouchers (CVV).39

Data Matching

The size of the State redemption datasets ranged from several thousand records to over a million. 

The size of the datasets depended on three things: (1) the number of clinics sampled within the 

State, (2) the number of participants served by the sampled clinic, and (3) the number of 

vouchers received by that participant in the months for which data were requested. Due to the 

quantity of data, the State redemption dataset was matched with the final completed telephone 

interview list by WIC participant identification number. Eight of the 23 States sampled did not 

have a 100 percent match. A confirmation was made with each State that the WIC participants 

who completed the telephone interview did not redeem vouchers during the months of May 

through September. Six States confirmed that the few missing cases did not redeem voucher 

issuances. One State found the redemption data for the missing cases and one State required 

imputation of the entire redemption records (see below Imputation).

Data Cleaning

After resolving the missing data issues for all States but one (North Carolina), the individual 

State files were combined into one dataset. The five key variables (redemption values for the five 

months) were examined for correct formatting, and only records with vouchers issued between 

May and September were kept. If the amount redeemed was missing, the amount redeemed was 

set to zero. If maximum redeemable value was missing, it was also set to zero. The same 

rationale applied when the redeemed value was also missing.40 The amount redeemed and the 

 

38 Although redemption data was collected through September, only data through July was used; for at that point, all May 

issuances had been redeemed.

39 Per telephone communication (07/06/2011) with Debbie McIntosh, New York State WIC, who confirmed that the NY 

redemption data contain the CVV components for both the max food voucher value field as well as for the actual redeemed FI 

value field.

40 ICF has contacted States to learn about redemption data processing. It was consistent with States data processing procedure to 

assume a missing value implies no redemption. 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 50

maximum redeemable value to the WIC participant by month issued were aggregated, creating a 

total value redeemed and total maximum redeemable within a month.

Imputation

One sampled State, North Carolina, could not provide redemption data for the analysis. 

Its redemption data were imputed based on redemption data from neighboring States (Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee) that were deemed to some extent similar to North Carolina. 

The final imputation was done via SAS multiple imputation (MI) procedure (see Appendix II-E 

for SAS code). The MI procedure generated a set of five plausible values for filling in the 

missing value, rather than assigning a single value, thus retaining uncertainties due to missing 

values.41 The average of the plausible values were used in the tabulation producing estimates of 

confidence intervals with the correct probability of coverage. MI is generally considered a 

superior procedure than the single value procedures, assuming missing data are largely random

and the resulting redemption values appeared reasonable.

Note that since no eligibility error was found in NC, the imputation of the redemption missing 

data would not impact the erroneous payment estimation. If there was any impact at all, it would 

be relevant only to the redemption estimates.

2.4 Analysis of Improper Payment Estimates

Estimation of improper payments was accomplished by determining two types of errors: case 

error and dollar error. Case error refers to the number of WIC participants certified to receive 

WIC benefits but who were not eligible for WIC benefits. Dollar error refers to the dollar amount 

of WIC benefits issued to and actually redeemed by participants. A major difference between 

this study and the 2001 NSWP-I study is in the methods used for measuring and estimating 

dollar error. The current study collected respondent redemption records from the States and used 

the actual dollar amounts of redeemed benefits to calculate dollar error. In contrast, the 2001 

study relied on general estimates from WIC average food cost per participant to proxy dollar 

errors.

In-person interview data were analyzed to identify case errors linked to actual redemption data. 

Special case reviews were conducted on cases where supporting information on income or 

adjunctive eligibility was incomplete.

With sample weights, estimates of case errors were based on findings obtained from a national 

sample of WIC participants representing the 48 contiguous United States in May 2009. 

For reference, Exhibit 2-9 shows characteristics of the family economic units sampled for the 

in-person interview by category and other demographic variables analyzed.

 

41 Rubin, D.B. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

51 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 2-9: Program Categories, Demographics, and Food Security:

Percentage Distribution of WIC Participants in In-Person Interview 

Participant Category Percent Standard Error

Category

Pregnant 10.5 0

Breastfeeding 6.4 0

Postpartum 7.0 0

Infant 23.7 0.26

Child 52.5 0.26

Race

American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.1 0.49

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.7 0.72

African American 21.5 3.86

White 44.6 4.63

Other/ Multiracial 30.1 4.55
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 52

Participant Category Percent Standard Error

Education

Less than High School 28.8 2.95

High School 32.9 2.67

More than High School 38.3 3.08

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Non-metro 23.6 4.98

Metro 76.4 4.98

Participation in WICa

New to WIC 48.3 2.94

Participated previously 51.7 2.94

Food Security Status

High food security 81.9 1.70

Marginal food security 1.1 0.42

Low food security 9.3 1.22

Very low food security 7.7 1.26

Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino 45.7 4.74

Not Hispanic/Latino 54.3 4.74

Language

English 64.4 4.03

Spanish 31.5 3.84

Other 4.2 1.22

Size of Economic Unit

1 person(s) 1.1 0.44

2 15.4 2.24

3 24.3 1.81

4 24.2 1.76

5 16.0 1.59

6 9.2 1.28

7 4.7 0.96

8 2.9 0.77

9 0.6 0.29

10 0.1 0.07

11 0.2 0.12
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

53 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Participant Category Percent Standard Error

12 0.1 0.08

13 0.0 0.03

14 0.0 0.01

15 0.1 0.07

Children in Household

Yes 72.8 0.30

No 27.2 0.30

Other Food Program Participation

No Public Food Assistance 31.4 3.21

Yes, but does not include SNAP 12.6 1.57

Yes, includes SNAP 56.0 3.38

Totals

Unweighted sample size n 1,210

Estimated WIC total population 9,113,617

a

For the sampled women, “New to WIC” refers to the first time a woman has received WIC benefits for herself and “Participated 

previously” refers to previous participation with another pregnancy/child. For the sampled children, the two terms refer to, 

respectively, the first time the adult respondent received WIC benefits for the sampled child and previous WIC participation by 

the child (see Appendices II-A and II-B).

Exhibit 2-10 presents average monthly income by number of people in the family economic unit 

(EU) for participants identified as adjunctively ineligible. The mean ranges from zero dollars for 

one-person households to $3,309 for households of three, with wide ranges of 95 percent 

confidence limits. The median monthly income estimates indicated that of EUs sized 1 through 4 

persons, one half or more had no income, whereas of those sized 5 and 6, one-half had $266.6 

and $860.0, respectively. All EU-size groups averaged below the 185 percent of the Federal 

poverty level, except the subgroup of the three-person household, which averaged higher than 

the 185 percent poverty level. The apparent anomaly was caused by two participants whose EU 

incomes were found to be very high; excluding such high-income cases would lead to 

substantially lower estimates that closely relate to the EU size.42

 

42 EU monthly incomes were $182,530 and $153,635 for these two cases, respectively (See Special Issues in Improper Payment 

Analysis for a discussion of such high-income cases, with comparative estimates for the subsample excluding cases of very high 

incomes).
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 54

Exhibit 2-10: Median and Mean Monthly Income by Economic Unit for 

Income-Eligible WIC Participants (Adjunctively Eligible Excluded) 

EU Size

Sample n 

(Unweighted)

Number of 

All WIC 

Participants

Median 

EU 

Monthly 

Incomea

($)

Mean EU 

Monthly 

Income

($)

185% of 

Federal 

Poverty 

Levelb

95% CI for Mean

($)

1 43 213,069 0 0 1,604 0 0

2 152 1,142,342 0 1168.78 2,159 -412.05 2749.61

3 207 1,425,988 0 3309.09 2,714 -1684.13 8302.3

4 162 1,332,434 0 1429.18 3,269 243.41 2614.94

5 100 767,886 266.6 1038.11 3,824 628.63 1447.59

6 or more 84 737,609 860.0 2685.58 4,379+ -603.69 5974.85

Total (not 

adjunctive 

eligible) 

748 5,619,329 0 1910.58 -23.23 3844.40

a Medians were calculated without design effect adjustments.

b This column shows the maximum income level allowed, by household size, to be within the $185% FPL limit. Effective from 

July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 for WIC income eligibility; for EU size greater than 6, add $555 for each additional person (see: 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/incomeguidelines08-09.htm).

Certification Error Case Counts & Rates

Five types of certification errors may cause failure to meet WIC program eligibility 

requirements. These include identity, category, residence, income/adjunctive income, and 

nutritional risk eligibility errors. (As mentioned previously, nutritional risk eligibility was not 

examined in this study). Of the five types of errors, the most challenging is the determination of 

income eligibility error. Income eligibility is complicated by States’ discretionary guidelines on 

defining the family unit (or WIC economic unit), treatment of special cases, and the range of 

income sources that can be counted. Furthermore, income eligibility error reflects the difficulty 

of applicants to report incomes and to provide supporting documents to fulfill income eligibility 

requirements; thus, income eligibility error is the main focus of improper payment analysis. In 

addition to the five types of certification errors, expired certification errors may occur if 

participants continue receiving and redeeming vouchers after their certification expiration 

without renewal. 

Exhibit 2-11 illustrates the basic process of identifying certification errors based on WIC 

eligibility criteria. Data obtained during the in-person interview as well as from the special case 

review follow-up with States both served as independent ways to document the WIC certification 

process and confirm the accuracy of eligibility.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

55 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 2-11: Process of Identifying Erroneous Certification, by Eligibility Criteria

Identity, Residence, and Category Errors

Errors of identity and residence can potentially occur if proofs are not shown or if proofs 

belonging to other people are submitted by the WIC applicant. However, analysts found no 

identity or residence errors based on in-person interview data reviewed on WIC participants’ 

identity proofs and residence proofs. All of the respondents demonstrated appropriate documents 

for establishing identity and residential eligibility.

Category errors may occur when agencies make a mistake in the age of an infant/child or the 

dates of a woman’s pregnancy, breastfeeding, and delivery as required by WIC category 

eligibility. The in-person interview, however, did not collect information on dates of women’s 

pregnancy, breastfeeding, and baby delivery; hence, category errors for women were not 

produced. Determining whether each WIC woman was in the correct WIC category (pregnant, 

breastfeeding, and postpartum) would have required more extensive and intrusive effort 

(e.g. medical document check), which was not required in the Contract. However, data collectors 

observed gender and age in women and found no apparent evidence of category error.

Category error among infants and children was explored by counting the number of days 

between the birth date and the certification date. Six respondents (weighted to 49,832 WIC 

participants) were found in category error. They aged over one year at certification time (i.e., the 

difference between the certification date and the birth date was greater than 366 days with one 

extra day as cushion for trivial errors by hour)—older than the age the WIC program requires—

yet they received infant benefits rather than child benefits. As the child benefit redemption 

values for these participants did not exist, dollar error for these category errors was estimated by 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 56

calculating their redeemed infant voucher value and the averaged child benefit redemption value 

at their clinic (see Special Issues in Improper Payment Analysis for procedures and tentative 

results for these category errors). No over-age children (older than five years or 1,828 days at the 

time of certification) were identified.

Expired Certification Error

In the preliminary analysis of expired certification error, 30 respondents (weighted to 105,023 

WIC participants) were found to have this type of error. With certification dates collected from 

State agencies, the statistics may be questionable because State agencies were not likely to have 

the most reliable information on certification dates. Local agencies actually conduct certification 

and update the certification dates to handle constantly shifting participant status such as WIC 

benefit issuance, termination, renewal, and category change. Given potential problems with State 

agencies’ certification dates, the expired certification error estimates generated from this study 

are tentative and thus are not presented in the main body of the report (see Expired Certification 

Error under Section 2.5 for a full discussion and the estimates).

Income Eligibility Error

Income eligibility error is the focus of the study. In addition to a computerized examination of 

income data using SAS, special case reviews were completed for selected difficult cases to 

establish income eligibility and among all cases to verify adjunctive eligibility. The results were 

integrated with computerized analysis to produce the estimates of income eligibility error (see 

WIC Eligibility Criteria).

A SAS program was applied to calculate income by pay period and amount based on the national 

WIC or approved State-discretionary guidelines. The algorithm determined whether a household 

member was a member of the economic unit, counted each economic unit member’s income 

sources according to State discretionary policies, summed up the countable income dollar 

amount by frequency of receipt, checked the amount against the WIC guideline for income 

eligibility, and generated a tentative decision on eligibility. The algorithm also flagged cases 

with uncertainty with respect to income source, income evidence, and adjunctive eligibility for 

special case review.

Special case reviews sought to reclassify information collected by interviewers that was 

unclear—such as text information with coding difficulties, for example, reclassifying Peachtree 

State Health Plan as “Medicaid” (Georgia’s program for Medicaid). These reviews also included 

the results of direct communications with State agencies to provide information about the 

adjunctive or income proofs originally shown to agencies for selected problem cases (see Special 

Issues in Improper Payment Analysis for details on special case reviews).

Dollar Error Estimation

Using redemption records collected from State agencies, the dollar error estimates were derived

from food voucher values actually redeemed by sampled WIC participants. The redeemed values 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

57 National Survey of WIC Participants II

of vouchers issued in May 2009 and redeemed in May, June, and July 2009 were extracted.43

Adjustments were made to cope with data problems such as inconsistent inclusion of family 

members’ redemptions and missing redemption data.

Redemption records for May 2009 were used to estimate annual redemption values. The national 

cross-sectional representative sample of active participants (“the issuances”) in May 2009 was 

used to generalize the monthly estimates of redemption values to the WIC participant universe. 

Examining the records on monthly redemption (May through July), researchers found the month 

of May covered more redemption values relative to June and July—a pattern to be expected 

since the cross-sectional sample of the issuances in May included cases that would drop out from 

the redemption data system due to certification expiration or other reasons in subsequent months. 

Using all three months’ redemption data would require adjustments for such “drop off” factors 

that involve uncertainties. Using redemption data in May to generate national annualized dollar 

error was thus both sensible from a sampling perspective and efficient from a data processing 

perspective.

Analysts annualized the estimates based on May redemption data with a multiplier of 12.285 

derived from the WIC Monthly Report on total food costs44 in order to take monthly variation of 

redemption values into account. Presumably, error rate was constant across months and the 

monthly redemption value was closely correlated to WIC monthly food costs reported by FNS. 

Analysts obtained WIC monthly food cost data for FY2009 (October 2008 through September 

2009) and divided the FY 2009 total cost ($4,640,847,313) by the May food cost ($377,758,893) 

to generate the annualized multiplier 12.285 (see Special Issues in Improper Payment Analysis

for WIC monthly food cost data used for this purpose). Exhibit 2-12a presents pre-rebate 

redemption values by WIC category.

Adjustment for the WIC infant formula rebate to States was necessary to measure the real cost to 

the WIC program because State WIC agencies negotiated with infant formula manufacturers a 

rebate amount that constitutes a substantial portion of the infant formula wholesale prices. 

The adjustment entailed subtracting the dollar rebate value from the redeemed infant voucher 

value for each infant identified as having eligibility error. The available redemption records, 

however, did not allow rebate adjustments because the redemption data contain only a single 

redeemed value for each voucher.

To proxy the infant formula rebate value, integrated data from the WIC Monthly Report with the 

sample estimates of nationwide average infant food redemption value were used. The WIC 

Monthly Report includes rebate billed amounts and numbers of infant participants for each State. 

The source allowed the calculation of the average rebate value per infant for each State. Dividing 

the State average rebate value by the national average redemption value (estimated from the 

NSWP-II sample) produced the rate of redemption due to formula rebates for each sampled 

State. Multiplying this rate by the actual redeemed voucher value for each infant in the sample 

generated a proxy measure of rebate value for each infant. For infants identified as ineligible, 

subtracting this estimated rebate value from his/her redeemed voucher value yielded rebate-

 

43 New York State included the new food package, known as Fruit and Vegetable Cash Value Voucher, in its redemption records 

submitted to ICF.

44 Downloaded from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wicmain.htm as of 07/29/2011
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 58

adjusted dollar error, which was weighted and annualized to produce WIC total dollar error 

estimates (for details of the rebate adjustments, see Infant Formula Rebate Adjustments).

Both pre- and post-rebate estimates of dollar error were weighted with the final sample weights 

and then annualized (see Exhibits 2-12a and 2-12c). The annualizing multiplier was derived from 

WIC administrative data in order to take monthly variation of redemption values into account. 

For the post-rebate estimate, the multiplier used was the ratio of the FY2009 rebates billed value 

($1,900,274,589) over the May rebates billed value ($156,877,423), a multiplier of 12.113.

Exhibit 2-12a: Pre-rebate May 2009 and Annualized Estimates of

Mean and Total Redeemed Dollar Amounts, by WIC Category

WIC 

Category

Monthly/

Annualized

Redemptions

Mean 

Redeemed

($)

95% CI for Mean 

($)

Total 

Redeemed

($)

95% CI for 

Total Redeemed

($)

Pregnant

n = 958,092

May issuance 43.52 37.76 49.28 41,693,372 34,091,806 49,294,938

Annualized 534.61 463.84 605.37 512,203,073 418,817,838 605,588,308

Breastfeeding

n = 582,986

May issuance 44.17 38.84 49.51 25,753,131 21,358,212 30,148,051

Annualized 542.68 477.20 608.17 316,377,217 262,385,629 370,368,806

Postpartum

n = 634,014

May issuance 35.89 28.58 43.20 22,754,884 16,339,046 29,170,722

Annualized 440.91 351.13 530.69 279,543,748 200,725,175 358,362,321

Infant

n = 2,157,909

May issuance 110.10 91.62 128.58 237,585,105 188,174,517 286,995,692

Annualized 1352.57 1125.60 1579.55 2,918,733,009 2,311,723,941 3,525,742,078

Child

n = 4,780,616

May issuance 38.89 33.79 44.00 185,938,305 159,995,332 211,881,278

Annualized 477.82 415.14 540.49 2,284,252,074 1,965,542,651 2,602,961,496

All WIC 

participants

n = 9,113,617

May issuance 56.37 49.94 62.80 513,724,796 444,403,603 583,045,989

Annualized 692.49 613.45 771.53 6,311,109,122 5,459,498,266 7,162,719,977
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

59 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 2-12b: Infant Formula Rebate Adjustment: May 2009 and

Annualized Rebate Values and Post-rebate Food Costs for Infants

Measure

Monthly/ 

Annualized

Mean 

($)

95% CI 

for Mean ($)

Total

($)

95% CI for Total

($)

Rebate value 

for infants

n= 2,157,909

May 72.70 60.84 84.56 156,877,423 124,580,461 189,174,385

Annualized 880.60 736.93 1024.27 1,900,256,225 1,509,043,120 2,291,469,329

Post-rebate 

food cost for 

infants

n= 2,157,909

May 37.40 30.36 44.44 80,707,682 62,802,703 98,612,660

Annualized 453.04 367.76 538.31 977,612,146 760,729,137 1,194,495,156

Total food 

cost for 

infantsa

n= 2,157,909

May 110.10 237,585,105

Annualized 1333.64 2,877,868,371

a Calculated with aggregated numbers without variance estimation

Exhibit 2-12c: Post-rebate May 2009 and Annualized Estimates of

Mean and Total Redeemed Dollar Amounts, by WIC Category

WIC 

Category

Monthly/

Annualized

Redemptions

Mean 

Redeemed

($)

95% CI 

for Mean

($)

Total 

Redeemed

($)

95% CI for Total Redeemed 

($)

Pregnant

n = 958,092

May issuance 43.52 37.76 49.28 41,693,372 34,091,806 49,294,938

Annualized 534.61 463.84 605.37 512,203,073 418,817,838 605,588,308

Breastfeeding

n = 582,986

May issuance 44.17 38.84 49.51 25,753,131 21,358,212 30,148,051

Annualized 542.68 477.20 608.17 316,377,217 262,385,629 370,368,806

Postpartum

n = 634,014

May issuance 35.89 28.58 43.20 22,754,884 16,339,046 29,170,722

Annualized 440.91 351.13 530.69 279,543,748 200,725,175 358,362,321

Infant

n = 2,157,909

May issuance 37.40 30.36 44.44 80,707,682 62,802,703 98,612,660

Annualized 453.04 367.76 538.31 977,612,146 760729137 1194495156

Child

n = 4,780,616

May issuance 38.89 33.79 44.00 185,938,305 159,995,332 211,881,278

Annualized 477.82 415.14 540.49 2,284,252,074 1,965,542,651 2,602,961,496

All WIC 

participants

n = 9,113,617

May issuance 39.16 35.24 43.07 356,847,373 314,054,690 399,640,057

Annualized 479.50 431.54 527.46 4,369,988,259 3,846,290,733 4,893,685,785

Income eligibility error dollar amounts for WIC as a whole and by program category were 

calculated as the sums of the products of error cases’ actual redemption values, the annualizing 

multiplier 12.285, and the sample weights, respectively, for the entire WIC and for each program 

category. The estimates were overpayment dollar errors since all participants in this error group 

should not have been awarded WIC benefits (see Special Issues in Improper Payment Analysis

for details of the calculation).
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 60

Pre- and post-rebate estimates of dollar error amounts are presented in Exhibits 2-13a and 2-13b. 

Only the estimate for infants changed: the post-rebate dollar error amount was less than 

$49 million, less than one-third of the pre-rebate estimate of more than $151 million. Other 

categorical estimates remained the same.

Exhibit 2-13a: Pre-rebate Estimates of Annualized Dollar

Amounts of Income Eligibility Error by WIC Category

WIC Category

Number of WIC 

Participants in Error

Dollar Error

($)

95% Confidence Interval

($)

Pregnant 31,750 15,722,258 753,800 30,690,715

Breastfeeding 30,174 26,051,235 5,915,464 46,187,006

Postpartum 13,538 6,431,074 854,399 12,007,749

Infant 114,091 151,391,157 47,887,348 254,894,965

Child 88,399 33,580,679 -10,435,616 77,596,975

WIC Total 277,952 233,176,403 117,658,694 348,694,109

Exhibit 2-13b: Post-rebate Estimates of Annualized Dollar

Amounts of Income Eligibility Error by WIC Category

WIC Category

Number of WIC 

Participants in Error

Dollar Error

($)

95% Confidence Interval

($)

Pregnant 31,750 15,722,258 753,800 30,690,715

Breastfeeding 30,174 26,051,235 5,915,464 46,187,006

Postpartum 13,538 6,431,074 854,399 12,007,749

Infant 114,091 48,714,683 16,222,015 81,207,352

Child 88,399 33,580,679 (10,435,616) 77,596,975

WIC Total 277,952 130,499,928 70,478,357 190,521,499

2.5 Special Issues in Improper Payment Analysis

Improper payment estimation entailed identifying case error, which in turn required determining 

the eligibility of each participant for WIC benefits. Identity and residence errors were 

straightforward to determine. No such errors were found, as all participants were able to produce 

the required documentation. The challenge was determining income eligibility and category 

eligibility in addition to verifying adjunctive eligibility based on specified non-WIC program 

participation. 

We made extensive efforts to verify adjunctive eligibility, largely by checking documents and 

communicating with State agencies. For participants who were found not adjunctively eligible, 

we used in-person interview data to determine the economic unit (EU), calculate EU total 

income, and apply State-specific criteria to identify income eligibility. Based on the estimated 

case errors, we used participants’ actual redemption values to generate improper payment dollar 

amounts with seasonality and annualizing adjustments.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

61 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Special Case Review Study

ICF Macro undertook a series of efforts to process in-person interview data and to integrate 

various external information for improper payment (IP) analysis. The in-person interview 

collected information on adjunctive eligibility status among the sampled 1,210 cases by checking 

documents of adjunctive programs. Respondents who were referred to a recognized program also 

had to show the interviewer a recognized document as proof that they are participating in that 

program. These documents included—

 Certification cards;

 Award letters;

 Active program vouchers; and

 EBT cards.

Any respondent who did not display one of the above types of documents was considered 

adjunctively ineligible. Programs supporting adjunctive or automatic eligibility were identified 

based on the types of documents used to prove this eligibility. Of the 1,210 respondents, 462 

were identified as adjunctively eligible based on an in-person document check.

There were 234 respondents whose adjunctive status and income eligibility were not clear based 

on the in-person interview data. Case-by-case research ensued to clarify this group’s adjunctive 

status (see Income Adjunctive Eligibility in Chapter 3). Staff called State agencies to clarify 

issues relating to certification and income in determining each case’s WIC eligibility. Of the 234 

cases flagged for special case reviews, five were identified as ineligible for income certification. 

The special case review generated an indicator of income eligibility for the 234 cases. 

Considering the in-depth review entailed, this indicator from the special case review study 

would, for the five ineligible cases, overrule adjunctive eligibility established in the in-person 

interview as well as the computerized income eligibility check, which would cover all of the 

1,210 respondents. Exhibit 2-14a shows the distribution of weighted and unweighted respondents 

by WIC category and adjunctive status (generated from the in-person interview) and eligibility 

status (generated from the special case review study). Exhibit 2-14b lists the cases under the 

special case review study by State.

Exhibit 2-14a: Number and Percentage of Respondents by WIC Category: Adjunctive 

Eligibility Established in the In-Person Interview and Income Eligibility Determined in the 

Special Case Review

Adjunctive Eligibility: In-person Interview

WIC category

Adjunctive 

eligibility 

verified by 

document 

check

Sample n

(unweighted)

WIC 

participant 

N Percent

95% Confidence 

interval

Pregnant

No 172 677,872 70.75 61.39 80.11

Yes 79 280,220 29.25 19.89 38.61
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 62

Breastfeeding

No 169 401,095 68.80 58.80 78.80

Yes 89 181,891 31.20 21.20 41.20

Postpartum

No 129 351,420 55.43 42.45 68.41

Yes 95 282,594 44.57 31.59 57.55

Infant

No 135 1,316,186 59.55 47.94 71.16

Yes 91 894,065 40.45 28.84 52.06

Child

No 143 2,803,992 59.30 46.99 71.62

Yes 108 1,924,282 40.70 28.38 53.01

Total

No 748 5,550,565 60.90 50.11 71.70

Yes 462 3,563,052 39.10 28.30 49.89

Income Eligibility: Special Case Review

WIC category

Income 

eligibility by 

special case 

review study Sample n

WIC 

population 

N 

(Weighted 

sample) Percent

95% Confidence 

interval

Pregnant

No 47 183,210 98.42 95.16 100.00

Yes 1 2,937 1.58 0.00 4.84

Breastfeeding

No 41 113,911 95.13 84.96 100.00

Yes 1 5,831 4.87 0.00 15.04

Postpartum

No 41 126,278 96.74 89.97 100.00

Yes 1 4,255 3.26 0.00 10.03

Infant

No 47 431,112 96.38 90.97 100.00

Yes 2 16,177 3.62 0.00 9.03

Child

No 53 978,346 100.00 100.00 100.00

Yes 0 . . . .

Total

No 229 1,832,857 98.43 96.89 99.97

Yes 5 29,199 1.57 0.03 3.11

Total 234 1,862,056 100.00

The special case review study on income eligibility identified and flagged five erroneous 

certification cases out of 234 cases studied, with supporting adjunctive program or income 

documentation identified. The dataset then was merged with the main dataset, which covered all 

1,210 cases, of which 462 cases were verified and flagged as adjunctively eligible by the 

in-person interview.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

63 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 2-14b: Unweighted number of respondents by State: Special case reviews

State* For income check Ineligibility error determined State total

R 0 0 0

F 18 0 18

G 41 1 42

L 3 0 3

W 6 1 7

B 3 1 4

E 6 0 6

P 0 0 0

V 0 0 0

K 14 0 14

U 6 0 6

A 0 0 0

O 13 0 13

J 0 0 0

Q 20 0 20

C 20 0 20

T 13 0 13

D 29 1 30

M 12 0 12

H 7 0 7

S 11 0 11

N 1 0 1

I 6 1 7

Total 229 5 234

 *State names have been de-identified using a random process that also renders comparison between states in

 other tables impossible.

For all the 1,210 respondents, analysts created a SAS program to measure their income 

eligibility. The resulting ineligibility identification was modified (i.e., overruled) by the 

adjunctive eligibility flag and the income eligibility error flag established by, respectively, the 

in-person interview and the special case review study. For one case that was adjunctively eligible 

by the in-person interview but not income eligible by special case review study, the conclusion 

followed the special case review study and treated the case as not eligible. Exhibit 2-15 shows a 

three-way crosstab between adjunctive eligibility (from the in-person interview) and the income 

eligibility (from computerized income checking), within categories of the special case review 

study—namely income eligible, income ineligible, and not in special case review study.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 64

Exhibit 2-15: Distribution of the Unweighted Number of Respondents by Final Eligibility 

Status (from Modified Result of Computerized Income Check) and Adjunctive Eligibility 

(from In-Person Interview), by Special Case Review Study Category

In-person interview: 

Adjunctive status 

(unweighted n=1,210)

Modified result from computerized income check 

(unweighted sample n=1,210)

Eligible Not eligible

Special case review 

study: Eligible

(unweighted 229)

Not adjunctive (179) 170 9

Adjunctive (50) 50 0

Special case review 

study: Ineligible

(unweighted 5)

Not adjunctive (4) 0 4

Adjunctive (1) 0 1

Not in special case 

review study

(unweighted 976)

Not adjunctive (565) 540 25

Adjunctive (411) 411 0

Column total (final eligibility status) 1,171 39

Economic Unit Determination 

Measuring income to determine WIC income eligibility required defining Economic Units 

(EUs). Using in-person interview data, analysts sorted out each named household member’s 

relationship with the sampled WIC participant and counted them as an EU member if a named 

household member reportedly shared financial resources with the respondent.

The SAS routine also attempted to identify household members who were reported to be children 

under temporary care, as such members are treated differently by the sampled State’s guidelines 

in defining EUs.45 The process, however, did not affect the EU size measurement because 

sampled EUs had no child under temporary care.

Calculating EU Income/Assets

States differ in counting income sources for determining WIC eligibility. In addition to a State 

agency survey that collected information on countable incomes, ICF Macro staff called State 

agencies to ensure accurate documentation of each State’s varying ways of counting income 

sources. Analysts used this information to differentially count the income dollar amounts by 

income/asset sources and to generate the total income for the economic unit (see Exhibit 2-7 for 

details of State discretionary countable income specifications. 

The SAS program defined three two-dimensional arrays with in-person interview data that 

measure, respectively, income dollar amount of each income source by each EU member who 

had income/assets; income evidence presented for each income source by each EU member; and 

income pay periods for each income source by each EU member. 

 

45 The SAS algorithm counted the children under temporary care into EU size according to State guidelines, including Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. For the rest of the States, children under temporary care were 

excluded from the EU size counting. 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

65 National Survey of WIC Participants II

With the three two-dimensional arrays, two SAS program loops were run to total the income 

dollar amounts from all income sources by all EU members who had incomes/assets and to 

convert varying measures into monthly total income for each EU. For income dollars reportedly 

paid by specific pay periods (weekly, biweekly, half-monthly, monthly, quarterly, and annually), 

the calculation was done as below:

 Weekly—multiply by 4.3;

 Biweekly—multiply by 2.15;

 Half-monthly—multiply by 2;

 Monthly—no multiplier;

 Quarterly—multiply by 1/3;

 Annually—multiply 1/12;

Note that the income data were initially only collected from participants who were determined as 

adjunctively ineligible by the field data collectors. At the beginning of data collection, for those 

who were able to provide adjunctive eligibility documents, income data were not collected. 

It was later found that uncertainties occurred regarding onsite determination of the adjunctive 

status; thus, data collectors were instructed to collect income data from all respondents. For those 

initially interviewed without income data, data collectors contacted them again via telephone or 

in-person interview to ensure that income data were collected for all respondents. 

Each economic unit’s monthly income was compared against the WIC income eligibility 

guidelines for 2008–09.46 The monthly mean and median income estimates for the adjunctively 

ineligible subgroup are presented in Exhibit 2-16.

 

46 See http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/incomeguidelines08-09.htm.

Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

67 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 2-16: Mean and Median Monthly Income of Economic Unit (EU) With and Without Cases of Very High Income: 

Adjunctively Eligible vs. Adjunctively Ineligible Participants and EU Size

Adjunct verified EU size Case inclusion

Sample n 

(unweighted) WIC population

EU monthly 

income mean 95% CI for Mean

EU 

monthly 

income 

median

Not adjunctively 

eligible

1

All cases 43 213,069 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

43 213,069 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

2

All cases 152 1,142,342 1,168.78 -412.05 2,749.61 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

151 1,134,322 406.28 231.54 581.02 0

3

All cases 207 1,425,988 3,309.09 -1,684.13 8,302.30 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

204 1,400,724 465.87 251.84 679.89 0

4

All cases 162 1,332,434 1,429.18 243.41 2,614.94 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

161 1,310,485 882.53 584.66 1,180.40 0

5

All cases 100 767,886 1,038.11 628.63 1,447.59 267

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

100 767,886 1,038.11 628.63 1,447.59 267

6 or more

All cases 84 737,609 2,685.58 -603.69 5,974.85 860

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

82 713,424 1,027.76 542.70 1,512.82 0

Total (Not adjunctively eligible)

All cases 748 5,619,329 1,910.58 -23.23 3844.40 0

Excluding 

cases of very 

high income

741 5,539,909 685.99 500.37 871.61 0
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 68

Adjunct verified EU size Case inclusion

Sample n 

(unweighted) WIC population

EU monthly 

income mean 95% CI for Mean

EU 

monthly 

income 

median

Adjunctively 

eligible

1

All cases 11 54,068 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

11 54,068 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

2

All cases 89 628,224 51.23 -20.17 122.63 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

89 628,224 51.23 -20.17 122.63 0

3

All cases 124 1,012,579 106.70 -17.19 230.59 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

124 1,012,579 106.70 -17.19 230.59 0

4

All cases 93 764,645 77.64 -53.19 208.47 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

93 764,645 77.64 -53.19 208.47 0

5

All cases 72 516,928 105.67 -35.08 246.41 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

72 516,928 105.67 -35.08 246.41 0

6 or more

All cases 73 517,844 11.04 -12.18 34.25 0

Excluding cases 

of very high 

income

73 517,844 11.04 -12.18 34.25 0

Total (Adjunctively eligible)

All cases 462 3,494,288 74.39 -2.30 151.07 0

Excluding 

cases of very 

high income

462 3,494,288 74.39 -2.30 151.07 0

Grand Total

All cases 1,210 9,113,617 1,206.56 -0.87 2,413.99 0

Excluding 

cases of very 

high income

1,204 9,034,197 449.43 318.37 580.50 0
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

69 National Survey of WIC Participants II

As WIC certification requires that income be documented with pay stubs or other evidence, the 

SAS program identified available income sources that had no supporting evidence. Participants 

who reported one or more sources of income and presented evidence of at least one source of 

income were treated as valid with income evidence. Only those who reported one or more 

incomes but had no evidence at all were treated as lacking income evidence. There were 18 such 

cases lacking income evidence. 

Staff conducted case reviews to see if these cases were erroneous certifications. Of these, three 

cases were found Medicaid adjunctively eligible; whereas the rest were not found adjunctively 

eligible; hence, the latter were subject to an income eligibility test, which resulted in no 

eligibility error. Exhibit 2-17 lists the 18 cases without income documentation.47 It is important 

to note that lack of income documentation was not used in determining eligibility error; this 

exercise was only for the sake of data processing documentation. 

Exhibit 2-17: List of the 18 Cases That Reported Incomesa Without Any Documentation

State** WIC category EU monthly income ($) Income eligibility error

A Pregnant 400 No

E Breastfeeding 0 No

D Breastfeeding 1,500 No

B Breastfeeding 0 No

A Breastfeeding 2,300 No

E Postpartum 0 No

A Postpartum 0 No

A Postpartum 0 No

C Postpartum 0 No

E Infant 0 No

E Infant 1,290 No

B Infant 6 No

A Infant 0 No

A Infant 1,333 No

A Infant 0 No

C Infant 0 No

A Child 3,440 No

A Child 0 No

a

Some cases had incomes which amounted to zero because no State-defined countable income was reported.

**State names have been de-identified using a random process that also renders comparison between states in other tables 

impossible.

 

47 To protect respondents’ confidentiality, detailed identification information in this and other listings of individual cases is not 

presented.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 70

There were another 12 cases that reported one or more incomes that are countable and the 

associated income pay periods: “others” without specification of details. The ambiguity made it 

difficult to convert the reported income into monthly income for determining income eligibility. 

Staff again conducted case reviews to determine the pay periods. Four cases were determined as 

receiving monthly pay when identified as receiving medical assistance ($157), State SSI 

payment ($941), and wage/tip ($1,000 and $1,239, respectively). The rest (eight cases) that 

reported wage/tip valued from $1 through $12 were determined to have an hourly pay rate. 

Monthly income conversion was done according to these conclusions. Exhibit 2-18 lists these 

cases with their derived monthly income and resulting income eligibility status. 

Exhibit 2-18: List of 12 Cases That Reported Incomes with Pay Periods of “Others”

State* WIC category EU monthly income ($) Income eligibility error

A Pregnant 2,816 Yes

A Pregnant 0 No

A Pregnant 5,280 Yes

B Pregnant 941 No

D Pregnant 2,000 No

F Breastfeeding 1,239 No

A Postpartum 5,280 No

A Postpartum 2,816 No

B Postpartum 1,507 No

E Infant 800 No

C Infant 4,224 Yes

A Child 6,336 Yes

*State names have been de-identified using a random process that also renders comparison between states in other tables 

impossible.

Another issue emerged with seven cases that were found to have excessively high incomes 

(see Exhibit 2-19). Staff reviewed these cases, and they found one to be Medicaid adjunctively 

eligible and overruled the income counting result to treat this case as no income eligibility error. 

The rest (six cases) were found not adjunctively eligible and were treated as certification error in 

the final income eligibility analysis. It was necessary to document these cases in detail for the 

reader’s caution, as it was possible that data errors occurred with self-reported incomes; but it 

was infeasible to confirm and remedy such potential errors because of the limited scope of 

work.48

 

48 Double-checking the reported income entails efforts that are more extensive, such as third-party verification via data collection 

from the respondent’s employers or social service agencies. Such activities are, however, beyond the scope of this study.
71 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 2-19: List of the Seven Cases Identified as Having Excessively High Incomes

State* WIC category EU size EU monthly income $ Income eligibility error

B Pregnant 6 16,045 Yes

D Breastfeeding 3 182,531 Yes

C Postpartum 3 267,458 Yes

A Infant 6 59,555 Yes

C Child 3 153,636 Noa

C Child 4 34,067 Yes

C Child 2 109,005 Yes

a

Identified as Medicaid adjunctively eligible.

*State names have been de-identified using a random process that also renders comparison between states in other tables 

impossible.

To examine the difference between cases with very high incomes and the rest of the sample, 

analysts compared the two groups’ categories for race-ethnicity, education, native language, 

metro vs. non-metro locale, household size, new experience with WIC, and food security. 

The only statistically significant difference between the two groups was in food security. 

For cases of high income, the high food security rate was 98.68 percent (95% CI = 95.88% and 

100.00%); whereas for the rest in the sample, the rate was 81.78 percent (95% CI = 78.311% and 

85.25%). Other differences, substantial albeit not statistically significant, are listed in 

Exhibit 2-20a. 

Exhibit 2-20a: Comparison of Six Cases with Very High Income vs. the Rest

of the Sample: Percentage by Demographics and Food Security Categories

Demographics Percent S. E. 95% CI

Cases with very high income (unweighted n=6)

Non-Hispanic or Latino 72.36 28.82 14.12 100.00

Asian Pacific Islander 28.45 29.77 0.00 88.62

English as native language 44.73 57.64 0.00 100.00

High food security 98.68 1.39 95.88 100.00

Other cases in the sample (unweighted n=1,204)

Non-Hispanic or Latino 54.12 4.75 44.51 63.73

Asian Pacific Islander 2.46 0.70 1.04 3.89

English as native language 64.53 4.08 56.27 72.78

High food security 81.78 1.716 78.31 85.25

For reference, Exhibit 2-20b presents estimates of income eligibility case error and pre-rebate 

annualized dollar error, excluding the very-high-income cases.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 72

Exhibit 2-20b: Estimates Excluding the Six Cases of Very High Income:

Income Eligibility Case Error and Pre-rebate Dollar Error

Income eligibility case error

WIC category

Sample n in 

error 

(unweighted)

WIC 

population 

in error

Income 

eligibility 

case error 

rate 95% CI

Pregnant 6 27,321 0.30 - 0.61

Breastfeeding 8 27,906 0.31 0.05 0.57

Postpartum 5 12,492 0.14 0.00 0.27

Infant 10 94,334 1.04 0.36 1.73

Child 4 58,429 0.65 - 1.45

Total 33 220,482 2.43 1.10 3.77

Annualized income eligibility dollar error (pre-rebate)

WIC category

Sample n in 

error 

(unweighted)

WIC total 

population

Annualized 

income 

eligibility 

dollar error 95% CI

Pregnant 6 953,664 12,349,855 (1,297,947) 25,997,656

Breastfeeding 8 580,718 23,339,242 3,625,329 43,053,154

Postpartum 5 632,967 5,973,886 422,564 11,525,207

Infant 10 2,138,152 115,522,475 36,032,055 195,012,895

Child 4 4,750,646 21,828,787 (9,910,186) 53,567,759

Total 33 9,056,146 179,014,243 91,684,837 266,343,649

Determining Income Eligibility

The SAS algorithm compared each sampled participant’s EU monthly income against the WIC 

Income Eligibility Guideline by EU size. A total of 39 sampled cases were identified as income 

ineligible upon incorporating the indicators of income/adjunctive ineligibility from the special 

case review study and in-person interview file. The six cases with very high income were 

included in the analysis and were counted as income eligibility errors because there was some 

evidence that these cases tended to have higher rates of high food security and better education 

than the rest in the sample (see Exhibit 2-20a). 

Identifying Other Types of Error

Other types of errors due to identity ineligibility, residence ineligibility, and WIC category 

eligibility were examined as well. In-person interviews requested the respondents to present 

evidence of their identity and residence. All of the respondents did so; no identity or residence 

error was found among study participants. 
73 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Category errors occur largely when agencies mistake the age of infants/children or the dates of 

women’s pregnancy, breastfeeding, and delivery as required by WIC category eligibility. 

The available in-person interview data, however, did not contain information on dates of 

women’s pregnancy, breastfeeding, and delivery; hence, category errors for women were not 

produced. Analysts examined the ages of infants and children (in days) by calculating the length 

of days between the birth date and the certification date. Six sampled units (weighted to 49,832 

WIC participants) were identified as category errors, as they aged over 1 year at certification 

time (i.e., the difference between the certification date and the birth date was greater than 

366 days) but had received infant benefits. Note that none of the category error cases was 

identified as income eligibility error (i.e., they were all income eligible for child benefits). 

No over-age children (older than 5 years or 1,828 days at the time of certification) were 

identified.

Dollar error due to category error should be the difference between the erroneously redeemed 

infant benefit value and the child benefit value that would have been appropriate for the given 

participant. To measure dollar error due to category error based on the actual redeemed benefit 

value, analysts calculated the difference for each category error case between respondents’ actual 

redeemed infant benefit and their affiliated clinic’s average redeemed value of child benefits. 

In two cases where the clinic average redeemed child benefit value was not available, analysts 

used their agencies’ average value. Five cases had their redeemed infant benefit values greater 

than the clinic/agency average child benefit redemption value, thus incurring overpayment error. 

Only one case had redeemed an infant value smaller than the clinic average of child benefit 

redemption value, incurring no dollar error (i.e., the dollar error was assigned zero). 

Exhibit 2-21a lists the six cases by State, each with unweighted dollar error amounts; Exhibit 2-

21b presents aggregated (weighted and annualized) dollar error estimates associated with 

category error. The category error dollar amount estimate, however, was considered tentative 

because it was not based on actual redemption data. Therefore, it was not included in the final 

improper payment estimates in Chapter 4.

Exhibit 2-21a: List of Category Error Cases (Infant over 12 Months)

by State: Unweighted Dollar Error

State

Sample n (unweighted) 

in error

Category error

Dollar error amount

C 1 1,218

C 1 166

B 1 -780 (assigned zero)

B 1 765

A 1 985

A 1 777

 *State names have been de-identified using a random process that also renders 

 comparison between states in other tables impossible.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 74

Exhibit 2-21b: Category Error (Infant over 12 Months)

Weighted Annualized Total Dollar Amount

Total dollar amount 95% CI

Category error $ 19,888,965 -1,802,465 41,580,395

Estimate Dollar Error

Linking income eligibility indicator to the redemption data (see Redemption Data Processing),

the SAS algorithm calculated the erroneous payments due to income-ineligible cases. All of the 

redeemed dollar values by income-ineligible cases were considered as overpayment error. 

Staff have examined redemption data and found that the May issuances were redeemed in May 

through July in all sampled States. 

Annualizing Redemption Estimates

To annualize the estimates from May redemption data, we used a multiplier (12.285) derived 

from the WIC total food costs data, rather than a simple month count of 12 to take monthly 

variation of redemption values into consideration. Presumably, the error rate is constant across 

months and the monthly redemption value is closely correlated to WIC monthly food cost 

reported by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). We obtained WIC monthly food cost data for 

FY 2009 (October 2008 through September 2009) and divided the FY 2009 total cost by the food 

cost in May to generate the annualizing multiplier 12.285 (see Exhibit 2-22).

Exhibit 2-22: Monthly and Cumulative WIC Food Benefit Costs: FY 2009

Month Monthly costs $

Oct 2008 402,815,721

Nov 2008 392,249,549

Dec 2008 391,525,368

Jan 2009 393,314,732

Feb 2009 378,397,365

Mar 2009 383,695,958

Apr 2009 380,414,599

May 2009 377,758,893

Jun 2009 382,549,508

Jul 2009 381,892,874

Aug 2009 386,878,505

Sep 2009 389,354,241

Cumulative Cost 4,640,847,313

Annualizing multiplier 12.28520996
75 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Analysts produced the total erroneous payment estimates for eligibility error in FY 2009. 

The procedure applied sample weighting that adjusted the estimates proportionally to represent 

the WIC participant universe in 48 States. Replicate weights were used to compensate for the 

potential error due to the complex sample design. The sample re-weighting was conducted after 

initial analysis found in-person survey nonrespondents differed from respondents on 

some variables, particularly participation in SNAP (see Sampling Design and Weights and 

Appendix II-G: Nonresponse Analysis). The final case error and improper payment estimates 

were generated using the re-weighted data. 

Infant Formula Rebate Adjustment 

Estimating improper payment (dollar error) with adjustments for infant formula rebate was 

necessary to generate more realistic improper payment estimates because participants often do 

not redeem all the voucher values. The task was subject to data restrictions, including 

(1) redemption data do not separate the infant formula amount from other food redemption 

values; (2) States’ negotiated rebate rates differ by formula products, requiring data 

consolidation that may introduce error; and (3) rebate rates are applied to wholesale prices only, 

but the survey-collected redemption data are based on retail prices, an issue requiring 

complicated procedures of adjustment. In short, post-rebate estimates of dollar error cannot be 

calculated from survey data alone.

We integrated WIC administrative data and the NSWP II statistics to generate a proxy measure 

of rebate values for infants. Subtracting the rebate value from each infant’s actual redeemed 

voucher value, we obtained post-rebate food costs, which is the improper payment or dollar error 

for an infant identified to have income eligibility error.

The key is to estimate the infant rebate values. WIC administrative data (WIC Monthly 

Spreadsheet)49 include rebates’ billed amounts and number of infant participants for each State. 

This source allows us to obtain the average rebate value per infant for each State. Dividing the 

State average rebate value by the national average redemption value (estimated from the NSWPII sample), we have the proportion of redemption that is due to rebates for each sampled State. 

Multiplying this rate to the actual redeemed voucher value for each infant in the sample, we have 

a proxy measure of rebate value for each infant. The details follow.

Let Rs be the rebate total value for a given State and let ns be the number of infants participating 

in the program in the same State, both taken from the WIC administrative data. Now Rs / ns is the 

average rebate value for the particular State.

For each infant in the survey, we have a redemption value cj and a weight wj. Let C be the 

average redeemed value nationwide, C = (∑ cj wj)/ (∑ wj). Let Ps = (Rs / ns)/C be the proportion 

of redemptions covered by rebates in State s. Exhibit 2-23a lists these parameters.

 

49 Downloaded from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wicmain.htm as of 07/29/2011.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 76

Exhibit 2-23a: Constant Parameters Used in Calculation

Value Source Note

Ru 156,877,423 WIC administrative data 48 contiguous States and tribal organizations, not all 

WIC agencies

Nu 2,150,231 WIC administrative data ditto

C 110.09 NSWP II Weighted estimate

P=Ru/Nu/C 0.66 Derived from the above

Let Ij = 1 if infant j is determined ineligible for benefit (a case error) and 0 if not; let cj be the 

infant’s actual redeemed value. Thus, for each infant in the sample, Ij cj is the estimate of the 

total pre-rebate improper payment, Ij cj Ps is the infant’s proxy rebate value, and Ij cj (1–Ps) is the 

estimate of the post-rebate improper payment, where s denotes the State corresponding to 

infant j.

Summing the weighted estimates, we have ∑ cj Ij wj (1–Ps) as the estimate of the total post-rebate 

improper payments for infants identified as having eligibility error. Replacing the Ps by its 

components, the formula is—

∑ cj Ij wj (1-(Rs / ns )/ ((∑ cj wj)/ (∑ wj)).

Exhibits 2-23b and 2-23c show the resulting estimates for May 2009. The estimates are rough 

because we have used a single estimate of average redemption value across States, C, and have 

assumed that the average redemption cost for a participant improperly certified will be the same 

as for one properly certified.

Exhibit 2-23b: Estimated WIC Infant Average Rebate

Value and Post-Rebate Food Cost (Infant n = 2,157,909)

Variable Label* Mean $ SE of mean 95% CL for mean

Rebate value (ij cj)*P, where P=Rs

/ns/C; rebate 

value with State aggregate 73.23 5.91 61.28 85.18

Post-rebate 

food cost

(ij cj)*(1-P), where P=Rs/ns/C; postrebate food cost with State aggregate 36.87 3.44 29.91 43.83

Exhibit 2-23c: Estimated WIC Infant Total Rebate

Value and Post-Rebate Food Cost (Infant n = 2,157,909)

Variable Label*

National 

total $ SE of sum 95% CL for sum

Rebate value (ij cj)*P, where P=Rs

/ns/C; rebate 

value with State aggregate 158,030,146 16,084,651 125,495,868 190,564,424

Post-rebate 

food cost

(ij cj)*(1-P), where P=Rs/ns/C; postrebate food cost with State

aggregate

79,554,959* 8,742,833 61,870,911 97,239,007

* The national total food cost for infants (i.e., pre-rebate total redeemed voucher value for infants in May 2009 is $237,585,105, 

estimated from the NSWP II sample).
77 National Survey of WIC Participants II

The difference in the national total rebate value between the estimate ($158,030,146) and the 

WIC administrative data ($156,877,423) for 48 contiguous States and tribal organizations in 

May 2009 is $1,152,723 (or 0.73%). Consequently, the annualized measure between the estimate 

and the WIC administrative data differed as well. 

To match the administrative data on total rebates billed, we made further adjustments. For the 

May estimate, we applied a ratio, 1.0073 (the total May rebate value from WIC administrative 

data over the initial May estimate of the rebate total from our sample), to the States’ rebate rates 

(Ps). For annualizing, we used the WIC administrative data to calculate a ratio, 12.1131 

(the FY 2009 total rebate values over the May rebate values), and then multiplied this factor to 

the above-adjusted May estimate. The adjusted results are presented in Exhibit 2-23d and the 

procedures were used in computing the final improper payment estimates. 

Exhibit 2-23d: Infant Formula Rebate Adjusted Estimates: May 2009

and Annualized Rebate Values and Post-Rebate Food Costs for Infants

Measure

Monthly/ 

annualized Mean ($)

95% CI for Mean 

($) Total ($) 95% CI for Total ($)

Rebate value 

for infants 

n= 

2,157,909a

May 72.7 60.84 84.56 156,877,423 124,580,461 189,174,385

Annualized 880.6 736.93 1024.27 1,900,256,225 1,509,043,120 2,291,469,329

Post-rebate 

food cost for 

infants n= 

2,157,909

May 37.4 30.36 44.44 80,707,682 62,802,703 98,612,660

Annualized 453.04 367.76 538.31 977,612,146 760,729,137 1,194,495,156

Total food 

cost for 

infants n= 

2,157,909

May 110.1 237,585,105

Annualized 1333.64 2,877,868,371

a The WIC administrative data on rebates billed for May and FY 2009 are, respectively, $156,877,423 and $1,900,274,589.

Post-rebate food costs for infants were calculated by subtracting the estimated annualized rebate 

value from the annualized redeemed value for each sampled infant. The aggregated post-rebate 

food cost for infants that were identified to have certification error was the post-rebate improper 

payment (dollar error value). The aggregation entailed multiplying the infant post-rebate dollar 

error values by the sample weights, generating a post-rebate total dollar error estimate for the 

WIC infant population in FY 2009. For the estimated 114,091 infants who were found to have 

eligibility error, the estimated total improper payment was $48,714,683 (95% C.I. = $16,222,015 

and $81,207,352).

Demographics of Eligibility Error Cases

A comparison in demographics, program category, and food security between participants 

identified as having an eligibility error and other participants is presented in Exhibit 2-24. 

All statistical procedures used SAS 9.2 on UNIX to generate estimates of WIC participant 

demographics, income, case error counts and rates, and dollar error amounts. 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 78

PROC SURVEYMEANS and PROC SURVEYFREQ were used, applying sample weights and 

replicate weights to produce nationwide WIC participant population estimates, with complex 

sample design effects adjusted. 

Exhibit 2-24: Demographic and Program Background Variables: Participants With 

Income Eligibility Error and Participants Without the Error

Income 

eligibility 

error

Demographic/program 

characteristics

Sample 

(unweighted) 

n

WIC 

Population

Percent 

within group 95% CI for percent

WIC program category

No error

Pregnant 244 926,342 10.48 10.13 10.84

Breastfeeding 249 552,812 6.26 5.98 6.54

Postpartum 218 620,476 7.02 6.87 7.17

Infant 210 2,043,818 23.13 22.38 23.88

Child 250 4,692,217 53.11 52.37 53.84

Error

Pregnant 7 31,750 11.42 0.00 23.62

Breastfeeding 9 30,174 10.86 0.31 21.41

Postpartum 6 13,538 4.87 0.16 9.58

Infant 11 114,091 41.05 22.61 59.49

Child 6 88,399 31.80 3.83 59.78

Hispanic or Latino

No error Hispanic or Latino 520 4,052,747 46.01 36.42 55.60

Error Hispanic or Latino 15 101,822 36.63 11.14 62.13

Frequency Missing = 5

Race

No error

American Indian 11 85,976 0.98 0.00 1.99

Asian Pacific Islander 26 220,020 2.52 1.06 3.98

African American 234 1,892,474 21.67 13.73 29.60

White 505 3,905,339 44.71 35.33 54.09

Other 375 2,631,236 30.12 20.98 39.26

Error

American Indian 1 9,220 3.38 0.00 10.54

Asian Pacific Islander 1 21,949 8.04 0.00 24.74

African American 9 42,475 15.56 0.80 30.31

White 17 115,765 42.40 14.26 70.54

Other 9 83,634 30.63 0.00 64.50

Frequency Missing = 22

Education*
79 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Income 

eligibility 

error

Demographic/program 

characteristics

Sample 

(unweighted) 

n

WIC 

Population

Percent 

within group 95% CI for percent

No error

Less than HS 340 2,615,890 29.66 23.46 35.85

HS 403 2,850,244 32.31 26.82 37.80

More than HS 424 3,354,695 38.03 31.67 44.39

Error

Less than HS 2 8,702 3.13 0.00 8.17

HS 19 140,074 50.39 28.93 71.86

More than HS 18 129,177 46.47 24.15 68.80

Frequency Missing = 4

Home language

No error

English 750 5,691,951 64.42 56.28 72.56

Spanish 371 2,793,402 31.62 23.91 39.33

Others 50 350,312 3.96 1.44 6.49

Error

English 23 172,977 62.23 43.02 81.45

Spanish 12 74,677 26.87 2.65 51.08

Others 4 30,299 10.90 0.00 26.86

Metro area locale

No error Metro 900 6,756,075 76.46 66.42 86.51

Error Metro 32 207,507 74.66 49.85 99.46

New to WIC

No error New to WIC 641 4,209,209 47.64 41.58 53.70

Error New to WIC 25 190,454 68.52 44.12 92.92

Other assistance program participation

No error

No Assistance 411 2,668,244 30.55 24.08 37.01

Yes. Not SNAP 138 1,118,729 12.81 9.52 16.09

Yes. Includes SNAP 602 4,948,072 56.65 49.86 63.43

Error

No Assistance 23 163,717 59.96 25.59 94.33

Yes. Not SNAP 4 15,879 5.82 0.00 13.09

Yes. Includes SNAP 10 93,447 34.22 0.00 68.95

Frequency Missing = 22
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 80

Income 

eligibility 

error

Demographic/program 

characteristics

Sample 

(unweighted) 

n

WIC 

Population

Percent 

within group 95% CI for percent

EU size

No error

1 54 267,137 3.02 1.22 4.82

2 233 1,712,464 19.38 14.67 24.09

3 320 2,375,301 26.88 22.60 31.16

4 242 1,983,115 22.44 18.74 26.14

5 170 1,274,086 14.42 11.08 17.76

6 or more members 152 1,223,562 13.85 10.55 17.14

Error

1 - . . . .

2 8 58,102 20.90 2.76 39.05

3 11 63,266 22.76 7.53 37.99

4 13 113,964 41.00 21.41 60.60

5 2 10,729 3.86 0.00 10.88

6 or more members 5 31,891 11.47 0.00 27.54

Household with child(ren)

No error With child 913 6,441,845 72.91 67.12 78.69

Error With child 29 188,440 67.80 53.67 81.93

Food security*

No error

High food security 932 7,194,811 81.43 77.87 84.98

Marginal food security 21 98,138 1.11 0.25 1.98

Low food security 115 839,461 9.50 6.92 12.08

Very low food security 103 703,255 7.96 5.35 10.57

Error

High food security 36 271,610 97.72 94.66 100.00

Marginal food security - . . . .

Low food security 3 6,342 2.28 0.00 5.34

Very low food security - . . . .

* The two groups’ difference was statistically significant at p < .05 level.

Expired Certification Error

Food vouchers issued to and redeemed by participants whose WIC eligibility has expired is a 

potential source of error, with consequential overpayments. Expired certification errors occur 

when benefits are awarded and redeemed after the expiration date of the certification period. 

Obtaining the most current certification dates for participants is critical to determining expired 

certification error. ICF Macro explored expired certification error assessment using certification 

dates collected from State agencies. The resulting statistics should be interpreted with great 

caution because State agencies are not likely to have the most reliable information on 
81 National Survey of WIC Participants II

certification dates. Local agencies actually conduct certifications and update certification dates to 

handle constantly shifting participant status such as WIC benefit issuance, termination, renewal, 

and category change. Unfortunately, data on certification dates were only collected from State 

agencies, not from local agencies. 

ICF Macro asked States to provide the most recent certification date before or during the targeted 

months for sampling when food packages were issued (April and May 2009), but some were not 

able to do so. The bulk of the available data were before or within the two target months, though 

some stretched to as late as the end of year. The reason for this might be in the data requirements 

of what agencies must retain and provide to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). 

The Minimum Data Set (MDS) requires that States provide the most recent certificate date. 

The Supplemental Data Set (SDS), which is voluntary, includes the original certification date. 

The available certification data from States are likely to be part of the MDS and thus largely 

represent recent certifications, as revealed by initial tabulation: Of the respondents, 40.28 percent 

of the respondents had their certification dates after April 1, 2009, and 59.72 percent were 

certified prior to April 1 (Exhibit 2-25a). 

It seems reasonable to assume that the available certification dates from State agencies’ 

certification status were largely current and useful for examining expired certification error. 

Uncertainties remain for the following:

 For participants who had certification before April 1. Some that are to be identified as 

expired certification error may in fact have renewed their benefits before April 1, but it may 

not have been recorded by the State agency—a scenario of false positive.

 Among participants who were certified after April 1 and who are all to be treated as no 

expired certification error. Some might have had a period in which they received a voucher 

while certification was expired, but then later renewed before the end of 2009. Again, this 

may not have been recorded by the State agency—a scenario of false negative. 

Nevertheless, analysts may be able to examine expired certification error for those whose 

certification dates were before April and may be able to treat participants whose certification 

dates were after April 1 as apparently free of expired certification error. In such an exploratory 

study, analysts did the following:

 For each case, obtained the length in WIC program (LIP) from the available certification 

dates from State agencies (i.e., days between April 1, 2009 and the certification date). 

Exhibit 2-25b presents descriptive statistics of LIP.

 Calculated for each case the official benefit length (BL) specified for each WIC category 

(see SOW, p. 4). For pregnant women, 9 months and 6 weeks—but considering it is 

extremely unlikely for a women to determine pregnancy in the first month, an adjusted 

8 months plus 6 weeks (equivalent to 286 days =30 × 8+7 × 6+4); for postpartum, 6 months 

(183 days =30 × 6+3); for breastfeeding, infant, and child, 1 year (365 days).

 Calculated the difference between the LIP and BL and assigned initial expired certification 

error status to participants whose LIP was greater than BL, treating participants whose LIP 

was smaller than BL (including those that had a negative value of the difference—i.e., 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 82

certified after April 1 as free of expired certification error). Exhibit 2-25a documents two 

categories of participants by certification dates: after April 1, 2009 and before April 1, 2009. 

 Further qualified expired certification errors by checking redemption records for the month 

of May 2009: if the redeemed value was greater than zero, then an expired certification error 

was identified (i.e., the given case not only had received but also redeemed the benefits 

beyond the official specified program length, hence incurring improper payments; otherwise, 

no expired certification error was identified). Exhibit 2-25c summarizes expired certification 

error case number and rate by WIC category and Exhibit 2-25d is a listing of the 30 cases of 

expired certification error. 

The majority of expired certification errors occurred among breastfeeding women, unweighted 

equaling 27 of the 30 error cases and weighted equaling 64,992 of a total of 105,023 error cases 

(61.87% of all the expired certification error cases).

Exhibit 2-25a: Certification Dates Collected from

State Agency: Prior to or After April 1, 2009

Available certification date 

from State agencies

Sample n 

(unweighted)

WIC 

population Percent

95% CI

for percent

Certified after April 1, 2009 471 3,670,590 40.28 30.90 49.66

Certified before April 1, 2009 739 5,443,027 59.72 50.34 69.10

Total 1210 9,113,617 100.00

Exhibit 2-25b: Length in Program (Days Receiving WIC Benefits) by WIC Category

WIC 

category

Sample n 

(unweighted)

WIC 

population Minimum Maximum Range Mean

95% CI for 

mean

Pregnant 251 958,092 -185 293 478 4.36 -11.80 20.51

Breastfeeding 258 582,986 -244 475 719 47.90 25.03 70.78

Postpartum 224 634,014 -217 316 533 5.35 -17.15 27.85

Infant 221 2,157,909 -192 405 597 127.43 92.16 162.71

Child 256 4,780,616 -218 415 633 12.31 -4.99 29.61

Exhibit 2-25c: Expired Certification Error Case Count and Rate by WIC Category

WIC category

Sample n in error 

(unweighted)

WIC population 

in error

Expired certification 

error rate 95% CI

Pregnant 1 3,780 0.04 0.00 0.13

Breastfeeding 27 64,992 0.71 0.18 0.34

Postpartum 0 . . . .

Infant 1 8,531 0.09 0.09 0.00

Child 1 27,721 0.30 0.30 0.00

Total 30 105,023 1.15 0.49 0.15
83 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Exhibit 2-25d: Listing of 30 Cases of Expired Certification Error by State and WIC 

Category

State WIC category Length (day) receiving WIC benefits Income eligibility error

C Pregnant 293 No

A Breastfeeding 244 No

A Breastfeeding 301 No

A Breastfeeding 254 No

A Breastfeeding 184 No

A Breastfeeding 259 Yes

A Breastfeeding 197 No

A Breastfeeding 226 No

A Breastfeeding 224 No

A Breastfeeding 251 No

A Breastfeeding 285 Yes

A Breastfeeding 210 No

A Breastfeeding 295 Yes

A Breastfeeding 244 No

B Breastfeeding 203 No

B Breastfeeding 204 No

B Breastfeeding 243 No

B Breastfeeding 253 No

B Breastfeeding 239 Yes

B Breastfeeding 240 No

E Breastfeeding 215 No

E Breastfeeding 216 No

G Breastfeeding 258 No

C Breastfeeding 355 No

C Breastfeeding 202 No

D Breastfeeding 230 No

D Breastfeeding 191 No

F Breastfeeding 226 No

C Infant 388 No

C Child 415 No

*State names have been de-identified using a random process that also renders comparison between states in other tables 

impossible.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 84

2.6 Denied New Applicants Survey

This study examined participant perceived reasons for benefit denial and termination, but did not 

formally assess case error and related dollar errors because it was not feasible to do so in this 

study (see Section 2.2 under Source of Data and Survey Content). The findings on new applicant 

denials were primarily intended to provide some insight into the reasons why new WIC 

applicants were denied eligibility and respondents’ perception as to whether these determinations 

were correct (see Appendix II-C). No direct estimation of error rates was made. The task was 

difficult as WIC agencies conduct the certification process and handle denial records in different 

ways. Communicating with sampled agencies and clinics, it became clear that many did not have 

a formal definition of the denial and few had a rigorous data system in place to keep application 

records that are turned down (see below). With a potential applicant, a clinic staff usually talks 

over the phone and either tells her about her ineligibility or schedules an appointment for 

certification. Such personal and often amiable “pre-screening” procedures do not result in denial 

records of the ineligible cases. Most applicants who go through the appointment are issued 

benefits. Only very few applicants who go through the appointment receive a “notice of 

ineligibility,” which may be documented in some scant form, if at all. The number of denial 

records is very small due to the fact that many potential participants are given the WIC 

qualifications over the phone and if they do not seem to meet eligibility criteria, they do not 

formally apply in person. For detail on agency handling denial and responding to denial data 

collection, see State-Provided Program Eligibility and Redemption Data.

Statistical and sampling design thus faced a grave challenge due to the very nature of current 

practice in WIC benefit denial: There is simply no clearly defined event of denial or widely 

accepted notion of the denial population. The original research plan envisioned 480 interviews 

with denied applicants, or about 3 per clinic sampled; the April and May 2009 data collection 

produced a smaller pool of denied new applicants: just 410 new applicant denials, compromising 

the planned statistical and sampling design. Out of the 147 clinics asked to submit denial names, 

14 clinics reported having no new applicant denials and many others provided five or fewer 

names. Therefore, the denials data was not weighted and should not be considered nationally 

representative.

All the new applicant denial cases provided by the responding States/clinics were used in the 

denial analysis (n = 194). Analysts did not weight or adjust the denial sample because of lack of 

information on the new applicant denial population and the absence of data for a large subset of 

States/clinics. A nonresponse bias analysis was also not performed because clinics provided little 

information in the new applicant denial records. Other than the applicants’ contact information, 

the requested ‘WIC category’ and ‘reasons for denial’ were provided by very few clinics. 

Without any external information, it was impossible to generate a nationally representative new 

applicant denials sample. In anticipating such problems, ICF proposed and implemented an 

alternative study, the termination/discontinuation study. Since new applicant denials often 

occurred at the time of benefit renewal, the termination/discontinuation analysis generated 

nationally representative estimates to describe the basic patterns of termination/discontinuation, 

supplementing the new applicant denial study. Excel (Windows 2007) was used to generate 

the statistics.
85 National Survey of WIC Participants II

2.7 Termination/Discontinuation Survey

The termination/discontinuation data collection and analysis was designed as an alternative to the 

new applicant denial analysis. As the new applicant denial study encountered difficulties in 

obtaining sufficient data and generating nationally representative statistics, the termination/

discontinuation study provided supplemental information on relevant issues, specifically the 

proper stop of WIC benefits and other forms of benefit termination/discontinuation (see 

Appendix II-D). Most terminations/discontinuations, as expected and evidenced by data, were a 

normal stop of benefits including voluntary withdrawal or other situational changes (e.g., moved 

away). As in the new application denial analysis, it was not feasible for this analysis to formally 

determine incorrect termination/discontinuation; instead it only examined respondents’ 

perception of agency’s mistake in termination/discontinuation.

In this study, terminated/discontinued participants are defined as WIC participants whose 

eligibility for WIC benefits ended in May 2009 and they were not recertified defined in this 

study as WIC participants whose eligibility had ended in May 2009 for either voluntary or 

involuntary reasons. The cross-sectional sample that was interviewed was drawn from State 

agency lists of participants who had received food vouchers in April 2009 but were no longer on 

the list of participants in May 2009. A total of 607 terminated/discontinued participants were 

randomly selected from selected clinics (combining the five categories of WIC participants) in 

the larger NSWP-II sample. Of these selected, 393 responded to the survey, a response rate of 

64.7 percent. The probability of selecting the clinic and the termination/discontinuation cases 

from the clinic were combined to obtain an initial termination/discontinuation sample weight, 

which was subsequently adjusted for nonresponse using region as the adjustment category. The 

resulting statistics from the termination/discontinuation analysis were generalizable to the 

national population of WIC participants who received food vouchers in April 2009 but did not in 

May 2009 (weighted sample n = 1,066,567). SPSS 16.0 was used in data analysis.

87 National Survey of WIC Participants II

CHAPTER 3. STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY SURVEYS

3.1 Overview

The NSWP-II surveys of State and local WIC agencies consisted of two distinct data collection 

efforts: 

 A mailed survey census of all 90 State WIC agencies including 50 States/DC, 5 U.S. 

Territories, and 34 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs)--to which 82 responded; and 

 A web survey of 584 local WIC agencies, randomly sampled from a nationwide list of 

approximately 2,300--to which 503 responded. (Of these, 43 happened to be agencies where 

WIC participants had been sampled for the Participant Survey).

3.2 Study Methodology

Source of Data

Data from State WIC agencies came from a mailed survey that was estimated to take about 

66 minutes to complete (see Appendix III-A). Agencies mailed (or occasionally faxed) back to 

researchers the survey upon completion. Data from local WIC agencies was obtained from a 

Web survey estimated to take about 40 minutes (Appendix III-B). Seven agencies filled out the 

survey on paper and mailed it, in lieu of doing it online. Copies of the survey instruments can be 

found in Appendices III-A and III-B, respectively.

Survey Content

Survey of State Policies and Procedures

Since Federal guidelines give State WIC agencies considerable authority over WIC Program 

operations, State Agencies were asked about: 

 Household income calculation (including adjunctive and automatic income eligibility), 

including the time period used to calculate income (e.g., current, previous 12 months); 

 Definition of household unit and the calculation of income for households with separate 

economic units; 

 Policies regarding self-declaration, temporary care of children and temporary low income; 

 Residency requirements and acceptable proofs of residency; and

 Issuance cycles and distribution of food vouchers.

They were also surveyed about their policies regarding certification periods for infants; 

determination of nutritional eligibility; discretion granted to local agencies; recordkeeping; 

promotion of breastfeeding; and the specific actions that proxies are permitted to take on behalf 

of participants. 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 88

Survey of Local Agency Policies and Operations

The Local WIC Agency Survey focused on areas related to the services offered to WIC 

participants as well as procedures followed by the local agency in providing WIC services to 

participants. As such, the survey covered the following specific areas:

 Organization of agency (structure, clinics, sites under the local agency);

 Procedures used to determine eligibility;

 Certification and recertification policies and approaches;

 Distribution of food vouchers;

 Information gathered from applicants (including denied new applicants), and how it is 

handled and stored;

 Staff qualifications and participant caseloads;

 Range of services offered (health care, family planning, smoking cessation) and referrals;

 Nutrition education services offered (topics, providers, time allocated);

 Hours of operation, location, space, and equipment onsite;

 Distribution of Nutrition Services and Administration (NSA) funds; and

 Demographics of participants served.

The findings of this study describe in detail all of the above topics. Descriptive results are 

presented for the total sample, as well as for selected groups in terms of Local Agencies’ 

organizational control and size.

Sample Design & Weights

Sampling of State WIC Agencies 

State data are derived from a census. Thus, sampling adjustments, weighting, and tests of 

significance are not applicable.

Sampling of Local WIC Agencies 

A national sample of 587 local agencies was drawn for conducting the survey on the 

characteristics of local WIC agencies. The target sample size was 500 agencies, independent of 

the local agencies selected for the WIC Participants Survey. This discussion of the sampling 

process covers the reasoning for the sample size, the creation of the national local agency sample 

frame, the calculation of the local agencies’ measure of size (MOS), probabilities of selection, 

and the sampling procedure.

Sample Size

The parameters of the study required a national sample of 500 agencies at a precision of 

95 percent confidence interval, ± 4.5 percent for estimates of 50 percent. 
89 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Accounting for non-response and assuming an 80 percent response rate, a sample of 587 local

WIC agencies was drawn independently of the sample of agencies for the Participant Survey. 

Of the 584 local WIC agencies who received the survey (16 in Minnesota did not because of the 

State’s lack of participation), 43 were also sampled for the Participant Survey. A total of 

503 local agencies responded to the Local WIC Agency Survey, for a response rate of 

86 percent, based on actual survey recipients.

The Sampling Frame for the National Sample of Local Agencies

Before drawing the national sample for the Local WIC Agency Survey, 23 States/DC had 

already provided their lists of local agencies. The data included the number of participants in 

each agency by program category: pregnant, breastfeeding, postpartum, infants, and children. 

Lists of local agencies, including the number of WIC participants in each of the five categories, 

were obtained for the remaining State WIC agencies to complete the sampling frame.

Selection of the Local Agency Sample

The local agency sample was selected using probability proportional to size (PPS) without 

replacement.50 The use of sampling without replacement meant that the larger local agencies 

were likely to be selected as certainties. That means their probability of selection was greater 

than 1 and therefore set equal to 1. This was done so that 587 distinct local WIC agencies would 

be sampled nationwide.

In order to sample proportional to size, a local WIC agency measure of size (MOS) had to be 

calculated. By calculating the MOS for local agencies, some consistency in MOS between this 

sample and the WIC Participant Survey sample design was necessary. To achieve this, the 

following formula was used to calculate the relative size of the local agency (LA):

5



















    



Nation

State

Nation

State

Nation

State

Nation

State

Nation

State

C

C

I

I

N

N

B

B

P

P

State Size

Where— P = Pregnant,

B = Breastfeeding,

N = Postpartum Non-breastfeeding,

I = Infants, and

C = Children

—constitute the five categories of WIC participants.

 

50 Probability Proportionate to Size is the method proposed by Goodman and Kish in 1950.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 90

In short, the probability of sample selection for each local agency was determined by the sum of 

five ratios—each representing a participant category served at the agency, relative to its 

representation in the national population—divided by five. 

Secondly, with respect to the types of estimates produced using the sample, the following two 

considerations were important: (1) the survey may be used to estimate the percentage of local 

agencies that provide a certain type of service, and (2) the survey may be used to estimate the 

percentage of participants who receive certain benefits. To achieve both types of estimates, the 

square root of the LA size was used and sampling was done proportional to the adjusted MOS.51

Sampling Procedure

Using the square root of the size of each LA, the local agencies’ probability of selection was 

calculated as follows:

LAProbj = LASize1⁄2((600 –i)/∑ LASize1⁄2) 

Where— i = the number of certainty agencies and

j = the number of iterations until all certainties were determined

A certainty local agency is defined as an agency where LAProbj > 1. By its nature, the process of 

calculating the local agency probability becomes iterative. In the first run, i = 0; in the second 

run, i = number of certainties from the first run. This continues until LAProbj ≤ 0 for all the 

remaining noncertainty local agencies. There were 27 certainty local agencies, and the process 

took 4 iterations. The sampling frame was then sorted randomly within WIC regions and State 

WIC agencies, and a PPS sample was drawn.

Weighting

Each local agency was sampled with PPS, using a measure of size that was the square root of the 

average of the proportion of participants in each of the five categories. This measure of size was 

then used to calculate the local agency’s probability of selection and its inverse was used as the 

initial local agency weight. Then the responding local agencies’ weights were adjusted to 

account for the non-responding agencies, by WIC region, an indicator that was available from 

the frame data. The final weight was the non-response adjusted weight, which is an estimate of 

the total number of local WIC agencies nationwide, written as:

Wij = 1/ LAProbj.

 

51 Saavedra, P. J., & Heimowitz, H. (2004, August). Sample selection by powers of size when needing estimates at multiple 

levels. Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings. American Statistical Association, Toronto, Canada.
91 National Survey of WIC Participants II

3.3 Data Collection

Two surveys were designed to study the policies, procedures, operations, and staff of State and 

Local WIC agencies.52 These surveys consisted of: (1) a census of all 90 State WIC agencies 

including 50 States/DC, 5 U.S. Territories, and 34 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs); and 

(2) a sample of 587 local WIC agencies representing all local agencies, drawn from the 

approximately 2,300 local agencies nationwide.

The State agency census took about 66 minutes to complete, and all the State agencies were 

supposed to comply. However, responses were received from 82 State agencies (91% response 

rate) comprised of 50 States/DC, 27 ITOs, and 5 U.S. Territories. Although, not all of the 90 

State WIC agencies participated in the study, the high response rate indicates a near census of the 

State agencies. Because of the relatively modest number of State agencies overall, a paper-andpencil survey was sent both by mail and by e-mail (as an attachment). State agencies first 

received a letter from the WIC director urging their participation before the survey was mailed to 

them. As individual circumstances dictated, each State agency director was contacted via e-mail, 

then via telephone until the State agency responded. Extensive follow-up procedures were used, 

which involved as many as 10 contacts by telephone and email from the NSWP-II Project 

Director and Deputy Director. In one case the FNS regional office was asked to help gain the 

cooperation of a State agency. Extensions were given to over a dozen State agencies requesting 

more time. These efforts notwithstanding, seven ITOs did not return the survey. And one State 

refused to participate even after direct follow-up requests from FNS.

The Local agency sample was drawn from a list of local agencies provided by the State 

agencies, with monthly participant data listed by category for the sample period in spring 2009. 

This yielded a sample frame of 2,300 local agencies, a bit more than national WIC program 

reports of about 2,000 to 2,200 local agencies.53 This may be because of the structure of a few 

State organizations where there is no clear distinction between local agencies and clinics, and 

clinics may report directly to the State agency. Thus, such State agencies reported more local 

agencies than normal. However, since the sample was based on the size of the organization 

(in terms of participants served), the weighting that was applied ensured an accurate profile of 

local agencies and their policies. From the list, a sample of 587 was selected in anticipation of 

receiving 500 responses.

The Local agencies were invited to participate in a web survey that took about 40 minutes to 

complete, using e-mail addresses obtained from State agency directors. A customized link to a 

URL with an embedded password was included in each e-mail. Letters were sent to the agencies 

where e-mail was not available, which also included the link information. Seven agencies filled 

out the survey on paper and mailed it in. Responses were received from local agencies in all 

State agencies, except one, which refused to permit its agencies to accept the survey. Additional 

e-mail follow-up was made to local agencies that did not respond. Ultimately, State agency 

directors were engaged to assist in urging local agencies to respond. This combination of 

approaches yielded 503 completed local agency surveys, yielding a response rate of 86 percent.

 

52 The term “State agencies” will be used to refer collectively to all State, District of Columbia, U.S. Territory, and ITO agencies.

53 Victor Oliveira, V., & Frazão, E. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

(2009). The WIC Program: Background, trends and economic issues. Retrieved from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err73/err73.pdf
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II 92

Although a vast majority (95.5%) of WIC local agencies nationwide have direct dealings with 

WIC participants, a small number (4.5%) are just administrative offices. This means that they 

oversee clinics that, in turn, certify WIC participants and provide services but do not provide 

those services themselves. Since a large number of the Local WIC Agency Survey questions 

dealt with the characteristics of the primary WIC agency site—including the building, hours of 

operation, safety of site, participant services offered, and agency procedures dealing with 

participants—agencies that were purely administrative were asked to answer the primary site 

questions, by selecting and providing answers for a “typical” clinic under their purview.

3.4 Analysis

The State agency data are derived from a census. Thus, sampling adjustments, weighting, and 

tests of significance are not applicable. The descriptive results are presented for all 82 State 

Agencies. In addition, to capture and understand differences among various types of State

agencies, data were analyzed according to—

 Type of Organization (ITO, Territory, State/DC), 

 Size of the whole State agency (measured by participants served per month), and

 Location based on the region (Northwest, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, 

Mountain Plains, Western).

The Local agency data from 503 agencies was weighted to represent all local agencies nationwide. Thus, the weighted descriptive results are representative of all 2,291 local agencies. The 

term “local agency” was defined by the State agency, and hence may be different across States.

For example, the most common arrangement is to have a State WIC agency that oversees some 

number of local WIC agencies, each of which, in turn, oversees a number of local clinics. They 

also certify and provide services to WIC participants. However, in some cases, local agencies 

only perform an administrative role (i.e. providing no direct services). In other instances—

particularly in small ITO’s and Puerto Rico—the local agencies are the same as local clinics, 

there being no middle layer of agency. In instances where a local agency provided no direct 

services, the agency was asked to fill out the section on the facility and services based on a 

“typical” clinic under their purview. 

Nationally, FNS partners with the State agencies to run the WIC Program, and they, in turn, 

manage the local agencies. In attempting to capture and understand differences among agencies, 

data were analyzed according to—

 Relationship of the local agency to the parent State WIC agency (State affiliated, Local 

government, Non- government), and

 Size of the whole local agency (measured by participants served per month). 

As part of the analysis, the State agencies results present standard errors for means, weighted 

percentages, as well as significant tests for the overall difference between the groups. The latter 

are presented with a strong caveat. Where the number of comparisons is very large, 5 percent can 

be expected to be significant by chance, and therefore the significance tests must be interpreted 
93 National Survey of WIC Participants II

with caution. Furthermore, in some cases, the statistics for chi-square could not be computed 

because of empty cells. Finally, significance is determined by both the strength of the 

relationship and the effective sample size, which is a function of both the actual sample size and 

the sample design; which may be different for different comparisons. SPSS 16.0 was used in 

data analysis.
94 National Survey of WIC Participants II

APPENDICES
95 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Appendix I-A: Telephone Survey 

(Version A—Women)

I-A1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

TELEPHONE SURVEY (Version A: Pregnant, Breastfeeding, and Postpartum Women)

Questionnaire contains data item identification (variable names) for each question in order to facilitate secondary data analysis.

The questions I am going to ask are about your satisfaction and experiences with WIC. This takes about 

20 minutes and your feedback will be grouped together with answers from other people. Since your 

answers are confidential, nothing you say will change your benefits.

WIC PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

1. Let’s begin by talking about your experience with WIC. Is this the first time you’ve received WIC 

benefits for yourself or have you participated before this with another pregnancy/child? [IF 

PREGNANT, SAY: pregnancy. IF BREASTFEEDING/ POSTPARTUM, SAY: child]

P0501

 NEW TO WIC [SKIP TO Q3]

 PARTICIPATED BEFORE [CONTINUE]

2. How many times have you participated before? [ASK, THEN SKIP TO Q4]

P0502

 1

 2

 3 OR MORE

3. Why didn’t you participate before this? [DO NOT READ; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]

 THIS IS MY FIRST CHILD/PREGNANCY T0503A

 DIDN’T LIVE IN USA T0503B

 DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT WIC T0503C

 DIDN’T THINK QUALIFIED FOR WIC (FOR CATEGORY REASON) T0503D

 DIDN’T THINK QUALIFIED FOR WIC (FOR INCOME REASON) T0503E

 DIDN’T TRUST WIC T0503F

 DIDN’T QUALIFY FOR WIC T0503G

 LACK OF TRANSPORTATION TO CLINIC, TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES T0503H

 SCHEDULE DIFFICULTIES T0503I

 SERVICES (INCLUDING WAITING TIME) TAKE TOO MUCH TIME T0503J

 WAITING SPACE AT CLINIC IS LIMITED T0503K

 LACK OF CHILD CARE T0503L

 LANGUAGE BARRIERS T0503M

 PROBLEMS QUALIFYING FOR BENEFITS T0503N

 DIDN’T HAVE PAPERS TO PROVE ELIGIBILITY T0503O

 DIFFICULTIES KEEPING APPOINTMENT TIMES T0503P

 WIC FOOD SELECTION NOT DESIRABLE T0503Q

 WIC FOOD STORES NOT CONVENIENT (HOURS OR LOCATION) T0503R

 WIC FOOD HARD TO FIND ON SHELVES (BRANDS, QUANTITIES) T0503S
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A2

 IMMIGRATION CONCERNS T0503T

 DIDN’T NEED FOOD BENEFIT T0503U

 DON’T KNOW T0503V

 OTHER: T0503W PLEASE SPECIFY______________________________

[IF Q3= THIS IS MY FIRST CHILD/PREGNANCY, AUTOMATICALLY CODE Q4 AS THIS IS FIRST, ONLY 

CHILD AND SKIP TO Q5.]

4. [IF R.=PREGNANT, ASK:] 

How many other children do you have?

P0504

[IF R.=BREASTFEEDING OR POSTPARTUM, ASK:]

How many other children do you have, or is this your first baby?

0. THIS IS FIRST, ONLY CHILD

1. 1 OTHER CHILD

2. 2 OTHER CHILDREN

3. 3 OTHER CHILDREN 

4. 4 OTHER CHILDREN

5. 5 OTHER CHILDREN

6. 6 OTHER CHILDREN

7. 7 OTHER CHILDREN

8. 8 OTHER CHILDREN

9. 9 OR MORE OTHER CHILDREN

SKIP TO Q7 IF ANY OF FOLLOWING ARE TRUE:

 R.=PREGNANT

 R.=BREASTFEEDING AND P2e=YES (i.e. Rec’d benefits when pregnant)

 R.=POSTPARTUM IF P2e=YES (i.e. Rec’d benefits when pregnant)

5. Did you receive benefits while you were pregnant, that is, before the baby was born?

P0505

 YES [SKIP TO Q7]

 NO [CONTINUE]

[CLARIFY: And were these children all 

born to you? IF ANSWER IS NO, REASK QUESTION, How many other 

children have been born to you, or is 

this your first baby?]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

6. Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant? [DO NOT READ; CHECK AS MANY 

AS APPLY]

P0506

 DIDN’T LIVE IN USA P0506B

 DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT WIC P0506C

 DIDN’T TRUST WIC P0506F

 DIDN’T QUALIFY FOR WIC P0506G

 LACK OF TRANSPORTATION TO CLINIC, TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES P0506H

 SCHEDULE DIFFICULTIES P0506I

 SERVICES (INCLUDING WAITING TIME) TAKE TOO MUCH TIME P0506J

 WAITING SPACE AT CLINIC IS LIMITED P0506K

 LACK OF CHILD CARE P0506L

 LANGUAGE BARRIERS P0506M

 PROBLEMS QUALIFYING FOR BENEFITS P0506N

 DIFFICULTIES KEEPING APPOINTMENT TIMES P0506P

 WIC FOOD SELECTION NOT DESIRABLE P0506Q

 WIC FOOD STORES NOT CONVENIENT (HOURS OR LOCATION) P0506R

 WIC FOOD HARD TO FIND ON SHELVES (BRANDS, QUANTITIES) P0506S

 IMMIGRATION CONCERNS P0506T

 DIDN’T NEED FOOD BENEFIT P0506U

 DON’T KNOW P0506V

 OTHER: P0506W PLEASE SPECIFY______________________________

SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL CLINIC, SERVICES, FOOD STORES

7. Thinking about the WIC clinic that you are familiar with, how satisfied are you with the people that 

work there and the services they provide? Would you say you are [READ]...?

P0507

 Very Satisfied

 SOMEWHAT Satisfied

 NEITHER Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

 SOMEWHAT Dissatisfied, or

 Very Dissatisfied
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A4

7a. Thinking about the WIC clinic’s location and building facility, would you say you are [READ]...?

P0507A

 Very Satisfied

 SOMEWHAT Satisfied

 NEITHER Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

 SOMEWHAT Dissatisfied, or

 VERY Dissatisfied

Looking at specific qualities or characteristics of the clinic...

8. How would you rate the [INSERT FROM BELOW]? Would you say it is Excellent, Very Good, 

Good, Fair or Poor? [REPEAT SCALE UNTIL R. LEARNS IT]

Excellent-----Very Good------Good------Fair------Poor

[ROTATE START POINT] 

a) Customer friendliness of the WIC staff P0508_01

b) Quality of service you get P0508_02

c) Helpfulness of the staff P0508_03

d) Staff’s ability to speak your language P0508_04

e) Safety of the clinic’s location P0508_05

f) Convenience of the clinic’s location for you P0508_06

g) Convenience of its operating hours P0508_07

h) Amount of time you must wait until you are seen by WIC staff P0508_08

i) Size and space of the waiting area P0508_09

j) Activities provided to occupy children while you wait P0508_10

k) Way they handle paperwork for certification P0508_11

l) How they deliver your food -[INSERT WORD USED IN P6b] P0508_12

9. Now, think about the food benefits that you receive for yourself. How would you rate them in the 

following areas? Use the same scale: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor. How would you rate 

the food benefits for...

Excellent-----Very Good------Good------Fair ------Poor

a) Providing the right quantity of food? P0509_1

b) Offering foods that you like to eat? P0509_2

c) Offering food choices in sizes and brands that you can find on the shelf? For example, if the 

coupon says a 46 oz container of juice in one of these 3 brands, you can find them in the store 

where you shop. P0509_3

10. Are there certain WIC foods that, on a regular basis, you do not purchase for some reason? 

P0510

 YES [CONTINUE]

 NO [SKIP TO Q12]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

11. Which ones do you not purchase? [DO NOT READ LIST. JUST CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY. 

FOR EACH ONE CHECKED, ASK:] Why not)? AFTER R. ANSWERS, ASK, Anything else?

ITEMS NOT 

REDEEMED

Why don’t you redeem them? 

[CODE OR WRITE IN MAIN 

REASON]

PRECODES

1 – Dislike, don’t like

2 – Not accustomed to eating it 

(including cultural differences)

3 – Food allergies

4 – Don’t know how to prepare

5 – Too much trouble to prepare

6 – Problems getting food to home

7– Couldn’t find/ Lost the food coupons

8 – Store did not have item in stock 

9 – Did not need at that time

10 – Other: SPECIFY

*

 CARROTS P0511_01

 CEREAL P0511_02

 CHEESE P0511_03

 DRY BEANS,

PEAS

P0511_04

 EGGS P0511_05

 FORMULA P0511_06

 JUICE P0511_07

 MILK P0511_08

 PEANUT 

BUTTER

P0511_09

 TUNA P0511_10

12A. For food items you did redeem, was there too much of any food? 

P05120

 YES (Which Foods?.....)

 NO (SKIP TO 12b) 

[DO NOT READ. JUST CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY]

TOO MUCH

 CARROTS P0512A_01

 CEREAL P0512A_02

 CHEESE P0512A_03

 DRY BEANS, PEAS P0512A_04

 EGGS P0512A_05

 FORMULA P0512A_06

 JUICE P0512A_07

 MILK P0512A_08

 PEANUT BUTTER P0512A_09

 TUNA P0512A_10

 OTHER ____________

P0512A_11
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A6

12B. For food items you did redeem, was there too little of any food? 

P05121

 YES (Which Foods?......) 

 NO (SKIP TO 13)

[DO NOT READ. JUST CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY]

TOO LITTLE

 CARROTS P0512B_01

 CEREAL P0512B_02

 CHEESE P0512B_03

 DRY BEANS, PEAS P0512B_04

 EGGS P0512B_05

 FORMULA P0512B_06

 JUICE P0512B_07

 MILK P0512B_08

 PEANUT BUTTER P0512B_09

 TUNA P0512B_10

 OTHER __________ P0512B_11

 TOO LITTLE: FRUITS AND VEGETABLES P0512B_12

 TOO LITTLE: BABY FOOD P0512B_13

 TOO LITTLE: BREAD P0512B_14

13. Which description best fits the store where you most often redeem your WIC food [INSERT WORD 

USED IN P6d]? [READ FULL LIST]

P0513

 LARGE grocery store or supermarket

 SMALL grocery store

 CONVENIENCE store

 SPECIALTY food store, such as one that specializes in ethnic foods

 STORE that carries only WIC-approved items

 LARGE combination food store-retailer such as a Walmart or a Target

 MILITARY commissary

 [IF ILLINOIS, READ]: WIC Food Centers 

 [DON’T READ] OTHER [ASK: Can you describe it for me? AND TYPE BRIEF 

DESCRIPTION ___________________________________]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

14. Using the scale of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor that we used earlier, what overall rating 

would you give the store where you do most of your WIC shopping.” 

P0514

 EXCELLENT

 VERY GOOD

 GOOD

 FAIR

 POOR

15. Do you buy your WIC items at the same store where you do most of your other food shopping? 

P0515

 YES [SKIP TO Q17]

 NO [CONTINUE]

16. Why not? [DO NOT READ. CODE ANSWER ALL THAT APPLY]

P0516

 EXPENSE: WIC STORE MORE EXPENSIVE, REGULAR STORE LESS EXPENSIVE P0516A

 EXPENSE: REGULAR STORE MORE EXPENSIVE, WIC STORE LESS EXPENSIVE P0516B

 TRANSPORTATION: WIC STORE LESS CONVENIENT TO GET TO, REGULAR STORE MORE

CONVENIENT P0516C

 TRANSPORTATION: REGULAR STORE LESS CONVENIENT TO GET TO, WIC STORE MORE 

CONVENIENT P0516D

 COURTESY: WIC STORE NOT CUSTOMER-FRIENDLY, REGULAR STORE FRIENDLIER P0516E

 COURTESY: REGULAR STORE NOT CUSTOMER-FRIENDLY, WIC STORE FRIENDLIER P0516F

 REGULAR STORE DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN WIC PROGRAM P0516G

 REGULAR STORE DOESN’T CARRY RIGHT SIZES/SELECTIONS OF WIC FOODS P0516H

 OTHER: PLEASE SPECIFY ________________________________ P0516X
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A8

17. I am going to give you a list of reasons why some people go to the store that they do for WIC 

purchases. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you by giving a number from 0 to 5, 

with 5 meaning extremely important and 0 being Not Important at all. How important is it that 

[INSERT FROM BELOW]:

Extremely important Not at all important

5-----------4-----------3-----------2-----------1-----------0

[ROTATE START POINT]

a) It is the same store where you do your other shopping P0517_1

b) The store clerks are friendly and helpful P0517_2

c) The store clerks speak your language P0517_3

d) The location is safe P0517_4

e) The location is convenient, easy to get to P0517_5

f) The store hours are convenient P0517_6

g) The store has the right sizes and brands of WIC foods P0517_7

h) The prices on non-WIC items are reasonable P0517_8

i) It specializes in WIC items P0517_9

IMPACT OF TRAINING AND COUNSELING ON BEHAVIOR

18. Let’s talk about some of the services at the WIC agency. In addition to your scheduled appointments, 

have you attended any group education sessions that were recommended to you by the WIC staff? 

P0518

 YES [CONTINUE]

 NO [SKIP TO Q23]

19. Were any of 

these seminars 

about...? 

[READ]

YES NO

20. IF YES IN Q19, 

ASK: Did the 

seminar influence 

you to make any 

lifestyle changes?

 YES NO

21. IF YES IN Q20, 

ASK: 

Specifically, what 

changes did you 

make?

22. IF NO IN Q20, 

ASK: Why not? 

What about the 

program or 

session didn’t 

work for you?

Nutrition or 

preparing 

nutritious meals?

P0519_1

YES 

NO

P0520_1

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_1

 Eating more healthy 

 How to cook healthy 

meals

 Avoiding bad foods

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_1

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 Not practical, useful

 Foods I don’t eat

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Breastfeeding your 

baby?

P0519_2

YES 

NO

P0520_2

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_2

 How to do it

 Dealing with problems

 Helping my baby to 

do it

 Getting my family to 

accept it/cooperate

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_2

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 Not “hands-on”

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

Disciplining your 

child?

P0519_3

YES 

NO

P0520_3

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_3

 Better parenting

 Being more patient

 Learning what works

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_3

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 Not realistic

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

Educating your 

child?

P0519_4

YES 

NO

P0520_4

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_4

 Better parenting

 Being more patient

 Learning what works

 Learning new 

techniques

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_4

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 Too general

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

Living a healthy 

lifestyle?

P0519_5

YES 

NO

P0520_5

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_5

 Making changes 

(general)

 Stopping smoking

 Eating healthy

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_5

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

Smoking 

cessation?

P0519_6

YES 

NO

P0520_6

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_6

 Stopped smoking

 Cut back smoking

 Trying to stop smok’g

 Reducing 2nd hand 

smoke for family

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_6

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A10

Accessing, or 

making use of, 

other social 

services?

P0519_7

YES 

NO

P0520_7

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_7

Learning what they are, 

what I/we qualify for

 Getting referrals

 Finding out where 

they’re located

 Getting Food Stamps

 Getting Medicaid

 Getting TANF 

(housing assistance)

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_7

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

23. I am going to read you a list of potential benefits of the WIC program. Please indicate how valuable 

they are to you by giving me a number from 0 to 5, with 5 meaning extremely valuable and 0 being 

not valuable to you at all. How important is [INSERT FROM BELOW]?

Extremely valuable Not at all valuable

5-----------4-----------3-----------2-----------1-----------0

[ROTATE START POINT]

a) Time to talk with other mothers P0523_01

b) Money saved on grocery bills P0523_02

c) Health information P0523_03

d) Nutrition information P0523_04

e) Checking blood, height and weight P0523_05

f) Advice from WIC staff P0523_06

g) Vouchers for foods I know are nutritious P0523_07

h) Helps me stay on time with shots for my child P0523_08

i) Taught me about breastfeeding P0523_09

j) Taught me about the foods babies need P0523_10

k) Taught me about the foods children need P0523_11

l) Taught me about the foods I need P0523_12

24. How much one-on-one nutrition counseling have you received in person for this most recent 

pregnancy/baby? [IF R.=PREGNANT, READ: pregnancy. IF 

R.=BREASTFEEDING/POSTPARTUM, READ: child]. Would you say...? [READ UNTIL R. 

INDICATES ANSWER]

P0524

 None at all [VERIFY: “You received no counseling about nutrition and healthy eating at the 

clinic?” IF AFFIRMED, SKIP TO Q30]

 One session only

 2-3 sessions

 4-5 sessions

 6-7 sessions

 8 or more sessions
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

25. Not counting the paperwork or other processing time, how much time would you say the actual 

counseling lasted, on average? [IF AN HOUR OR MORE, VERIFY, “Is this on average?”]

___________ HOURS P0525H

___________ MINUTES P0525M

26. What topics do you remember talking about with the nutrition counselor? [DO NOT READ 

AT FIRST--PROBE AND CHECK UNAIDED RECALL] [THEN READ LIST TO CHECK 

AIDED RECALL]

UNAIDED

YES

AIDED

YES NO

a) Healthy weight P0526_01   

b) Fruits and vegetables P0526_02   

c) Protein P0526_03   

d) Getting enough iron P0526_04   

e) Calcium for bone health P0526_05   

f) Vitamin C P0526_06   

g) Other vitamins and food supplements

P0526_07

  

h) Food safety P0526_08   

i) Physical activity P0526_09   

j) Eating/preparing healthy meals P0526_10   

k) Picky eaters P0526_11   

27. Was the nutrition counseling useful to you? 

P0527

 YES [CONTINUE]

 NO [SKIP TO Q29]

28. Why? [DON’T READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.] [PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE?] [SKIP 

TO Q30 AFTER QUESTION.]

P0528

 LEARNED NEW THINGS P0528A

 COUNSELOR SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND ME/CARE ABOUT ME P0528B

 IT MOTIVATED ME TO MAKE CHANGES/HELPED ME SET GOALS P0528C

 HELPED ME EAT/BE HEALTHIER P0528D

 OTHER: P0528W SPECIFY __________________________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A12

29. Why not? [DON’T READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.] [PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE?]

P0529

 BORING/NOTHING NEW LEARNED P0529A

 REPETITIVE P0529B

 LANGUAGE PROBLEMS P0529C

 TOO FAST. FELT RUSHED P0529D

 DISTRACTIONS (NOISE, PEOPLE, CONFUSION) P0529E

 COUNSELOR DIDN’T UNDERSTAND/TAILOR TO INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS P0529F

 OTHER: P0529W SPECIFY __________________________

CURRENT SITUATION & BEHAVIORS

SKIP TO Q32 IF R.=PREGNANT AND Q4= FIRST,ONLY CHILD

30. At the current time, what, if any, health insurance do you have for your child/ren? [IF R. SAYS 

SOMETHING LIKE “ AETNA, BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD, KAISER, OR UNITED 

HEALTHCARE”, CLARIFY WHETHER IT IS PRIVATE INSURANCE THROUGH AN 

EMPLOYER OR NOT. IF MORE THAN ONE GIVEN, ASK FOR MAIN ONE.]

P0530

 NONE

 MEDICAID

 STATE CHIP – CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

 OTHER STATE PROGRAM

 MILITARY/TRICARE

 PRIVATE INSURANCE THROUGH AN EMPLOYER 

 PRIVATE INSURANCE NOT THROUGH AN EMPLOYER (I.E. THEIR OWN INSURANCE)

 OTHER: PLEASE SPECIFY: ___________________

31. What, if any health insurance, do you have for yourself? [IF MORE THAN ONE GIVEN, ASK FOR 

MAIN ONE.]

P0531

 NONE

 MEDICAID

 OTHER STATE PROGRAM

 MILITARY/TRICARE

 PRIVATE INSURANCE THROUGH MOTHER/SPOUSE’S EMPLOYER (E.G. MILITARY)

 PRIVATE INSURANCE NOT THROUGH MOTHER/SPOUSE’S EMPLOYER

 OTHER: PLEASE SPECIFY: ___________________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

32. Are you, or members of your family, getting food through the... [READ LIST]?

 YES NO

a) Food Stamp program, also known as [INSERT FROM 

P6c]? P0532_1

 

b) Free or reduced price School Lunch or Breakfast 

program? P0532_2

 

c) Summer Food Service program, for kids when not in 

school? P0532_3

 

d) Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 

(FDPIR)? P0532_4

 

e) Temporary Emergency Food Assistance program?

P0532_5

 

f) Child and Adult Care Food program, which provides free 

lunches for children at day care centers? P0532_6

 

g) Local/community food bank or pantry? P0532_7  

h) Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides 

food packets that are distributed through State and local 

agencies? [IF Q32h=YES, SKIP TO Q33] P0532_8

 

i) Have you ever participated in Commodity Supplemental Food Program in the past? P0532_9

 YES

 NO [SKIP TO Q33]

j) How long ago did your participation in that program stop?

_____________ YEARS AGO P032TY

_____________ MONTHS AGO P032TM

33. Now thinking about how your family eats generally, which of the following statements best describes 

the food you had to eat in your household during the last 12 months? Did your household... [READ 

LIST]? [CHECK ONE ONLY] 

P0533

 Have enough to eat [SKIP TO Q35]

 Sometimes do not have enough to eat, or

 Often not have enough to eat
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A14

34A. Now I am going to read a series of statements that people sometimes make about food 

and meals. For each statement, tell me if the statement was often, sometimes or never true

for you in the last 12 months. [REPEAT SCALE AS NECESSARY]

a) We worried whether our food would run out 

before we got money to buy more.

P0534A_1  OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

b) The food that we bought just didn’t last and 

we didn’t have money to get more.

P0534A_2

 OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

c) We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals. 

P0534A_3  OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

IF R.=PREGNANT AND Q4=FIRST, ONLY 

CHILD, SKIP TO Q34b.

d) We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost 

food to feed our children because we were 

running out of money to buy food.

P0534A_4

 OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

e) We couldn’t feed our children a balanced 

meal, because we couldn’t afford that.

P0534A_5

 OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

f) The children were not eating enough 

because we just couldn’t afford enough food.

P0534A_6

 OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

34B. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the 

household ever cut the size of your meals or skip 

meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

P0534B

 YES 

 NO [SKIP TO Q34C]

1) How often did this happen— almost every 

month, some months but not every month, or 

in only 1 or 2 months?

P0534B1

 ALMOST EVERY MONTH 

 SOME MONTHS BUT NOT EVERY MONTH 

 ONLY 1 OR 2 MONTHS

34C. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you 

felt you should because there wasn’t enough money 

for food? P0534C

 YES 

 NO 

34D. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but 

didn’t eat, because there wasn’t enough money for 

food? P0534D

 YES 

 NO 

34E. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because 

there wasn’t enough money for food? P0534E

 YES 

 NO 

34F. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your 

household ever not eat for a whole day because there 

wasn’t enough money for food? P0534F

 YES 

 NO [SKIP TO Q34H.]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A15 National Survey of WIC Participants II

34G. How often did this happen— almost every 

month, some months but not every month, or in 

only 1 or 2 months? P0534G

 ALMOST EVERY MONTH 

 SOME MONTHS BUT NOT EVERY MONTH 

 ONLY 1 OR 2 MONTHS

SKIP TO Q42 IF R.=PREGNANT AND Q4=THIS IS FIRST,ONLY CHILD] 

[USE “child” INSTEAD OF CHILDREN IN Q35H-L IF R.=BREASTFEEDING/ 

POSTPARTUM AND Q4=FIRST, ONLY CHILD]

34H. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any 

of the children’s meals because there wasn’t enough 

money for food? P0534H

 YES 

 NO 

34I. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry 

but you just couldn’t afford more food? P0534I

 YES 

 NO 

34J. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever 

skip a meal because there wasn’t enough money for 

food? P0534J

 YES 

 NO 

34K. How often did this happen— almost 

every month, some months but not every 

month, or in only 1 or 2 months? P0534K

 ALMOST EVERY MONTH 

 SOME MONTHS BUT NOT EVERY MONTH 

 ONLY 1 OR 2 MONTHS

34L. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever 

not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough 

money for food? P0534L

 YES 

 NO 

IF R.=BREASTFEEDING/POSTPARTUM AND Q4=THIS IS FIRST,ONLY CHILD, THEN SKIP TO 

Q38.

35. You said you have [READ NUMBER FROM Q4] other children in addition to the baby [FOR 

PREGNANT ADD: that is coming]. Of these other children, how many were breastfed, even if only 

for a short time?

P0535

[RECORD NUMBER. NUMBER CAN NOT EXCEED NUMBER FROM Q4. IF Q35= 0, SKIP 

TO Q36d]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A16

36. Did you breastfeed after the last baby before this one, even if only for a short time?

P0536

 YES [GO TO Q36a ]

 NO [GO TO Q36d) ]

a) For how long did 

you breastfeed that 

baby?

(Probe if needed)

b) Of that time, how 

much of that time 

was the baby 

exclusively breastfed, 

with no other food?

c) Why did you stop 

breastfeeding? [AFTER 

THIS QUESTION, SKIP TO 

Q42 IF R.=PREGNANT; OR 

TO Q38 IF 

R.=BREASTFEEDING OR 

POSTPARTUM

d) Why did you not 

breastfeed? [AFTER THIS 

QUESTION, SKIP TO Q42 

IF R.=PREGNANT]

____<2 wks 

 [SKIP TO Q36d]

____ NUMBER OF 

WEEKS OR MONTHS 

(“99” IF DON’T 

KNOW)

P0536AN

____ [1] WEEKS

 [2] MONTHS

 [9] DOESN’T

 KNOW

P0536AU

____ NUMBER OF 

WEEKS OR MONTHS 

(“99” IF DON’T KNOW)

P0536BN

____ [1] WEEKS

 [2] MONTHS

 [9] DOESN’T

 KNOW

P0536BU

99 D

O

N

’

T

K

N

O

W

P0536C

[DO NOT READ. CHECK ALL

THAT APPLY]

HEALTH ITEMS

1. Baby had difficulty nursing

2. Not producing enough 

breast milk

3. Baby not gaining enough 

weight

4. Nipples sore, cracked or 

bleeding

5. Mother or baby became 

sick

TIME/DUTY ITEMS

6. Other children to take care 

of

7. Went back to work or 

school

8. Wanted my body back to 

myself

9. Wanted/needed someone 

else to feed the baby 

10. Too many household 

duties

PREFERENCE ITEMS

11. Did not like breastfeeding

12. Did not want to be tied 

down

13. Embarrassment

14. Husband/partner did not 

want me to breastfeed

15. Felt it was the right time to 

stop 

P0536D

[DO NOT READ. CHECK ALL

THAT APPLY]

HEALTH ITEMS

1. Baby had difficulty nursing

2. Not producing enough 

breast milk

3. Baby not gaining enough 

weight

4. Nipples sore, cracked or 

bleeding

5. Mother or baby became 

sick

TIME/DUTY ITEMS

6. Other children to take care 

of

7. Went back to work or 

school

8. Wanted my body back to 

myself

9. Wanted/needed someone 

else to feed the baby 

10. Too many household 

duties

PREFERENCE ITEMS

11. Did not like breastfeeding

12. Did not want to be tied 

down

13. Embarrassment

14. Husband/partner did not 

want me to breastfeed

15. Felt it was the right time to 

stop
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A17 National Survey of WIC Participants II

FOR BREASTFEEDING AND POSTPARTUM ONLY:

38. Now, do you or did you breastfeed your most recent baby, even if only for a short time?

P0538

 YES 

 NO [GO TO Q39d ]

39. Is it still ongoing or did you stop breastfeeding? [DO NOT READ ANSWERS]

P0539

 ONGOING [SKIP TO 44]

 STOPPED 

a) For how long did 

the breastfeeding 

last in total?

(Probe if needed)

b) Of that time, how much 

of that time was the baby 

exclusively breastfed, 

with no other food?

c) Why did you stop 

breastfeeding? [AFTER THIS 

QUESTION, SKIP TO Q40]

d) Why did you not breastfeed? 

____ <2 wks 

 [SKIP TO Q39c]

____ NUMBER OF 

WEEKS OR MONTHS 

(“99” IF DON’T 

KNOW)

P0539AN

____ [1] WEEKS

 [2] MONTHS

 [9] DOESN’T

 KNOW

P0539AU

____ NUMBER OF WEEKS 

OR MONTHS (“99” IF 

DON’T KNOW)

P0539BN

____ [1] WEEKS

 [2] MONTHS

 [9] DOESN’T

 KNOW

P0539BU

P0539C

DO NOT READ. CHECK ALL THAT

APPLY]

HEALTH ITEMS

1. Baby had difficulty nursing

2. Not producing enough breast 

milk

3. Baby not gaining enough 

weight

4. Nipples sore, cracked or 

bleeding

5. Mother or baby became sick

TIME/DUTY ITEMS

6. Other children to take care of

7. Went back to work or school

8. Wanted my body back to 

myself

9. Wanted/needed someone else 

to feed the baby 

10. Too many household duties

PREFERENCE ITEMS

11. Did not like breastfeeding

12. Did not want to be tied down

13. Embarrassment

14. Husband/partner did not want 

me to breastfeed

15. Felt it was the right time to 

stop

P0539D

DO NOT READ. CHECK ALL THAT

APPLY]

HEALTH ITEMS

1. Baby had difficulty nursing

2. Not producing enough breast 

milk

3. Baby not gaining enough 

weight

4. Nipples sore, cracked or 

bleeding

5. Mother or baby became sick

TIME/DUTY ITEMS

6. Other children to take care of

7. Went back to work or school

8. Wanted my body back to 

myself

9. Wanted/needed someone else 

to feed the baby 

10. Too many household duties

PREFERENCE ITEMS

11. Did not like breastfeeding

12. Did not want to be tied down

13. Embarrassment

14. Husband/partner did not want 

me to breastfeed

15. Felt it was the right time to 

stop
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A18

40. What, if anything, might have helped you to breastfeed? [AFTER QUESTION, SKIP TO Q44]

P0540

1. HELP BABY THAT HAD TROUBLE NURSING

2. SHOW ME WAYS TO MAKE IT HURT LESS

3. SHOW ME WAYS TO MAKE IT EASIER

4. SHOW ME HOW TO PUMP MILK

5. TALK TO UNSUPPORTIVE HUSBAND/PARTNER

6. TALK TO UNSUPPORTIVE MOTHER/GRANDMOTHER

7. TELL ME HOW TO WORK IT INTO MY SCHEDULE

8. NOTHING

9. OTHER [SPECIFY] _____________________________ P0540A

41. What one thing might have helped you breastfeed for a longer period of time? [AFTER QUESTION, 

SKIP TO Q44]

P0541

1. HELP BABY THAT HAD TROUBLE NURSING

2. SHOW ME WAYS TO MAKE IT HURT LESS

3. SHOW ME WAYS TO MAKE IT EASIER

4. SHOW ME HOW TO PUMP MILK

5. TALK TO UNSUPPORTIVE HUSBAND/PARTNER

6. TALK TO UNSUPPORTIVE MOTHER/GRANDMOTHER

7. TELL ME HOW TO WORK IT INTO MY SCHEDULE

8. NOTHING

9. OTHER [SPECIFY] _____________________________ P0541A

FOR PREGNANT ONLY:

42. With your upcoming baby, are you planning to breastfeed?

P0542

 YES [CONTINUE]

 NO [SKIP TO Q44]

43. For how many months in total from the baby’s birth, are you planning to breastfeed?

P0543

________ MONTHS (“99” IF DOESN’T KNOW)
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A19 National Survey of WIC Participants II

FOR EVERYONE:

44. What, if any, advantages do you see of breastfeeding? [UNAIDED AWARENESS. DO NOT 

READ. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] [PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE?]

P0544

 BETTER/HEALTHIER BABY P0544A

 MOTHER-BABY BONDING, CLOSENESS P0544B

 BREASTFEEDING ENJOYABLE P0544C

 EASIER, MORE CONVENIENT P0544D

 CHEAPER/PROVIDED FOR FREE P0544E

 FRIENDS/FAMILY ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT AND CAN HELP ME P0544F

 OTHER: P0544W SPECIFY ______________________________

45. What, if any, disadvantages do you see of breastfeeding? [UNAIDED AWARENESS. DO NOT 

READ. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] [PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE?]

P0545

 NOT ENOUGH BREAST MILK TO SATISFY BABY P0545A

 HARD TO DO WHEN ONE IS GOING BACK TO WORK OR SCHOOL P0545B

 PAIN OR DISCOMFORT P0545C

 NO ONE ELSE CAN FEED THE BABY P0545D

 TOO TIME-CONSUMING P0545E

 TOO MUCH WORK COMPARED TO FORMULA P0545F

 MORE EXPENSIVE COMPARED TO FORMULA P0545G

 FRIENDS/FAMILY ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT CANNOT HELP ME P0545H

 OTHER: P0545W SPECIFY ______________________________

FRIENDS

46. Do you have friends who you think are eligible for WIC but who haven’t applied for WIC benefits?

P0546

 YES

 NO

47. Do you know anyone who was in WIC but dropped out before their certification period was over?

P0547

 YES

 NO
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-A20

48. What, do you think, are the main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC? PROBE: Anything 

else? [DO NOT READ. CODE UP TO THREE REPLIES.]

P0548

 LACK OF TRANSPORTATION TO CLINIC, TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES P0548A

 THEY DON’T KNOW THAT WIC EXISTS P0548B

 INCONVENIENT HOURS/DAYS CLINIC OPEN P0548C

 SERVICES (INCLUDING WAITING TIME) TAKE TOO MUCH TIME P0548D

 WAITING SPACE AT CLINIC IS LIMITED P0548E

 LACK OF CHILD CARE P0548F

 LANGUAGE BARRIERS P0548G

 PROBLEMS QUALIFYING FOR BENEFITS P0548H

 DIFFICULTIES KEEPING APPOINTMENT TIMES P0548I

 WIC FOOD SELECTION NOT DESIRABLE P0548J

 WIC FOOD STORES NOT CONVENIENT (HOURS OR LOCATION) P0548K

 WIC FOOD HARD TO FIND ON SHELVES (BRANDS, QUANTITIES) P0548L

 IMMIGRATION CONCERNS P0548M

 DIDN’T NEED FOOD BENEFIT P0548N

 OTHER: P0548W PLEASE SPECIFY______________________________

DEMOGRAPHICS 

We’re almost done with this survey. I’d like to ask a few questions for classification purposes only. 

49. Are you ... [READ] 

P0549

 Hispanic or Latino?

 Not Hispanic or Latino?

 REFUSED

50. How would you characterize yourself in terms of race? [READ ALL. CHECK AS MANY AS 

APPLY]

P0550

 American Indian or Alaska Native

 Asian American

 Black or African American

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

 White

 REFUSED
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-A21 National Survey of WIC Participants II

51. What is the highest level of education you have attained? [READ UNTIL R. INDICATES 

ANSWER]

P0551

 Refused

 Elementary school (6 years or less of education)

 Some high school (7 – 11 years of education)

 High school diploma or GED

 Some college 

 Associate’s degree

 Bachelor’s degree

 Advanced degree 

52. What is your first language, that is, the language you speak at home?

P0552

 English

 Arabic

 Cambodian

 Cantonese/ Mandarin

 Farsi

 French/Creole

 Fulani

 Hindi

 Hmong

 Khmer

 Korean

 Laotian

 Punjabi 

 Russian

 Somali

 Spanish

 Swahili

 Tamil

 Tagalog

 Urdu

 Vietnamese

 Other: SPECIFY 

_________

IF R. HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN FOR IN-HOME AUDIT, READ:

Thank you so much for your help in answering this survey. Your feedback, combined with other 

confidential responses, will help improve the WIC program. Thanks again. Have a great 

day/evening. 

Appendix I-B: Telephone Survey

(Version B—Infant and Child)

I-B1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

TELEPHONE SURVEY (Version B: Infant and Child)

Questionnaire contains data item identification (variable names) for each question in order to facilitate secondary data analysis.

The questions I am going to ask are about your satisfaction and experiences with WIC. This takes about 

20 minutes and your feedback will be grouped together with answers from other people. Since your 

answers are confidential, nothing you say will change your benefits.

WIC PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

1. Let’s begin by talking about your experience with WIC and the process you went through to receive 

benefits. Is this the first time you’ve received WIC benefits for your child or has your child 

participated before. 

P0501

 NEW TO WIC [SKIP TO Q3]

 PARTICIPATED BEFORE [CONTINUE]

2. How many times has your child participated before? [ASK, THEN SKIP TO Q4]

P0502

 1

 2 

 3 or more

2a. How old was your child when he/she first started getting WIC benefits [ASK, THEN SKIP TO Q7]

 At birth

 _____(# of) Months (0 to 23 months) P0502AM

 _____(# of) Years (24 months or more) P0502AY

3. Why didn’t your child participate before this? [DO NOT READ; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]

 THIS IS MY FIRST CHILD/PREGNANCY T0503A

 DIDN’T LIVE IN USA T0503B

 DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT WIC T0503C

 DIDN’T THINK QUALIFIED FOR WIC (FOR CATEGORY REASON) T0503D

 DIDN’T THINK QUALIFIED FOR WIC (FOR INCOME REASON) T0503E

 DIDN’T TRUST WIC T0503F

 DIDN’T QUALIFY FOR WIC T0503G

 LACK OF TRANSPORTATION TO CLINIC, TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES T0503H

 SCHEDULE DIFFICULTIES T0503I

 SERVICES (INCLUDING WAITING TIME) TAKE TOO MUCH TIME T0503J

 WAITING SPACE AT CLINIC IS LIMITED T0503K

 LACK OF CHILD CARE T0503L

 LANGUAGE BARRIERS T0503M

 PROBLEMS QUALIFYING FOR BENEFITS T0503N
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-B2

 DIDN’T HAVE PAPERS TO PROVE ELIGIBILITY T0503O

 DIFFICULTIES KEEPING APPOINTMENT TIMES T0503P

 WIC FOOD SELECTION NOT DESIRABLE T0503Q

 WIC FOOD STORES NOT CONVENIENT (HOURS OR LOCATION) T0503R

 WIC FOOD HARD TO FIND ON SHELVES (BRANDS, QUANTITIES) T0503S

 IMMIGRATION CONCERNS T0503T

 DIDN’T NEED FOOD BENEFIT T0503U

 DON’T KNOW T0503V

 OTHER: T0503W PLEASE SPECIFY______________________________

SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL CLINIC, SERVICES, FOOD STORES

7. Thinking about the WIC clinic that you are familiar with, how satisfied are you with the people that 

work there and the services they provide? Would you say you are [READ]...?

P0507

 Very Satisfied

 Somewhat Satisfied

 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

 Somewhat Dissatisfied, or

 Very Dissatisfied

7a. Thinking about the WIC clinic’s location and building facility, would you say you are [READ]...?

P0507A

 Very Satisfied

 Somewhat Satisfied

 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

 Somewhat Dissatisfied, or

 Very Dissatisfied

Looking at specific qualities or characteristics of the clinic...

8. How would you rate the [INSERT FROM BELOW]? Would you say it is Excellent, Very Good, 

Good, Fair or Poor? [REPEAT SCALE UNTIL R. LEARNS IT]

Excellent-----Very Good------Good------Fair------Poor

[ROTATE START POINT] 

a) Customer friendliness of the WIC staff P0508_01

b) Quality of service you get P0508_02

c) Helpfulness of the staff P0508_03

d) Staff’s ability to speak your language P0508_04

e) Safety of the clinic’s location P0508_05

f) Convenience of the clinic’s location for you P0508_06
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-B3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

g) Convenience of its operating hours P0508_07

h) Amount of time you must wait until you are seen by WIC staff P0508_08

i) Size and space of the waiting area P0508_09

j) Activities provided to occupy children while you wait P0508_10

k) Way they handle paperwork for certification P0508_11

l) How they deliver your food -[INSERT WORD USED IN P6b] P0508_12

9. Now, think about the food benefits that you receive for your child. How would you rate them in the 

following areas? Use the same scale: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor. How would you rate 

the food benefits for...

Excellent-----Very Good------Good------Fair ------Poor

a) Providing the right quantity of food? P0509_1

b) Offering foods that your child likes to eat? P0509_2

c) Offering food choices in sizes and brands that you can find on the shelf? For example, if the 

coupon says a 46 oz container of juice in one of these 3 brands, you can find them in the store 

where you shop. P0509_3

10. Are there certain WIC foods that, on a regular basis, you do not purchase for your child for some 

reason? 

P0510

 YES [CONTINUE]

 NO [SKIP TO Q12]

11. Which ones do you not purchase? [DO NOT READ LIST. JUST CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY. 

FOR EACH ONE CHECKED, ASK:] Why not)? AFTER R. ANSWERS, ASK, Anything else?

ITEMS NOT 

REDEEMED

Why don’t you redeem them? 

[CODE OR WRITE IN MAIN 

REASON]

PRECODES

1 – Dislike, don’t like

2 – Not accustomed to eating it 

(including cultural differences)

3 – Food allergies

4 – Don’t know how to prepare

5 – Too much trouble to prepare

6 – Problems getting food to home

7– Couldn’t find/ Lost the food coupons

8 – Store did not have item in stock 

9 – Did not need at that time

10 – Other: SPECIFY

*

 CARROTS P0511_01

 CEREAL P0511_02

 CHEESE P0511_03

 DRY BEANS,

PEAS

P0511_04

 EGGS P0511_05

 FORMULA P0511_06

 JUICE P0511_07

 MILK P0511_08

 PEANUT 

BUTTER

P0511_09

 TUNA P0511_10
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-B4

12a. For food items you did redeem, was there too much of any food? 

P05120

 YES (Which Foods?.....)

 NO (SKIP TO 12b) 

[DO NOT READ. JUST CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY]

TOO MUCH

 CARROTS P0512A_01

 CEREAL P0512A_02

 CHEESE P0512A_03

 DRY BEANS, PEAS P0512A_04

 EGGS P0512A_05

 FORMULA P0512A_06

 JUICE P0512A_07

 MILK P0512A_08

 PEANUT BUTTER P0512A_09

 TUNA P0512A_10

 OTHER ____________ P0512A_11

12b. For food items you did redeem, was there too little of any food? 

P05121

 YES (Which Foods?......) 

 NO (SKIP TO 13)

[DO NOT READ. JUST CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY]

TOO LITTLE

 CARROTS P0512B_01

 CEREAL P0512B_02

 CHEESE P0512B_03

 DRY BEANS, PEAS P0512B_04

 EGGS P0512B_05

 FORMULA P0512B_06

 JUICE P0512B_07

 MILK P0512B_08

 PEANUT BUTTER P0512B_09

 TUNA P0512B_10

 OTHER __________

P0512B_11
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-B5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

13. Which description best fits the store where you most often redeem your child’s WIC food [INSERT 

WORD USED IN P6b]? [READ FULL LIST]

P0513

 Large grocery store or supermarket

 Small grocery store

 Convenience store

 Specialty food store, such as one that specializes in ethnic foods

 Store that carries only WIC-approved items

 Large combination food store-retailer such as a Walmart or a Target

 Military commissary

 [IF ILLINOIS, READ]: WIC Food Centers 

 [DON’T READ] OTHER [ASK: Can you describe it for me? AND TYPE BRIEF 

DESCRIPTION ___________________________________]

14. Using the scale of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor that we used earlier, what overall rating 

would you give the store where you do most of your child’s WIC shopping.” 

P0514

 EXCELLENT

 VERY GOOD

 GOOD

 FAIR

 POOR

15. Do you buy your child’s WIC items at the same store where you do most of your other food 

shopping? 

P0515

 YES [SKIP TO Q17]

 NO [CONTINUE]

16. Why not? [DO NOT READ. CODE ANSWER ALL THAT APPLY]

P0516

 EXPENSE: WIC STORE MORE EXPENSIVE, REGULAR STORE LESS EXPENSIVE P0516A

 EXPENSE: REGULAR STORE MORE EXPENSIVE, WIC STORE LESS EXPENSIVE P0516B

 TRANSPORTATION: WIC STORE LESS CONVENIENT TO GET TO, REGULAR STORE MORE 

CONVENIENT P0516C

 TRANSPORTATION: REGULAR STORE LESS CONVENIENT TO GET TO, WIC STORE MORE 

CONVENIENT P0516D

 COURTESY: WIC STORE NOT CUSTOMER-FRIENDLY, REGULAR STORE FRIENDLIER P0516E

 COURTESY: REGULAR STORE NOT CUSTOMER-FRIENDLY, WIC STORE FRIENDLIER P0516F

 REGULAR STORE DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN WIC PROGRAM P0516G

 REGULAR STORE DOESN’T CARRY RIGHT SIZES/SELECTIONS OF WIC FOODS P0516H

 OTHER: PLEASE SPECIFY ________________________________ P0516X
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-B6

17. I am going to give you a list of reasons why some people go to the store that they do for WIC 

purchases. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you by giving a number from 0 to 5, 

with 5 meaning extremely important and 0 being Not important at all. How important is it that 

[INSERT FROM BELOW]:

Extremely important Not at all important

5-----------4-----------3-----------2-----------1-----------0

[ROTATE START POINT]

a) It is the same store where you do your other shopping P0517_1

b) The store clerks are friendly and helpful P0517_2

c) The store clerks speak your language P0517_3

d) The location is safe P0517_4

e) The location is convenient, easy to get to P0517_5

f) The store hours are convenient P0517_6

g) The store has the right sizes and brands of WIC foods P0517_7

h) The prices on non-WIC items are reasonable P0517_8

i) It specializes in WIC items P0517_9

IMPACT OF TRAINING AND COUNSELING ON BEHAVIOR

18. Let’s talk about some of the services at the WIC agency. In addition to your scheduled appointments, 

have you attended any group education sessions that were recommended to you by the WIC staff? 

P0518

 YES [CONTINUE]

 NO [SKIP TO Q23]

19. Were any of 

these seminars 

about...? 

[READ]

YES NO

20. IF YES IN Q19, 

ASK: Did the 

seminar influence 

you to make any 

lifestyle changes?

 YES NO

21. IF YES IN Q20, 

ASK: 

Specifically, 

what changes 

did you make?

22. IF NO IN Q20, 

ASK: Why not? 

What about the 

program or 

session didn’t 

work for you?

Nutrition or 

preparing 

nutritious meals?

P0519_1

YES 

NO

P0520_1

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_1

 Eating more healthy 

 How to cook healthy 

meals

 Avoiding bad foods

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_1

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 Not practical, useful

 Foods I don’t eat

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-B7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Breastfeeding your 

baby?

P0519_2

YES 

NO

P0520_2

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_2

 How to do it

 Dealing with problems

 Helping my baby to 

do it

 Getting my family to 

accept it/cooperate

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_2

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 Not “hands-on”

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

Disciplining your 

child?

P0519_3

YES 

NO

P0520_3

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_3

 Better parenting

 Being more patient

 Learning what works

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_3

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 Not realistic

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

Educating your 

child?

P0519_4

YES 

NO

P0520_4

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_4

 Better parenting

 Being more patient

 Learning what works

 Learning new 

techniques

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_4

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 Too general

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

Living a healthy 

lifestyle?

P0519_5

YES 

NO

P0520_5

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_5

 Making changes 

(general)

 Stopping smoking

 Eating healthy

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_5

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

Smoking 

cessation?

P0519_6

YES 

NO

P0520_6

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_6

 Stopped smoking

 Cut back smoking

 Trying to stop smok’g

 Reducing 2nd hand 

smoke for family

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_6

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-B8

Accessing, or 

making use of, 

other social 

services?

P0519_7

YES 

NO

P0520_7

YES 

NOT (To Q22)

P0521_7

Learning what they are, 

what I/we qualify for

 Getting referrals

 Finding out where 

they’re located

 Getting Food Stamps

 Getting Medicaid

 Getting TANF 

(housing assistance)

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

P0522_7

 Boring, not interesting

 Too long 

 Too complicated

 Poor teacher

 I already knew it

 OTHER [SPECIFY]

hy not?

23. I am going to read you a list of potential benefits of the WIC program. Please indicate how valuable 

they are to your child by giving me a number from 0 to 5, with 5 meaning extremely valuable and 0 

being not valuable to you at all. How important is [INSERT FROM BELOW]?

Extremely valuable Not at all valuable

5-----------4-----------3-----------2-----------1-----------0

[ROTATE START POINT]

a) Time to talk with other mothers P0523_01

b) Money saved on grocery bills P0523_02

c) Health information P0523_03

d) Nutrition information P0523_04

e) Checking blood, height and weight P0523_05

f) Advice from WIC staff P0523_06

g) Vouchers for foods I know are nutritious P0523_07

h) Helps me stay on time with shots for my child P0523_08

i) Taught me about breastfeeding P0523_09

j) Taught me about the foods babies need P0523_10

k) Taught me about the foods children need P0523_11

l) Taught me about the foods I need P0523_12

24. How much one-on-one nutrition counseling have you received in person for this child? 

P0524

 None at all [VERIFY: “You received no counseling about nutrition and healthy eating at the 

clinic?” IF AFFIRMED, SKIP TO Q30]

 One session only

 2-3 sessions

 4-5 sessions

 6-7 sessions

 8 or more sessions
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-B9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

25. Not counting the paperwork or other processing time, how much time would you say the actual 

counseling lasted, on average? [IF AN HOUR OR MORE, VERIFY, “Is this on average?”]

___________ HOURS P0525H

___________ MINUTES P0525M

26. What topics do you remember talking about with the nutrition counselor? [DO NOT READ 

AT FIRST--PROBE AND CHECK UNAIDED RECALL] [THEN READ LIST TO CHECK 

AIDED RECALL]

 

UNAIDED

YES

AIDED

YES NO

a) Healthy weight P0526_01   

b) Fruits and vegetables P0526_02   

c) Protein P0526_03   

d) Getting enough iron P0526_04   

e) Calcium for bone health P0526_05   

f) Vitamin C P0526_06   

g) Other vitamins and food supplements

P0526_07

  

h) Food safety P0526_08   

i) Physical activity P0526_09   

j) Eating/preparing healthy meals

P0526_10

  

k) Picky eaters P0526_11   

27. Was the nutrition counseling useful to you? 

P0527

 YES [CONTINUE]

 NO [SKIP TO Q29]

28. Why? [DON’T READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.] [PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE?] [SKIP 

TO Q30 AFTER QUESTION.]

P0528

 LEARNED NEW THINGS P0528A

 COUNSELOR SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND ME/CARE ABOUT ME P0528B

 IT MOTIVATED ME TO MAKE CHANGES/HELPED ME SET GOALS P0528C

 HELPED ME EAT/BE HEALTHIER P0528D

 OTHER: P0528W SPECIFY __________________________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-B10

29. Why not? [DON’T READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.] [PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE?]

 BORING/NOTHING NEW LEARNED P0529A

 REPETITIVE P0529B

 LANGUAGE PROBLEMS P0529C

 TOO FAST. FELT RUSHED P0529D

 DISTRACTIONS (NOISE, PEOPLE, CONFUSION) P0529E

 COUNSELOR DIDN’T UNDERSTAND/TAILOR TO INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS P0529F

 OTHER: P0529W SPECIFY __________________________

CURRENT SITUATION & BEHAVIORS

30. At the current time, what, if any, health insurance do you have for your child/ren? [IF R. SAYS 

SOMETHING LIKE “AETNA, BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD, KAISER, OR UNITED 

HEALTHCARE”, CLARIFY WHETHER IT IS PRIVATE INSURANCE THROUGH AN 

EMPLOYER OR NOT. IF MORE THAN ONE GIVEN, ASK FOR MAIN ONE.]

P0530

 NONE

 MEDICAID

 STATE CHIP – CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

 OTHER STATE PROGRAM

 MILITARY/TRICARE

 PRIVATE INSURANCE THROUGH AN EMPLOYER 

 PRIVATE INSURANCE NOT THROUGH AN EMPLOYER (I.E. THEIR OWN INSURANCE)

 OTHER: PLEASE SPECIFY: ___________________

32. Are you, or members of your family, getting food through the... [READ LIST]?

P0532

 YES NO

a) Food Stamp program, also known as [INSERT FROM 

P6c]? P0532_1

 

b) Free or reduced price School Lunch or Breakfast 

program? P0532_2

 

c) Summer Food Service program, for kids when not in 

school? P0532_3

 

d) Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 

(FDPIR)? P0532_4

 

e) Temporary Emergency Food Assistance program?

P0532_5

 

f) Child and Adult Care Food program, which provides free 

lunches for children at day care centers? P0532_6

 

g) Local/community food bank or pantry? P0532_7

h) Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides 

food packets that are distributed through State and local 

agencies? [IF Q32h=YES, SKIP TO Q33] P0532_8

 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-B11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

i) Have you ever participated in Commodity Supplemental Food Program in the past?

P0532_9

 YES

 NO [SKIP TO Q33]

j) How long ago did your participation in that program stop?

_____________ YEARS AGO P032TY

_____________ MONTHS AGO P032TM

33. Now thinking about how your family eats generally, which of the following statements best describes 

the food you had to eat in your household during the last 12 months? Did your household... [READ 

LIST]? [CHECK ONE ONLY] 

P0533

 Have enough to eat [SKIP TO Q38]

 Sometimes do not have enough to eat, or

 Often not have enough to eat

34A. Now I am going to read a series of statements that people sometimes make about food 

and meals. For each statement, tell me if the statement was often, sometimes or 

never true for you in the last 12 months. [REPEAT SCALE AS NECESSARY]

1) WWe worried whether our food would 

run out before we got money to buy 

more. P0534A_1  OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

2) TThe food that we bought just didn’t last 

and we didn’t have money to get more.

P0534A_2

 OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

3) WWe couldn’t afford to eat balanced 

meals. P0534A_3  OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

4) WWe relied on only a few kinds of lowcost food to feed our children because we 

were running out of money to buy food.

P0534A_4

 OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

5) We couldn’t feed our children a balanced 

meal, because we couldn’t afford that.

P0534A_5

 OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

6) The children were not eating enough 

because we just couldn’t afford enough 

food. P0534A_6

 OFTEN  SOMETIMES  NEVER TRUE

34B. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the 

household ever cut the size of your meals or skip 

meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

P0534B

 YES 

 NO [SKIP TO Q34C]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-B12

1) HHow often did this happen— almost 

every month, some months but not every 

month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

P0534B1

 ALMOST EVERY MONTH 

 SOME MONTHS BUT NOT EVERY MONTH 

 ONLY 1 OR 2 MONTHS

34C. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you 

felt you should because there wasn’t enough money 

for food? P0534C

 YES 

 NO 

34D. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but 

didn’t eat, because there wasn’t enough money for 

food? P0534D

 YES 

 NO 

34E. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because 

there wasn’t enough money for food? P0534E

 YES 

 NO 

34F. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your 

household ever not eat for a whole day because there 

wasn’t enough money for food? P0534F

 YES 

 NO [SKIP TO Q34H]

34G. How often did this happen— almost every 

month, some months but not every month, 

or in only 1 or 2 months? P0534G

 ALMOST EVERY MONTH 

 SOME MONTHS BUT NOT EVERY MONTH 

 ONLY 1 OR 2 MONTHS

34H. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of 

any of the children’s meals because there wasn’t 

enough money for food? P0534H

 YES 

 NO 

34I. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry 

but you just couldn’t afford more food? P0534I

 YES 

 NO 

34J. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever 

skip a meal because there wasn’t enough money for 

food? P0534J

 YES 

 NO 

34K. How often did this happen— almost every 

month, some months but not every month, 

or in only 1 or 2 months? P0534K

 ALMOST EVERY MONTH 

 SOME MONTHS BUT NOT EVERY MONTH 

 ONLY 1 OR 2 MONTHS

34L. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever 

not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough 

money for food? P0534L

 YES 

 NO 

38. Was this child ever breastfed, even if only for a short time?

P0538

 YES 

 NO [GO TO Q39d ]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-B13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

39. Is it still ongoing or has the breastfeeding stopped? [DO NOT READ ANSWERS]

P0539

 ONGOING [SKIP TO 44]

 STOPPED 

a) For how long 

did the breastfeeding last in 

total?

b) Of that time, how 

much of that time 

was the baby 

exclusively breastfed, 

with no other food?

c) Why did was 

breastfeeding stopped? 

[AFTER THIS 

QUESTION, SKIP TO 

Q41]

d) Why was the child not 

breastfed? 

____ <2 wks 

 [SKIP TO Q39c]

____ NUMBER OF 

WEEKS OR MONTHS 

(“99” IF DON’T 

KNOW)

P0539AN

____ [1] WEEKS

 [2] MONTHS

 [9] DON’T

 KNOW

P0539AU

____ NUMBER OF WEEKS 

OR MONTHS (“99” IF 

DON’T KNOW)

P0539BN

____ [1] WEEKS

 [2] MONTHS

 [9] DON’T

 KNOW

P0539BU

P0539C

[DO NOT READ. CHECK ALL

THAT APPLY]

HEALTH ITEMS

1) Baby had difficulty 

nursing

2) Not producing enough

breast milk

3) Baby not gaining enough 

weight

4) Nipples sore, cracked or 

bleeding

5) Mother, baby became 

sick

6) TIME/DUTY ITEMS

7) Other children to take 

care of

8) Went back to work or 

school

9) Wanted my body back to 

myself

10) Wanted/needed 

someone else to feed 

the baby 

11) Too many household 

duties

12) PREFERENCE ITEMS

13) Did not like 

breastfeeding

14) Did not want to be tied 

down

15) Embarrassment

16) Husband/partner did not 

want me to breastfeed

17) Felt it was the right time 

to stop 

99. DON’T KNOW

P0539D

[DO NOT READ. CHECK ALL THAT

APPLY]

HEALTH ITEMS

1) Baby had difficulty 

nursing

2) Not producing enough

breast milk

3) Baby not gaining enough 

weight

4) Nipples sore, cracked or 

bleeding

5) Mother, baby became 

sick

6) TIME/DUTY ITEMS

7) Other children to take 

care of

8) Went back to work or 

school

9) Wanted my body back to 

myself

10) Wanted/needed 

someone else to feed the 

baby 

11) Too many household 

duties

12) PREFERENCE ITEMS

13) Did not like breastfeeding

14) Did not want to be tied 

down

15) Embarrassment

16) Husband/partner did not 

want me to breastfeed

17) Felt it was the right time 

to stop 

99. DON’T KNOW
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-B14

40. What, if anything, might have helped you to breastfeed? [AFTER QUESTION, SKIP TO Q44]

P0540

1. HELP BABY THAT HAD TROUBLE NURSING

2. SHOW ME WAYS TO MAKE IT HURT LESS

3. SHOW ME WAYS TO MAKE IT EASIER

4. SHOW ME HOW TO PUMP MILK

5. TALK TO UNSUPPORTIVE HUSBAND/PARTNER

6. TALK TO UNSUPPORTIVE MOTHER/GRANDMOTHER

7. TELL ME HOW TO WORK IT INTO MY SCHEDULE

8. NOTHING

9. OTHER [SPECIFY] _____________________________ P0540A

41. What one thing might have helped you breastfeed for a longer period of time? [AFTER QUESTION, 

SKIP TO Q44]

P0541

1. HELP BABY THAT HAD TROUBLE NURSING

2. SHOW ME WAYS TO MAKE IT HURT LESS

3. SHOW ME WAYS TO MAKE IT EASIER

4. SHOW ME HOW TO PUMP MILK

5. TALK TO UNSUPPORTIVE HUSBAND/PARTNER

6. TALK TO UNSUPPORTIVE MOTHER/GRANDMOTHER

7. TELL ME HOW TO WORK IT INTO MY SCHEDULE

8. NOTHING

9. OTHER [SPECIFY] _____________________________ P0541A

FOR EVERYONE:

44. What, if any, advantages do you see of breastfeeding? [UNAIDED AWARENESS. DO NOT 

READ. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] [PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE?]

P0544

 BETTER/HEALTHIER BABY P0544A

 MOTHER-BABY BONDING, CLOSENESS P0544B

 BREASTFEEDING ENJOYABLE P0544C

 EASIER, MORE CONVENIENT P0544D

 CHEAPER/PROVIDED FOR FREE P0544E

 FRIENDS/FAMILY ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT AND CAN HELP ME P0544F

 OTHER: P0544W SPECIFY ______________________________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-B15 National Survey of WIC Participants II

45. What, if any, disadvantages do you see of breastfeeding? [UNAIDED AWARENESS. DO NOT 

READ. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] [PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE?]

P0545

 NOT ENOUGH BREAST MILK TO SATISFY BABY P0545A

 HARD TO DO WHEN ONE IS GOING BACK TO WORK OR SCHOOL P0545B

 PAIN OR DISCOMFORT P0545C

 NO ONE ELSE CAN FEED THE BABY P0545D

 TOO TIME-CONSUMING P0545E

 TOO MUCH WORK COMPARED TO FORMULA P0545F

 MORE EXPENSIVE COMPARED TO FORMULA P0545G

 FRIENDS/FAMILY ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT CANNOT HELP ME P0545H

 OTHER: P0545W SPECIFY ______________________________

FRIENDS

46. Do you have friends who you think are eligible for WIC but who haven’t applied for WIC benefits?

P0546

 YES

 NO

47. Do you know anyone who was in WIC but dropped out before their certification period was over?

P0547

 YES

 NO

48. What, do you think, are the main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC? PROBE: Anything 

else? [DO NOT READ. CODE UP TO THREE REPLIES.]

P0548

 LACK OF TRANSPORTATION TO CLINIC, TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES P0548A

 THEY DON’T KNOW THAT WIC EXISTS P0548B

 INCONVENIENT HOURS/DAYS CLINIC OPEN P0548C

 SERVICES (INCLUDING WAITING TIME) TAKE TOO MUCH TIME P0548D

 WAITING SPACE AT CLINIC IS LIMITED P0548E

 LACK OF CHILD CARE P0548F

 LANGUAGE BARRIERS P0548G

 PROBLEMS QUALIFYING FOR BENEFITS P0548H

 DIFFICULTIES KEEPING APPOINTMENT TIMES P0548I

 WIC FOOD SELECTION NOT DESIRABLE P0548J

 WIC FOOD STORES NOT CONVENIENT (HOURS OR LOCATION) P0548K

 WIC FOOD HARD TO FIND ON SHELVES (BRANDS, QUANTITIES) P0548L

 IMMIGRATION CONCERNS P0548M
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-B16

 DIDN’T NEED FOOD BENEFIT P0548N

 OTHER: P0548W PLEASE SPECIFY______________________________

DEMOGRAPHICS 

We’re almost done with this survey. I’d like to ask a few questions for classification purposes only. 

49. Is your child ...[READ]

P0549

 Hispanic or Latino?

 Not Hispanic or Latino?

 REFUSED

50. How would you characterize your child in terms of race? [READ ALL. CHECK AS MANY AS 

APPLY]

P0550

 American Indian or Alaska Native

 Asian American

 Black or African American

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

 White

 REFUSED

51. What is the highest level of education your child has attained? [READ UNTIL R. INDICATES 

ANSWER]

P0551

 Refused

 Elementary school (6 years or less of education)

 Some high school (7 – 11 years of education)

 High school diploma or GED

 Some college 

 Associate’s degree

 Bachelor’s degree

 Advanced degree 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-B17 National Survey of WIC Participants II

52. What is your first language, that is, the language you speak at home?

P0552

 English

 Arabic

 Cambodian

 Cantonese/ Mandarin

 Farsi

 French/Creole

 Fulani

 Hindi

 Hmong

 Khmer

 Korean

 Laotian

 Punjabi 

 Russian

 Somali

 Spanish

 Swahili

 Tamil

 Tagalog

 Urdu

 Vietnamese

 Other: 

SPECIFY 

_________

IF R. HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN FOR IN-HOME AUDIT, READ:

Thank you so much for your help in answering this survey. Your feedback, combined with other 

confidential responses, will help improve the WIC program. Thanks.

Appendix I-C: Non-response Bias 

Analysis

Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Contents

Appendix C1: Response and Cooperation Rates by Selected Characteristics

Appendix C2: Item Non-response (All Telephone Survey Items)

Appendix C3: Difference Between Original Weights and Raked Weights on Selected Measures

Appendix C4: Race/Ethnicity (Using California Coding) by Selected Measures

Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Appendix I-C1: Response and Cooperation Rates

The following tables present unweighted percentages, with total unweighted n = 2,538.

FINAL DISPOSITION

GENDER FAMILY SIZE

Male Female 1 2 3 4 5+ TOTAL

Unreachable 34.9% 34.1% 30.9% 35.1% 35.7% 34.7% 31.6% 34.2%

Refused 3.8% 3.5% 7.4% 3.5% 3.9% 3.2% 3.1% 3.6%

Partially Complete 9.4% 11.2% 14.0% 12.6% 9.9% 10.3% 10.8% 10.9%

RESPONSE RATE 51.9% 51.2% 47.8% 48.9% 50.4% 51.8% 54.5% 51.3%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Gender Chi-Square = .17; p =.67, non-significant; Family Size Chi-Square = 8.26; p=.08, non-significant.

FINAL DISPOSITION

MSA

No Yes TOTAL

Unreachable 32.9% 34.6% 34.2%

Refused 4.3% 3.4% 3.6%

Partially Complete 10.2% 11.0% 10.9%

RESPONSE RATE 52.5% 51.0% 51.3%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = .84; p =.36, non-significant.

FINAL DISPOSITION

MONTHS SINCE RECENT CERTIFICATION

0 1 2 3 4 5 6+ TOTAL

Unreachable 34.1% 31.2% 33.5% 33.6% 33.3% 38.5% 35.2% 34.2%

Refused 3.4% 4.4% 3.2% 3.5% 3.2% 3.0% 3.8% 3.6%

Partially Complete 11.6% 10.4% 13.4% 9.0% 9.2% 7.6% 11.6% 10.9%

RESPONSE RATE 50.9% 54.0% 50.0% 53.8% 54.3% 50.9% 49.4% 51.3%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 9.67; p=.09, non-significant.

Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Appendix I-C2: Item Non-response

ITEMS

Number of

respondents 

asked

Number of

respondents 

responded

RESPONSE

RATE

P0501 Is this the first time you’ve received WIC benefits for yourself or have you 

participated before this with another pregnancy/child? 2538 2538 100.0

P0502 How many times have you participated before? 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_A Why didn’t you participate before this: THIS IS MY FIRST 

CHILD/PREGNANCY 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_B Why didn’t you participate before this: DIDN’T LIVE IN USA 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_C Why didn’t you participate before this: DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT WIC 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_D Why didn’t you participate before this: DIDN’T THINK QUALIFIED FOR 

WIC (FOR CATEGORY REASON) 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_E Why didn’t you participate before this: DIDN’T THINK QUALIFIED FOR 

WIC (FOR INCOME REASON) 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_F Why didn’t you participate before this: DIDN’T TRUST WIC 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_G Why didn’t you participate before this: DIDN’T QUALIFY FOR WIC 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_H Why didn’t you participate before this: LACK OF TRANSPORTATION 

TO CLINIC 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_I Why didn’t you participate before this: SCHEDULE DIFFICULTIES 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_J Why didn’t you participate before this: SERVICES (INCLUDING 

WAITING TIME) TAKE TOO MUCH TIME 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_K Why didn’t you participate before this: WAITING SPACE AT CLINIC IS 

LIMITED 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_L Why didn’t you participate before this: LACK OF CHILD CARE 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_M Why didn’t you participate before this: LANGUAGE BARRIERS 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_N Why didn’t you participate before this: PROBLEMS QUALIFYING FOR 

BENEFITS 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_O Why didn’t you participate before this: DIDN’T HAVE PAPERS TO 

PROVE ELIGIBILITY 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_P Why didn’t you participate before this: DIFFICULTIES KEEPING 

APPOINTMENT TIMES 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_Q Why didn’t you participate before this: WIC FOOD SELECTION NOT 

DESIRABLE 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_R Why didn’t you participate before this: WIC FOOD STORES NOT 

CONVENIENT (HOURS OR LOCATION) 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_S Why didn’t you participate before this: WIC FOOD HARD TO FIND ON 

SHELVES (BRANDS, QUANTITIES) 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_T Why didn’t you participate before this: IMMIGRATION CONCERNS 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_U Why didn’t you participate before this: DIDN’T NEED FOOD BENEFIT 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_v Why didn’t you participate before this: DON’T KNOW 2538 2538 100.0

T0503_W Why didn’t you participate before this: Other reasons 2538 2538 100.0

P0504 How many other children do you have 2538 2538 100.0

P0505 Did you receive benefits while you were pregnant, that is, before the baby was 

born? 2538 2538 100.0

P0505 Did you receive benefits while you were pregnant, that is, before the baby was 

born? 2538 2538 100.0

P0506B Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: DIDN’T LIVE 

IN USA 246 246 100.0

P0506C Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: DIDN’T 

KNOW ABOUT WIC 246 246 100.0
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C6

ITEMS

Number of

respondents 

asked

Number of

respondents 

responded

RESPONSE

RATE

P0506F Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: DIDN’T 

TRUST WIC 246 246 100.0

P0506G Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: DIDN’T 

QUALIFY FOR WIC 246 246 100.0

P0506H Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: LACK OF 

TRANSPORTATION TO CLINIC, TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES 246 246 100.0

P0506I Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: SCHEDULE 

DIFFICULTIES 246 246 100.0

P0506J Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: SERVICES 

(INCLUDING WAITING TIME) TAKE TOO MUCH TIME 246 246 100.0

P0506K Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: WAITING 

SPACE AT CLINIC IS LIMITED 246 246 100.0

P0506L Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: LACK OF 

CHILD CARE 246 246 100.0

P0506M Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: LANGUAGE 

BARRIERS 246 246 100.0

P0506N Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: PROBLEMS 

QUALIFYING FOR BENEFITS 246 246 100.0

P0506P Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: 

DIFFICULTIES KEEPING APPOINTMENT TIMES 246 246 100.0

P0506Q Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: WIC FOOD 

SELECTION NOT DESIRABLE 246 246 100.0

P0506R Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: WIC FOOD 

STORES NOT CONVENIENT (HOURS OR LOCATION) 246 246 100.0

P0506S Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: WIC FOOD 

HARD TO FIND ON SHELVES (BRANDS, QUANTITIES) 246 246 100.0

P0506T Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: 

IMMIGRATION CONCERNS 246 246 100.0

P0506U Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: DIDN’T NEED 

FOOD BENEFIT 246 246 100.0

P0506V Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: DON’T KNOW 246 246 100.0

P0506W Why didn’t you participate in WIC while you were pregnant: OTHER 246 246 100.0

P0507 Thinking about the WIC clinic that you are familiar with, how satisfied are you 

with the people that work there and the services they provide? 2538 2538 100.0

P0507A Thinking about the WIC clinic’s location and building facility, would you say 

you are 

2538 2538 100.0

P0508_01 How would you rate the: Customer friendliness of the WIC staff 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_02 How would you rate the: Quality of service you get 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_03 How would you rate the: Helpfulness of the staff 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_04 How would you rate the: Staff’s ability to speak your language 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_05 How would you rate the: Safety of the clinic’s location 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_06 How would you rate the: Convenience of the clinic’s location for you 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_07 How would you rate the: Convenience of its operating hours 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_08 How would you rate the: Amount of time you must wait until you are seen 

by WIC staff 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_09 How would you rate the: Size and space of the waiting area 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_10 How would you rate the: Activities provided to occupy children while you 

wait 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_11 How would you rate the: Way they handle paperwork for certification 2538 2538 100.0

P0508_12 How would you rate the: How they deliver your food 2538 2538 100.0

P0509_1 How would you rate the food benefits for Providing the right quantity of 

food? 2538 2537 99.9

P0509_2 How would you rate the food benefits for Offering foods that you like to eat? 2538 2537 99.9

P0509_3 How would you rate the food benefits for Offering food choices in sizes and 

brands that you can find on the shelf? 2538 2537 99.9

P0510 Are there certain WIC foods that, on a regular basis, you do not purchase for 

some reason? 2538 2538 100.0

P0511_01 Which ones do you not purchase: CARROTS 542 542 100.0

P0511_02 Which ones do you not purchase: CEREAL 542 542 100.0

P0511_03 Which ones do you not purchase: CHEESE 542 542 100.0

P0511_04 Which ones do you not purchase: DRY BEANS, PEAS 542 542 100.0

P0511_05 Which ones do you not purchase: EGGS 542 542 100.0

P0511_06 Which ones do you not purchase: FORMULA 542 542 100.0
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

ITEMS

Number of

respondents 

asked

Number of

respondents 

responded

RESPONSE

RATE

P0511_07 Which ones do you not purchase: JUICE 542 542 100.0

P0511_08 Which ones do you not purchase: MILK 542 542 100.0

P0511_09 Which ones do you not purchase: PEANUT BUTTER 542 542 100.0

P0511_10 Which ones do you not purchase: TUNA 542 542 100.0

P05120 For food items you did redeem, was there too much of any food? 2538 2538 100.0

P0512A_01 was there too much: CARROTS 355 355 100.0

P0512A_02 was there too much: CEREAL 355 355 100.0

P0512A_03 was there too much: CHEESE 355 355 100.0

P0512A_04 was there too much: DRY BEANS, PEAS 355 355 100.0

P0512A_05 was there too much: EGGS 355 355 100.0

P0512A_06 was there too much: FORMULA 355 355 100.0

P0512A_07 was there too much: JUICE 355 355 100.0

P0512A_08 was there too much: MILK 355 355 100.0

P0512A_09 was there too much: PEANUT BUTTER 355 355 100.0

P0512A_10 was there too much: TUNA 355 355 100.0

P0512A_11 was there too much: OTHER 355 355 100.0

P05121 For food items you did redeem, was there too little of any food? 2538 2538 100.0

P0512B_01 was there too little: CARROTS 864 864 100.0

P0512B_02 was there too little: CEREAL 864 864 100.0

P0512B_03 was there too little: CHEESE 864 864 100.0

P0512B_04 was there too little: DRY BEANS, PEAS 864 864 100.0

P0512B_05 was there too little: EGGS 864 864 100.0

P0512B_06 was there too little: FORMULA 864 864 100.0

P0512B_07 was there too little: JUICE 864 864 100.0

P0512B_08 was there too little: MILK 864 864 100.0

P0512B_09 was there too little: PEANUT BUTTER 864 864 100.0

P0512B_10 was there too little: TUNA 864 864 100.0

P0512B_11 was there too little: OTHER 864 864 100.0

P0513 Which description best fits the store where you most often redeem your WIC 

food 2538 2538 100.0

P0514 what overall rating would you give the store where you do most of your WIC 

shopping 2538 2521 99.3

P0515 Do you buy your WIC items at the same store where you do most of your other 

food shopping? 2538 2520 99.3

P0516A Why not same store as usual: WIC STORE MORE EXPENSIVE, REGULAR 

STORE LESS EXPENSIVE 408 408 100.0

P0516B Why not same store as usual: REGULAR STORE MORE EXPENSIVE, 

WIC STORE LESS EXPENSIVE 408 408 100.0

P0516C Why not same store as usual: WIC STORE LESS CONVENIENT TO GET 

TO, REGULAR STORE MORE CONVENIENT 408 408 100.0

P0516D Why not same store as usual: REGULAR STORE LESS CONVENIENT TO 

GET TO, WIC STORE MORE CONVENIENT 408 408 100.0

P0516E Why not same store as usual: WIC STORE NOT CUSTOMER-FRIENDLY, 

REGULAR STORE FRIENDLIER 408 408 100.0

P0516F Why not same store as usual: REGULAR STORE NOT CUSTOMERFRIENDLY, WIC STORE FRIENDLIER 408 408 100.0

P0516G Why not same store as usual: REGULAR STORE DOES NOT 

PARTICIPATE IN WIC PROGRAM 408 408 100.0

P0516H Why not same store as usual: REGULAR STORE DOESN’T CARRY 

RIGHT SIZES/SELECTIONS OF WIC FOODS 408 408 100.0

P0516X Why not same store as usual: OTHER 408 408 100.0

P0517_1 how important it is to go to the store for WIC purchases: It is the same store 

where you do your other shopping 2538 2520 99.3

P0517_2 how important it is to go to the store for WIC purchases: The store clerks are 

friendly and helpful 2538 2520 99.3

P0517_3 how important it is to go to the store for WIC purchases: The store clerks 

speak your language 2538 2520 99.3

P0517_4 how important it is to go to the store for WIC purchases: The location is safe 2538 2520 99.3

P0517_5 how important it is to go to the store for WIC purchases: The location is 

convenient, easy to get to 2538 2520 99.3

P0517_6 how important it is to go to the store for WIC purchases: The store hours are 

convenient 2538 2520 99.3

P0517_7 how important it is to go to the store for WIC purchases: The store has the 

right sizes and brands of WIC foods 2538 2520 99.3
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C8

ITEMS

Number of

respondents 

asked

Number of

respondents 

responded

RESPONSE

RATE

P0517_8 how important it is to go to the store for WIC purchases: The prices on nonWIC items are reasonable 2538 2520 99.3

P0517_9 how important it is to go to the store for WIC purchases: It specializes in 

WIC items 2538 2520 99.3

P0518 have you attended any group education sessions that were recommended to you 

by the WIC staff? 2538 2538 100.0

P019A_1_1 Were any of these seminars about: Nutrition or preparing nutritious meals 993 993 100.0

P020_1 Did the seminar on Nutrition or preparing nutritious meals influence you to 

make any lifestyle changes? 825 825 100.0

P021_1 Specifically, what changes did you make after the seminar on Nutrition or 

preparing nutritious meals? 683 683 100.0

P022_1 What about the program or session on Nutrition or preparing nutritious meals 

didn’t work for you? 142 142 100.0

P019A_2_1 Were any of these seminars about: Breastfeeding your baby 993 993 100.0

P020_2 Did the seminar on Breastfeeding your baby influence you to make any 

lifestyle changes? 692 692 100.0

P021_2 Specifically, what changes did you make after the seminar on Breastfeeding 

your baby? 486 486 100.0

P022_2 What about the program or session on Breastfeeding your baby didn’t work 

for you? 206 206 100.0

P019A_3_1 Were any of these seminars about: Disciplining your child 993 993 100.0

P020_3 Did the seminar on Disciplining your child influence you to make any lifestyle 

changes? 126 126 100.0

P021_3 Specifically, what changes did you make after the seminar on Disciplining 

your child? 105 105 100.0

P022_3 What about the program or session on Disciplining your child didn’t work for 

you? 21 21 100.0

P019A_4_1 Were any of these seminars about: Educating your child 993 993 100.0

P020_4 Did the seminar on Educating your child influence you to make any lifestyle 

changes? 164 164 100.0

P021_4 Specifically, what changes did you make after the seminar on Educating your 

child? 146 146 100.0

P022_4 What about the program or session on Educating your child didn’t work for 

you? 18 18 100.0

P019A_5_1 Were any of these seminars about: Living a healthy lifestyle 993 993 100.0

P020_5 Did the seminar on Living a healthy lifestyle influence you to make any 

lifestyle changes? 447 447 100.0

P021_5 Specifically, what changes did you make after the seminar on Living a healthy 

lifestyle? 365 365 100.0

P022_5 What about the program or session on Living a healthy lifestyle didn’t work 

for you? 82 82 100.0

P019A_6_1 Were any of these seminars about: Smoking cessation 993 993 100.0

P020_6 Did the seminar on Smoking cessation influence you to make any lifestyle 

changes? 115 115 100.0

P021_6 Specifically, what changes did you make after the seminar on Smoking 

cessation? 45 45 100.0

P022_6 What about the program or session on Smoking cessation didn’t work for 

you? 70 70 100.0

P019A_7_1 Were any of these seminars about: Accessing, or making use of, other 

social services 993 993 100.0

P020_7 Did the seminar on Accessing, or making use of, other social services influence 

you to make any lifestyle changes? 155 155 100.0

P021_7 Specifically, what changes did you make after the seminar on Accessing, or 

making use of, other social services? 122 122 100.0

P022_7 What about the program or session on Accessing, or making use of, other 

social services didn’t work for you? 33 33 100.0

P0523_01 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Time to talk with other 

mothers 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_02 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Money saved on grocery bills 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_03 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Health information 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_04 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Nutrition information 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_05 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Checking blood, height and 

weight 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_06 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Advice from WIC staff 2538 2538 100.0
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

ITEMS

Number of

respondents 

asked

Number of

respondents 

responded

RESPONSE

RATE

P0523_07 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Vouchers for foods I know are 

nutritious 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_08 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Helps me stay on time with 

shots for my child 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_09 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Taught me about breastfeeding 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_10 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Taught me about the foods 

babies need 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_11 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Taught me about the foods 

children need 2538 2538 100.0

P0523_12 How valuable benefits of the WIC program: Taught me about the foods I 

need 2538 2538 100.0

P0524 How much one-on-one nutrition counseling have you received in person for this 

most recent pregnancy/baby? 2538 2538 100.0

P0525H How long did sessions last - hours 1616 1616 100.0

P0525M How long did sessions last - minutes 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_01 Nutrition counseling topics: Healthy weight 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_02 Nutrition counseling topics: Fruits and vegetables 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_03 Nutrition counseling topics: Protein 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_04 Nutrition counseling topics: Getting enough iron 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_05 Nutrition counseling topics: Calcium for bone health 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_06 Nutrition counseling topics: Vitamin C 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_07 Nutrition counseling topics: Other vitamins and food supplements 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_08 Nutrition counseling topics: Food safety 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_09 Nutrition counseling topics: Physical activity 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_10 Nutrition counseling topics: Eating/preparing healthy meals 1616 1616 100.0

P0526_11 Nutrition counseling topics: Picky eaters 1616 1616 100.0

P0527 Nutrition counseling useful 1616 1616 100.0

P0528A Why was counseling helpful: LEARNED NEW THINGS 1512 1512 100.0

P0528B Why was counseling helpful: COUNSELOR SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND 

ME/CARE ABOUT ME 1512 1512 100.0

P0528C Why was counseling helpful: IT MOTIVATED ME TO MAKE 

CHANGES/HELPED ME SET GOALS 1512 1512 100.0

P0528D Why was counseling helpful: HELPED ME EAT/BE HEALTHIER 1512 1512 100.0

P0528W Why was counseling helpful: OTHER 1512 1512 100.0

P0529A Why counseling was not helpful: BORING/NOTHING NEW LEARNED 104 104 100.0

P0529B Why counseling was not helpful: REPETITIVE 104 104 100.0

P0529C Why counseling was not helpful: LANGUAGE PROBLEMS 104 104 100.0

P0529D Why counseling was not helpful: TOO FAST. FELT RUSHED 104 104 100.0

P0529E Why counseling was not helpful: DISTRACTIONS (NOISE, PEOPLE, 

CONFUSION) 104 104 100.0

P0529F Why counseling was not helpful: COUNSELOR DIDN’T 

UNDERSTAND/TAILOR TO INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS 104 104 100.0

P0529W Why counseling was not helpful: OTHER 104 104 100.0

P0530 Children’s health insurance 2538 2538 100.0

P0531 Health insurance for yourself 2538 2538 100.0

P0532_1 Food Stamp program ? 2538 2538 100.0

P0532_2 Free or reduced price School Lunch or Breakfast program? 2538 2538 100.0

P0532_3 Summer Food Service program, for kids when not in school? 2538 2538 100.0

P0532_4 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)? 2538 2538 100.0

P0532_5 Temporary Emergency Food Assistance program? 2538 2538 100.0

P0532_6 Child and Adult Care Food program, which provides free lunches for 

children at day care centers? 2538 2538 100.0

P0532_7 Local/community food bank or pantry? 2538 2538 100.0

P0532_8 Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food packets that 

are distributed through State and local agencies? 2538 2538 100.0

P0532_9 Have you ever participated in Commodity Supplemental Food Program in 

the past? 2538 2538 100.0

P032TY How long ago did your participation in Commodity Supplemental Food 

Program stop? (YEARS) 24 24 100.0

P032TM How long ago did your participation in Commodity Supplemental Food 

Program stop? (MONTHS) 24 24 100.0

P0533 Food consumed during last 12 months 2538 2538 100.0
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C10

ITEMS

Number of

respondents 

asked

Number of

respondents 

responded

RESPONSE

RATE

P0534A_1 We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy 

more. 

483 483 100.0

P0534A_2 The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get 

more. 

483 483 100.0

P0534A_3 We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals. 483 482 99.9

P0534A_4 We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because 

we were running out of money to buy food. 483 482 99.9

P0534A_5 We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford 

that. 483 482 99.9

P0534A_6 The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford 

enough food. 483 482 99.9

P0534B Cut size or skip meals 483 483 100.0

P0534B1 How often skipped or cut meal sizes 283 283 100.0

P0534C Ate less because not enough money for food 483 482 99.9

P0534D Hungry because not enough money for food 483 482 99.9

P0534E Lose weight because not enough money for food 483 482 99.9

P0534F Not eat for whole day because not enough money for food 483 482 99.9

P0534G How often not eat for whole day 70 70 100.0

P0534H Cut size of children’s meals because not enough money for food 473 473 100.0

P0534I Children every hungry because not enough money for food 473 473 100.0

P0534J Children ever skip a meal because not enough money for food 473 473 100.0

P0534K How often children skip a meal because not enough money for food 46 46 100.0

P0534L Children not eat for a whole day because not enough money for food 473 473 100.0

P0535 Number of children breastfed 627 627 100.0

P0536 Breastfed after last baby before this one 463 463 100.0

P0536AN How long breastfed - number 416 416 100.0

P0536AU How long breastfed - unit 416 416 100.0

P0536BN Time exclusively breastfed - number 405 405 100.0

P0536BU Time exclusively breastfed - unit 405 405 100.0

P0536C_A Why did you stop breastfeeding: Baby had difficulty nursing 416 416 100.0

P0536C_B Why did you stop breastfeeding: Not producing enough breast milk 416 416 100.0

P0536C_C Why did you stop breastfeeding: Baby not gaining enough weight 416 416 100.0

P0536C_d Why did you stop breastfeeding: Nipples sore, cracked or bleeding 416 416 100.0

P0536C_E Why did you stop breastfeeding: Mother or baby became sick 416 416 100.0

P0536C_F Why did you stop breastfeeding: Other children to take care of 416 416 100.0

P0536C_G Why did you stop breastfeeding: Went back to work or school 416 416 100.0

P0536C_h Why did you stop breastfeeding: Wanted my body back to myself 416 416 100.0

P0536C_i Why did you stop breastfeeding: Wanted/needed someone else to feed the 

baby 416 416 100.0

P0536C_J Why did you stop breastfeeding: Too many household duties 416 416 100.0

P0536C_K Why did you stop breastfeeding: Did not like breastfeeding 416 416 100.0

P0536C_l Why did you stop breastfeeding: Did not want to be tied down 416 416 100.0

P0536C_m Why did you stop breastfeeding: Embarrassment 416 416 100.0

P0536C_N Why did you stop breastfeeding: Husband/partner did not want me to 

breastfeed 416 416 100.0

P0536C_O Why did you stop breastfeeding: Felt it was the right time to stop 416 416 100.0

P0536D_A Why did you not breastfeed: Baby had difficulty nursing 206 206 100.0

P0536D_B Why did you not breastfeed: Not producing enough breast milk 206 206 100.0

P0536D_C Why did you not breastfeed: Baby not gaining enough weight 206 206 100.0

P0536D_D Why did you not breastfeed: Nipples sore, cracked or bleeding 206 206 100.0

P0536D_E Why did you not breastfeed: Mother or baby became sick 206 206 100.0

P0536D_F Why did you not breastfeed: Other children to take care of 206 206 100.0

P0536D_G Why did you not breastfeed: Went back to work or school 206 206 100.0

P0536D_H Why did you not breastfeed: Wanted my body back to myself 206 206 100.0

P0536D_I Why did you not breastfeed: Wanted/needed someone else to feed the baby 206 206 100.0

P0536D_J Why did you not breastfeed: Too many household duties 206 206 100.0

P0536D_K Why did you not breastfeed: Did not like breastfeeding 206 206 100.0

P0536D_L Why did you not breastfeed: Did not want to be tied down 206 206 100.0

P0536D_M Why did you not breastfeed: Embarrassment 206 206 100.0

P0536D_N Why did you not breastfeed: Husband/partner did not want me to 

breastfeed 206 206 100.0

P0536D_O Why did you not breastfeed: Felt it was the right time to stop 206 206 100.0
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

ITEMS

Number of

respondents 

asked

Number of

respondents 

responded

RESPONSE

RATE

P0538 Do you or did you breastfeed your most recent baby, even if only for a short 

time? 2335 2335 100.0

P0539 Still breastfeeding 1597 1597 100.0

P0539AN How long breastfed - number 1182 1182 100.0

P0539AU How long breastfed - unit 1182 1182 100.0

P0539BN Time exclusively breastfed - number 1119 1119 100.0

P0539BU Time exclusively breastfed - unit 1119 1119 100.0

P0539C_A Why did you stop breastfeeding: Baby had difficulty nursing 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_B Why did you stop breastfeeding: Not producing enough breast milk 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_C Why did you stop breastfeeding: Baby not gaining enough weight 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_D Why did you stop breastfeeding: Nipples sore, cracked or bleeding 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_E Why did you stop breastfeeding: Mother or baby became sick 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_F Why did you stop breastfeeding: Other children to take care of 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_G Why did you stop breastfeeding: Went back to work or school 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_H Why did you stop breastfeeding: Wanted my body back to myself 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_I Why did you stop breastfeeding: Wanted/needed someone else to feed the 

baby 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_J Why did you stop breastfeeding: Too many household duties 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_K Why did you stop breastfeeding: Did not like breastfeeding 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_L Why did you stop breastfeeding: Did not want to be tied down 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_M Why did you stop breastfeeding: Embarrassment 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_N Why did you stop breastfeeding: Husband/partner did not want me to 

breastfeed 1182 1182 100.0

P0539C_O Why did you stop breastfeeding: Felt it was the right time to stop 1182 1182 100.0

P0539D_A Why did you stop breastfeeding: Baby had difficulty nursing 738 738 100.0

P0539D_B Why did you stop breastfeeding: Not producing enough breast milk 738 738 100.0

P0539D_C Why did you stop breastfeeding: Baby not gaining enough weight 738 738 100.0

P0539D_D Why did you stop breastfeeding: Nipples sore, cracked or bleeding 738 738 100.0

P0539D_E Why did you stop breastfeeding: Mother or baby became sick 738 738 100.0

P0539D_F Why did you stop breastfeeding: Other children to take care of 738 738 100.0

P0539D_G Why did you stop breastfeeding: Went back to work or school 738 738 100.0

P0539D_H Why did you stop breastfeeding: Wanted my body back to myself 738 738 100.0

P0539D_I Why did you stop breastfeeding: Wanted/needed someone else to feed the 

baby 738 738 100.0

P0539D_J Why did you stop breastfeeding: Too many household duties 738 738 100.0

P0539D_K Why did you stop breastfeeding: Did not like breastfeeding 738 738 100.0

P0539D_L Why did you stop breastfeeding: Did not want to be tied down 738 738 100.0

P0539D_M Why did you stop breastfeeding: Embarrassment 738 738 100.0

P0539D_N Why did you stop breastfeeding: Husband/partner did not want me to 

breastfeed 738 738 100.0

P0539D_O Why did you stop breastfeeding: Felt it was the right time to stop 738 738 100.0

P0540 What might have helped start breastfeeding 738 738 100.0

P0541 What might have helped breastfeed for longer period 1182 1182 100.0

P0542 With your upcoming baby, are you planning to breastfeed? (pregnant only) 192 192 100.0

P0543 Months planning to breastfeed 133 133 100.0

P0544A Advantages of breastfeeding: BETTER/HEALTHIER BABY 2538 2538 100.0

P0544B Advantages of breastfeeding: MOTHER-BABY BONDING, CLOSENESS 2538 2538 100.0

P0544C Advantages of breastfeeding: BREASTFEEDING ENJOYABLE 2538 2538 100.0

P0544D Advantages of breastfeeding: EASIER, MORE CONVENIENT 2538 2538 100.0

P0544E Advantages of breastfeeding: CHEAPER/PROVIDED FOR FREE 2538 2538 100.0

P0544F Advantages of breastfeeding: FRIENDS/FAMILY ARE FAMILIAR WITH 

IT AND CAN HELP ME 2538 2538 100.0

P0544W Advantages of breastfeeding: OTHER 2538 2538 100.0

P0545A Disadvantages of breastfeeding: NOT ENOUGH BREAST MILK TO 

SATISFY BABY 2538 2538 100.0

P0545B Disadvantages of breastfeeding: HARD TO DO WHEN ONE IS GOING 

BACK TO WORK OR SCHOOL 2538 2538 100.0

P0545C Disadvantages of breastfeeding: PAIN OR DISCOMFORT 2538 2538 100.0

P0545D Disadvantages of breastfeeding: NO ONE ELSE CAN FEED THE BABY 2538 2538 100.0

P0545E Disadvantages of breastfeeding: TOO TIME-CONSUMING 2538 2538 100.0

P0545F Disadvantages of breastfeeding: TOO MUCH WORK COMPARED TO 

FORMULA 2538 2538 100.0
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C12

ITEMS

Number of

respondents 

asked

Number of

respondents 

responded

RESPONSE

RATE

P0545G Disadvantages of breastfeeding: MORE EXPENSIVE COMPARED TO 

FORMULA 2538 2538 100.0

P0545H Disadvantages of breastfeeding: FRIENDS/FAMILY ARE NOT FAMILIAR 

WITH IT CANNOT HELP ME 2538 2538 100.0

P0545W Disadvantages of breastfeeding: OTHER 2538 2538 100.0

P0546 Do you have friends who you think are eligible for WIC but who haven’t 

applied for WIC benefits? 2538 2538 100.0

P0547 Do you know anyone who was in WIC but dropped out before their certification 

period was over? 2538 2538 100.0

P0548A The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: LACK OF 

TRANSPORTATION TO CLINIC, TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES 2538 2538 100.0

P0548B The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: THEY DON’T 

KNOW THAT WIC EXISTS 2538 2538 100.0

P0548C The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: INCONVENIENT 

HOURS/DAYS CLINIC OPEN 2538 2538 100.0

P0548D The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: SERVICES 

(INCLUDING WAITING TIME) TAKE TOO MUCH TIME 2538 2538 100.0

P0548E The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: WAITING SPACE 

AT CLINIC IS LIMITED 2538 2538 100.0

P0548F The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: LACK OF CHILD 

CARE 2538 2538 100.0

P0548G The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: LANGUAGE 

BARRIERS 2538 2538 100.0

P0548H The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: PROBLEMS 

QUALIFYING FOR BENEFITS 2538 2538 100.0

P0548I The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: DIFFICULTIES 

KEEPING APPOINTMENT TIMES 2538 2538 100.0

P0548J The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: WIC FOOD 

SELECTION NOT DESIRABLE 2538 2538 100.0

P0548K The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: WIC FOOD 

STORES NOT CONVENIENT (HOURS OR LOCATION) 2538 2538 100.0

P0548L The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: WIC FOOD HARD 

TO FIND ON SHELVES (BRANDS, QUANTITIES) 2538 2538 100.0

P0548M The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: IMMIGRATION 

CONCERNS 2538 2538 100.0

P0548N The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: DIDN’T NEED 

FOOD BENEFIT 2538 2538 100.0

P0548W The main reasons that people don’t participate in WIC: OTHER 2538 2538 100.0

P0549 Hispanic 2538 2524 99.4

P0550_a American Indian or Alaska Native 2538 2475 97.5

P0550_b Asian American 2538 2475 97.5

P0550_c Black or African American 2538 2475 97.5

P0550_d Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2538 2475 97.5

P0550_e White 2538 2475 97.5

P0550_f REFUSED and not Hispanics 2538 2538 100.0

P0551 Education 2538 2526 99.5

P0552 First language 2538 2538 100.0
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Appendix I-C3: Original Weights and Raked Weights

The following tables present percentages with original and final weights, with total unweighted n = 2,538.

Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C15 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

7) Thinking about the WIC clinic 

that you are familiar with, how 

satisfied are you with the 

people who work there and the 

services they provide? 

Very Satisfied 71.0% 70.9% 0.18%

Somewhat Satisfied 21.2% 21.6% 0.45%

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 4.6% 4.5% 0.12%

Somewhat Dissatisfied, or 1.5% 1.6% 0.06%

Very Dissatisfied 1.7% 1.5% 0.21%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

7a) Thinking about the WIC clinic 

that you are familiar with, how 

satisfied are you with location 

and building facility?

Very Satisfied 69.5% 69.6% 0.09%

Somewhat Satisfied 21.2% 21.2% 0.08%

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 4.5% 4.6% 0.08%

Somewhat Dissatisfied, or 3.2% 3.2% 0.06%

Very Dissatisfied 1.5% 1.5% 0.03%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8a) How would you rate the 

customer friendliness of the 

WIC staff?

Excellent 55.6% 55.7% 0.10%

Very Good 24.3% 24.7% 0.42%

Good 15.1% 14.7% 0.34%

Fair 3.9% 3.7% 0.17%

Poor 1.2% 1.2% 0.01%

Total 100.0% 100.0%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C16

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8b) How would you rate the 

quality of service you get? 

Excellent 53.3% 53.9% 0.64%

Very Good 25.4% 25.2% 0.23%

Good 17.5% 17.3% 0.24%

Fair 2.8% 2.7% 0.12%

Poor 1.0% 1.0% 0.05%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8c) How would you rate the 

helpfulness of the staff?

Excellent 52.6% 52.7% 0.10%

Very Good 25.5% 25.1% 0.46%

Good 17.2% 17.4% 0.18%

Fair 3.5% 3.8% 0.26%

Poor 1.1% 1.0% 0.08%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8d) How would you rate the staff’s 

ability to speak your language?

Excellent 65.9% 66.1% 0.20%

Very Good 17.7% 17.4% 0.29%

Good 12.2% 12.0% 0.18%

Fair 2.4% 2.7% 0.33%

Poor 1.8% 1.8% 0.05%

Total 100.0% 100.0%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C17 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8e) How would you rate the safety 

of the clinic’s location?

Excellent 53.9% 54.4% 0.52%

Very Good 19.6% 18.6% 0.97%

Good 20.3% 20.7% 0.37%

Fair 5.0% 5.2% 0.21%

Poor 1.2% 1.1% 0.13%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8f) How would you rate the 

convenience of the clinic’s 

location for you?

Excellent 53.7% 53.3% 0.42%

Very Good 22.0% 22.2% 0.11%

Good 18.7% 18.7% 0.04%

Fair 3.9% 4.3% 0.35%

Poor 1.6% 1.6% 0.00%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8g) How would you rate the 

convenience of its operating 

hours?

Excellent 52.3% 52.3% 0.03%

Very Good 20.9% 20.4% 0.44%

Good 20.9% 20.5% 0.40%

Fair 5.2% 5.7% 0.54%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C18

Poor .7% 1.0% 0.27%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8h) How would you rate the 

amount of time you must wait 

until you are seen by WIC staff?

Excellent 37.1% 37.4% 0.25%

Very Good 21.5% 21.5% 0.02%

Good 23.2% 22.4% 0.76%

Fair 11.2% 11.5% 0.29%

Poor 7.0% 7.2% 0.20%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8i) How would you rate the size 

and space of the waiting area?

Excellent 35.6% 35.9% 0.30%

Very Good 18.6% 18.2% 0.37%

Good 27.7% 27.8% 0.14%

Fair 11.9% 11.9% 0.00%

Poor 6.2% 6.1% 0.07%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8j) How would you rate the 

activities provided to occupy 

children while you wait?

Excellent 29.4% 29.1% 0.38%

Very Good 17.3% 17.1% 0.21%

Good 23.4% 23.4% 0.02%

Fair 14.1% 14.3% 0.24%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C19 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Poor 15.7% 16.1% 0.38%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8k) How would you rate the way 

they handle paperwork for 

certification?

Excellent 47.7% 48.3% 0.69%

Very Good 25.0% 24.8% 0.13%

Good 22.3% 22.2% 0.13%

Fair 3.8% 3.5% 0.30%

Poor 1.2% 1.1% 0.13%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

8l) How would you rate how they 

deliver your food vouchers?

Excellent 54.7% 55.4% 0.70%

Very Good 22.3% 22.4% 0.04%

Good 19.0% 18.4% 0.61%

Fair 3.2% 3.1% 0.08%

Poor .8% .8% 0.05%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

9a) How would you rate the food 

benefits for providing the right 

quantity of food?

Excellent 47.2% 46.8% 0.39%

Very Good 22.4% 22.1% 0.24%

Good 20.9% 21.3% 0.45%

Fair 7.3% 7.3% 0.06%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C20

Poor 2.3% 2.4% 0.13%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

9b) How would you rate the food 

benefits for offering foods that 

you like to eat?

Excellent 44.9% 44.5% 0.40%

Very Good 24.0% 23.6% 0.41%

Good 20.7% 21.0% 0.30%

Fair 7.6% 7.7% 0.09%

Poor 2.7% 3.2% 0.43%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

9c) How would you rate the food 

benefits for Offering food 

choices in sizes and brands 

that you can find on the shelf?

Excellent 39.6% 39.1% 0.49%

Very Good 24.6% 25.0% 0.35%

Good 23.4% 23.5% 0.07%

Fair 7.8% 7.9% 0.10%

Poor 4.5% 4.5% 0.04%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

18) Have you attended any group 

education sessions 

recommended by the WIC staff?

No 62.1% 63.6% 1.50%

Yes 37.9% 36.4% 1.50%

Total 100.0% 100.0%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C21 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

24) How much one-on-one 

nutrition counseling have you 

received in person?

None at all 36.0% 37.0% 1.01%

One session only 15.6% 15.1% 0.48%

2-3 sessions 25.8% 25.1% 0.78%

4-5 sessions 12.2% 11.3% 0.97%

6-7 sessions 4.0% 4.8% 0.77%

8 or more sessions 6.3% 6.8% 0.45%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

32a) Are members of your 

household getting food through 

the Food Stamp program?

No 46.9% 47.1% 0.22%

Yes 53.1% 52.9% 0.22%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

32b) Are members of your 

household getting food through 

the free or reduced-price 

School Lunch or Breakfast 

program?

No 67.3% 68.0% 0.66%

Yes 32.7% 32.0% 0.66%

Total 100.0% 100.0%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C22

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

32c) Are members of your 

household getting food through 

the Summer Food Service 

program, for kids when not in

school?

No 93.6% 93.6% 0.01%

Yes 6.4% 6.4% 0.01%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

32d) Are members of your 

household getting food through 

the Food Distribution Program 

on Indian Reservations?

No 99.3% 99.1% 0.17%

Yes .7% .9% 0.17%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

32e) Are members of your 

household getting food through 

the Temporary Emergency Food 

Assistance program?

No 97.8% 97.5% 0.33%

Yes 2.2% 2.5% 0.33%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

32f) Are members of your 

household getting food through 

the Child and Adult Care Food 

program?

No 95.7% 95.3% 0.46%

Yes 4.3% 4.7% 0.46%

Total 100.0% 100.0%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C23 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

32g) Are members of your 

household getting food through 

a local/community food bank or 

pantry?

No 93.0% 92.4% 0.53%

Yes 7.0% 7.6% 0.53%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

32h) Are members of your 

household getting food through 

the Commodity Supplemental 

Food program?

No 98.5% 98.4% 0.10%

Yes 1.5% 1.6% 0.10%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Original Weight Raked Weight Absolute Difference

33) Which best describes the food 

you had to eat in your 

household during last 12 

months? Did you...?

Have enough to eat 83.2% 83.8% 0.59%

Sometimes did not have enough to eat 14.8% 14.4% 0.44%

Often did not have enough to eat 2.0% 1.8% 0.15%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C25 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Appendix I-C4: Race/Ethnicity (Using California Coding)

The following tables present unweighted percentages, with total unweighted n = 2,538.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0507 Thinking about the WIC 

clinic that you are familiar with, 

how satisfied are you with the 

people that work there and the 

services they provide?

Neutral, Not 

Satisfied 6.7% 7.3% 9.3% 10.6% 7.5% 7.6%

Satisfied 93.3% 92.7% 90.7% 89.4% 92.5% 92.4%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 3.65; p =.46, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0507A Thinking about the WIC 

clinic's location and building 

facility, would you say you are 

Neutral, Not 

Satisfied 7.9% 8.5% 9.3% 7.3% 10.4% 9.2%

Satisfied 92.1% 91.5% 90.7% 92.7% 89.6% 90.8%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 4.16; p =.39, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_01 How would you rate 

the: Customer friendliness of 

the WIC staff 

Not Good 4.2% 5.8% 12.1% 5.3% 4.8% 5.5%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 95.8% 94.2% 87.9% 94.7% 95.2% 94.5%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 23.98, p<.0001.

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_02 How would you 

rate the: Quality of service 

you get 

Not Good 3.6% 7.0% 8.5% 6.0% 3.3% 4.5%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 96.4% 93.0% 91.5% 94.0% 96.7% 95.5%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 19.38, p<.01.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C26

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_03 How would you rate 

the: Helpfulness of the staff 

Not Good 4.9% 4.6% 9.7% 5.3% 4.4% 5.1%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 95.1% 95.4% 90.3% 94.7% 95.6% 94.9%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 12.15, p<.05.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_04 How would you rate 

the: Staff's ability to speak 

your language 

Not Good 2.5% 3.3% 6.0% 4.0% 4.4% 3.9%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 97.5% 96.7% 94.0% 96.0% 95.6% 96.1%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 7.30; p =.12, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_05 How would you rate 

the: Safety of the clinic's 

location 

Not Good 6.0% 6.1% 3.6% 2.6% 5.6% 5.4%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 94.0% 93.9% 96.4% 97.4% 94.4% 94.6%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 4.60; p =.33, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_06 How would you rate the: 

Convenience of the clinic's 

location for you 

Not Good 5.7% 7.3% 6.0% 2.0% 6.7% 6.2%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 94.3% 92.7% 94.0% 98.0% 93.3% 93.8%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 6.19; p=.19, non-significant.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C27 National Survey of WIC Participants II

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_07 How would you rate 

the: Convenience of its 

operating hours 

Not Good 7.9% 8.5% 8.1% 5.3% 4.2% 6.2%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 92.1% 91.5% 91.9% 94.7% 95.8% 93.8%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 16.03, p<.01.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_08 How would you rate the: 

Amount of time you must wait until 

you are seen by WIC staff

Not Good 17.7% 22.8% 34.7% 21.9% 15.4% 19.2%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 82.3% 77.2% 65.3% 78.1% 84.6% 80.8%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 53.24, p<.0001.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_09 How would you rate 

the: Size and space of the 

waiting area 

Not Good 17.4% 27.1% 21.0% 22.5% 15.1% 18.2%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 82.6% 72.9% 79.0% 77.5% 84.9% 81.8%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 28.30, p<.0001.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_10 How would you rate the: 

Activities provided to occupy 

children while you wait 

Not Good 28.1% 33.4% 33.9% 38.4% 26.0% 29.0%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 71.9% 66.6% 66.1% 61.6% 74.0% 71.0%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 17.69, p<.01.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C28

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_11 How would you rate the: 

Way they handle paperwork for 

certification 

Not Good 2.8% 6.7% 10.9% 10.6% 3.3% 4.8%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 97.2% 93.3% 89.1% 89.4% 96.7% 95.2%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 44.72, p<.0001.

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0508_12 How would you rate 

the: How they deliver your 

food 

Not Good 3.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 3.1% 4.3%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 96.7% 92.7% 92.7% 92.7% 96.9% 95.7%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 21.42, p<.0001.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0509_1 How would you rate the 

food benefits for Providing the 

right quantity of food?

Not Good 10.9% 10.9% 16.1% 13.9% 7.1% 9.9%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 89.1% 89.1% 83.9% 86.1% 92.9% 90.1%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 24.81, p<.0001.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0509_2 How would you rate the 

food benefits for Offering foods 

that you like to eat? 

Not Good 10.9% 19.5% 13.3% 21.2% 6.0% 10.7%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 89.1% 80.5% 86.7% 78.8% 94.0% 89.3%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 71.64, p<.0001.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C29 National Survey of WIC Participants II

ETHNICITY

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American 

Indian, Alaska Native, Native 

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Other HispanicTotal

P0509_3 How would you rate the food 

benefits for Offering food choices in 

sizes and brands that you can find on 

the shelf? 

Not Good 14.7% 16.7% 13.3% 21.9% 8.2% 12.3%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 85.3% 83.3% 86.7% 78.1% 91.8% 87.7%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 39.88, p<.0001.

ETHNICITY Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0518 have you attended any group education 

sessions that were recommended to you by 

the WIC staff? 

NO 74.1% 69.3% 62.9% 62.9% 50.0% 60.9%

YES 25.9% 30.7% 37.1% 37.1% 50.0% 39.1%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 116.27, p<.0001.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American 

Indian, Alaska Native, Native 

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0524 How much one-on-one nutrition 

counseling have you received in person 

for this most recent pregnancy/baby? 

None at all 34.4% 39.5% 35.5% 28.5% 37.8% 36.4%

One 

session 

or more

65.6% 60.5% 64.5% 71.5% 62.2% 63.6%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 7.69; p =.10, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, Alaska Native, 

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Other Hispanic

P0532_1 Food Stamp 

program ? 

NO 47.6% 38.9% 40.3% 49.7% 61.9% 52.3%

YES 52.4% 61.1% 59.7% 50.3% 38.1% 47.7%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 86.51, p<.0001.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II I-C30

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African

American

Asian American, American Indian, Alaska 

Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Other Hispanic

P0532_2 Free or reduced price 

School Lunch or Breakfast 

program? 

NO 77.8% 69.6% 71.8% 70.2% 69.0% 71.7%

YES 22.2% 30.4% 28.2% 29.8% 31.0% 28.3%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 17.42, p<.01.

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, Alaska 

Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Other Hispanic

P0532_3 Summer Food Service 

program, for kids when not in 

school? 

NO 95.8% 93.3% 93.1% 94.7% 94.6% 94.6%

YES 4.2% 6.7% 6.9% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 4.01; p =.41, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, Alaska 

Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Other Hispanic

P0532_4 Food Distribution Program 

on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)? 

NO 99.1% 99.7% 99.6% 99.3% 99.6% 99.5%

YES .9% .3% .4% .7% .4% .5%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 2.95; p =.57, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, Alaska 

Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Other Hispanic

P0532_5 Temporary Emergency 

Food Assistance program? 

NO 98.1% 98.2% 98.4% 100.0% 98.2% 98.3%

YES 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% .0% 1.8% 1.7%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 2.92; p =.57, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0532_6 Child and Adult Care Food 

program, which provides free lunches for 

children at day care centers? 

NO 97.3% 94.5% 97.6% 96.7% 96.7% 96.7%

YES 2.7% 5.5% 2.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

I-C31 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Note: Chi-Square = 6.13; p =.19, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, Alaska 

Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Other Hispanic

P0532_7 Local/community food 

bank or pantry? 

NO 89.7% 96.4% 93.5% 96.7% 95.2% 93.8%

YES 10.3% 3.6% 6.5% 3.3% 4.8% 6.2%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 29.29, p<.0001.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American 

Indian, Alaska Native, Native 

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0532_8 Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 

which provides food packets that are 

distributed through State and local agencies?

NO 98.4% 98.8% 99.2% 100.0% 99.1% 98.9%

YES 1.6% 1.2% .8% .0% .9% 1.1%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-Square = 4.39; p =.36, non-significant.

ETHNICITY

Total

White

Black of 

African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

Other Hispanic

P0532_9 Have you ever participated in 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program 

in the past? 

NO 98.2% 98.8% 99.6% 98.0% 99.6% 99.1%

YES 1.8% 1.2% .4% 2.0% .4% .9%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 12.26, p<.05.

ETHNICITY

Total

White Black of African 

American

Asian American, American Indian, Alaska 

Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Other Hispanic

P0533 Food consumed 

during last 12 months

Have enough to 

eat 81.9% 83.0% 89.5% 80.8% 78.0% 81.0%

do not have 

enough to 

eat

18.1% 17.0% 10.5% 19.2% 22.0% 19.0%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 19.42, p<.01.

Appendix II-A: In-person Survey

(Version A—Women)

II-A1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

In-person Participant Survey (Version A-Women)

Questionnaire contains data item identification (variable names) for each question in order to facilitate secondary 

data analysis.

IN-HOME INTERVIEW (Version A: Pregnant, Breastfeeding, and Postpartum Women)

1. Hi. Thanks for agreeing to do the second part of our survey. Your answers are completely confidential and, as I 

mentioned when we set this up, nothing you say will have any bearing on your benefits. The WIC program is just 

trying to get a better idea of who participates in the program and their circumstances. I will be giving you $20 in 

appreciation of your time.

READ INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT AND GET CONSENT BEFORE PROCEEDING.

IDENTITY AND RESIDENCY

2. The first thing we need is some identification—silly as it may seem—and proof that you live here. [IF R. HAS 

TROUBLE WITH THIS REQUEST, READ OFF SOME OF THE ACCEPTABLE TYPES OF ID AND RESIDENCY 

PROOF FROM LIST.]

Identification proofs [CHECK AT LEAST ONE]

P0802A

Residency proofs [CHECK AT LEAST ONE]

P0802B

 State-issued license or ID  State-issued license or ID w/address

 U.S. passport w/photo  State/federal correspondence w/address

 Foreign passport w/photo  WIC folder

 WIC folder  Checkbook w/address

 W-2 form or Tax bill w/name  Rent or mortgage receipt, lease w/address

 Birth certificate  Utility or tax bill w/address

 Social Services letter w/ name  Documents from public school w/address

 Social Security or Green card  Written statement from reliable third party (e.g. 

non-profit aid organization)  Hospital or immunization record

 Other: SPECIFY ________________  Other: SPECIFY ________________

PRIMARY FAMILY/ECONOMIC UNIT

3. Let’s begin by having you tell me the names of all the persons who live or stay with you whether they are related 

to you or not. I will type in the names so I can follow up with some questions. [PROBE: ANYONE ELSE?]

RECORD ALL NAMES IN LIST FORM. 

1) _____________________________

2) _____________________________

3) ETC.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A2

P0903N_01

P0903N_02

P0903N_03

P0903N_04

P0903N_05

P0903N_06

P0903N_07

P0903N_08

P0903N_09

P0903N_10

P0903N_11

P0903N_12

P0903N_13

P0903N_14

P0903N_15

P0903N_16

P0903N_17

P0903N_18

P0903N_19

P0903N_20

AFTER ALL PERSONS ARE LISTED, ASK FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR EACH PERSON:

4.What is their relationship to you-?

P0904_01

P0904_02

P0904_03

P0904_04

P0904_05

P0904_06

P0904_07

P0904_08

P0904_09

P0904_10

P0904_11

P0904_12

P0904_13

P0904_14

P0904_15

P0904_16

P0904_17

P0904_18

P0904_19

P0904_20

1. Spouse

2. Partner

3. Child

4. Step-child

5. Foster child

6. Parent/ Guardian

7. Step-parent

8. Foster parent

9. Brother/Sister 

10. Grandparent

11. Uncle/aunt

12. Cousin

13. Nephew/niece

14. Parent-in-law

15. Brother-in-law/sister-in-law

16. Other relative

17. Other non-relative

18. Child in Temporary Care 

of Friends/Relatives
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

5. Is this individual male or female? 

P0905_01

P0905_02

P0905_03

P0905_04

P0905_05

P0905_06

P0905_07

P0905_08

P0905_09

P0905_10

P0905_11

P0905_12

P0905_13

P0905_14

P0905_15

P0905_16

P0905_17

P0905_18

P0905_19

P0905_20

1-Male

2-Female

6. How old is this person? 

P0906N_01

P0906N_02

P0906N_03

P0906N_04

P0906N_05

P0906N_06

P0906N_07

P0906N_08

P0906N_09

P0906N_10

P0906N_11

P0906N_12

P0906N_13

P0906N_14

P0906N_15

P0906N_16

P0906N_17

P0906N_18

P0906N_19

P0906N_20

_____ YEARS
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A4

7. FOR ANY CHILD LESS THAN 5 YEARS OR ANY WOMAN GREATER 

THAN 14 YEARS ASK: Is this person receiving WIC now?

P0907_01

P0907_02

P0907_03

P0907_04

P0907_05

P0907_06

P0907_07

P0907_08

P0907_09

P0907_10

P0907_11

P0907_12

P0907_13

P0907_14

P0907_15

P0907_16

P0907_17

P0907_18

P0907_19

P0907_20

 1-Yes

 2-No
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

8. OTHERWISE, IF Q6≥15, ASK: Do you consider [READ NAME] to be part 

of your family group -- that is, you are sharing income and expenses as if 

you were a family -- OR do you feel that you each keep your income and 

expenses and food separately? 

IF Q6<15, ASK: Do you consider [READ NAME] to be part of your family 

group -- that is, you are responsible for taking care of them as if you were 

all in the same family?

P0908_01

P0908_02

P0908_03

P0908_04

P0908_05

P0908_06

P0908_07

P0908_08

P0908_09

P0908_10

P0908_11

P0908_12

P0908_13

P0908_14

P0908_15

P0908_16

P0908_17

P0908_18

P0908_19

P0908_20

 1-Share like family

 2-Separate finances

9. PROGRAM WILL CALCULATE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PRIMARY 

ECONOMIC UNIT PLUS ADD ONE FOR WIC PARTICIPANT

[Q4=1,2,3, 4 OR 5] or [Q8=1] and [Q6≥15]

NUMBER OF PEOPLE 

IN PRIMARY 

ECONOMIC UNIT

10. COMPUTER WILL COMPARE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT (Q9) WITH # 

OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS IN WIC RECORDS (P5-TOTAL IN PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT).

IF Q9=P5, SKIP TO Q11

IF Q9<P5, SAY: The WIC records show that back in [INSERT MONTH/DATE OF CERTIFICATION]you 

had [INSERT #] adults and [INSERT #] children in this household, which is more than we listed today. 

Have we left someone off the list? Or perhaps there is someone on our list today who should be 

counted as part of your main family unit but was not? [PROBE & ADD NEW NAMES OR 

INFORMATION IN Q2-9 AS APPROPRIATE]

IF Q9>P5, SAY: The WIC records show that back in [INSERT MONTH/DATE OF CERTIFICATION] you 

had [INSERT #] adults and [INSERT #] children in this household, which is fewer than we have listed 

here. Can I verify that everyone on our list here IS part of your main family unit? [PROBE & DELETE 

NAMES OR INFORMATION IN Q2-9 AS APPROPRIATE]

NOTE: IF RESPONDENT HAS DIFFICULTY RECALLING TIME PERIOD USE NARRATIVE APPROACH 

IN WHICH A TIME IS LINKED TO A SALIENT EVENT]

FROM PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT LIST, COMPUTER WILL GENERATE A LIST OF “POTENTIAL 

WAGE EARNERS” – DEFINED AS ALL THE ADULTS AND ALL CHILDREN > 15 YEARS
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A6

ADJUNCTIVE OR AUTOMATIC ELIGIBILITY

11. [IF ADJ ELIGIILITY IS SHOWN IN RECORDS, ASK:] The WIC records show that you qualified for WIC because 

you, or a member of your family, participate in the [FILL IN FROM P4] program. Can you show me the document 

that you showed to WIC to demonstrate participation in that program such as the certification card, the award 

letter you got, or an active program voucher? [IF NO, PROBE: Do you have anything at all?]

[IF ADJ ELIGIBILITY IS NOT SHOWN IN RECORDS, ASK:] Did you qualify for WIC by showing that you 

participated in another benefits program such as Medicaid, SNAP or TANF? [OPTIONAL:] If yes, can you show 

me the document that you showed to WIC to demonstrate participation in that program such as the certification 

card, the award letter you got, or an active program voucher? 

 YES, PROOF SHOWN – ENTER :

P0812

a) NAME OF PROGRAM RECIPIENT ON PROOF 

SHOWN. [MAKE SURE IT MATCHES SOMEONE IN THE 

PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT; OTHERWISE ASK FOR 

ANOTHER DOCUMENT/CARD AS PROOF]

P0812A

___________________________ 

b) DATE OF DOCUMENT/CARD ISSUANCE (MM/DD/YYYY)

P0812BM

P0812BD

P0812BY

 [TYPE IN]______________________

99 NO DATE [PROBE: Do you have anything that shows the 

dates for your participation in the program?]

c) DATE OF DOCUMENT/CARD OR ELIGIBILITY 

EXPIRATION (MM/DD/YYYY)

P0812CM

P0812CD

P0812CY

 [TYPE IN]______________________

 99 NO DATE [PROBE: Do you have anything that shows the 

expiration date?]

d) NAME OF ISSUING AGENCY

P0812D  [TYPE IN]______________________

 99 NOT EVIDENT [PROBE: Do you have anything that 

shows the agency name?]

e) NUMBER ON DOCUMENT/CARD

P0812E  [TYPE IN]______________________

 99 NO NUMBER 

f) DOCUMENT/CARD SHOWN

P0812F  Certification card [SKIP TO Q13 IF ADJ ELIGIBLE IN 

RECORDS; CONTINUE TO Q12 IF NOT ADJ ELIGIBLE 

IN RECORDS.]

 Award letter [SKIP TO Q13 IF ADJ ELIGIBLE IN 

RECORDS; CONTINUE TO Q12 IF NOT ADJ ELIGIBLE 

IN RECORDS.]

 Active program voucher [SKIP TO Q13 IF ADJ ELIGIBLE 

IN RECORDS; CONTINUE TO Q12 IF NOT ADJ 

ELIGIBLE IN RECORDS.]

 Food Stamp EBT card [SKIP TO Q13 IF ADJ ELIGIBLE 

IN RECORDS; CONTINUE TO Q12 IF NOT ADJ 

ELIGIBLE IN RECORDS.]

 Other [IF ANY DOUBTS ABOUT VALIDITY, HAND R. 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RELEASE FORM TO 

SIGN. THEN CONTINUE TO Q12]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

 NO, PROOF NOT SHOWN OR WRONG PROOF SHOWN. 

[IF PERSON IS ADJUNCTIVELY ELIGIBLE IN RECORDS: HAND R. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

RELEASE FORM & CONTINUE TO Q12

IF PERSON IS NOT ADJUNCTIVELY ELIGIBLE IN RECORDS, CONTINUE TO Q12]

INCOME ELIGIBILITY

12. Now I am going to ask you about the income earned by you and other primary members of this household. WIC 

is interested in the accuracy of their data records in this area. The information you share with me will be 

confidential and will be combined with that from other people, so WIC won’t know your or anybody else’s 

personal information. 

So let’s start with [READ NAME OFF LIST OF PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT. RESPONDENT SHOULD BE 

FIRST ON LIST.] 

[NOTE: IF RESPONDENT HAS DIFFICULTY RECALLING TIME PERIOD USE NARRATIVE APPROACH IN 

WHICH A TIME IS LINKED TO A SALIENT EVENT]

a) Thinking back to [INSERT MOST 

RECENT CERTIFICATION 

MONTH/YEAR], did [INSERT 

you/NAME] receive any income 

from... [READ FROM BELOW]? 

CHECK ONLY IF YES

b) FOR EACH ITEM CHECKED 

IN a), ASK: How much did 

[INSERT you/NAME] earn?

c) Can you show me some 

evidence of that income 

such as [READ FROM 

LIST ACCOMPANYING 

EACH ITEM] 

 Wages, salary, fees 

(excluding military pay)

P101301BN_01

P101301BN_02

P101301BN_03

P101301BN_04

P101301BN_05

P101301BN_06

P101301BN_07

P101301BN_08

P101301BN_09

P101301BN_10

P101301BN_11

P101301BN_12

P101301BN_13

P101301BN_14

P101301BN_15

P101301BN_16

P101301BN_17

P101301BN_18

P101301BN_19

P101301BN_20

YES 

NO

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year 

 Other: _____

P101301BU_01

P101301BU_02

P101301BU_03

P101301BU_04

P101301BU_05

P101301BU_06

P101301BU_07

P101301BU_08

P101301BU_09

P101301BU_10

P101301BU_11

P101301BU_12

P101301BU_13

P101301BU_14

P101301BU_15

P101301BU_16

 Pay stub/earnings 

statement

 W-2 form

 2007 IRS tax return

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM AND 

UNDOCUMENTED 

EMPLOYMENT INFO 

FORM

P101301C_01

P101301C_02

P101301C_03

P101301C_04

P101301C_05

P101301C_06

P101301C_07

P101301C_08

P101301C_09

P101301C_10

P101301C_11

P101301C_12

P101301C_13

P101301C_14

P101301C_15

P101301C_16

P101301C_17

P101301C_18
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A8

P101301BU_17

P101301BU_18

P101301BU_19

P101301BU_20

P101301C_19

P101301C_20

 Military pay

P101302BN_01

P101302BN_02

P101302BN_03

P101302BN_04

P101302BN_05

P101302BN_06

P101302BN_07

P101302BN_08

P101302BN_09

P101302BN_10

P101302BN_11

P101302BN_12

P101302BN_13

P101302BN_14

P101302BN_15

P101302BN_16

P101302BN_17

P101302BN_18

P101302BN_19

P101302BN_20

YES 

NO

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101302BU_01

P101302BU_02

P101302BU_03

P101302BU_04

P101302BU_05

P101302BU_06

P101302BU_07

P101302BU_08

P101302BU_09

P101302BU_10

P101302BU_11

P101302BU_12

P101302BU_13

P101302BU_14

P101302BU_15

P101302BU_16

P101302BU_17

P101302BU_18

P101302BU_19

P101302BU_20

 Leave and earnings 

statement

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101302C_01

P101302C_02

P101302C_03

P101302C_04

P101302C_05

P101302C_06

P101302C_07

P101302C_08

P101302C_09

P101302C_10

P101302C_11

P101302C_12

P101302C_13

P101302C_14

P101302C_15

P101302C_16

P101302C_17

P101302C_18

P101302C_19

P101302C_20

 Tips and bonuses

P101303BN_01

P101303BN_02

P101303BN_03

P101303BN_04

P101303BN_05

P101303BN_06

P101303BN_07

P101303BN_08

P101303BN_09

P101303BN_10

P101303BN_11

P101303BN_12

P101303BN_13

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101303BU_01

P101303BU_02

P101303BU_03

P101303BU_04

P101303BU_05

P101303BU_06

P101303BU_07

 2007 IRS tax return

 W-2 form

 Other: _____

 None

P101303C_01

P101303C_02

P101303C_03

P101303C_04

P101303C_05

P101303C_06

P101303C_07

P101303C_08

P101303C_09

P101303C_10

P101303C_11
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

P101303BN_14

P101303BN_15

P101303BN_16

P101303BN_17

P101303BN_18

P101303BN_19

P101303BN_20

YES 

NO

 

P101303BU_08

P101303BU_09

P101303BU_10

P101303BU_11

P101303BU_12

P101303BU_13

P101303BU_14

P101303BU_15

P101303BU_16

P101303BU_17

P101303BU_18

P101303BU_19

P101303BU_20

P101303C_12

P101303C_13

P101303C_14

P101303C_15

P101303C_16

P101303C_17

P101303C_18

P101303C_19

P101303C_20

 Net income from self 

employment (from farm and 

non-farm business)

P101304BN_01

P101304BN_02

P101304BN_03

P101304BN_04

P101304BN_05

P101304BN_06

P101304BN_07

P101304BN_08

P101304BN_09

P101304BN_10

P101304BN_11

P101304BN_12

P101304BN_13

P101304BN_14

P101304BN_15

P101304BN_16

P101304BN_17

P101304BN_18

P101304BN_19

P101304BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101304BU_01

P101304BU_02

P101304BU_03

P101304BU_04

P101304BU_05

P101304BU_06

P101304BU_07

P101304BU_08

P101304BU_09

P101304BU_10

P101304BU_11

P101304BU_12

P101304BU_13

P101304BU_14

P101304BU_15

P101304BU_16

P101304BU_17

P101304BU_18

P101304BU_19

P101304BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Business records

 Expense receipts

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE 

UNDOCUMENTED 

EMPLOYMENT FORM 

P101304C_01

P101304C_02

P101304C_03

P101304C_04

P101304C_05

P101304C_06

P101304C_07

P101304C_08

P101304C_09

P101304C_10

P101304C_11

P101304C_12

P101304C_13

P101304C_14

P101304C_15

P101304C_16

P101304C_17

P101304C_18

P101304C_19

P101304C_20
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A10

 Unemployment compensation

P101305BN_01

P101305BN_02

P101305BN_03

P101305BN_04

P101305BN_05

P101305BN_06

P101305BN_07

P101305BN_08

P101305BN_09

P101305BN_10

P101305BN_11

P101305BN_12

P101305BN_13

P101305BN_14

P101305BN_15

P101305BN_16

P101305BN_17

P101305BN_18

P101305BN_19

P101305BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other:_____

P101305BU_01

P101305BU_02

P101305BU_03

P101305BU_04

P101305BU_05

P101305BU_06

P101305BU_07

P101305BU_08

P101305BU_09

P101305BU_10

P101305BU_11

P101305BU_12

P101305BU_13

P101305BU_14

P101305BU_15

P101305BU_16

P101305BU_17

P101305BU_18

P101305BU_19

P101305BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Copy of check, check stub

 Letter of determination

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101305C_01

P101305C_02

P101305C_03

P101305C_04

P101305C_05

P101305C_06

P101305C_07

P101305C_08

P101305C_09

P101305C_10

P101305C_11

P101305C_12

P101305C_13

P101305C_14

P101305C_15

P101305C_16

P101305C_17

P101305C_18

P101305C_19

P101305C_20

 Workers compensation

P101306BN_01

P101306BN_02

P101306BN_03

P101306BN_04

P101306BN_05

P101306BN_06

P101306BN_07

P101306BN_08

P101306BN_09

P101306BN_10

P101306BN_11

P101306BN_12

P101306BN_13

P101306BN_14

P101306BN_15

P101306BN_16

P101306BN_17

P101306BN_18

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101306BU_01

P101306BU_02

P101306BU_03

P101306BU_04

P101306BU_05

P101306BU_06

P101306BU_07

P101306BU_08

P101306BU_09

P101306BU_10

P101306BU_11

P101306BU_12

P101306BU_13

 2007 IRS tax return

 Copy of check, check stub

 Award statement

 Statement from insurance 

company

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101306C_01

P101306C_02

P101306C_03

P101306C_04

P101306C_05

P101306C_06

P101306C_07

P101306C_08

P101306C_09

P101306C_10

P101306C_11

P101306C_12
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

P101306BN_19

P101306BN_20

YES 

NO

 

P101306BU_14

P101306BU_15

P101306BU_16

P101306BU_17

P101306BU_18

P101306BU_19

P101306BU_20

P101306C_13

P101306C_14

P101306C_15

P101306C_16

P101306C_17

P101306C_18

P101306C_19

P101306C_20

 Child Support

P101307BN_01

P101307BN_02

P101307BN_03

P101307BN_04

P101307BN_05

P101307BN_06

P101307BN_07

P101307BN_08

P101307BN_09

P101307BN_10

P101307BN_11

P101307BN_12

P101307BN_13

P101307BN_14

P101307BN_15

P101307BN_16

P101307BN_17

P101307BN_18

P101307BN_19

P101307BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101307BU_01

P101307BU_02

P101307BU_03

P101307BU_04

P101307BU_05

P101307BU_06

P101307BU_07

P101307BU_08

P101307BU_09

P101307BU_10

P101307BU_11

P101307BU_12

P101307BU_13

P101307BU_14

P101307BU_15

P101307BU_16

P101307BU_17

P101307BU_18

P101307BU_19

P101307BU_20

 Copy of check

 Support agreement

 Divorce/separation decree

 Court order

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101307C_01

P101307C_02

P101307C_03

P101307C_04

P101307C_05

P101307C_06

P101307C_07

P101307C_08

P101307C_09

P101307C_10

P101307C_11

P101307C_12

P101307C_13

P101307C_14

P101307C_15

P101307C_16

P101307C_17

P101307C_18

P101307C_19

P101307C_20
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A12

 Alimony

P101308BN_01

P101308BN_02

P101308BN_03

P101308BN_04

P101308BN_05

P101308BN_06

P101308BN_07

P101308BN_08

P101308BN_09

P101308BN_10

P101308BN_11

P101308BN_12

P101308BN_13

P101308BN_14

P101308BN_15

P101308BN_16

P101308BN_17

P101308BN_18

P101308BN_19

P101308BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101308BU_01

P101308BU_02

P101308BU_03

P101308BU_04

P101308BU_05

P101308BU_06

P101308BU_07

P101308BU_08

P101308BU_09

P101308BU_10

P101308BU_11

P101308BU_12

P101308BU_13

P101308BU_14

P101308BU_15

P101308BU_16

P101308BU_17

P101308BU_18

P101308BU_19

P101308BU_20

 Copy of check  Support agreement  Divorce/separation 

decree

 Court order  Other: _____  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101308C_01

P101308C_02

P101308C_03

P101308C_04

P101308C_05

P101308C_06

P101308C_07

P101308C_08

P101308C_09

P101308C_10

P101308C_11

P101308C_12

P101308C_13

P101308C_14

P101308C_15

P101308C_16

P101308C_17

P101308C_18

P101308C_19

P101308C_20

 Social Security

P101309BN_01

P101309BN_02

P101309BN_03

P101309BN_04

P101309BN_05

P101309BN_06

P101309BN_07

P101309BN_08

P101309BN_09

P101309BN_10

P101309BN_11

P101309BN_12

P101309BN_13

P101309BN_14

P101309BN_15

P101309BN_16

P101309BN_17

P101309BN_18

P101309BN_19

P101309BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101309BU_01

P101309BU_02

P101309BU_03

P101309BU_04

P101309BU_05

P101309BU_06

P101309BU_07

P101309BU_08

P101309BU_09

P101309BU_10

P101309BU_11

P101309BU_12

P101309BU_13

P101309BU_14

 SSA Award letter  Statement of benefits  2007 IRS tax return 

(line 14a on 1040A)

 Other: _____  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101309C_01

P101309C_02

P101309C_03

P101309C_04

P101309C_05

P101309C_06

P101309C_07

P101309C_08

P101309C_09

P101309C_10

P101309C_11

P101309C_12

P101309C_13

P101309C_14

P101309C_15
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

P101309BU_15

P101309BU_16

P101309BU_17

P101309BU_18

P101309BU_19

P101309BU_20

P101309C_16

P101309C_17

P101309C_18

P101309C_19

P101309C_20

 SSI – Fed government

P101310BN_01

P101310BN_02

P101310BN_03

P101310BN_04

P101310BN_05

P101310BN_06

P101310BN_07

P101310BN_08

P101310BN_09

P101310BN_10

P101310BN_11

P101310BN_12

P101310BN_13

P101310BN_14

P101310BN_15

P101310BN_16

P101310BN_17

P101310BN_18

P101310BN_19

P101310BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101310BU_01

P101310BU_02

P101310BU_03

P101310BU_04

P101310BU_05

P101310BU_06

P101310BU_07

P101310BU_08

P101310BU_09

P101310BU_10

P101310BU_11

P101310BU_12

P101310BU_13

P101310BU_14

P101310BU_15

P101310BU_16

P101310BU_17

P101310BU_18

P101310BU_19

P101310BU_20

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101310C_01

P101310C_02

P101310C_03

P101310C_04

P101310C_05

P101310C_06

P101310C_07

P101310C_08

P101310C_09

P101310C_10

P101310C_11

P101310C_12

P101310C_13

P101310C_14

P101310C_15

P101310C_16

P101310C_17

P101310C_18

P101310C_19

P101310C_20

 SSI—State issued

P101311BN_01

P101311BN_02

P101311BN_03

P101311BN_04

P101311BN_05

P101311BN_06

P101311BN_07

P101311BN_08

P101311BN_09

P101311BN_10

P101311BN_11

P101311BN_12

P101311BN_13

P101311BN_14

P101311BN_15

P101311BN_16

P101311BN_17

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101311BU_01

P101311BU_02

P101311BU_03

P101311BU_04

P101311BU_05

P101311BU_06

P101311BU_07

P101311BU_08

P101311BU_09

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101311C_01

P101311C_02

P101311C_03

P101311C_04

P101311C_05

P101311C_06

P101311C_07

P101311C_08

P101311C_09

P101311C_10

P101311C_11
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A14

P101311BN_18

P101311BN_19

P101311BN_20

YES 

NO

 

P101311BU_10

P101311BU_11

P101311BU_12

P101311BU_13

P101311BU_14

P101311BU_15

P101311BU_16

P101311BU_17

P101311BU_18

P101311BU_19

P101311BU_20

P101311C_12

P101311C_13

P101311C_14

P101311C_15

P101311C_16

P101311C_17

P101311C_18

P101311C_19

P101311C_20

 Any private or public 

pension, annuity or survivor’s 

benefits

P101312BN_01

P101312BN_02

P101312BN_03

P101312BN_04

P101312BN_05

P101312BN_06

P101312BN_07

P101312BN_08

P101312BN_09

P101312BN_10

P101312BN_11

P101312BN_12

P101312BN_13

P101312BN_14

P101312BN_15

P101312BN_16

P101312BN_17

P101312BN_18

P101312BN_19

P101312BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _______

P101312BU_01

P101312BU_02

P101312BU_03

P101312BU_04

P101312BU_05

P101312BU_06

P101312BU_07

P101312BU_08

P101312BU_09

P101312BU_10

P101312BU_11

P101312BU_12

P101312BU_13

P101312BU_14

P101312BU_15

P101312BU_16

P101312BU_17

P101312BU_18

P101312BU_19

P101312BU_20

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101312C_01

P101312C_02

P101312C_03

P101312C_04

P101312C_05

P101312C_06

P101312C_07

P101312C_08

P101312C_09

P101312C_10

P101312C_11

P101312C_12

P101312C_13

P101312C_14

P101312C_15

P101312C_16

P101312C_17

P101312C_18

P101312C_19

P101312C_20
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A15 National Survey of WIC Participants II

 Medical assistance (any)

P101313BN_01

P101313BN_02

P101313BN_03

P101313BN_04

P101313BN_05

P101313BN_06

P101313BN_07

P101313BN_08

P101313BN_09

P101313BN_10

P101313BN_11

P101313BN_12

P101313BN_13

P101313BN_14

P101313BN_15

P101313BN_16

P101313BN_17

P101313BN_18

P101313BN_19

P101313BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101313BU_01

P101313BU_02

P101313BU_03

P101313BU_04

P101313BU_05

P101313BU_06

P101313BU_07

P101313BU_08

P101313BU_09

P101313BU_10

P101313BU_11

P101313BU_12

P101313BU_13

P101313BU_14

P101313BU_15

P101313BU_16

P101313BU_17

P101313BU_18

P101313BU_19

P101313BU_20

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101313C_01

P101313C_02

P101313C_03

P101313C_04

P101313C_05

P101313C_06

P101313C_07

P101313C_08

P101313C_09

P101313C_10

P101313C_11

P101313C_12

P101313C_13

P101313C_14

P101313C_15

P101313C_16

P101313C_17

P101313C_18

P101313C_19

P101313C_20

 Veteran’s payments

P101314BN_01

P101314BN_02

P101314BN_03

P101314BN_04

P101314BN_05

P101314BN_06

P101314BN_07

P101314BN_08

P101314BN_09

P101314BN_10

P101314BN_11

P101314BN_12

P101314BN_13

P101314BN_14

P101314BN_15

P101314BN_16

P101314BN_17

P101314BN_18

P101314BN_19

P101314BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101314BU_01

P101314BU_02

P101314BU_03

P101314BU_04

P101314BU_05

P101314BU_06

P101314BU_07

P101314BU_08

P101314BU_09

P101314BU_10

P101314BU_11

P101314BU_12

P101314BU_13

P101314BU_14

P101314BU_15

P101314BU_16

 2007 IRS tax return

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101314C_01

P101314C_02

P101314C_03

P101314C_04

P101314C_05

P101314C_06

P101314C_07

P101314C_08

P101314C_09

P101314C_10

P101314C_11

P101314C_12

P101314C_13

P101314C_14

P101314C_15

P101314C_16

P101314C_17

P101314C_18
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A16

P101314BU_17

P101314BU_18

P101314BU_19

P101314BU_20

P101314C_19

P101314C_20

 Other cash income

P101315BN_01

P101315BN_02

P101315BN_03

P101315BN_04

P101315BN_05

P101315BN_06

P101315BN_07

P101315BN_08

P101315BN_09

P101315BN_10

P101315BN_11

P101315BN_12

P101315BN_13

P101315BN_14

P101315BN_15

P101315BN_16

P101315BN_17

P101315BN_18

P101315BN_19

P101315BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101315BU_01

P101315BU_02

P101315BU_03

P101315BU_04

P101315BU_05

P101315BU_06

P101315BU_07

P101315BU_08

P101315BU_09

P101315BU_10

P101315BU_11

P101315BU_12

P101315BU_13

P101315BU_14

P101315BU_15

P101315BU_16

P101315BU_17

P101315BU_18

P101315BU_19

P101315BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Benefits statement

 Copy of check, check stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101315C_01

P101315C_02

P101315C_03

P101315C_04

P101315C_05

P101315C_06

P101315C_07

P101315C_08

P101315C_09

P101315C_10

P101315C_11

P101315C_12

P101315C_13

P101315C_14

P101315C_15

P101315C_16

P101315C_17

P101315C_18

P101315C_19

P101315C_20

 Energy assistance

P101316BN_01

P101316BN_02

P101316BN_03

P101316BN_04

P101316BN_05

P101316BN_06

P101316BN_07

P101316BN_08

P101316BN_09

P101316BN_10

P101316BN_11

P101316BN_12

P101316BN_13

P101316BN_14

P101316BN_15

P101316BN_16

P101316BN_17

P101316BN_18

P101316BN_19

P101316BN_20

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101316BU_01

P101316BU_02

P101316BU_03

P101316BU_04

P101316BU_05

P101316BU_06

P101316BU_07

P101316BU_08

P101316BU_09

P101316BU_10

P101316BU_11

P101316BU_12

 Notice of benefits

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101316C_01

P101316C_02

P101316C_03

P101316C_04

P101316C_05

P101316C_06

P101316C_07

P101316C_08

P101316C_09

P101316C_10

P101316C_11

P101316C_12

P101316C_13

P101316C_14

P101316C_15

P101316C_16

P101316C_17
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A17 National Survey of WIC Participants II

YES 

NO

 

P101316BU_13

P101316BU_14

P101316BU_15

P101316BU_16

P101316BU_17

P101316BU_18

P101316BU_19

P101316BU_20

P101316C_18

P101316C_19

P101316C_20

 Net rental income

P101317BN_01

P101317BN_02

P101317BN_03

P101317BN_04

P101317BN_05

P101317BN_06

P101317BN_07

P101317BN_08

P101317BN_09

P101317BN_10

P101317BN_11

P101317BN_12

P101317BN_13

P101317BN_14

P101317BN_15

P101317BN_16

P101317BN_17

P101317BN_18

P101317BN_19

P101317BN_20

YES 

NO

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101317BU_01

P101317BU_02

P101317BU_03

P101317BU_04

P101317BU_05

P101317BU_06

P101317BU_07

P101317BU_08

P101317BU_09

P101317BU_10

P101317BU_11

P101317BU_12

P101317BU_13

P101317BU_14

P101317BU_15

P101317BU_16

P101317BU_17

P101317BU_18

P101317BU_19

P101317BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Business records

 Expense receipts

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101317C_01

P101317C_02

P101317C_03

P101317C_04

P101317C_05

P101317C_06

P101317C_07

P101317C_08

P101317C_09

P101317C_10

P101317C_11

P101317C_12

P101317C_13

P101317C_14

P101317C_15

P101317C_16

P101317C_17

P101317C_18

P101317C_19

P101317C_20
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A18

 Income from trusts

P101318BN_01

P101318BN_02

P101318BN_03

P101318BN_04

P101318BN_05

P101318BN_06

P101318BN_07

P101318BN_08

P101318BN_09

P101318BN_10

P101318BN_11

P101318BN_12

P101318BN_13

P101318BN_14

P101318BN_15

P101318BN_16

P101318BN_17

P101318BN_18

P101318BN_19

P101318BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101318BU_01

P101318BU_02

P101318BU_03

P101318BU_04

P101318BU_05

P101318BU_06

P101318BU_07

P101318BU_08

P101318BU_09

P101318BU_10

P101318BU_11

P101318BU_12

P101318BU_13

P101318BU_14

P101318BU_15

P101318BU_16

P101318BU_17

P101318BU_18

P101318BU_19

P101318BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Business records

 Expense receipts

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101318C_01

P101318C_02

P101318C_03

P101318C_04

P101318C_05

P101318C_06

P101318C_07

P101318C_08

P101318C_09

P101318C_10

P101318C_11

P101318C_12

P101318C_13

P101318C_14

P101318C_15

P101318C_16

P101318C_17

P101318C_18

P101318C_19

P101318C_20
Volume 

4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A19 National Survey of WIC Participants II

 Commissions

P101319BN_01

P101319BN_02

P101319BN_03

P101319BN_04

P101319BN_05

P101319BN_06

P101319BN_07

P101319BN_08

P101319BN_09

P101319BN_10

P101319BN_11

P101319BN_12

P101319BN_13

P101319BN_14

P101319BN_15

P101319BN_16

P101319BN_17

P101319BN_18

P101319BN_19

P101319BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101319BU_01

P101319BU_02

P101319BU_03

P101319BU_04

P101319BU_05

P101319BU_06

P101319BU_07

P101319BU_08

P101319BU_09

P101319BU_10

P101319BU_11

P101319BU_12

P101319BU_13

P101319BU_14

P101319BU_15

P101319BU_16

P101319BU_17

P101319BU_18

P101319BU_19

P101319BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return  Business records  Expense receipts  Other: ______  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101319C_01

P101319C_02

P101319C_03

P101319C_04

P101319C_05

P101319C_06

P101319C_07

P101319C_08

P101319C_09

P101319C_10

P101319C_11

P101319C_12

P101319C_13

P101319C_14

P101319C_15

P101319C_16

P101319C_17

P101319C_18

P101319C_19

P101319C_20

 Income from estates

P101320BN_01

P101320BN_02

P101320BN_03

P101320BN_04

P101320BN_05

P101320BN_06

P101320BN_07

P101320BN_08

P101320BN_09

P101320BN_10

P101320BN_11

P101320BN_12

P101320BN_13

P101320BN_14

P101320BN_15

P101320BN_16

P101320BN_17

P101320BN_18

P101320BN_19

P101320BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101320BU_01

P101320BU_02

P101320BU_03

P101320BU_04

P101320BU_05

P101320BU_06

P101320BU_07

P101320BU_08

P101320BU_09

P101320BU_10

P101320BU_11

P101320BU_12

P101320BU_13

P101320BU_14

P101320BU_15

 2007 IRS tax return  Business records  Expense receipts  Other: ______  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101320C_01

P101320C_02

P101320C_03

P101320C_04

P101320C_05

P101320C_06

P101320C_07

P101320C_08

P101320C_09

P101320C_10

P101320C_11

P101320C_12

P101320C_13

P101320C_14

P101320C_15

P101320C_16

P101320C_17
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-A20

P101320BU_16

P101320BU_17

P101320BU_18

P101320BU_19

P101320BU_20

P101320C_18

P101320C_19

P101320C_20

 Net royalties

P101321BN_01

P101321BN_02

P101321BN_03

P101321BN_04

P101321BN_05

P101321BN_06

P101321BN_07

P101321BN_08

P101321BN_09

P101321BN_10

P101321BN_11

P101321BN_12

P101321BN_13

P101321BN_14

P101321BN_15

P101321BN_16

P101321BN_17

P101321BN_18

P101321BN_19

P101321BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101321BU_01

P101321BU_02

P101321BU_03

P101321BU_04

P101321BU_05

P101321BU_06

P101321BU_07

P101321BU_08

P101321BU_09

P101321BU_10

P101321BU_11

P101321BU_12

P101321BU_13

P101321BU_14

P101321BU_15

P101321BU_16

P101321BU_17

P101321BU_18

P101321BU_19

P101321BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Business records

 Expense receipts

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101321C_01

P101321C_02

P101321C_03

P101321C_04

P101321C_05

P101321C_06

P101321C_07

P101321C_08

P101321C_09

P101321C_10

P101321C_11

P101321C_12

P101321C_13

P101321C_14

P101321C_15

P101321C_16

P101321C_17

P101321C_18

P101321C_19

P101321C_20

 Interest or dividends

P101322BN_01

P101322BN_02

P101322BN_03

P101322BN_04

P101322BN_05

P101322BN_06

P101322BN_07

P101322BN_08

P101322BN_09

P101322BN_10

P101322BN_11

P101322BN_12

P101322BN_13

P101322BN_14

P101322BN_15

P101322BN_16

P101322BN_17

P101322BN_18

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101322BU_01

P101322BU_02

P101322BU_03

P101322BU_04

P101322BU_05

P101322BU_06

P101322BU_07

P101322BU_08

P101322BU_09

P101322BU_10

 2007 IRS tax return

 Earnings statement

 Copy of check, check stub

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM 

P101322C_01

P101322C_02

P101322C_03

P101322C_04

P101322C_05

P101322C_06

P101322C_07

P101322C_08

P101322C_09

P101322C_10
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-A21 National Survey of WIC Participants II

P101322BN_19

P101322BN_20

YES 

NO

 

P101322BU_11

P101322BU_12

P101322BU_13

P101322BU_14

P101322BU_15

P101322BU_16

P101322BU_17

P101322BU_18

P101322BU_19

P101322BU_20

P101322C_11

P101322C_12

P101322C_13

P101322C_14

P101322C_15

P101322C_16

P101322C_17

P101322C_18

P101322C_19

P101322C_20

REPEAT INCOME QUESTIONS (Q12) FOR EVERY ADULT MEMBER OF PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT.

CLOSING

13. READ: This completes our survey. It was great talking to you. Thank you so much for helping us out. Here is 

$20 in appreciation for your time. [FILL OUT RECEIPT FOR INCENTIVE AND GET SIGNATURE.]

Do you have any questions before I leave? 

Have a great day/evening.

Appendix II-B: In-person Survey

(Version B—Infants and 

Children)

II-B1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

IN-HOME INTERVIEW (Version B: Child and Infant)

Questionnaire contains data item identifications (variable names) for each question in order to facilitate secondary data 

analysis.

1. Hi. Thanks for agreeing to do the second part of our survey. Your answers are completely confidential and, as I 

mentioned when we set this up, nothing you say will have any bearing on your benefits. The WIC program is just 

trying to get a better idea of who participates in the program and their circumstances. I will be giving you $20 in 

appreciation of your time.

READ INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT AND GET CONSENT BEFORE PROCEEDING.

IDENTITY AND RESIDENCY

2. The first thing we need is some identification for the child—silly as it may seem—and proof that you live here. 

[IF R. HAS TROUBLE WITH THIS REQUEST, READ OFF SOME OF THE ACCEPTABLE TYPES OF ID AND 

RESIDENCY PROOF FROM LIST.]

Identification proofs [CHECK AT LEAST ONE]

P0802A

Residency proofs [CHECK AT LEAST ONE]

P0802B

 State-issued license or ID  State-issued license or ID w/address

 U.S. passport w/photo  State/federal correspondence w/address

 Foreign passport w/photo  WIC folder

 WIC folder  Checkbook w/address

 W-2 form or Tax bill w/name  Rent or mortgage receipt, lease w/address

 Birth certificate  Utility or tax bill w/address

 Social Services letter w/ name  Documents from public school w/address

 Social Security or Green card  Written statement from reliable third party (e.g. 

non-profit aid organization)  Hospital or immunization record

 Other: SPECIFY ________________  Other: SPECIFY ________________

 

PRIMARY FAMILY/ECONOMIC UNIT

3. Let’s begin by having you tell me the names of all the persons who live or stay with [NAME OF SAMPLED 

INFANT/CHILD RESPONDENT] whether they are related or not. I will type in the names so I can follow up with 

some questions. Be sure to include yourself. [PROBE: ANYONE ELSE?]

RECORD ALL NAMES IN LIST FORM. 

1. _____________________________

2. _____________________________

3. ETC.

P0903N_01

P0903N_02

P0903N_03

P0903N_04

P0903N_05

P0903N_06

P0903N_07

P0903N_08
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B2

P0903N_09

P0903N_10

P0903N_11

P0903N_12

P0903N_13

P0903N_14

P0903N_15

P0903N_16

P0903N_17

P0903N_18

P0903N_19

P0903N_20

AFTER ALL PERSONS ARE LISTED, ASK FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR EACH PERSON:

4. What is their relationship to [NAME OF SAMPLED 

INFANT/CHILD PARTICIPANT]?

P0904_01

P0904_02

P0904_03

P0904_04

P0904_05

P0904_06

P0904_07

P0904_08

P0904_09

P0904_10

P0904_11

P0904_12

P0904_13

P0904_14

P0904_15

P0904_16

P0904_17

P0904_18

P0904_19

P0904_20

6. Parent/ Guardian

7. Step-parent

8. Foster parent

9. Brother/Sister

10.Grandparent

11. Uncle/aunt

12.Cousin

13.Nephew/niece

14.Parent-in-law

15.Brother-in-law/ sister-in-law

16.Other relative

17.Other non-relative

18. Child in Temporary Care of 

Friends/Relatives
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-B3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

5. Is this individual male or female? [IF TALKING TO PERSON, DON’T ASK . JUST MAKE 

NOTE OF GENDER.]

P0905_01

P0905_02

P0905_03

P0905_04

P0905_05

P0905_06

P0905_07

P0905_08

P0905_09

P0905_10

P0905_11

P0905_12

P0905_13

P0905_14

P0905_15

P0905_16

P0905_17

P0905_18

P0905_19

P0905_20

 1-Male

 2-Female

6. How old is this person? [IF LESS THAN ONE YEAR, RECORD “0”]

P0906N_01

P0906N_02

P0906N_03

P0906N_04

P0906N_05

P0906N_06

P0906N_07

P0906N_08

P0906N_09

P0906N_10

P0906N_11

P0906N_12

P0906N_13

P0906N_14

P0906N_15

P0906N_16

P0906N_17

P0906N_18

P0906N_19

P0906N_20

_____ YEARS
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B4

7. FOR ANY CHILD LESS THAN 5 YEARS OR ANY WOMAN GREATER THAN 14 YEARS 

ASK: Is this person receiving WIC now?

P0907_01

P0907_02

P0907_03

P0907_04

P0907_05

P0907_06

P0907_07

P0907_08

P0907_09

P0907_10

P0907_11

P0907_12

P0907_13

P0907_14

P0907_15

P0907_16

P0907_17

P0907_18

P0907_19

P0907_20

 1-Yes

 2-No

8. OTHERWISE, IF Q6≥15, ASK: Do you consider [READ NAME] to be part of your family 

group -- that is, you are sharing income and expenses as if you were a family -- OR do 

you feel that you each keep your income and expenses and food separately? 

IF Q6<15, ASK: Do you consider [READ NAME] to be part of your family group -- that is, 

you are responsible for taking care of them as if you were all in the same family?

P0908_01

P0908_02

P0908_03

P0908_04

P0908_05

P0908_06

P0908_07

P0908_08

P0908_09

P0908_10

P0908_11

P0908_12

P0908_13

P0908_14

P0908_15

P0908_16

P0908_17

P0908_18

P0908_19

P0908_20

 1-Share like family

 2-Separate finances
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-B5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

9. PROGRAM WILL CALCULATE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT 

PLUS ADD ONE FOR WIC PARTICIPANT

 Q8=1 and Q6 ≥15

 NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN 

PRIMARY ECONOMIC 

UNIT

10. COMPUTER WILL COMPARE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT (Q10) WITH # OF HOUSEHOLD 

MEMBERS IN WIC RECORDS (P5-TOTAL IN PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT).

IF Q10=P5, SKIP TO Q11

IF Q10<P5, SAY: The WIC records show that you had [INSERT #] adults and [INSERT #] children in this household, which is 

more than we listed today. Have we left someone off the list? Or perhaps there is someone on our list today who should

be counted as part of your main family unit but was not? [PROBE & ADD NEW NAMES OR INFORMATION IN Q2-10 AS 

APPROPRIATE]

IF Q10>P5, SAY: The WIC records show that you had [INSERT #] adults and [INSERT #] children in this household, which is 

fewer than we have listed here. Can I verify that everyone on our list here IS part of your main family unit? [PROBE & 

DELETE NAMES OR INFORMATION IN Q2-10 AS APPROPRIATE]

FROM PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT LIST, COMPUTER WILL GENERATE A LIST OF “POTENTIAL WAGE EARNERS” –

DEFINED AS ALL THE ADULTS AND ALL CHILDREN > 15 YEARS

ADJUNCTIVE OR AUTOMATIC ELIGIBILITY

11. IF ADJ ELIGIILITY IS SHOWN IN RECORDS, ASK: The WIC records show that you qualified for WIC because 

your child, or a member of your family, participate in the [FILL IN FROM P4] program. Can you show me the 

document that you showed to WIC to demonstrate participation in that program such as the certification card, the 

award letter you got, or an active program voucher? [IF NO, PROBE: Do you have anything at all?]

IF ADJ ELIGIBILITY IS NOT SHOWN IN RECORDS, ASK: Did your child qualify for WIC by showing that 

he/she, or another family member, participated in another benefits program such as Medicaid, SNAP or TANF? 

[OPTIONAL:] If yes, can you show me the document that you showed to WIC to demonstrate participation in that 

program such as the certification card, the award letter you got, or an active program voucher? 

 YES, PROOF SHOWN – WRITE DOWN :

P0812

a) NAME OF PROGRAM RECIPIENT ON PROOF 

SHOWN. [MAKE SURE IT MATCHES SOMEONE IN THE 

PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT; OTHERWISE ASK FOR 

ANOTHER DOCUMENT/CARD AS PROOF]

P0812A

___________________________ 

b) DATE OF DOCUMENT/CARD ISSUANCE (MM/DD/YYYY)

P0812BM

P0812BD

P0812BY

 [TYPE IN]______________________

99 NO DATE [PROBE: Do you have anything that shows the 

dates for your participation in the program?]

c) DATE OF DOCUMENT/CARD OR ELIGIBILITY 

EXPIRATION (MM/DD/YYYY)

P0812CM

P0812CD

P0812CY

 [TYPE IN]______________________

 99 NO DATE [PROBE: Do you have anything that shows the 

expiration date?]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B6

d) NAME OF ISSUING AGENCY

P0812D  [TYPE IN]______________________

 99 NOT EVIDENT [PROBE: Do you have anything that 

shows the agency name?]

e) NUMBER ON DOCUMENT/CARD

P0812E  [TYPE IN]______________________

 99 NO NUMBER 

f) DOCUMENT/CARD SHOWN

P0812F  Certification card [SKIP TO Q13 IF ADJ ELIGIBLE IN 

RECORDS; CONTINUE TO Q12 IF NOT ADJ ELIGIBLE 

IN RECORDS.]

 Award letter [SKIP TO Q13 IF ADJ ELIGIBLE IN 

RECORDS; CONTINUE TO Q12 IF NOT ADJ ELIGIBLE 

IN RECORDS.]

 Active program voucher [SKIP TO Q13 IF ADJ ELIGIBLE 

IN RECORDS; CONTINUE TO Q12 IF NOT ADJ 

ELIGIBLE IN RECORDS.]

 Food Stamp EBT card [SKIP TO Q13 IF ADJ ELIGIBLE 

IN RECORDS; CONTINUE TO Q12 IF NOT ADJ 

ELIGIBLE IN RECORDS.]

 Other [IF ANY DOUBTS ABOUT VALIDITY, HAND R. 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RELEASE FORM TO 

SIGN. THEN CONTINUE TO Q12]

 NO, PROOF NOT SHOWN OR WRONG PROOF SHOWN. 

[IF PERSON IS ADJUNCTIVELY ELIGIBLE IN RECORDS: HAND R. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

RELEASE FORM & CONTINUE TO Q12.

IF PERSON IS NOT ADJUNCTIVELY ELIGIBLE IN RECORDS, CONTINUE TO Q12]

INCOME ELIGIBILITY

12. Now I am going to ask you about the income earned by you and other primary members of this household. WIC 

is interested in the accuracy of their data records in this area. The information you share with me will be 

confidential and will be combined with that from other people, so WIC won’t know your or anybody else’s 

personal information. 

So let’s start with [READ NAME OFF LIST OF PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT] 

[NOTE: IF RESPONDENT HAS DIFFICULTY RECALLING TIME PERIOD USE NARRATIVE APPROACH IN 

WHICH A TIME IS LINKED TO A SALIENT EVENT]

d) Thinking back to [INSERT MOST RECENT 

CERTIFICATION MONTH/YEAR], did 

[INSERT you/NAME] receive any income 

from... [READ FROM BELOW]? 

CHECK ONLY IF YES

e) FOR EACH ITEM CHECKED IN a), 

ASK: How much did [INSERT 

you/NAME] earn?

f) Can you show me some 

evidence of that income such 

as [READ FROM LIST 

ACCOMPANYING EACH 

ITEM] 
Volume 

4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-B7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

 Wages, salary, fees 

(excluding military pay)

P101301BN_01

P101301BN_02

P101301BN_03

P101301BN_04

P101301BN_05

P101301BN_06

P101301BN_07

P101301BN_08

P101301BN_09

P101301BN_10

P101301BN_11

P101301BN_12

P101301BN_13

P101301BN_14

P101301BN_15

P101301BN_16

P101301BN_17

P101301BN_18

P101301BN_19

P101301BN_20

YES 

NO

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101301BU_01

P101301BU_02

P101301BU_03

P101301BU_04

P101301BU_05

P101301BU_06

P101301BU_07

P101301BU_08

P101301BU_09

P101301BU_10

P101301BU_11

P101301BU_12

P101301BU_13

P101301BU_14

P101301BU_15

P101301BU_16

P101301BU_17

P101301BU_18

P101301BU_19

P101301BU_20

 Pay stub/earnings 

statement

W-2 form

 2007 IRS tax return  Other: _____  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM AND 

UNDOCUMENTED 

EMPLOYMENT INFO 

FORM

P101301C_01

P101301C_02

P101301C_03

P101301C_04

P101301C_05

P101301C_06

P101301C_07

P101301C_08

P101301C_09

P101301C_10

P101301C_11

P101301C_12

P101301C_13

P101301C_14

P101301C_15

P101301C_16

P101301C_17

P101301C_18

P101301C_19

P101301C_20

 Military pay

P101302BN_01

P101302BN_02

P101302BN_03

P101302BN_04

P101302BN_05

P101302BN_06

P101302BN_07

P101302BN_08

P101302BN_09

P101302BN_10

P101302BN_11

P101302BN_12

P101302BN_13

P101302BN_14

P101302BN_15

P101302BN_16

P101302BN_17

P101302BN_18

P101302BN_19

P101302BN_20

YES 

NO

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101302BU_01

P101302BU_02

P101302BU_03

P101302BU_04

P101302BU_05

P101302BU_06

P101302BU_07

P101302BU_08

P101302BU_09

P101302BU_10

P101302BU_11

P101302BU_12

P101302BU_13

P101302BU_14

 Leave and earnings 

statement

 Other: _____  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101302C_01

P101302C_02

P101302C_03

P101302C_04

P101302C_05

P101302C_06

P101302C_07

P101302C_08

P101302C_09

P101302C_10

P101302C_11

P101302C_12

P101302C_13

P101302C_14

P101302C_15

P101302C_16

P101302C_17

P101302C_18
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B8

P101302BU_15

P101302BU_16

P101302BU_17

P101302BU_18

P101302BU_19

P101302BU_20

P101302C_19

P101302C_20

 Tips and bonuses

P101303BN_01

P101303BN_02

P101303BN_03

P101303BN_04

P101303BN_05

P101303BN_06

P101303BN_07

P101303BN_08

P101303BN_09

P101303BN_10

P101303BN_11

P101303BN_12

P101303BN_13

P101303BN_14

P101303BN_15

P101303BN_16

P101303BN_17

P101303BN_18

P101303BN_19

P101303BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101303BU_01

P101303BU_02

P101303BU_03

P101303BU_04

P101303BU_05

P101303BU_06

P101303BU_07

P101303BU_08

P101303BU_09

P101303BU_10

P101303BU_11

P101303BU_12

P101303BU_13

P101303BU_14

P101303BU_15

P101303BU_16

P101303BU_17

P101303BU_18

P101303BU_19

P101303BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 W-2 form

 Other: _____

 None

P101303C_01

P101303C_02

P101303C_03

P101303C_04

P101303C_05

P101303C_06

P101303C_07

P101303C_08

P101303C_09

P101303C_10

P101303C_11

P101303C_12

P101303C_13

P101303C_14

P101303C_15

P101303C_16

P101303C_17

P101303C_18

P101303C_19

P101303C_20
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-B9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

 Net income from self 

employment (from farm and nonfarm business)

P101304BN_01

P101304BN_02

P101304BN_03

P101304BN_04

P101304BN_05

P101304BN_06

P101304BN_07

P101304BN_08

P101304BN_09

P101304BN_10

P101304BN_11

P101304BN_12

P101304BN_13

P101304BN_14

P101304BN_15

P101304BN_16

P101304BN_17

P101304BN_18

P101304BN_19

P101304BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101304BU_01

P101304BU_02

P101304BU_03

P101304BU_04

P101304BU_05

P101304BU_06

P101304BU_07

P101304BU_08

P101304BU_09

P101304BU_10

P101304BU_11

P101304BU_12

P101304BU_13

P101304BU_14

P101304BU_15

P101304BU_16

P101304BU_17

P101304BU_18

P101304BU_19

P101304BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Business records

 Expense receipts

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE 

UNDOCUMENTED 

EMPLOYMENT FORM 

P101304C_01

P101304C_02

P101304C_03

P101304C_04

P101304C_05

P101304C_06

P101304C_07

P101304C_08

P101304C_09

P101304C_10

P101304C_11

P101304C_12

P101304C_13

P101304C_14

P101304C_15

P101304C_16

P101304C_17

P101304C_18

P101304C_19

P101304C_20

 Unemployment compensation

P101305BN_01

P101305BN_02

P101305BN_03

P101305BN_04

P101305BN_05

P101305BN_06

P101305BN_07

P101305BN_08

P101305BN_09

P101305BN_10

P101305BN_11

P101305BN_12

P101305BN_13

P101305BN_14

P101305BN_15

P101305BN_16

P101305BN_17

P101305BN_18

P101305BN_19

P101305BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other:_____

P101305BU_01

P101305BU_02

P101305BU_03

P101305BU_04

P101305BU_05

P101305BU_06

P101305BU_07

P101305BU_08

P101305BU_09

P101305BU_10

P101305BU_11

P101305BU_12

P101305BU_13

P101305BU_14

P101305BU_15

P101305BU_16

 2007 IRS tax return

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Letter of determination

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101305C_01

P101305C_02

P101305C_03

P101305C_04

P101305C_05

P101305C_06

P101305C_07

P101305C_08

P101305C_09

P101305C_10

P101305C_11

P101305C_12

P101305C_13

P101305C_14

P101305C_15

P101305C_16

P101305C_17
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B10

P101305BU_17

P101305BU_18

P101305BU_19

P101305BU_20

P101305C_18

P101305C_19

P101305C_20

 Workers compensation

P101306BN_01

P101306BN_02

P101306BN_03

P101306BN_04

P101306BN_05

P101306BN_06

P101306BN_07

P101306BN_08

P101306BN_09

P101306BN_10

P101306BN_11

P101306BN_12

P101306BN_13

P101306BN_14

P101306BN_15

P101306BN_16

P101306BN_17

P101306BN_18

P101306BN_19

P101306BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101306BU_01

P101306BU_02

P101306BU_03

P101306BU_04

P101306BU_05

P101306BU_06

P101306BU_07

P101306BU_08

P101306BU_09

P101306BU_10

P101306BU_11

P101306BU_12

P101306BU_13

P101306BU_14

P101306BU_15

P101306BU_16

P101306BU_17

P101306BU_18

P101306BU_19

P101306BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Award statement

 Statement from 

insurance company

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101306C_01

P101306C_02

P101306C_03

P101306C_04

P101306C_05

P101306C_06

P101306C_07

P101306C_08

P101306C_09

P101306C_10

P101306C_11

P101306C_12

P101306C_13

P101306C_14

P101306C_15

P101306C_16

P101306C_17

P101306C_18

P101306C_19

P101306C_20

 Child Support

P101307BN_01

P101307BN_02

P101307BN_03

P101307BN_04

P101307BN_05

P101307BN_06

P101307BN_07

P101307BN_08

P101307BN_09

P101307BN_10

P101307BN_11

P101307BN_12

P101307BN_13

P101307BN_14

P101307BN_15

P101307BN_16

P101307BN_17

P101307BN_18

P101307BN_19

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101307BU_01

P101307BU_02

P101307BU_03

P101307BU_04

P101307BU_05

P101307BU_06

P101307BU_07

P101307BU_08

P101307BU_09

P101307BU_10

 Copy of check

 Support agreement

 Divorce/separation 

decree

 Court order

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101307C_01

P101307C_02

P101307C_03

P101307C_04

P101307C_05

P101307C_06

P101307C_07

P101307C_08

P101307C_09

P101307C_10
Volume 

4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-B11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

P101307BN_20

YES 

NO

 

P101307BU_11

P101307BU_12

P101307BU_13

P101307BU_14

P101307BU_15

P101307BU_16

P101307BU_17

P101307BU_18

P101307BU_19

P101307BU_20

P101307C_11

P101307C_12

P101307C_13

P101307C_14

P101307C_15

P101307C_16

P101307C_17

P101307C_18

P101307C_19

P101307C_20

 Alimony

P101308BN_01

P101308BN_02

P101308BN_03

P101308BN_04

P101308BN_05

P101308BN_06

P101308BN_07

P101308BN_08

P101308BN_09

P101308BN_10

P101308BN_11

P101308BN_12

P101308BN_13

P101308BN_14

P101308BN_15

P101308BN_16

P101308BN_17

P101308BN_18

P101308BN_19

P101308BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101308BU_01

P101308BU_02

P101308BU_03

P101308BU_04

P101308BU_05

P101308BU_06

P101308BU_07

P101308BU_08

P101308BU_09

P101308BU_10

P101308BU_11

P101308BU_12

P101308BU_13

P101308BU_14

P101308BU_15

P101308BU_16

P101308BU_17

P101308BU_18

P101308BU_19

P101308BU_20

 Copy of check  Support agreement  Divorce/separation 

decree

 Court order  Other: _____  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101308C_01

P101308C_02

P101308C_03

P101308C_04

P101308C_05

P101308C_06

P101308C_07

P101308C_08

P101308C_09

P101308C_10

P101308C_11

P101308C_12

P101308C_13

P101308C_14

P101308C_15

P101308C_16

P101308C_17

P101308C_18

P101308C_19

P101308C_20

 Social Security

P101309BN_01

P101309BN_02

P101309BN_03

P101309BN_04

P101309BN_05

P101309BN_06

P101309BN_07

P101309BN_08

P101309BN_09

P101309BN_10

P101309BN_11

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101309BU_01

P101309BU_02

P101309BU_03

 SSA Award letter  Statement of benefits  2007 IRS tax return (line 

14a on 1040A)

 Other: _____  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101309C_01

P101309C_02

P101309C_03

P101309C_04
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B12

P101309BN_12

P101309BN_13

P101309BN_14

P101309BN_15

P101309BN_16

P101309BN_17

P101309BN_18

P101309BN_19

P101309BN_20

YES 

NO

 

P101309BU_04

P101309BU_05

P101309BU_06

P101309BU_07

P101309BU_08

P101309BU_09

P101309BU_10

P101309BU_11

P101309BU_12

P101309BU_13

P101309BU_14

P101309BU_15

P101309BU_16

P101309BU_17

P101309BU_18

P101309BU_19

P101309BU_20

P101309C_05

P101309C_06

P101309C_07

P101309C_08

P101309C_09

P101309C_10

P101309C_11

P101309C_12

P101309C_13

P101309C_14

P101309C_15

P101309C_16

P101309C_17

P101309C_18

P101309C_19

P101309C_20

 SSI – Fed government

P101310BN_01

P101310BN_02

P101310BN_03

P101310BN_04

P101310BN_05

P101310BN_06

P101310BN_07

P101310BN_08

P101310BN_09

P101310BN_10

P101310BN_11

P101310BN_12

P101310BN_13

P101310BN_14

P101310BN_15

P101310BN_16

P101310BN_17

P101310BN_18

P101310BN_19

P101310BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101310BU_01

P101310BU_02

P101310BU_03

P101310BU_04

P101310BU_05

P101310BU_06

P101310BU_07

P101310BU_08

P101310BU_09

P101310BU_10

P101310BU_11

P101310BU_12

P101310BU_13

P101310BU_14

P101310BU_15

P101310BU_16

P101310BU_17

P101310BU_18

P101310BU_19

P101310BU_20

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101310C_01

P101310C_02

P101310C_03

P101310C_04

P101310C_05

P101310C_06

P101310C_07

P101310C_08

P101310C_09

P101310C_10

P101310C_11

P101310C_12

P101310C_13

P101310C_14

P101310C_15

P101310C_16

P101310C_17

P101310C_18

P101310C_19

P101310C_20

 SSI—State issued

P101311BN_01

P101311BN_02

P101311BN_03

P101311BN_04

P101311BN_05

P101311BN_06

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-B13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

P101311BN_07

P101311BN_08

P101311BN_09

P101311BN_10

P101311BN_11

P101311BN_12

P101311BN_13

P101311BN_14

P101311BN_15

P101311BN_16

P101311BN_17

P101311BN_18

P101311BN_19

P101311BN_20

YES 

NO

 

 Year

 Other: _____

P101311BU_01

P101311BU_02

P101311BU_03

P101311BU_04

P101311BU_05

P101311BU_06

P101311BU_07

P101311BU_08

P101311BU_09

P101311BU_10

P101311BU_11

P101311BU_12

P101311BU_13

P101311BU_14

P101311BU_15

P101311BU_16

P101311BU_17

P101311BU_18

P101311BU_19

P101311BU_20

P101311C_01

P101311C_02

P101311C_03

P101311C_04

P101311C_05

P101311C_06

P101311C_07

P101311C_08

P101311C_09

P101311C_10

P101311C_11

P101311C_12

P101311C_13

P101311C_14

P101311C_15

P101311C_16

P101311C_17

P101311C_18

P101311C_19

P101311C_20

 Any private or public pension, 

annuity or survivor’s benefits

P101312BN_01

P101312BN_02

P101312BN_03

P101312BN_04

P101312BN_05

P101312BN_06

P101312BN_07

P101312BN_08

P101312BN_09

P101312BN_10

P101312BN_11

P101312BN_12

P101312BN_13

P101312BN_14

P101312BN_15

P101312BN_16

P101312BN_17

P101312BN_18

P101312BN_19

P101312BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _______

P101312BU_01

P101312BU_02

P101312BU_03

P101312BU_04

P101312BU_05

P101312BU_06

P101312BU_07

P101312BU_08

P101312BU_09

P101312BU_10

P101312BU_11

P101312BU_12

P101312BU_13

P101312BU_14

P101312BU_15

P101312BU_16

P101312BU_17

P101312BU_18

P101312BU_19

P101312BU_20

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101312C_01

P101312C_02

P101312C_03

P101312C_04

P101312C_05

P101312C_06

P101312C_07

P101312C_08

P101312C_09

P101312C_10

P101312C_11

P101312C_12

P101312C_13

P101312C_14

P101312C_15

P101312C_16

P101312C_17

P101312C_18

P101312C_19

P101312C_20
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B14

 Medical assistance (any)

P101313BN_01

P101313BN_02

P101313BN_03

P101313BN_04

P101313BN_05

P101313BN_06

P101313BN_07

P101313BN_08

P101313BN_09

P101313BN_10

P101313BN_11

P101313BN_12

P101313BN_13

P101313BN_14

P101313BN_15

P101313BN_16

P101313BN_17

P101313BN_18

P101313BN_19

P101313BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101313BU_01

P101313BU_02

P101313BU_03

P101313BU_04

P101313BU_05

P101313BU_06

P101313BU_07

P101313BU_08

P101313BU_09

P101313BU_10

P101313BU_11

P101313BU_12

P101313BU_13

P101313BU_14

P101313BU_15

P101313BU_16

P101313BU_17

P101313BU_18

P101313BU_19

P101313BU_20

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101313C_01

P101313C_02

P101313C_03

P101313C_04

P101313C_05

P101313C_06

P101313C_07

P101313C_08

P101313C_09

P101313C_10

P101313C_11

P101313C_12

P101313C_13

P101313C_14

P101313C_15

P101313C_16

P101313C_17

P101313C_18

P101313C_19

P101313C_20
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-B15 National Survey of WIC Participants II

 Veteran’s payments

P101314BN_01

P101314BN_02

P101314BN_03

P101314BN_04

P101314BN_05

P101314BN_06

P101314BN_07

P101314BN_08

P101314BN_09

P101314BN_10

P101314BN_11

P101314BN_12

P101314BN_13

P101314BN_14

P101314BN_15

P101314BN_16

P101314BN_17

P101314BN_18

P101314BN_19

P101314BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101314BU_01

P101314BU_02

P101314BU_03

P101314BU_04

P101314BU_05

P101314BU_06

P101314BU_07

P101314BU_08

P101314BU_09

P101314BU_10

P101314BU_11

P101314BU_12

P101314BU_13

P101314BU_14

P101314BU_15

P101314BU_16

P101314BU_17

P101314BU_18

P101314BU_19

P101314BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Notice of benefits

 Copy of check, check 

stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101314C_01

P101314C_02

P101314C_03

P101314C_04

P101314C_05

P101314C_06

P101314C_07

P101314C_08

P101314C_09

P101314C_10

P101314C_11

P101314C_12

P101314C_13

P101314C_14

P101314C_15

P101314C_16

P101314C_17

P101314C_18

P101314C_19

P101314C_20

 Other cash income

P101315BN_01

P101315BN_02

P101315BN_03

P101315BN_04

P101315BN_05

P101315BN_06

P101315BN_07

P101315BN_08

P101315BN_09

P101315BN_10

P101315BN_11

P101315BN_12

P101315BN_13

P101315BN_14

P101315BN_15

P101315BN_16

P101315BN_17

P101315BN_18

P101315BN_19

P101315BN_20

YES 

NO

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101315BU_01

P101315BU_02

P101315BU_03

P101315BU_04

P101315BU_05

P101315BU_06

P101315BU_07

P101315BU_08

P101315BU_09

P101315BU_10

P101315BU_11

P101315BU_12

P101315BU_13

P101315BU_14

P101315BU_15

 2007 IRS tax return

 Benefits statement

 Copy of check, check stub

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101315C_01

P101315C_02

P101315C_03

P101315C_04

P101315C_05

P101315C_06

P101315C_07

P101315C_08

P101315C_09

P101315C_10

P101315C_11

P101315C_12

P101315C_13

P101315C_14

P101315C_15

P101315C_16

P101315C_17
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B16

 P101315BU_16

P101315BU_17

P101315BU_18

P101315BU_19

P101315BU_20

P101315C_18

P101315C_19

P101315C_20

 Energy assistance

P101316BN_01

P101316BN_02

P101316BN_03

P101316BN_04

P101316BN_05

P101316BN_06

P101316BN_07

P101316BN_08

P101316BN_09

P101316BN_10

P101316BN_11

P101316BN_12

P101316BN_13

P101316BN_14

P101316BN_15

P101316BN_16

P101316BN_17

P101316BN_18

P101316BN_19

P101316BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101316BU_01

P101316BU_02

P101316BU_03

P101316BU_04

P101316BU_05

P101316BU_06

P101316BU_07

P101316BU_08

P101316BU_09

P101316BU_10

P101316BU_11

P101316BU_12

P101316BU_13

P101316BU_14

P101316BU_15

P101316BU_16

P101316BU_17

P101316BU_18

P101316BU_19

P101316BU_20

 Notice of benefits

 Other: _____

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101316C_01

P101316C_02

P101316C_03

P101316C_04

P101316C_05

P101316C_06

P101316C_07

P101316C_08

P101316C_09

P101316C_10

P101316C_11

P101316C_12

P101316C_13

P101316C_14

P101316C_15

P101316C_16

P101316C_17

P101316C_18

P101316C_19

P101316C_20

 Net rental income

P101317BN_01

P101317BN_02

P101317BN_03

P101317BN_04

P101317BN_05

P101317BN_06

P101317BN_07

P101317BN_08

P101317BN_09

P101317BN_10

P101317BN_11

P101317BN_12

P101317BN_13

P101317BN_14

P101317BN_15

P101317BN_16

P101317BN_17

P101317BN_18

P101317BN_19

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101317BU_01

P101317BU_02

P101317BU_03

P101317BU_04

P101317BU_05

P101317BU_06

P101317BU_07

P101317BU_08

P101317BU_09

P101317BU_10

 2007 IRS tax return

 Business records

 Expense receipts

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101317C_01

P101317C_02

P101317C_03

P101317C_04

P101317C_05

P101317C_06

P101317C_07

P101317C_08

P101317C_09

P101317C_10

P101317C_11

P101317C_12

P101317C_13
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-B17 National Survey of WIC Participants II

P101317BN_20

YES 

NO

 

P101317BU_11

P101317BU_12

P101317BU_13

P101317BU_14

P101317BU_15

P101317BU_16

P101317BU_17

P101317BU_18

P101317BU_19

P101317BU_20

P101317C_14

P101317C_15

P101317C_16

P101317C_17

P101317C_18

P101317C_19

P101317C_20

 Income from trusts

P101318BN_01

P101318BN_02

P101318BN_03

P101318BN_04

P101318BN_05

P101318BN_06

P101318BN_07

P101318BN_08

P101318BN_09

P101318BN_10

P101318BN_11

P101318BN_12

P101318BN_13

P101318BN_14

P101318BN_15

P101318BN_16

P101318BN_17

P101318BN_18

P101318BN_19

P101318BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101318BU_01

P101318BU_02

P101318BU_03

P101318BU_04

P101318BU_05

P101318BU_06

P101318BU_07

P101318BU_08

P101318BU_09

P101318BU_10

P101318BU_11

P101318BU_12

P101318BU_13

P101318BU_14

P101318BU_15

P101318BU_16

P101318BU_17

P101318BU_18

P101318BU_19

P101318BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Business records

 Expense receipts

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101318C_01

P101318C_02

P101318C_03

P101318C_04

P101318C_05

P101318C_06

P101318C_07

P101318C_08

P101318C_09

P101318C_10

P101318C_11

P101318C_12

P101318C_13

P101318C_14

P101318C_15

P101318C_16

P101318C_17

P101318C_18

P101318C_19

P101318C_20
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B18

 Commissions

P101319BN_01

P101319BN_02

P101319BN_03

P101319BN_04

P101319BN_05

P101319BN_06

P101319BN_07

P101319BN_08

P101319BN_09

P101319BN_10

P101319BN_11

P101319BN_12

P101319BN_13

P101319BN_14

P101319BN_15

P101319BN_16

P101319BN_17

P101319BN_18

P101319BN_19

P101319BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101319BU_01

P101319BU_02

P101319BU_03

P101319BU_04

P101319BU_05

P101319BU_06

P101319BU_07

P101319BU_08

P101319BU_09

P101319BU_10

P101319BU_11

P101319BU_12

P101319BU_13

P101319BU_14

P101319BU_15

P101319BU_16

P101319BU_17

P101319BU_18

P101319BU_19

P101319BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return

 Business records

 Expense receipts

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101319C_01

P101319C_02

P101319C_03

P101319C_04

P101319C_05

P101319C_06

P101319C_07

P101319C_08

P101319C_09

P101319C_10

P101319C_11

P101319C_12

P101319C_13

P101319C_14

P101319C_15

P101319C_16

P101319C_17

P101319C_18

P101319C_19

P101319C_20

 Income from estates

P101320BN_01

P101320BN_02

P101320BN_03

P101320BN_04

P101320BN_05

P101320BN_06

P101320BN_07

P101320BN_08

P101320BN_09

P101320BN_10

P101320BN_11

P101320BN_12

P101320BN_13

P101320BN_14

P101320BN_15

P101320BN_16

P101320BN_17

P101320BN_18

P101320BN_19

P101320BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week

 Per 2 weeks

 2 Times a month

 Month

 Quarter

 Year

 Other: _____

P101320BU_01

P101320BU_02

P101320BU_03

P101320BU_04

P101320BU_05

P101320BU_06

P101320BU_07

P101320BU_08

P101320BU_09

P101320BU_10

P101320BU_11

P101320BU_12

P101320BU_13

P101320BU_14

P101320BU_15

 2007 IRS tax return

 Business records

 Expense receipts

 Other: ______

 None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101320C_01

P101320C_02

P101320C_03

P101320C_04

P101320C_05

P101320C_06

P101320C_07

P101320C_08

P101320C_09

P101320C_10

P101320C_11

P101320C_12

P101320C_13

P101320C_14

P101320C_15

P101320C_16

P101320C_17
Volume 

4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-B19 National Survey of WIC Participants II

P101320BU_16

P101320BU_17

P101320BU_18

P101320BU_19

P101320BU_20

P101320C_18

P101320C_19

P101320C_20

 Net royalties

P101321BN_01

P101321BN_02

P101321BN_03

P101321BN_04

P101321BN_05

P101321BN_06

P101321BN_07

P101321BN_08

P101321BN_09

P101321BN_10

P101321BN_11

P101321BN_12

P101321BN_13

P101321BN_14

P101321BN_15

P101321BN_16

P101321BN_17

P101321BN_18

P101321BN_19

P101321BN_20

YES 

NO

 

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101321BU_01

P101321BU_02

P101321BU_03

P101321BU_04

P101321BU_05

P101321BU_06

P101321BU_07

P101321BU_08

P101321BU_09

P101321BU_10

P101321BU_11

P101321BU_12

P101321BU_13

P101321BU_14

P101321BU_15

P101321BU_16

P101321BU_17

P101321BU_18

P101321BU_19

P101321BU_20

 2007 IRS tax return  Business records  Expense receipts  Other: ______  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM

P101321C_01

P101321C_02

P101321C_03

P101321C_04

P101321C_05

P101321C_06

P101321C_07

P101321C_08

P101321C_09

P101321C_10

P101321C_11

P101321C_12

P101321C_13

P101321C_14

P101321C_15

P101321C_16

P101321C_17

P101321C_18

P101321C_19

P101321C_20

 Interest or dividends

P101322BN_01

P101322BN_02

P101322BN_03

P101322BN_04

P101322BN_05

P101322BN_06

P101322BN_07

P101322BN_08

P101322BN_09

P101322BN_10

P101322BN_11

P101322BN_12

P101322BN_13

P101322BN_14

P101322BN_15

P101322BN_16

$_______

 Per week  Per 2 weeks  2 Times a month  Month  Quarter  Year  Other: _____

P101322BU_01

P101322BU_02

P101322BU_03

P101322BU_04

P101322BU_05

P101322BU_06

P101322BU_07

P101322BU_08

 2007 IRS tax return  Earnings statement  Copy of check, check stub  Other: ______  None: GIVE INCOME 

RELEASE FORM 

P101322C_01

P101322C_02

P101322C_03

P101322C_04

P101322C_05

P101322C_06

P101322C_07

P101322C_08

P101322C_09
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-B20

P101322BN_17

P101322BN_18

P101322BN_19

P101322BN_20

YES 

NO

 

P101322BU_09

P101322BU_10

P101322BU_11

P101322BU_12

P101322BU_13

P101322BU_14

P101322BU_15

P101322BU_16

P101322BU_17

P101322BU_18

P101322BU_19

P101322BU_20

P101322C_10

P101322C_11

P101322C_12

P101322C_13

P101322C_14

P101322C_15

P101322C_16

P101322C_17

P101322C_18

P101322C_19

P101322C_20

REPEAT INCOME QUESTIONS (Q12) FOR EVERY ADULT MEMBER OF PRIMARY ECONOMIC UNIT.

CLOSING

13. READ: This completes our survey. It was great talking to you. Thank you so much for helping us out. Here is 

$20 in appreciation for your time. [FILL OUT RECEIPT FOR INCENTIVE AND GET SIGNATURE.]

Do you have any questions before I leave? 

Have a great day/evening.
Appendix II-C: Denials Survey 

Instrument

II-C1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

WIC Denied Applicants Survey 

PART 1: PRE-CODED FROM AGENCY DATA

P0. Interviewer Name: ______________________________

P1. Sampled Recertificant

a. Name: _______________________________

b. Address: ______________________________

 ______________________________

c. Phone number(s): ______________________

d. WIC client ID: _________________________

P2. Information on Sampled Recertificant

a. Category

 Pregnant 

 Breastfeeding 

 Postpartum 

 Infant (<12 months) 

 Child (1 - < 5 years) 

b. Parent/Guardian (IF APPLICABLE)

 Name: __________________

 Address: ________________

 Phone: _________________

P3. State where local agency is located: _________

1. Alabama

2. Arizona

3. California

4. Colorado

5. Florida

6. Georgia

7. Illinois

8. Indiana

9. Kansas

10. Louisiana

11. Maryland 

12. Massachusetts

13. Michigan

14. Missouri

15. New Jersey

16. New York

17. North Carolina

18. Ohio

19. Pennsylvania

20. Tennessee

21. Texas

22. Virginia

23. Washington

P4. Date of Interview (MM/DD/YYYY): _________

P5. Time of Interview: ________:__________ AM PM

PART 2: SCREENER

SA. NAME OF RECERTIFICANT SAMPLED... _______________________ 

THIS IS THE “RECERTIFICANT”

SB. NAME OF ADULT PERSON WHO WILL BE 

DOING INTERVIEW [WILL BE THE SAME NAME 

FOR PRG, BF, & PTP] ________________________ 

THIS IS THE “INTERVIEWEE”

Hello, may I speak to [INTERVIEWEE]______________? 

Yes [CONTINUE]

 No [GET TIME AND DATE WHEN R. CAN BE REACHED. TERMINATE.]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-C2

This is ____________ of ICF Macro calling on behalf of the USDA’s WIC Women, Infants and Children 

food program. According to the agency’s records, [INSERT “you” OR APPLICANT’S NAME] recently 

applied for WIC food benefits and, apparently, were/was turned down. We are conducting a confidential 

survey among people who got turned down so that we can see if the agency is following correct 

procedures. Your responses are confidential and will not be shared with the local WIC agency.

You are under no obligation to answer any question, and you can end the interview at any time. The 

survey takes approximately 5 minutes. Because it is confidential, it won’t change the decision. However, 

if in our conversation it appears that the local WIC agency may have made a mistake, you may want to 

apply for the WIC benefits again. And, of course, we will be recommending changes if problems are 

found. 

[IF R. ASKS HOW HE/SHE WAS CHOSEN FOR SAMPLE, SAY: “Your name [OR CHILD’S NAME] was 

chosen by chance from a list of all WIC applicants. Your answers are confidential; that is, they will not 

be identified with you but rather will be grouped with answers from hundreds of other WIC applicants to 

give us a better idea of how WIC is used and ways to make it better.]

P1. May we continue?

___ ACCEPT [SKIP TO Q1]

___ REFUSE [SKIP TO P3]

___LANGUAGE ISSUES [CONTINUE TO P2]

 P2. IF POSSIBLE LANGUAGE DIFFICULTIES, ASK: May we continue in English?

___YES [CONTINUE TO Q1]

___NO [ASK “What language do you speak?” AND RECORD ANSWER. 

o TELL R. YOU WILL CALL BACK LATER IF NECESSARY.]

P3. IF REFUSAL, SAY: This research is really important to the WIC program – to make sure mistakes 

don’t get made in changing or ending the benefits people get. We’re actually interviewing lots of 

people like you all over the country. So your answers and identity will just be grouped with others in 

your situation. Like I said, it’s confidential and it only takes about 5 minutes.

 YES, NOW [GO TO Q1]

 YES, LATER [RECORD TIME/DATE. THANK & TERMINATE.]

 NO. [THANK & TERMINATE.]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-C3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

TELEPHONE SURVEY - English

1. Let me start by asking how you heard about the WIC – Women, Infants and Children – program? 

[CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

A) FRIEND/COLLEAGUE/CO-WORKER

B) FAMILY MEMBER

C) DOCTOR/HEALTH PROFESSIONAL

D) TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT

E) RADIO ADVERTISEMENT

F) NEWSPAPER 

G) BILLBOARD

W) OTHER: SPECIFY ______________________

2. Which of the following benefits were you interested in getting out of the WIC program? You can 

answer yes or no. Were you interested in...: [CIRCLE 1 FOR EACH]

a. The food package or vouchers to get healthy food? YES=1 NO=0

b. Health and nutrition classes and individual counseling? YES=1 NO=0

c. Support for breastfeeding your baby? YES=1 NO=0

d. Information about immunizations for your child(ren)? YES=1 NO=0

e. Information on how to get other health care services for your family? YES=1 NO=0

f. Information about what other community programs are available to 

help your family?

YES=1 NO=0

3. THIS QUESTION WAS INTENTIONALLY SKIPPED

4. THIS QUESTION WAS INTENTIONALLY SKIPPED

5. When [INSERT “you” OR applicant’s name] were/was turned down for WIC benefits, did the WIC 

clinic give you any reason for their action that was related to proof of identity, that is showing 

identification?

1) YES 

0) NO/DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO Q6]

5A.What reason did they give? [IF MORE THAN ONE IS MENTIONED, ASK “WHICH WAS THE MAIN 

REASON GIVEN?”] [CIRCLE ONE ONLY.]

1) DID NOT HAVE PROOF WITH THEM AT WIC AGENCY

2) EXPIRED DATE ON PROOF

3) UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF

4) PROOF WAS MISSING NAME

5) PROOF WAS MISSING PHOTO

 8) OTHER: SPECIFY ____________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-C4

5B. Did you see their point or do you feel they made a mistake?

1) SAW THEIR POINT 

2) MADE A MISTAKE

5C. Did the WIC representative say anything about what you could do to change the decision, 

such as what items you could bring back to help yourself qualify for benefits?

1) YES

0) NO

ASK Q5D – Q5F ONLY IF Q5A=3 (UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF)

5D. What did you show them to identify 

yourself? [IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM 

LISTED, ASK FOR THE MAIN ONE.]

6a) DRIVER’S LICENSE 

6b) PASSPORT 

6c) IDENTIFICATION CARD 

6d) OTHER ITEM: PLEASE SPECIFY

____________________________

6e) NOTHING [SKIP TO Q6]

6f) DON’T KNOW/ REMEMBER [SKIP TO Q6]

5E. Who issued this item? 

[CIRCLE ONE]

1) FEDERAL 

GOVT/AGENCY

2) STATE GOVT/AGENCY

3) LOCAL GOVT/AGENCY

4) PRIVATE COMPANY

5) COURT SYSTEM

6) FOREIGN GOVERNMENT

7) OTHER

8) DON’T 

KNOW/REMEMBER

5F. Did it 

have your 

name and

your photo 

on it?

1) YES

0)

NO/DON’

T KNOW

6. Was a reason given related to showing proof of residency, that is where you live?

1) YES 

0) NO/DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO Q7]

6A. What reason did they give? [IF MORE THAN ONE IS MENTIONED, ASK “WHICH WAS THE MAIN 

REASON GIVEN?”] [CIRCLE ONE ONLY.]

1) DID NOT HAVE PROOF WITH THEM AT WIC AGENCY

2) EXPIRED DATE ON PROOF

3) UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF

4) PROOF WAS MISSING NAME 

5) PROOF WAS MISSING PHOTO

6) PROOF WAS MISSING ADDRESS

7) ADDRESS WAS NOT IN LOCAL AGENCY’S COVERAGE AREA

8) OTHER: SPECIFY ____________

6B. ASK: Did you see their point or do you feel they made a mistake?

1) SAW THEIR POINT 

2) MADE A MISTAKE 

6C. Did the WIC representative say anything about what you could do to change the decision, 

such as what items you could bring back to help yourself qualify for benefits?

1) YES

0) NO
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-C5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

ASK Q6D – Q6F ONLY IF Q6A=3 (UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF)

6D. What item did you show them to prove your 

address? [IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM 

LISTED, ASK FOR THE MAIN ONE. ]

7a) DRIVER’S LICENSE 

7b) IDENTIFICATION CARD 

7c) CURRENT UTILITY/TAX BILL 

7c) CHECKBOOK 

7e) RENT RECEIPT, MORTGAGE RECEIPT OR 

LEASE 

7f) WRITTEN STATEMENT BY 3

RD PARTY

7g) OTHER ITEM: PLEASE SPECIFY

____________________________

7h) NOTHING [SKIP TO Q7]

7i) DON’T KNOW/ REMEMBER [SKIP TO Q7]

6E.Who issued this item? 

(CIRCLE ONE)

1) FEDERAL GOVT/AGENCY

2) STATE GOVT/AGENCY

3) LOCAL GOVT/AGENCY

4) PRIVATE COMPANY

5) COURT SYSTEM

6) FOREIGN GOVERNMENT

7) NON-PROFIT 

ORGANIZATION

8) RELIGIOUS 

ORGANIZATION

9) OTHER: SPECIFY 

___________________

10) DON’T 

KNOW/REMEMBER

6F. Did it 

have your 

name and

address on it?

1) YES

0) 

NO/DON’

T KNOW

7. Was a reason given related to household income?

1) YES 

0) NO/DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO Q8]

7A. What reason did they give? [IF MORE THAN ONE IS MENTIONED, ASK “WHICH WAS THE MAIN 

REASON GIVEN?”] [CIRCLE ONE ONLY.]

1) DID NOT HAVE INCOME PROOF WITH THEM AT THE WIC AGENCY

2) EXPIRED DATE ON PROOF

3) UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF

4) PROOF WAS MISSING NAME 

6) INCOME WAS TOO HIGH 

8) OTHER: SPECIFY ____________

7B. Did you see their point or do you feel they made a mistake?

1) SAW THEIR POINT 

2) MADE A MISTAKE 

7C. Did the WIC representative say anything about what you could do to change the decision, such 

as what items you could bring back to help yourself qualify for benefits? 

1) YES 

0) NO
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-C6

7D. [IF Q7A=5 INCOME WAS TOO HIGH , SKIP TO Q8. ASK ALL OTHERS: ] When it turned out that 

you didn’t have the right document with you at the WIC office... 

a. Were you given a new appointment with WIC after they refused to 

certify you?

YES=1 NO=0

b. Did they ask you to describe your income? YES=1 NO=0

c. Did they give you a month of temporary WIC food benefits? YES=1 NO=0

d. Did they instruct you to come back with the proof in 30 days or so? YES=1 NO=0

ASK Q7D – Q7E ONLY IF Q7A=3 (UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF)

7E. What proof or document did you show them to demonstrate 

income? [IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM LISTED, ASK FOR THE 

MAIN ONE.]

7F. Who issued this item? 

[CIRCLE ONE]

1) FEDERAL GOVT/AGENCY

2) STATE GOVT/AGENCY

3) LOCAL GOVT/AGENCY

4) PRIVATE COMPANY

5) COURT SYSTEM

6) FOREIGN GOVERNMENT

7) OTHER. SPECIFY ____

___________________

8) DON’T 

KNOW/REMEMBER

8a) MOST RECENT TAX RETURN

8b) W-2 FORM

8c) STATEMENT FROM BANK OR OTHER 

FINANCIAL INSTITUTION

8d) CHECK OR PAY STUB 

8e) SIGNED STATEMENT BY EMPLOYER 

8f) ELIGIBILITY LETTER SIGNED BY 

OFFICIAL STATE/LOCAL AGENCY

8g) STATEMENT OF BENEFITS (BY PUBLIC 

AGENCY OR COURT)

8h) WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM 

RELIABLE THIRD PARTY

 8i) FOOD STAMPS 

8q) OTHER ITEM: PLEASE

SPECIFY_________

8r) DON’T KNOW/ REMEMBER 

8s) NOTHING 

8j) MEDICAID

8k) TANF

8l) SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME 

(SSI)

8m) FOOD 

DISTRIBUTION 

PROGRAM ON INDIAN 

RESERVATIONS 

(FDPIR)

8n) CHILDREN’S 

MEDICAID

8o) FREE/REDUCEDMEAL SCHOOL 

LUNCH/ BREAKFAST 

PROGRAM

8p) LOW-INCOME 

ENERGY ASSISTANCE

_________________

8. Did you take any follow-up actions to see if you could get the decision changed?

1) YES 

0) NO [SKIP TO Q10]

9. What action did you take? [DON’T READ. CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. THEN SKIP TO Q11.]

A) WROTE LETTER OF COMPLAINT, PROTEST TO WIC 

B) ASKED TO SPEAK TO, OR DID SPEAK WITH, WIC SUPERVISOR

C) COMPLAINED TO AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL 

D) MADE A PHONE CALL AFTERWARDS, CHALLENGING THE DECISION

W) OTHER: SPECIFY: _________________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-C7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

10. Why not?

1) TOO BUSY 

2) DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH WELL

3) IT WOULDN’T DO ANY GOOD 

8) OTHER: SPECIFY: _________________

I just have a couple more questions for categorization purposes only.

11. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

1) YES

0) NO

R) REFUSED

12. How would you characterize yourself in terms of race? [READ ALL. CIRCLE AS MANY AS 

APPLY] 

A) American Indian or Alaska Native

B) Asian American

C) Black or African American

D) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

E) White

R) REFUSED

13. What is the highest level of education you have attained? [READ UNTIL R. INDICATES 

ANSWER]

1) Elementary school (6 years or less of education)

2) Some high school (7 – 11 years of education)

3) High school diploma or GED

4) Some college 

5) Associate’s degree

6) Bachelor’s degree

7) Advanced degree 

8) REFUSED

14. What is your first language, that is, the language you speak at home?

1) English

2) Arabic

3) Cambodian

4) Cantonese/ Mandarin

5) Farsi

6) French/Creole

7) Fulani

8) Hindi

9) Hmong

10) Khmer

11) Korean

12) Laotian

13) Punjabi 

14) Russian

15) Somali

16) Spanish

17) Swahili

18) Tamil

19) Tagalog

20) Urdu

21) Vietnamese

22) Other: SPECIFY 

_________

Thank you so much for your help in answering this survey. Your feedback, combined with other 

confidential responses, will help improve the WIC program. Thanks again. 

Have a great day/evening.

Appendix II-D: Terminations/

Discontinuations Survey 

Instrument

II-D1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

WIC Terminations/ Discontinuations Survey 

PART 1: PRE-CODED FROM AGENCY DATA

P0. Interviewer Name: ______________________________

P1. Sampled Recertificant

a. Name: _______________________________

b. Address: ______________________________

 ______________________________

c. Phone number(s): ______________________

d. WIC client ID: _________________________

P2. Information on Sampled Recertificant

a. Category

 Pregnant 

 Breastfeeding 

 Postpartum 

 Infant (<12 months) 

 Child (1 - < 5 years) 

b. Parent/Guardian (IF APPLICABLE)

 Name: __________________

 Address: ________________

 Phone: _________________

P3. State where local agency is located: _________

1. Alabama

2. Arizona

3. California

4. Colorado

5. Florida

6. Georgia

7. Illinois

8. Indiana

9. Kansas

10. Louisiana

11. Maryland 

12. Massachusetts

13. Michigan

14. Missouri

15. New Jersey

16. New York

17. North Carolina

18. Ohio

19. Pennsylvania

20. Tennessee

21. Texas

22. Virginia

23. Washington

P4. Date of Interview (MM/DD/YYYY): _________

P5. Time of Interview: ________:__________ AM PM

PART 2: SCREENER

SA. NAME OF RECERTIFICANT SAMPLED... _______________________ 

THIS IS THE “RECERTIFICANT”

SB. NAME OF ADULT PERSON WHO WILL BE 

DOING INTERVIEW [WILL BE THE SAME NAME 

FOR PRG, BF, & PTP] ________________________ 

THIS IS THE “INTERVIEWEE”
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-D2

Hello, may I speak to [INTERVIEWEE]______________? 

Yes [CONTINUE]

 No [GET TIME AND DATE WHEN R. CAN BE REACHED. TERMINATE.]

This is ____________ of ICF Macro calling on behalf of the USDA’s WIC Women, Infants and Children 

food program. According to the agency’s records, there may have been a change in [YOUR or 

RECERTIFICANT’S NAME] WIC benefits. Or they may have ended, perhaps temporarily. We are 

conducting a very short, confidential survey among people who got turned down so that we can see if the 

agency is following correct procedures. Your responses are confidential and will not be shared with the 

local WIC agency.

You are under no obligation to answer any question, and you can end the interview at any time. The 

survey takes approximately 5 minutes. Because it is confidential, it won’t change the decision. However, 

if in our conversation it appears that the local WIC agency may have made a mistake, you may want to 

apply for the WIC benefits again. And, of course, we will be recommending changes if problems are 

found. 

[IF R. ASKS HOW HE/SHE WAS CHOSEN FOR SAMPLE, SAY: “Your [OR CHILD’S] name was chosen 

by chance from a list of all WIC participants. Your answers are confidential; that is, they will not be 

identified with you but rather will be grouped with answers from hundreds of other WIC participants to 

give us a better idea of how WIC is used and ways to make it better.]

P1. May we continue?

___ ACCEPT [SKIP TO Q1]

___ REFUSE [SKIP TO P3]

___LANGUAGE ISSUES [CONTINUE TO P2]

 P2. IF POSSIBLE LANGUAGE DIFFICULTIES, ASK: May we continue in English?

___YES [CONTINUE TO Q1]

___NO [ASK “What language do you speak?” AND RECORD ANSWER. 

o TELL R. YOU WILL CALL BACK LATER IF NECESSARY.]

P3. IF REFUSAL, SAY: This research is really important to the WIC program – to make sure mistakes 

don’t get made in changing or ending the benefits people get. We’re actually interviewing lots of 

people like you all over the country. So your answers and identity will just be grouped with others in 

your situation. Like I said, it’s confidential and it only takes about 5 minutes.

 YES, NOW [GO TO Q1]

 YES, LATER [RECORD TIME/DATE. THANK & TERMINATE.]

 NO. [THANK & TERMINATE.]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-D3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

TELEPHONE SURVEY - English

1. Let me start by asking how you heard about the WIC – Women, Infants and Children – program? 

[CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

A) FRIEND/COLLEAGUE/CO-WORKER

B) FAMILY MEMBER

C) DOCTOR/HEALTH PROFESSIONAL

D) TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT

E) RADIO ADVERTISEMENT

F) NEWSPAPER 

G) BILLBOARD

W) OTHER: SPECIFY ______________________

2. Which of the following benefits were you interested in getting out of the WIC program? You can 

answer yes or no. Were you interested in...: [CIRCLE 1 FOR EACH]

g. The food package or vouchers to get healthy food? YES=1 NO=0

h. Health and nutrition classes and individual counseling? YES=1 NO=0

i. Support for breastfeeding your baby? YES=1 NO=0

j. Information about immunizations for your child(ren)? YES=1 NO=0

k. Information on how to get other health care services for your family? YES=1 NO=0

l. Information about what other community programs are available to 

help your family?

YES=1 NO=0

3. According to our records, there was a change in [YOUR or RECERTIFICANT’S] WIC 

benefits back in May [INSERT “July”, if North Carolina], First, what do you recall was the change? 

Was it that...? [READ ALL AND CIRCLE BEST ANSWER.]

1) The WIC benefits ended [SKIP TO Q4]

2) The WIC benefits changed [SKIP TO Q4]

3) There was a gap or pause in benefits and you had to prove eligibility again [SKIP TO Q4]

4) DON’T KNOW/DON’T REMEMBER

5) DO NOT READ: THERE WAS NO CHANGE OR INTERRUPTION IN BENEFITS [SKIP 

TO Q11]

6) DO NOT READ: OTHER. [ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN, THEN SKIP TO Q4]

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

3A. You say you don’t remember and that’s understandable. It was 6 months ago. Still, the WIC 

records indicate there was some kind of a change—perhaps a move from one type of food 

package to another, a need to recertify with WIC, or a pause or ending of benefits. Can you 

remember anything?

1) YES 

0) NO [SKIP TO Q11]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-D4

4. Do you remember, did the WIC clinic give you any reason for the change that was related to a 

change in status such as ...

 FOR PRG, BF AND PTP: the delivery of a baby, breastfeeding changes, or eligibility 

ending?

 FOR INF AND CHD: a change in the child’s age? For example, your baby turning 1 year 

old or your older child turning 5 years old?

1) YES

0) NO/DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO Q5]

4A. Did you see their point or do you feel they made a mistake?

1) SAW THEIR POINT [SKIP TO Q5]

0) MADE A MISTAKE 

4B. What did you see as their mistake? [WRITE ANSWER CONCISELY AS POSSIBLE]

__________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________ 

5. Did the WIC clinic give you any reason for their action that was related to proof of identity, that is 

showing identification?

1) YES 

0) NO/DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO Q6]

5A.What reason did they give? [IF MORE THAN ONE IS MENTIONED, ASK “WHICH WAS THE MAIN 

REASON GIVEN?”] [CIRCLE ONE ONLY.]

6) DID NOT HAVE PROOF WITH THEM AT WIC AGENCY

7) EXPIRED DATE ON PROOF

8) UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF

9) PROOF WAS MISSING NAME

10) PROOF WAS MISSING PHOTO

 8) OTHER: SPECIFY ____________

5B. Did you see their point or do you feel they made a mistake?

1) SAW THEIR POINT 

2) MADE A MISTAKE

5C. Did the WIC representative say anything about what you could do to change the decision, 

such as what items you could bring back to help yourself qualify for benefits?

1) YES

0) NO
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-D5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

ASK Q5D – Q5F ONLY IF Q5A=3 (UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF)

5D. What did you show them to identify 

yourself? [IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM 

LISTED, ASK FOR THE MAIN ONE.]

6a) DRIVER’S LICENSE 

6b) PASSPORT 

6c) IDENTIFICATION CARD 

6d) OTHER ITEM: PLEASE SPECIFY

____________________________

6e) NOTHING [SKIP TO Q6]

6f) DON’T KNOW/ REMEMBER [SKIP TO Q6]

5E. Who issued this item? 

[CIRCLE ONE]

1) FEDERAL 

GOVT/AGENCY

2) STATE GOVT/AGENCY

3) LOCAL GOVT/AGENCY

4) PRIVATE COMPANY

5) COURT SYSTEM

6) FOREIGN GOVERNMENT

7) OTHER

8) DON’T 

KNOW/REMEMBER

5F. Did it 

have your 

name and

your photo 

on it?

2) YES

0)

NO/DON’

T KNOW

6. Was a reason given related to showing proof of residency, that is where you live?

1) YES 

0) NO/DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO Q7]

6A. What reason did they give? [IF MORE THAN ONE IS MENTIONED, ASK “WHICH WAS THE MAIN 

REASON GIVEN?”] [CIRCLE ONE ONLY.]

9) DID NOT HAVE PROOF WITH THEM AT WIC AGENCY

10) EXPIRED DATE ON PROOF

11) UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF

12) PROOF WAS MISSING NAME 

13) PROOF WAS MISSING PHOTO

14) PROOF WAS MISSING ADDRESS

15) ADDRESS WAS NOT IN LOCAL AGENCY’S COVERAGE AREA

16) OTHER: SPECIFY ____________

6B. ASK: Did you see their point or do you feel they made a mistake?

1) SAW THEIR POINT 

2) MADE A MISTAKE 

6C. Did the WIC representative say anything about what you could do to change the decision, 

such as what items you could bring back to help yourself qualify for benefits?

1) YES

0) NO
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-D6

ASK Q6D – Q6F ONLY IF Q6A=3 (UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF)

6D. What item did you show them to prove your 

address? [IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM 

LISTED, ASK FOR THE MAIN ONE. ]

7a) DRIVER’S LICENSE 

7b) IDENTIFICATION CARD 

7c) CURRENT UTILITY/TAX BILL 

7c) CHECKBOOK 

7e) RENT RECEIPT, MORTGAGE RECEIPT OR 

LEASE 

7f) WRITTEN STATEMENT BY 3

RD PARTY

7g) OTHER ITEM: PLEASE SPECIFY

____________________________

7h) NOTHING [SKIP TO Q7]

7i) DON’T KNOW/ REMEMBER [SKIP TO Q7]

6E.Who issued this item? 

(CIRCLE ONE)

1) FEDERAL GOVT/AGENCY

2) STATE GOVT/AGENCY

3) LOCAL GOVT/AGENCY

4) PRIVATE COMPANY

5) COURT SYSTEM

6) FOREIGN GOVERNMENT

7) NON-PROFIT 

ORGANIZATION

8) RELIGIOUS 

ORGANIZATION

9) OTHER: SPECIFY 

___________________

10) DON’T 

KNOW/REMEMBER

6F. Did it 

have your 

name and

address on it?

1) YES

0) 

NO/DON’

T KNOW

7. Was a reason given related to household income?

1) YES 

0) NO/DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO Q8]

7A. What reason did they give? [IF MORE THAN ONE IS MENTIONED, ASK “WHICH WAS THE MAIN 

REASON GIVEN?”] [CIRCLE ONE ONLY.]

5) DID NOT HAVE INCOME PROOF WITH THEM AT THE WIC AGENCY

6) EXPIRED DATE ON PROOF

7) UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF

8) PROOF WAS MISSING NAME 

6) INCOME WAS TOO HIGH 

8) OTHER: SPECIFY ____________

7B. Did you see their point or do you feel they made a mistake?

1) SAW THEIR POINT 

2) MADE A MISTAKE 

7C. Did the WIC representative say anything about what you could do to change the decision, such 

as what items you could bring back to help yourself qualify for benefits? 

1) YES 

0) NO
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-D7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

7D. [IF Q7A=5 INCOME WAS TOO HIGH , SKIP TO Q8. ASK ALL OTHERS: ] When it turned out that 

you didn’t have the right document with you at the WIC office... 

a. Were you given a new appointment with WIC after they refused to 

certify you?

YES=1 NO=0

b. Did they ask you to describe your income? YES=1 NO=0

c. Did they give you a month of temporary WIC food benefits? YES=1 NO=0

d. Did they instruct you to come back with the proof in 30 days or so? YES=1 NO=0

ASK Q7D – Q7E ONLY IF Q7A=3 (UNACCEPTABLE TYPE OF PROOF)

7E. What proof or document did you show them to demonstrate 

income? [IF MORE THAN ONE ITEM LISTED, ASK FOR THE 

MAIN ONE.]

7F. Who issued this item? 

[CIRCLE ONE]

1) FEDERAL GOVT/AGENCY

2) STATE GOVT/AGENCY

3) LOCAL GOVT/AGENCY

4) PRIVATE COMPANY

5) COURT SYSTEM

6) FOREIGN GOVERNMENT

7) OTHER. SPECIFY ____

___________________

8) DON’T 

KNOW/REMEMBER

8a) MOST RECENT TAX RETURN

8b) W-2 FORM

8c) STATEMENT FROM BANK OR OTHER 

FINANCIAL INSTITUTION

8d) CHECK OR PAY STUB 

8e) SIGNED STATEMENT BY EMPLOYER 

8f) ELIGIBILITY LETTER SIGNED BY 

OFFICIAL STATE/LOCAL AGENCY

8g) STATEMENT OF BENEFITS (BY PUBLIC 

AGENCY OR COURT)

8h) WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM 

RELIABLE THIRD PARTY

 8i) FOOD STAMPS 

8q) OTHER ITEM: PLEASE

SPECIFY_________

8r) DON’T KNOW/ REMEMBER 

8s) NOTHING 

8j) MEDICAID

8k) TANF

8l) SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME 

(SSI)

8m) FOOD 

DISTRIBUTION 

PROGRAM ON INDIAN 

RESERVATIONS 

(FDPIR)

8n) CHILDREN’S 

MEDICAID

8o) FREE/REDUCEDMEAL SCHOOL 

LUNCH/ BREAKFAST 

PROGRAM

8p) LOW-INCOME 

ENERGY ASSISTANCE

8. Did you take any follow-up actions to see if you could get the decision changed?

1) YES 

0) NO [SKIP TO Q10]

9. What action did you take? [DON’T READ. CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. THEN SKIP TO Q11.]

A) WROTE LETTER OF COMPLAINT, PROTEST TO WIC 

B) ASKED TO SPEAK TO, OR DID SPEAK WITH, WIC SUPERVISOR

C) COMPLAINED TO AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL 

D) MADE A PHONE CALL AFTERWARDS, CHALLENGING THE DECISION

W) OTHER: SPECIFY: _________________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-D8

10. Why not?

1) TOO BUSY 

2) DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH WELL

3) IT WOULDN’T DO ANY GOOD 

8) OTHER: SPECIFY: _________________

I just have a couple more questions for categorization purposes only.

11. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

1) YES

0) NO

R) REFUSED

12. How would you characterize yourself in terms of race? [READ ALL. CIRCLE AS MANY AS 

APPLY] 

A) American Indian or Alaska Native

B) Asian American

C) Black or African American

D) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

E) White

R) REFUSED

13. What is the highest level of education you have attained? [READ UNTIL R. INDICATES 

ANSWER]

1) Elementary school (6 years or less of education)

2) Some high school (7 – 11 years of education)

3) High school diploma or GED

4) Some college 

5) Associate’s degree

6) Bachelor’s degree

7) Advanced degree 

8) REFUSED

14. What is your first language, that is, the language you speak at home?

1) English

2) Arabic

3) Cambodian

4) Cantonese/ Mandarin

5) Farsi

6) French/Creole

7) Fulani

8) Hindi

9) Hmong

10) Khmer

11) Korean

12) Laotian

13) Punjabi 

14) Russian

15) Somali

16) Spanish

17) Swahili

18) Tamil

19) Tagalog

20) Urdu

21) Vietnamese

22) Other: SPECIFY 

_________

Thank you so much for your help in answering this survey. Your feedback, combined with other 

confidential responses, will help improve the WIC program. Thanks again. Have a great day/evening.
Appendix II-E: Communications to 

States for Redemption Data 

and Data Issues

II-E1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Data Issues 

June 15, 2009

[STATE WIC DIRECTOR NAME]

[TITLE]

[ADDRESS1]

[ADDRESS2]

[CITY,STATE,ZIP]

Dear [MR/MS] [LASTNAME]:

As you may recall from previous letters, Macro International (now known as ICF Macro) is under 

contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) to conduct the 

second National Survey of WIC Participants. [YOURSTATE] was one of the states selected to take part 

in the WIC participant survey phase of the project. A brief history is attached, reviewing the study as it 

was first introduced to you in an April 2008 letter from the director of the Supplemental Food Programs 

Division.

The success of this national effort depends on your cooperation and we thank you in advance. In order to 

make this process as clean and efficient as possible, we need your help with the following tasks: 

Tasks: Deadline

1. Fill out the enclosed paper survey on your State’s policies and 

procedures and return in stamped envelope provided. (Attachment A. 

Estimated completion time: 66 minutes).

July 15, 2009

2. Submit participant-level data for all participants in the specified WIC 

clinics* who received food issuances at any point during April and May 

of 2009. (Attachment B has details of this request.)

July 15, 2009

3. Submit data for all applicants who were denied WIC benefits at the 

specified clinics during May 2009.

 If maintain this information at the State level, please fill out 

yellow postcard immediately and follow the instructions in 

Attachment C.

 If you do not keep this information at the State level, please let 

us know by returning the enclosed yellow postcard immediately 

so that we may request the individual clinics to collect this 

information in July.

(Postcard immediate)

July 15, 2009

Postcard immediate

4. Inform the local agencies and clinics chosen for the study* of the 

importance of their participation and cooperation with the study. 

Specifically, let them know they will be contacted by ICF Macro in the 

near future with details.

June 26, 2009

OMB# 0584-0484

Exp. 06/30/2012
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-E2

If you, or any of the staff working on this request, have any difficulties, questions or concerns regarding 

these requests, feel free to contact Walter Rives via e-mail at WICSurvey@mmail.macrointernational.com 

or by calling our toll-free WIC Survey hotline at 1-888-285-7976. 

Thank you for your continued support in making the Second National Survey of WIC Participants a 

success.

Sincerely,

Daniel Geller, Ph.D.

Project Director

ICF Macro 

11785 Beltsville Dr.

Calverton, MD 20705

* The specified clinics are as follows: 

1. [CLINIC1] - [LOCALAGENCY1]

2. [CLINIC2] - [LOCALAGENCY2] 

3. [CLINIC3] - [LOCALAGENCY3] 

4. [CLINIC4] - [LOCALAGENCY4]

5. [CLINIC5] - [LOCALAGENCY5]

6. [CLINIC6] - [LOCALAGENCY6]

7. [CLINIC7] - [LOCALAGENCY7]

8. [CLINIC8] - [LOCALAGENCY8]

9. [CLINIC9] - [LOCALAGENCY9]

10. [CLINIC10] - [LOCALAGENCY10]

11. [CLINIC11] - [LOCALAGENCY11]

12. [CLINIC12] - [LOCALAGENCY12]

13. [CLINIC13] - [LOCALAGENCY13]

14. [CLINIC14] - [LOCALAGENCY14]
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-E3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

ATTACHMENT B (Task 2) – Submit data for WIC participants who

received food issuances at any point during April and May of 2009

Please submit data by July 15, 2009.

To select the individuals for the WIC Participants survey, ICF Macro needs you to draw the following 

fields of information, listed on next page, for all food instruments issued (not redeemed) for April and 

May 2009 by the clinics specified as follows: 

1. [CLINIC1] - [LOCALAGENCY1]

2. [CLINIC2] - [LOCALAGENCY2] 

3. [CLINIC3] - [LOCALAGENCY3] 

4. [CLINIC4] - [LOCALAGENCY4]

5. [CLINIC5] - [LOCALAGENCY5]

6. [CLINIC6] - [LOCALAGENCY6]

7. [CLINIC7] - [LOCALAGENCY7]

8. [CLINIC8] - [LOCALAGENCY8]

9. [CLINIC9] - [LOCALAGENCY9]

10. [CLINIC10] - [LOCALAGENCY10]

11. [CLINIC11] - [LOCALAGENCY11]

12. [CLINIC12] - [LOCALAGENCY12]

13. [CLINIC13] - [LOCALAGENCY13]

14. [CLINIC14] - [LOCALAGENCY14]

Note that food instruments may have been distributed at an earlier date, for example, in March; what is 

important is that they were issued for and were valid for April and/or for May 2009.

 By sampling food instruments issued, we realize that WIC clients will appear more than once 

on the lists submitted.

 We would like separate lists for April and May, understanding of course that there will be 

substantial overlap of individuals.

 We would prefer the data in Excel format, although we will accept data submitted in Access, 

SAS or SPSS in a CSV (comma separated values) format. 

 We will need a list of your State agency’s definitions for certain alphanumeric data fields 

submitted, so that we understand the assigned values for each record.

 Please read the attached “Directions for FTP Transmittal of Data” document.

 Questions? Email Walter Rives at WICSurvey@mmail.macrointernational.com or call the toll-free 

WIC Survey hotline at 1-888-285-7976. 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-E4

Requested Data Fields - WIC Participants

FIELD 

NAME

Description Data Type 

Preferred

PANAME Name of WIC Local Agency Alphanumeric

CLNAME Name of WIC Clinic providing services Alphanumeric

CLID WIC Clinic ID (If Assigned) Alphanumeric

P02A Client’s WIC category (i.e., Pregnant woman, Postpartum woman, 

Breastfeeding woman, Infant, or Child)

Alphanumeric*

P0601 Type of food package issued Alphanumeric*

P0602 Month food package was issued Numeric (1-12)

P0803M First date voucher can be used (Month). Numeric

P0803D First date voucher can be used (Day). Numeric

P0803Y First date voucher can be used (Year). Numeric

P0804 Food package maximum dollar amount value as of date requested Numeric

P0805 Food package number assigned Numeric

P0806 Dollar amount of Food package redeemed as of date requested Numeric

P01A1 WIC client first name Alphanumeric

P01A2 WIC client last name Alphanumeric

P01ID Identification number assigned to individual Alphanumeric

P02FM WIC client date of birth-Month Numeric

P02FD WIC client date of birth-Day Numeric

P02FY WIC client date of birth-Year Numeric

P02G WIC client gender (if child or infant) 1=Male 2=Female

P02H Is client Hispanic or Latino? 1=Yes 0=No

P02R1 WIC client race? Alphanumeric

P01ID Identification number assigned to participant Alphanumeric

P02ID Family Economic Unit / Household ID number assigned to participant Alphanumeric

P01B WIC client street address – line 1 Alphanumeric

P01C WIC client street address – line 2 Alphanumeric

P01CA WIC client address – city Alphanumeric

P01CB WIC client address – State Alphanumeric

P01CC WIC client address – zip code Numeric

P01D WIC client primary phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx Alphanumeric

P01E WIC client second phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx Alphanumeric

P01F WIC client third phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx Alphanumeric

P02B11 First name of Parent/Guardian of WIC client (if infant or child) Alphanumeric

P02B12 Last name of Parent/Guardian of WIC client (if infant or child) Alphanumeric

P02B2 Parent/Guardian street address – line 1 Alphanumeric

P02B3 Parent/Guardian street address – line 2 Alphanumeric
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-E5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

FIELD 

NAME

Description Data Type 

Preferred

P02B3A Parent/Guardian city Alphanumeric

P02B3B Parent/Guardian state Alphanumeric

P02B3C Parent/Guardian zip Numeric

P02B4 Parent/Guardian – phone 1 xxx-xxx-xxxx Alphanumeric

P02B5 Parent/Guardian – phone 2 xxx-xxx-xxxx Alphanumeric

P02B6 Parent/Guardian – phone 3 xxx-xxx-xxxx Alphanumeric

P02AA What proof of Identification was provided? Alphanumeric*

P04C9 What proof of residency was provided? Alphanumeric*

P04AJ What proof of adjunctive eligibility was provided? Alphanumeric*

P04BJ What proof of income was provided? Alphanumeric*

P0608M Date of first (original) certification related to this child or pregnancy 

(Month)

Numeric

P0608D Date of first (original) certification related to this child or pregnancy (Day) Numeric

P0608Y Date of first (original) certification related to this child or pregnancy 

(Year)

Numeric

P0609M Date of most recent certification (Month). Should be < 6 months ago 

except for infants where it could be < 1 year ago

Numeric

P0609D Date of most recent certification (Day). Should be < 6 months ago except 

for infants where it could be < 1 year ago

Numeric

P0609Y Date of most recent certification (Year). Should be < 6 months ago except 

for infants where it could be < 1 year ago

Numeric

P02J OPTIONAL: Language spoken by WIC client, if known Alphanumeric*

P0610 Number of persons in family “economic unit” -- Total number of adult 

and child household members who are part of economic unit, including 

the WIC Participant.

Numeric

P0 Current status (participant, denial, termination) Alphanumeric*

PCH Is there a change in status in or after the month of food issuance? 1=Yes 0=No

PCHR1 Reason for status change, if applicable? Alphanumeric

PCHD1 Date of status change (Month) Numeric

PCHD2 Date of status change (Day) Numeric

PCHD3 Date of status change (Year) Numeric

* PLEASE PROVIDE EXPLANATORY LABELS SO WE UNDERSTAND THE CODES.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-E6

ATTACHMENT C (Task 3) – Submit data for WIC applicants who

Were denied eligibility during May 2009

Please submit data by July 15, 2009.

To select the individuals for the Denied Applicants survey, ICF Macro needs you to draw the following 

fields of information, listed on the next page, for all applicants who were denied WIC benefits during 

May 2009 OR June 2009, the latest month for which you have this information. We need the data for 

only the clinics specified as follows: 

1. [CLINIC1] - [LOCALAGENCY1]

2. [CLINIC2] - [LOCALAGENCY2] 

3. [CLINIC3] - [LOCALAGENCY3] 

4. [CLINIC4] - [LOCALAGENCY4]

5. [CLINIC5] - [LOCALAGENCY5]

6. [CLINIC6] - [LOCALAGENCY6]

7. [CLINIC7] - [LOCALAGENCY7]

8. [CLINIC8] - [LOCALAGENCY8]

9. [CLINIC9] - [LOCALAGENCY9]

10. [CLINIC10] - [LOCALAGENCY10]

11. [CLINIC11] - [LOCALAGENCY11]

12. [CLINIC12] - [LOCALAGENCY12]

13. [CLINIC13] - [LOCALAGENCY13]

14. [CLINIC14] - [LOCALAGENCY14]

Note that:

 We would prefer the data in Excel format, although we will accept data submitted in Access, 

SAS or SPSS in a CSV (comma separated values) format. 

 We will need a list of your State agency’s definitions for certain alphanumeric data fields 

submitted, so that we understand the assigned values for each record.

 Please read the attached “Directions for FTP Transmittal of Data” document.

 Questions? Email Walter Rives at WICSurvey@mmail.macrointernational.com or call the toll-free 

WIC Survey hotline at 1-888-285-7976. 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-E7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Requested Data Fields - Denied WIC Applicants

FIELD 

NAME

Description Data Type 

Preferred

PANAME Name of WIC Local Agency Alphanumeric

CLNAME Name of WIC Clinic providing services Alphanumeric

CLID WIC Clinic ID (If assigned) Alphanumeric

P01A1 WIC client first name Alphanumeric

P01A2 WIC client last name Alphanumeric

P02ID Family Economic Unit / Household ID number assigned to 

participant (if applicable)

Alphanumeric

P01B WIC client street address – line 1 Alphanumeric

P01C WIC client street address – line 2 Alphanumeric

P01CA WIC client address – city Alphanumeric

P01CB WIC client address – State Alphanumeric

P01CC WIC client address – zip code Numeric

P01D WIC client primary phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx Alphanumeric

P01E WIC client second phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx Alphanumeric

P01F WIC client third phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx Alphanumeric

P02A Client’s requested WIC category (if determined)

i.e., Pregnant woman, Postpartum woman, Breastfeeding 

woman, Infant, or Child

Alphanumeric*

D01L Was a letter of denied benefits sent out? 1=Yes 0=No 

D01R Reason for denied eligibility Alphanumeric*

D01D Date of denied eligibility Numeric

* PLEASE PROVIDE EXPLANATORY LABELS SO WE UNDERSTAND THE CODES.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-E8

Directions for FTP Data Transfer

We are requesting that the data be returned to ICF Macro in the form of an Excel spreadsheet54. ICF 

Macro understands that not every WIC administration collects and compiles data similarly, so we ask that 

you comment on any information you cannot access, or that may not be supplied to us in the form 

requested. 

Since these data will contain sensitive information (names, identifiers, etc.), the data needs to be sent in a 

secure manner. Please follow these instructions to ensure the secure transmission of data to ICF 

Macro:

The data files must be sent by secure FTP (file transport protocol) using a small software 

package that we have included on the enclosed CD. This software enables you to send 

your data file to ICF Macro’s secure server. The software does not require any installation 

and is very easy to use. You will be provided a username and password once you contact 

Walter Rives and notify ICF Macro of a probable date of data transfer. 

If you should encounter any difficulties with the FTP application:

The application included on this CD, to transmit the data to ICF Macro, requires the .Net Framework 

version 2.0. This is normally shipped as part of Windows Vista, and may not be installed on systems 

using Windows XP or earlier. If an error message is displayed when you first insert this CD, it may be 

because you do not have a recent enough version of this application installed on your computer.

If such an error message is displayed, the correct version of the .Net Framework should be installed from 

the CD provided by ICF Macro. The name of this file is DOTNETFX.EXE. To install it, navigate to this 

file on the CD and double-click it. After the installation is complete, try re-inserting the CD. If the 

application still does not work, call me at 1-888-285-7976.

Thank you for your continued support in making The Second national Survey of WIC Participants a 

success.

*IMPORTANT NOTE: FOR ALPHANUMERIC FIELDS WITH ASTERISK, PLEASE PROVIDE 

EXPLANATORY LABELS SO WE UNDERSTAND THE CODES. FOR EXAMPLE: 

Field Name Field Description Preferred Data 

Type

P0607 WIC women’s (or parent of the child/infant) employment status Alphanumeric*

*Codes Used: 1=Employed full time, 2= Employed part time, 3=Full time student, 4=Not working for pay, 5=On temporary 

leave, 6=Other

 

54 We prefer the Excel format but will accept Access, SAS or SPSS if provided in a CSV (comma separated values) format.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-E9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Texas Redemption Issues

Texas was the only state in the sample that had moved WIC redemption to an electronic benefit transfer 

(EBT) system.55 Initial tabulation found that for most cases in Texas, the redemption values were greater 

than maximum values permitted for the food package. The State agency explained that Texas redemption 

data were for the household while the maximum voucher value was for the sampled individual. The 

agency had no way of separating the individual redemption values from the household value because 

transactions were made on a common EBT card. Adjustments were made to estimate the sampled 

individual’s redemption values by removing the portion of redeemed values for non-sampled WIC 

participants in each household from the total household redeemed value. 

Using information from the In-person Interview, the SAS program identified household members other 

than the sampled participant and counted the numbers of household members who were WIC women (no 

specific program subgrouping), WIC infants, and WIC children, as well as the total number of WIC 

participants in the household (see Table F-1). 

Table F-1: Average Redemption Values by WIC Category

WIC Category Redemption 

Value ($)

Pregnant Woman 44.52

Breastfeeding Woman 43.83

Postpartum Woman 32.47

Infant 116.93

Child 39.87

As indicated, the bulk of difference occurred between infants (average redemption value of $116.93) and the 

rest of the categories (average redemption values ranged from $32.47 to $44.52). The adjustment applied the 

ratio of infant average redemption value over the rest of the participants to calculate the portion of redeemed 

values for the household WIC members other than the respondent. This portion was then removed from 

the total redemption value of the household. The calculation was done differently depending on the WIC 

program status of the respondent and the rest of the WIC household members, namely, whether the 

respondent was an infant, whether one or more other household members were infants, and whether there 

was no WIC infant in the household.

SAS code for the procedure is cited below (original: ip.sas):

/*Count household members of WIC participant by category*/

data ip2; set ip;

HHwicwoman =0; if p02a < 4 then hhwicwoman=1 ; *count R by 3 categories;

HHwicinfant=0; if p02a = 4 then hhwicinfant=1 ;

HHwicchild=0; if p02a = 5 then hhwicchild=1 ;

HH_n_kid=0;

array hhage(20) P0906N_01--P0906N_20;

array HHwic(20) P0907_01--P0907_20; *HH member is in WIC;

array HHsex(20) p0905_01-- p0905_20;

do w =1 to 20; *count total HH members by 3 categories;

 if 0 <= hhage(w) <=1 and hhwic(w) =1 then hhwicinfant=hhwicinfant+1;

 if 1 < hhage(w) < 6 and hhwic(w) =1 then hhwicchild=hhwicchild+1;

 if hhsex(w) =2 and hhage(w) > 6 and hhwic(w) =1 then hhwicwoman=hhwicwoman+1;

 

55 Other than New York, State agencies included no new food package cost in their redemption data. See also Section 3.5 Redemption Data Processing on 

ICF’s communication with New York State regarding its new food package inclusion.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-E10

 if hhage(w) <18 and hhage(w) ne . then HH_n_kid =HH_n_kid +1;

end;

if hhwicchild =. then hhwicchild =0;

HHwicN= hhwicwoman+ hhwicchild+ hhwicinfant;

/*Fix Texas data: redemption for family but maxval for sampled person*/

*Weight infant benefit by 2.9 (ratio of average benefit infant over others);

if state=21 then do;

 if p02a=4

 then rredeem=redeem-redeem*(((hhwicinfant-1)*2.9+(hhwicn-hhwicinfant))/

 ((hhwicinfant)*2.9+(hhwicn-hhwicinfant)));

 if p02a ne 4 and hhwicinfant>0

 then rredeem=redeem-redeem*((hhwicinfant*2.9+(hhwicn-hhwicinfant-1))/

 (hhwicinfant*2.9+(hhwicn-hhwicinfant)));

 if p02a ne 4 and hhwicinfant=0

 then rredeem=redeem-redeem*((hhwicn-1)/hhwicn);

 redeem= rredeem;

 drop rredeem;

end;

if redeem> maxval then redeem=redeem/hhwicn; 

if redeem> maxval then redeem=maxval;

diff =redeem-maxval;

proc sql; select state, p02a from tx where cat_err =1;

 select state, agency, clinic,partic,redeem

 from tx where p02a="5" and state=22;

 select state, p02a, redeem from tx where state<3;

quit;

Caution is called for regarding the adjusted Texas redemption data because of the adjustment made to the 

defected data. Note that State average estimates are not necessarily representative of the population.

SAS Code for North Carolina Redemption Data Imputation

options nocenter nofmterr ls=max ps=max;

libname red '/home/lharding/WIC/RED';

libname inh "/home/lharding/WIC/inhome";

libname tel "/home/lharding/WIC/paper";

data red;

 set red.idmatch;

 if r04m in(. 0) then r04m_a = p0802m;

 else r04m_a = r04m;

run;

data red1;

 set red;

 /* Some variable Recodes */

 

 if p0802m = 5 and r04m_a in(5 6 7 8 9); * subsetting to the months we requested;

 if r05fpr in(. 999.99 9999.99 99999.99 9999 999 99999 999999.99 999999) then redeemflg = 1;

 if redeemflg = 1 then redeemed = 0;

 else redeemed = r05fpr; * Redeemed Value;

 if r05fmv in(. 999.99 9999.99 99999.99 9999 999 99999 999999.99 999999) then maxflg = 1;

 if maxflg = 1 then maxvalue = 0;

 else maxvalue = r05fmv; * Max value redeemable;

 if r04y = 9 then r04y = 2009;

 if r04y in(0 .) then r04y = 2009;
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-E11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

 if p0802y = 9 then p0802y = 2009;

 if p0803y = 9 then p0803y = 2009;

 

 inred = 1; * In redemption file flag;

run; 

data paper ; *(keep = status state agency clinic partic);

 set tel.pwgt;

 inpap = 1; * In telephone weight flag;

run;

proc sort data = paper;

 by state agency clinic partic;

run;

proc freq data = paper;

 tables state/list missing;

run;

proc sort data = red1;

 by state agency clinic partic;

run;

data redall;

 merge paper (in=a) red1 (in=b);

 by state agency clinic partic;

 if a;

 

 if r04m_a = . then r04m_a = 5;

 if p0802m = . then mnthflg = 1;

 if p0802m = . then p0802m = 5;

 if inred = . then imputeflg = 1;

 else imputeflg = 0;

 

 if redeemed = 0 then zero = 1;

 else if redeemed = . then zero = 2;

 else zero = 0;

 /* State = 17 is North Carolina, they did not provided redemption data*/

 /* Setting values for NC to . because they will be imputed */

 

 if state = 17 then redeemed = .;

 else if zero = 2 then redeemed = 0;

 if state = 17 then maxvalue = .;

 else if maxvalue = . then maxvalue = 0;

 else maxvalue = maxvalue;

 

 /* Creating a Infant category indicator. Infants redemption values where */

 /* different from all other wic categories. */

 

 if wiccat = 4 then wcat2 = 1;

 else wcat2 = 0;

run;

data redx;

 set red;

 

 if r05fpr in(. 999.99 9999.99 99999.99 9999 999 99999 999999.99 999999) then redeemflg = 1;

 if redeemflg = 1 then redeemed = 0;

 else redeemed = r05fpr; 

 if r05fmv in(. 999.99 9999.99 99999.99 9999 999 99999 999999.99 999999) then maxflg = 1;

 if maxflg = 1 then maxvalue = 0;

 else maxvalue = r05fmv; 

 if r04y = 9 then r04y = 2009;

 if r04y in(0 .) then r04y = 2009;
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-E12

 if p0802y = 9 then p0802y = 2009;

 if p0803y = 9 then p0803y = 2009;

 

 inred = 1;

run; 

proc sort data = redx;

 by state agency clinic partic;

run;

data redallx;

 merge paper (in=a) redx (in=b);

 by state agency clinic partic;

 if a;

 

 if r04m_a = . then r04m_a = 5;

 if p0802m = . then mnthflg = 1;

 if p0802m = . then p0802m = 5;

 if inred = . then imputeflg = 1;

 else imputeflg = 0;

 

 if redeemed = 0 then zero = 1;

 else if redeemed = . then zero = 2;

 else zero = 0;

 if state = 17 then redeemed = .;

 else if zero = 2 then redeemed = 0;

 if state = 17 then maxvalue = .;

 else if maxvalue = . then maxvalue = 0;

 else maxvalue = maxvalue;

 

 if wiccat = 4 then wcat2 = 1;

 else wcat2 = 0;

run;

proc freq data = redall;

 tables inpap*inred/list missing;

run;

data lastredeem;

 set redallx;

 if redeemed > 0;

 id = state||agency||clinic||partic;

run;

proc sort data = lastredeem;

 by id r04m_a r04d r04y; 

run;
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-E13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

data lastredeem;

 set lastredeem;

 by id r04m_a r04d r04y;

 if last.id then last = 1;

run;

data lastredeem;

 set lastredeem;

 where last = 1;

 lredeem_m = r04m_a;

 lredeem_d = r04d;

 lredeem_y = r04y;

 drop r04m r04m_a r04d r04y;

run;

proc print data = lastredeem (obs = 100);

 var id lredeem_m lredeem_d lredeem_y redeemed last;

run;

proc freq data = lastredeem;

 tables state;

run;

proc sort data = redall; 

 by state agency clinic partic wiccat imputeflg p0802m;

run;

/* Create the sum of all redeemed amounts and maximum amount for each participant */

proc means data = redall sum noprint;

 by state agency clinic partic wiccat p0802m;

 id imputeflg r04y r04m_a p0802y p0803m p0803y;

 var redeemed maxvalue;

 output out=redall2 sum=redeem maxval;

run;

proc sort data = redall2;

 by state agency clinic partic p0802m;

run;

data test1;

 set redall2;

 id = state||agency||clinic||partic;

run;

proc sort data = test1;

 by id ;

run;

data test;

 set test1;

 by id r04m_a ;

 if first.id then flg1 = 1;

run;

proc freq data = test;

 tables flg1 flg1*r04m_a/list missing;

run;

proc print data = test;

 where r04m_a = .;

 var state agency clinic partic flg1 redeem maxval wiccat;

run;

* endsas;

/* North Carolina Imputation */

/* Subset to NC and neighboring States */

data redall3;

 set redall2;
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-E14

 where state in(1 5 6 17 20);

run;

proc sort data = redall3; 

 by wiccat;

run;

proc mi data = redall3

out = in_imp 

nimpute = 5 

seed = 145

 minimum = 0 ;* noprint;

 

 by wiccat;

 mcmc nbiter=50 niter=10;

 var state agency clinic redeem maxval;

run;

proc sort data = in_imp;

 by state agency clinic partic redeem;

run;

proc print data = in_imp (obs=20);

 where imputeflg = 1;

 var _imputation_ imputeflg state agency clinic partic wiccat r04m_a redeem maxval;

run;

data redemption;

 set redall2;

 where p0802m = 5 and state ne 17;

 inredfile = 1;

run;

proc sort data = redemption;

 by state agency clinic partic;

run;

proc sort data = lastredeem;

 by state agency clinic partic;

run;

data redemption;

 merge redemption (in=a) lastredeem (in=b);

 by state agency clinic partic;

 if a;

run;

proc contents data = redemption;

run;

proc freq data = redemption;

 tables last state*last

/list missing;

run;

proc print data = redemption;

 where last = .;

 var state agency clinic partic last redeem maxval;

run;

proc freq data = redemption;

 tables lredeem_m*state

/list missing;

run;
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-E15 National Survey of WIC Participants II

proc freq data = redemption;

 tables state p0802m p0802m*r04m_a r04m_a

/list missing;

run;

/* CHECKS */

data check;

 merge redemption (in=a) paper (in=b);

 by state agency clinic partic;

run;

proc freq data = check;

 tables inredfile inredfile*state/list missing;

run;

data check2;

 merge check (in=a) redall2 (in=b);

 by state agency clinic partic;

 if a and inredfile = .;

run;

proc freq data = check2;

 tables r04m_a;

run;

data ncredemption;

 set in_imp;

 where state = 17;

run;

proc sort data = ncredemption;

 by state agency clinic partic wiccat;

run;

proc sort data = ncredemption;

 by wiccat;

run;

proc univariate data = ncredemption;

 by wiccat;

 var redeem maxval;

run;

proc print data = ncredemption;

run;

data red.redemption (keep = imputeflg state agency clinic partic r04m_a r04y p0802m p0802y p0803m p0803y lredeem_m lredeem_d lredeem_y redeem 

maxval wiccat);

 set redemption;

run;

data red.ncredemption (keep = _imputation_ imputeflg state agency clinic partic r04m_a r04y p0802m p0802y p0803m p0803y lredeem_m lredeem_d 

lredeem_y redeem wiccat maxval);

 set ncredemption;

run;

ENDSAS;

Appendix II-F: Communications 

to States for Denials

II-F1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

July 22, 2009

[NAME OF CLINIC DIRECTOR]

[TITLE]

[AGENCY]

[ADDRESS]

[CITY], [STATE], [ZIPCODE]

You may have recently heard from your Local WIC Agency or State WIC Director that your clinic was 

randomly selected to participate in the Second National Survey of WIC Participants along with many 

others from throughout the country. We will not require much from your clinic; however, what this 

means is that between the months of September and December of 2009, our organization, ICF Macro, will 

be conducting a telephone survey with approximately 15 of your WIC participants and a smaller number 

of Denied Applicants and Denied Recertificants. About half of the WIC participants will also be asked to 

take part in an In-person survey for which they will be offered $20. The information collected is 

confidential and will be used to improve administration of and services offered by WIC. It will not impact 

participants’ WIC benefit levels.

The survey is being administered on behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service. ICF Macro is already working with your State agency to obtain data on participants, 

from which we will select a random sample of people for interview about their experiences with the 

certification, re-certification, denial, or termination processes and food instrument selection, preferences 

and usage. 

To help us in the success of this survey we request the help of WIC clinic staff in two ways:

1. Using the enclosed “Denials” log, we need you to keep a record of applicants who apply for WIC 

but are determined ineligible -- so-called “Denied” Applicants -- during the 30-day period from 

July 30, 2009 to August 28, 2009.

2. Please help us inform participants who might be selected for interview about the study using the 

materials enclosed. And reassure WIC clients that their answers will be kept confidential, be 

grouped with others, and not affect their benefits.

Denied Applicant Log

IMPORTANT – PREPARE FOR THIS IMMEDIATELY

The only method of capturing information on Denied Applicants is through documentation at the local 

level. Please use the attached Denials Log to provide the information requested for denied applicants. 

The period of documenting denials must occur every day your clinic is open from July 30, 2009 through 

August 28, 2009. For the purposes of this study, a Denied Applicant is a person who has applied for WIC 

and been deemed ineligible but does not include Denied Recertificants (that is, people who were denied 

when the reapplied for benefits since we are researching them separately.)

Return the completed log in the postage-paid envelope provided as soon as possible after August 28. (You 

should retain a photocopy as a record of your compliance with the request.)
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-F2

Note: Due to data integrity and privacy concerns, the DENIED APPLICANTS information should be 

collected and recorded legibly by WIC staff persons. Individuals who apply for benefits should not see or 

record information on the log. 

Posters and Information about the Interviews

Enclosed, you will find materials that should help warn WIC participants that they might be contacted and 

will give them some information and reassurance about the interviews. Included are:

 

- Posters to be displayed in highly visible areas at the clinic site.

- FAQ sheets to be provided to clinic staff about the purpose and importance of the study. This will help staff answer 

questions that may arise.

- Half-page flyers for distribution to WIC participants. You may make copies as needed for distribution to individuals 

who request more information.

Please contact your WIC Local Agency administration if you have any questions or concerns regarding 

The Second National Survey of WIC Participants. They have been briefed about the study. ICF Macro 

support staff are also available by email at: WICSurvey@mmail.macrointernational.com or at the WIC 

Survey toll free hotline at 

1-888-285-7976.

Thank you for your efforts in making The Second National Survey of WIC Participants a success, and in 

turn, improving the quality of future WIC programs and services. 

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Geller, PhD.

Project Director
Appendix II-G: Non-response Analysis

II-G1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Non-response Analysis

Table G-1 compares 1,188 In-person survey respondents56 and 275 nonrespondents on telephone and 

administrative variables, without sample weighting. Chi-square tests were used to assess the statistical 

significance of these differences. This analysis informed the sample re-weighting to remedy potential 

nonresponse bias for the In-person survey. Three variables were found to be significantly different 

between the respondents and nonrespondents:

 Participation in SNAP (formerly Food Stamp) program (variable name P0532_1, Chi-square = 12.61, p<.0001)—this 

was the key concern that motivated the sampling reweighting and nonresponse analysis (See Appendix II-G: 

Sampling and Weighting Methodology).

 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (variable name P0532_4, Chi-square = 5.58, p=.019).

 Commodity Supplemental Food Program (variable name P0532_9, Chi-square = 6.42, p=.012). 

Table G-2 further shows the association between SNAP participation and the key variables used in the 

improper payment analysis, without sample weighting. As expected, substantial differences were found 

between the SNAP participants and nonparticipants. Sample re-weighting thus was justified to remedy the 

bias and the final improper payment estimation was based on the re-weighted sample. 

Table G-3 presents a comparison of, by WIC category, participants in the in-person interview against 

participants in the telephone interview but not in the in-home interview, with sample weighting. The 

weighted frequency and percentage distribution are statistically equivalent as evidenced by the point 

estimates and standard errors. 

Table G-1 In-person Survey Respondents vs. Non-respondents (Those Who Refused to Participate in Inperson Survey): Unweighted Frequencies and Column Percentages

WAS ASKED FOR IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

IN HOME INTERVIEW

NO 1075 275 1350

100.0% 18.8% 53.2%

YES 0 1188 1188

.0% 81.2% 46.8%

Total

1075 1463 2538

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

56 There were 22 cases that did not complete the telephone interview but were asked and participated in the in-person interview. They were 

included in the improper payment analysis-- the WIC categories are shown below:

Pregnant 4

Breastfeeding 12

Postpartum 1

Infants 3

Children 2

Total 22
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-G2

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0507 Thinking about the WIC clinic that you are familiar with, how 

satisfied are you with the people that work there and the services they 

provide?

Neutral, Not 

Satisfied 7.3% 7.1% 7.1%

Satisfied 92.7% 92.9% 92.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .01; p = .91, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0507A Thinking about the WIC clinic's location and building 

facility, would you say you are 

Neutral, Not 

Satisfied 12.7% 10.0% 10.5%

Satisfied 87.3% 90.0% 89.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 1.72; p = .19, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_01 How would you rate the: Customer friendliness 

of the WIC staff 

Not Good 4.4% 5.1% 5.0%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 95.6% 94.9% 95.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .28; p = .60, non-significant.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-G3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_02 How would you rate the: Quality of service 

you get 

Not Good 2.2% 4.5% 4.1%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 97.8% 95.5% 95.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 3.17; p = .08, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_03 How would you rate the: Helpfulness of the 

staff 

Not Good 4.0% 4.7% 4.6%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 96.0% 95.3% 95.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .26; p = .61, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_04 How would you rate the: Staff's ability to speak 

your language 

Not Good 5.1% 4.0% 4.2%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 94.9% 96.0% 95.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .61; p = .44, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_05 How would you rate the: Safety of the clinic's 

location 

Not Good 4.0% 5.6% 5.3%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 96.0% 94.4% 94.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 1.08; p = .30, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_06 How would you rate the: Convenience of the 

clinic's location for you 

Not Good 4.0% 6.9% 6.4%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 96.0% 93.1% 93.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 3.16; p = .08, non-significant.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-G4

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_07 How would you rate the: Convenience of its 

operating hours 

Not Good 5.8% 5.9% 5.9%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 94.2% 94.1% 94.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .011; p = .96, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_08 How would you rate the: Amount of time you must 

wait until you are seen by WIC staff

Not Good 19.3% 18.1% 18.3%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 80.7% 81.9% 81.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .21; p = .65, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_09 How would you rate the: Size and space of the 

waiting area 

Not Good 16.7% 18.4% 18.0%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 83.3% 81.6% 82.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .40; p = .53, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_10 How would you rate the: Activities provided to 

occupy children while you wait 

Not Good 32.4% 28.5% 29.3%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 67.6% 71.5% 70.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 1.58; p = .21, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_11 How would you rate the: Way they handle 

paperwork for certification 

Not Good 2.5% 5.1% 4.6%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 97.5% 94.9% 95.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 3.21; p = .07, non-significant.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-G5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0508_12 How would you rate the: How they deliver 

your food 

Not Good 2.5% 5.1% 4.6%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 97.5% 94.9% 95.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 3.22; p = .07, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0509_1 How would you rate the food benefits for Providing 

the right quantity of food?

Not Good 7.6% 10.7% 10.1%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 92.4% 89.3% 89.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 2.29; p = .13, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

0 1

P0509_2 How would you rate the food benefits for Offering 

foods that you like to eat? 

Not Good 9.5% 11.3% 10.9%

Excellent, Very Good, 

Good 90.5% 88.7% 89.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .76; p = .38, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0509_3 How would you rate the food benefits for Offering food 

choices in sizes and brands that you can find on the shelf? 

Not Good 13.5% 11.8% 12.1%

Excellent, Very 

Good, Good 86.5% 88.2% 87.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .59; p = .44, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0518 have you attended any group education sessions that were 

recommended to you by the WIC staff? 

NO 64.0% 60.3% 61.0%

YES 36.0% 39.7% 39.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 1.31; p = .25, non-significant.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-G6

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0524 How much one-on-one nutrition counseling have you received in 

person for this most recent pregnancy/baby? 

None at all 40.0% 34.3% 35.4%

One session 

or more

60.0% 65.7% 64.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 3.12; p = .08, non-significant.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

P0532_1 Food Stamp program? NO 60.4% 48.5% 50.7%

YES 39.6% 51.5% 49.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 12.61, p<.0001.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

P0532_2 Free or reduced price School Lunch or Breakfast program? NO 74.5% 70.0% 70.9%

YES 25.5% 30.0% 29.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 2.20; p = .14, non-significant.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

P0532_3 Summer Food Service program, for kids when not in school? NO 95.6% 93.9% 94.2%

YES 4.4% 6.1% 5.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 1.30; p = .26, non-significant.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

P0532_4 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)? NO 98.9% 99.8% 99.7%

YES 1.1% .2% .3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 5.58, p=.019.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-G7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

P0532_5 Temporary Emergency Food Assistance program? NO 97.8% 98.1% 98.0%

YES 2.2% 1.9% 2.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .07; p = .79, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0532_6 Child and Adult Care Food program, which provides free lunches for 

children at day care centers? 

NO 96.4% 96.9% 96.8%

YES 3.6% 3.1% 3.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .20; p = .66, non-significant.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

P0532_7 Local/community food bank or pantry? NO 94.5% 93.5% 93.7%

YES 5.5% 6.5% 6.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .40; p = .53, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0532_8 Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food packets 

that are distributed through State and local agencies?

NO 98.9% 98.8% 98.8%

YES 1.1% 1.2% 1.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = .02; p = .90, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

P0532_9 Have you ever participated in Commodity Supplemental Food 

Program in the past? 

NO 98.2% 99.6% 99.3%

YES 1.8% .4% .7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 6.42, p=.012.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

P0533 Food consumed during last 12 months Have enough to eat 84.0% 79.9% 80.7%

do not have enough to eat 16.0% 20.1% 19.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 2.43; p = .12, non-significant.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-G8

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

Months since recent certification

.00 11.6% 15.5% 14.8%

1.00 18.9% 18.6% 18.7%

2.00 18.9% 15.3% 16.0%

3.00 9.8% 12.2% 11.8%

4.00 10.9% 10.5% 10.6%

5.00 8.4% 8.4% 8.4%

6.00 5.1% 3.7% 4.0%

7.00 16.4% 15.7% 15.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 6.30; p = .50, non-significant.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

ETHNICITY

(not 

imputed)

White 24.0% 26.1% 25.7%

Black of African American 15.6% 13.6% 14.0%

Asian American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native 

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 8.4% 8.9% 8.8%

Other 10.2% 5.4% 6.3%

Hispanic 41.8% 46.0% 45.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square =10.10, p=.04.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

ETHNICITY (imputed and collapsed)

White 34.2% 34.8% 34.7%

Black of African American 18.9% 19.5% 19.4%

Hispanic 46.9% 45.6% 45.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square =.15; p = .93, non-significant.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

P02A

Pregnant 21.8% 20.8% 21.0%

Breastfeeding 16.4% 20.7% 19.9%

Postpartum 18.2% 18.8% 18.7%

Infant (<12 months) 20.7% 18.8% 19.1%

Child (1 - < 5 years) 22.9% 21.0% 21.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 3.12; p = .54, non-significant.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-G9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

P02G GENDER MALE 25.1% 20.5% 21.3%

FEMALE 74.9% 79.5% 78.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 2.86; p = .09, non-significant.

IN HOME 

INTERVIEW Total

NO YES

Family Size

1.00 3.6% 2.4% 2.6%

2.00 19.6% 19.1% 19.2%

3.00 31.6% 30.7% 30.9%

4.00 18.9% 21.3% 20.8%

5.00 26.2% 26.5% 26.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square = 2.12; p = .71, non-significant.

IN HOME INTERVIEW

Total

NO YES

MSA NO 21.7% 23.1% 22.4%

YES 78.3% 76.9% 77.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note: Chi-square =4 .61; p = .64, non-significant.
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-G10

Table G-2 Variables differentiated by SNAP Participation Status: Percentages and Chi square tests

Table of P0812 by SNAP

P0812(Proof shown) SNAP(receive SNAP)

No Yes Total

Yes, can show documents (for any qualifying 

program)

63.6 83.79

Yes, but no adequate documentation 4.13 2.93

No, did not qualify based on those programs 32.27 13.28

Total 533 580 1113

Frequency Missing = 97

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 2 61.2031 <.0001

Table of P0812F by SNAP

P0812F(Document shown) SNAP(receive SNAP)

0 1 Total

Certification card 65.98 49.08

Award letter 7.69 19.1

Active program voucher 7.69 11.5

SNAP/Food Stamp EBT card 3.85 12.94

Other 14.79 7.39

Total 338 487 825

Frequency Missing = 385

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 4 59.4553 <.0001

Table of WICCAT by SNAP

WIC Category SNAP(receive SNAP)

No Yes Total

Pregnant 22.24 19.24

Breastfeeding 25.69 17.41

Postpartum 17.07 19.4

Infant 19.66 17.74

Child 15.34 26.2

Total 580 603 1183
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-G11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Frequency Missing = 27

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 4 28.8726 <.0001

N of HH infants in WIC SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

0 1 Total

0 32.26 37.52

1 64.18 56.84

2 3.57 4.83

3 0 0.32

4 0 0.48

Total 589 621 1210

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 4 10.9758 <.05

N of HH children in WIC SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

0 1 Total

0 74.19 53.3

1 22.92 35.59

2 2.72 9.34

3 0.17 1.77

Total 589 621 1210

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 3 66.7771 <.0001

N of HH member in WIC SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

0 1 Total

1 34.8 27.38

2 51.44 47.5

3 10.19 16.43

4 2.89 6.44

5 0.68 1.29

6 0 0.81

7 0 0.16

Total 589 621 1210

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 6 30.0514 <.0001
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-G12

N of income sources SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

0 1 Total

0 60.44 71.66

1 29.88 23.19

2 7.64 4.19

3 1.53 0.64

4 0.17 0.16

5 0.17 0.16

37 0.17 0

Total 589 621 1210

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 6 20.2644 0.0025

Adjunct verified SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

0 1 Total

Not verified 72.84 51.37

Verified 27.16 48.63

Total 589 621 1210

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 1 59.0165 <.0001

P0549(Hispanic) SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

0 1 Total

Others 54.61 34.73

Hispanic 45.39 65.27

Total 586 619 1205

Frequency Missing = 5

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 1 48.1637 <.0001

Table of TRACE by SNAP

TRACE(Self-identified race) SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

0 1 Total

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.52 1.47

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.08 2.45

African American 13.89 26.63

White 44.1 43.79

Multiracial 2.08 1.14

Other 37.33 24.51
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

II-G13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Total 576 612 1188

Frequency Missing = 22

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 5 43.8991 <.0001

Table of P0501 by SNAP

P0501(First time SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

received benefits) 0 1 Total

1 65.53 45.09

2 34.47 54.91

Total 589 621 1210

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 1 51.0677 <.0001

Table of p0532 by SNAP

p0532(Participate SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

in food prms) 0 1 Total

0 75.35 0

1 24.65 0

2 0 100

Total 576 612 1188

Frequency Missing = 22

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 2 1188 <.0001

Table of eligible_ST2 by SNAP

eligible_ST2(Final SNAP(receive 

SNAP)

eligible status STATE

GUIDE) 0 1 Total

0 4.27 1.29

1 95.73 98.71

Total 586 618 1204

Frequency Missing = 6

Statistic DF Value Prob

Chi-Square 1 9.9645 0.0016
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II II-G14

Table G-3 Weighted numbers and percentage distributions by WIC categories: Subsamples that 

participated in both telephone and in-person interview vs. participants only in telephone interview:

Sample 

components

WIC 

category Unweighted n Weighted1n Weighted1 %

Std Err o 

weighted1 %

In telephone 

interview but 

not in inperson 

interview Pregnant 266 488,788 10.30 0.39

Breastfeeding 261 299,075 6.30 0.24

Postpartum 266 341,510 7.20 0.25

Infant 269 1,162,180 24.49 0.66

Child 288 2,454,406 51.72 0.93

Total 1350 4,745,959 100.00

In both 

interviews Pregnant 251 489,087 10.95 0.38

Breastfeeding 258 311,365 6.97 0.27

Postpartum 224 295,577 6.62 0.24

Infant 226 1,072,430 24.00 0.66

Child 251 2,299,322 51.46 0.97

Total 1210 4,467,781 100.00

Total Pregnant 517 977,875 10.61 0.10

Breastfeeding 519 610,440 6.63 0.09

Postpartum 490 637,086 6.91 0.03

Infant 495 2,234,610 24.25 0.13

Child 539 4,753,728 51.59 0.17

Total 2560 9,213,739 100.00

Pearson ChiSquare 1.06

Pr > ChiSq 0.63

1

Statistics are weighted by the Telephone Survey weights.
Appendix II-H: Contending Reasons 

against Denial and 

Termination/Discontinuation

II-H1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Verbatim Responses Contending Agencies’ Denial of WIC Eligibility: Denial 

Analysis

I hadn’t worked for 12 weeks, but my income was calculated anyway.

My income had changed; I was making less.

Many friends told me I would qualify.

It isn’t fair. It looks like I’m making more than I am.

I’m still in need of assistance.

People lie about their personal situations. Sometimes we had, and sometimes we didn’t.

Someone else told me I was eligible.

The doctor and the hospital said I was entitled because I was pregnant.

She added more than I was making.

They didn’t take into consideration how my finances worked.

I didn’t understand. I’m not working and they counted my 6 weeks of short-term disability.

My income has been cut by 15 percent.

My husband was only making half of what he used to.

Some people make more than my husband, and they’re receiving WIC.

Appendix III-A: State Agencies Survey

III-A1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Questionnaire contains data item identifications (variable names) for each question in order to facilitate 

secondary data analysis.

State WIC Agency Survey 

Thank you for responding to the FNS’ second National Survey of WIC Participants, administered by 

ICF Macro. Please refer to the accompanying cover letter for full details of the research effort. If you 

have any questions, please contact Walter Rives at 1-888-285-7976 or email 

WICSurvey@mmail.macrointernational.com.

This survey—along with surveys of local agencies and participants—is designed to provide FNS with 

additional information on policies and program operations, beyond those available from existing program 

sources. For your convenience, the survey is organized by topic.

Please return the survey in the postage-paid envelope provided.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 66 minutes per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Office of Research and Analysis, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302 

ATTN: PRA (0584-0484). 

STATE: __________________________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-A2

STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE TO LOCAL WIC AGENCIES

1. Which programs establish adjunctive or other automatic State eligibility for a WIC applicant in your 

State? (CHECK OFF ALL PROGRAMS THAT ESTABLISH ELIGIBILITY IN THE LEFT HAND COLUMN. 

PROGRAMS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY § 246.7 WIC PROGRAM REGULATIONS ARE ALREADY CHECKED 

FOR YOU.)

1A. For each item checked in Question 1, please indicate what, if any proofs, the State requires

local agencies to collect. (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

No specific 

requirements are 

set

Proof of 

certification (e.g. 

card)

Award letter Active program 

voucher

Other: PLEASE 

SPECIFY

 Food Stamps Q1_FS Q1A_FSa Q1A_FSb Q1A_FSc Q1A_FSd Q1A_FSe

Q1A_FS_txt

 Medicaid Q1_MD Q1A_MDa Q1A_MDb Q1A_MDc Q1A_MDd Q1A_MDe

Q1A_MD_txt

 TANF Q1_TF Q1A_TFa Q1A_TFb Q1A_TFc Q1A_TFd Q1A_TFe

Q1A_TF_txt

 Children’s Medicaid Q1_CM Q1A_CMa Q1A_CMb Q1A_CMc Q1A_CMd Q1A_CMe

Q1A_CM_txt

 Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI)

Q1_SS Q1A_SSa Q1A_SSb Q1A_SSc Q1A_SSd Q1A_SSe

Q1A_SS_txt

 Free and Reduced-Meal 

School Lunch/Breakfast 

Program

Q1_FR Q1A_FRa Q1A_FRb Q1A_FRc Q1A_FRd Q1A_FRe

Q1A_FR_txt

 Food Distribution Program 

on Indian Reservations 

(FDPIR)

Q1_FD Q1A_FDa Q1A_FDb Q1A_FDc Q1A_FDd Q1A_FDe

Q1A_FD_txt

 Low-Income Energy 

Assistance 

Q1_EA Q1A_EAa Q1A_EAb Q1A_EAc Q1A_EAd Q1A_EAe

Q1A_EA_txt

 Other: PLEASE SPECIFY 

____________________

Q1_O1

Q1_O1_txt

Q1A_O1a Q1A_O1b Q1A_O1c Q1A_O1d Q1A_O1e

Q1A_O1_txt

 Other: PLEASE SPECIFY 

___________________

Q1_O2

Q1_O2_txt

Q1A_O2a Q1A_O2b Q1A_O2c Q1A_O2d Q1A_O2e

Q1A_O2_txt

2. Do any of the programs checked above, that establish adjunctive or other automatic State eligibility, 

allow people to participate whose income may exceed the normal “185% of the federal poverty 

income” standard that is used to establish income eligibility?

Q2

 Yes 

 No (SKIP TO QUESTION 3)






Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-A3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

2A. Which ones? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Food Stamps Q2A_FS  Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Q2A_SS

 Medicaid Q2A_MD  Free and Reduced-Meal School Lunch/Breakfast Program 

Q2A_FR

 TANF Q2A_TF  Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) 

Q2A_FD

 Children’s Medicaid 

Q2A_CM

 Low-Income Energy Assistance Q2A_EA

 Other: Q2A_O PLEASE SPECIFY _____________________________ Q2A_O_txt

3. When adjunctive/automatic eligibility is NOT established, what sources of income does your State 

require local agencies to count when determining the income eligibility of an applicant? (CHECK 

ALL THAT APPLY)

 Wages, salary, fees 

Q3_WS

 Social Security 

Q3_SS  Energy assistance Q3_EA

 Tips and bonuses 

Q3_TB

 Private pension 

Q3_PP  Rental assistance Q3_RA

 Self employment 

Q3_SE

 Disability pension 

Q3_DP

 Net rental income 

Q3_Nre

 Unemployment 

compensation 

Q3_UC

 Medical assistance 

(any) Q3_MA

 Dividends or interest from 

savings Q3_DI

 Workers 

compensation 

Q3_WC

 SSI – Fed 

government Q3_SSF

 Regular contributions 

from persons not in 

household Q3_RC

 Child support 

Q3_CS

 SSI—State issued 

Q3_SSS  Income from trusts Q3_IT

 Commissions 

Q3_CM

 Income from estates 

Q3_IE  Welfare Q3_WF

 Public assistance 

Q3_PA

 Net royalties 

Q3_Nro  Other: Q3_O

 Alimony Q3_AL  Other cash income 

Q3_OC SPECIFY ___ Q3_O_txt

4. In determining the income of an applicant where unemployment is not an issue, does the State 

instruct local agencies to use income from the last year, to use current income, or is it left up to the 

judgment of the local agencies? 

Q4

 Income from last year used

 Current income used

 Left to local agencies to decide

 Other: PLEASE SPECIFY _______________________ Q4_O_txt
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-A4

5. What types of proof are acceptable in your State to verify the sources of income for WIC applicants? 

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 

 Most recent tax return Q5tax

 Check or pay stubs Q5chk

 Signed statement by employer Q5ss

 Statement of benefits by public agency or court Q5sob

 Statement of benefits for child support and alimony Q5sob2

 Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) for military pay Q5leave

 Unemployment letter or notice letter signed by official State/local agency attesting to 

client’s low income Q5unemploy

 Written statement from reliable third party Q5writ

 Statement from bank or other financial institution savings (e.g. direct deposit) Q5bank

 Accounting records (for self-employed individuals) Q5acctg

 Scholarship letter (e.g. for students) Q5schol

 Other: Q5_O PLEASE SPECIFY ______________ Q5_O_txt 

5A. How does the State determine “most recent” income? (Be as specific as possible, or attach 

supporting documentation) 

Q5A_txt

____________________________________________

6. Does the State use or grant discretion to local agencies regarding income determination?

Q6

 No 

 Yes, discretion is given

6A. State or local income guidelines used for WIC are adopted from which of the following services? 

Q6A

 Free and Reduced Health Care (e.g. Maternal Health Care, Pediatric Health Care)

_____% Federal Poverty Level 

 Free and Reduced Priced School Meals

_____% Federal Poverty Level 

 Other (Specify: Provide supporting policy statements)__ Q6A_O_txt

% Federal Poverty Level Q6A_A

7. For applicants not likely to have any proof of income--e.g., homeless, or migrant farm worker who 

works for cash, does the State allow self-declaration of income with applicants signed statement of 

why documentation cannot be provided?

Q7

 Yes 

 No
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-A5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

8. When an infant turns 1 year, does the 6 months certification period remain valid, or does the infant 

become categorically ineligible and need to again be certified based on criteria used for children?

Q8

 The 6 month certification period remains valid 

 The infant becomes categorically ineligible and needs to again be certified based on 

criteria used for children

 Neither. There is no State policy. Discretion is given to local agencies

9. Does your State use a data month or calendar month for issuance cycles?

Q9

 Calendar month(benefits continue until the end of the month) 

 Data month (benefits continue until next 30-day period of eligibility ends)

10. For temporary low-income persons (e.g. strikers), does the State allow the full certification period or 

shorten the certification period based on anticipated income increase?

Q10

 Allows full certification period 

 Shortens certification period based on anticipated income increase

11. What other discretion, if any, does the State use or grant to local agencies regarding certification 

periods?

Q11

 No additional discretion is given 

 Other discretion is given: (Specify) Q11_O_txt

_________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

12. What additional guidelines, if any, are given by the State to local agencies to help them determine the 

WIC economic/family unit above and beyond the national WIC program definition which defines it 

as “a group of related or nonrelated individuals who are living together?” 

Q12

 No additional discretion is given 

 The following discretion is given: (PROVIDE SUPPORTING POLICY 

STATEMENTS AS APPROPRIATE.) Q12_O_txt

_________________________________________________________________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-A6

13. In determining household income, does the State exclude any of the following military housing 

allowances? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) for off-base housing and privatization 

housing in the U.S. Q13_BAH

 Family Separation Housing (FSH) provided to military personnel for overseas 

housing. Q13_FSH

 Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) provided to military personnel living 

overseas. Q13_OHA

 Overseas Continental U.S. (OCONUS) cost of living allowance (COLA) 

provided to active duty uniformed service members in Hawaii, Alaska, and 

Guam. Q13_OCON

14. Regarding Children in Temporary Care of Friends/Relatives, does the State: (CHOOSE ONE)

Q14

 Count absent parents and children as one unit.

 Count the children as a separate unit in which case they should have separate 

income, e.g., child allotment.

 Count the children as part of the economic unit of the person with whom they 

are residing.

15. What types of identification are acceptable in your State to verify the residency of a WIC applicant? 

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Driver’s license Q15_DL

 Current utility/tax bill with address on it Q15_UB

 Written statement from reliable third party Q15_WS

 Checkbook Q15_CK

 Signed statement by applicant that he/she is victim of loss or disaster, or is homeless, a 

migrant person, or military personnel. Q15_ST

 Rent receipt, mortgage receipt or lease Q15_RR

 Other: Q15_O1 PLEASE SPECIFY ________________Q15_O1_txt

 Other: Q15_O2 PLEASE SPECIFY __________________Q15_O2_txt

 Other: Q15_O3 PLEASE SPECIFY __________________Q15_O3_txt

 Other: Q15_O4 PLEASE SPECIFY __________________Q15_O4_txt

 Other: Q15_O5 PLEASE SPECIFY __________________Q15_O5_txt

16. Does the State require applicants to reside within the State to be eligible for WIC?

Q16

 Yes 

 No
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-A7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

17. Do local agencies (i.e. the umbrella agencies above the local clinics) have non-overlapping 

jurisdictions with one another? (For example, county boundaries)

Q17

 Yes

 No

18. Check the statement that best describes your residency requirements for WIC participants:

Q18

 WIC participants must reside within the boundary of the WIC local clinic where she/he resides.

 WIC participants must reside within the boundary of the WIC local agency (overseeing the clinic) where 

she/he resides.

 WIC participants only need to show that they live somewhere within the State.

 The decision about whether a WIC participants must reside within the local agency/clinic boundary or can 

simply reside in the State is left to local agencies and/or clinics to decide 

 Other. PLEASE SPECIFY________Q18_O_txt

19. How often does the State regularly review the records of WIC participants to identify duplicate 

certifications across local agencies? 

Q19 

 Process is automated and constant. State’s WIC system looks for duplicate records at time 

of certification and at subsequent certifications

 10-12 times a year (e.g. monthly)

 7-9 times a year

 4-6 times a year (e.g. quarterly)

 2-3 times a year (e.g. semiannually)

 Once a year or less

 Never

 Don’t know

20. At the current time, does your State use FNS’s WIC Nutrition Risk Criteria to ascertain nutritional 

eligibility or does the State bundle the codes into its own unique groupings?

Q20

 Use FNS criteria

 Bundle codes

 Other. PLEASE EXPLAIN_________________________Q20_O_txt
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-A8

21. In the following table, please list by code number (for example, 331—pregnancy at a young age) the 

seven most prevalent nutritional risk code indicators in your State, by category. NOTE: IF YOUR 

STATE HAS BUNDLED CODES, LIST ALL CODES IN BUNDLE IN A CELL OR, IF YOU DO 

NOT USE FNS CODE NUMBERING, REFER TO BUNDLE IN A CELL AND ATTACH A 

CROSSWALK TABLE OR KEY). 

Pregnant Breastfeeding Postpartum Infants Children

1st (Most 

prevalent)

Q21PG_1 Q21BF_1 Q21PP_1 Q21IN_1 Q21CH_1

2nd Q21PG_2 Q21BF_2 Q21PP_2 Q21IN_2 Q21CH_2

3rd Q21PG_3 Q21BF_3 Q21PP_3 Q21IN_3 Q21CH_3

4th Q21PG_4 Q21BF_4 Q21PP_4 Q21IN_4 Q21CH_4

5th Q21PG_5 Q21BF_5 Q21PP_5 Q21IN_5 Q21CH_5

6th Q21PG_6 Q21BF_6 Q21PP_6 Q21IN_6 Q21CH_6

7

th (Least 

prevalent of top 

risk codes)

Q21PG_7 Q21BF_7 Q21PP_7 Q21IN_7 Q21CH_7

Q21A

 Check if above are new VENA FNS codes

 Check if you are using FNS Codes but are NOT using the new VENA codes for dietary 

risks

 Check if above are you own codes, NOT FNS codes (Please include crosswalk table or 

key)

22. When does your State plan to have the VENA (Value Enhanced Nutrition Assessment) protocols 

fully implemented at the local level?

Q22

 It is already implemented

 By end of 2009

 By end of 2010

 Later than 2010
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-A9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

DENIALS

23. Does State policy require that local WIC agencies keep information on denied applicants?

Q23

 Yes

 No (SKIP TO QUESTION 25)

24. What information on Denied Applicants is required to be retained by the State? 

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Name of applicant Q24name

 Address Q24adr

 Phone number Q24pho

 WIC applicant category Q24wic

 Reason for denial Q24reason

 Date of application Q24applic

 Date of denial Q24denial

24A. How is the Denied Applicant information retained?

Q24A

 No specific retention requirements

 Paper copy only

 Electronic copy only

 Both paper and electronic

25. Is it State policy to have local agencies send an official letter of denial to applicants who are denied 

eligibility for WIC? 

Q25

 Yes 

 No
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-A10

FOOD PACKAGES & NUTRITION SERVICES 

26. What, if any, assistance does the State provide to local agencies for the specific purpose of 

promoting breastfeeding?

 Funding for breastfeeding coordinators or peer counselors Q26fundg

 Training for personnel to support breastfeeding Q26trng

 Printed breastfeeding materials (hand-outs, posters, etc.) Q26prntd

 Free breast pumps for distribution Q26free

 Other: Q26_O PLEASE DESCRIBE BRIEFLY ______________ Q26_O_txt

_____________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________ 

 None Q26none

27. Which of the following actions are designated proxies allowed to do in your State on behalf of the 

WIC participants they represent?

 Get certification for the WIC applicant Q27get

 Pick up food instruments Q27pick

 Attend educational sessions Q27attend

 Spend food instruments Q27spend

 Not Applicable. State does not allow proxies Q27NA

 Other: Q27_O PLEASE SPECIFY ___________________ Q27_O_txt

28. How frequently are food instruments distributed throughout the State via the following distribution 

methods? (PLEASE CHECK ONE ANSWER FOR EACH) 

Most of

the time

Some of

the time Occasionally Not at all

a. In person at a local WIC site 

Q28a

b. EBT (electronic benefit cards)

Q28b

c. By mail

Q28c

d. Other: PLEASE SPECIFY 

_____________________

Q28d

Q28_O_txt
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-A11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

RECORD-KEEPING & SYSTEMS

29. Please indicate for how long, if at all, the following WIC Participant data is kept at the State level. 

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. EACH ROW SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE CHECK.)

Possible data stored:



State does 

not retain 

this 

information

State stores 

only most 

current 

information 

(i.e. no record 

of previous 

changes)

State stores current and previous 

information (including changes) for...

Up to 3

months

4-8 

months

9-12 months Over a 

Year

Client name Q29a

Clinic attended Q29b

Family identification or 

affiliation

Q29c

Category of eligibility Q29d

Client address Q29e

Client telephone Q29f

Second client telephone Q29g

Food package issued Q29h

Value of food package 

redeemed

Q29i

Program through which 

adjunctively/ automatically 

income eligible

Q29j

Proofs of income (if not 

adjunctively/automatically 

eligible)

Q29k

Primary language Q29l
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-A12

30. What proofs of eligibility are local WIC agencies required to keep in their files? 

Local agency must keep... (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

For what types of 

documents...?

 

Original 

document/s 

Copy of 

original 

document/s 

Identifying

number of 

original 

document

A written statement or 

notation (such as a check 

mark) that an acceptable 

document was shown to the 

(re)certification staff. 

None of these 

items

Documents proving 

adjunc-tive/ 

automatic eligibility

Q30_ADJ_1 Q30_ADJ_2 Q30_ADJ_3 Q30_ADJ_4 Q30_ADJ_5

Proofs of income 

(wages, fees and 

tips, etc.)

Q30_INC_1 Q30_INC_2 Q30_INC_3 Q30_INC_4 Q30_INC_5

Nutritional 

eligibility 

paperwork

Q30_NUT_1 Q30_NUT_2 Q30_NUT_3 Q30_NUT_4 Q30_NUT_5

Categorical 

eligibility 

paperwork

Q30_CAT_1 Q30_CAT_2 Q30_CAT_3 Q30_CAT_4 Q30_CAT_5

Proof of residency Q30_RES_1 Q30_RES_2 Q30_RES_3 Q30_RES_4 Q30_RES_5

31. Are proofs of eligibility stored at the State level? (CHECK ONE FOR EACH) 

YES NO

   Documents proving adjunctive/automatic eligibility Q31a

   Proofs of income Q31b

  Nutritional eligibility paperwork Q31c

   Categorical eligibility paperwork Q31d

   Proof of residency Q31e

32. What is the longest that local agencies may wait before sending applicant data to the State WIC 

agency about new WIC certificants and recertificants?

Q32

 30 days or less

 31-60 days

 61-90 days

 Other: PLEASE SPECIFY ______________________________ Q32_O_txt
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-A13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

33. With regard to the State’s database of WIC participants...

1. What does State use to store 

participant data? 

Q33_1 

 Mainframe server

 QuickWIC (web-based)

 Other: SPECIFY 

_________

Q33_1_O_txt

2. What databases are used? 

Q33_2 

 Access (MDB)

 Excel (XLS) 

 Oracle

 SAS

 SPSS (SPS)

 XML

 Other: SPECIFY____________ Q33_2_O_txt

34. Please indicate the maximum number of days that...

a. participants are given to use their 

food instruments after start date? 

Q34a

________ days

b. vendors can take to deposit redeemed 

food instruments in their bank?

 Q34b

________ days

c. vendors’ banks can take to turn the 

food instruments over to the State 

WIC agency’s bank?

 Q34c ________ days 

 Check here if question 

does not apply because 

vendors must turn in their 

coupons to the State WIC 

agency’s bank

Q34_1chbox

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

35. For the State as a whole, how many WIC clients are: (PLEASE GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF 

ACTUAL NUMBERS)

a. migrant farmworkers _____ Q35a b. homeless individuals _________ Q35b

36. What is the number of WIC local agencies in the State? 

Q36

__________ LOCAL AGENCIES

37. What is the number of WIC clinics or sites, including satellite sites in the State? (IF MOBILE UNIT IS 

ATTACHED TO A SINGLE CLINIC OR SITE, DO NOT CONSIDER IT A SITE. IF MOBILE UNIT SERVES 

MUTLIPLE SITES, CONSIDER IT A SEPARATE SITE.) Q37

___________ LOCAL CLINICS/SITES

YOUR TIME COMPLETING THE SURVEY IS GREATLY APPRECIATED.

THANK YOU! PLEASE RETURN PROMPTLY IN ENVELOPE PROVIDED.

Appendix III-B: Local Agencies 

Survey

III-B1 National Survey of WIC Participants II

Questionnaire contains data item identifications (variable names) for each question in order to facilitate 

secondary data analysis.

Local WIC Agency Web Survey 

Thank you for participating in the FNS’ second National Survey of WIC Participants, administered by 

ICF Macro. Please refer to the accompanying cover letter for full details of the research effort. If you have 

any questions, please contact Walter Rives at 1-888-285-7976 or email him at 

WICSurvey@mmail.macrointernational.com. 

This survey—along with surveys at the State and participant levels—is designed to provide FNS with 

additional information on policies and program operations, above and beyond that which is available from 

existing program sources. For your convenience, the survey is organized by topic. There is a space for 

additional comments at the very end.

SCREENER

S1. Does this local agency conduct certifications and recertifications of WIC applicants, or does it 

serve as a purely administrative office, overseeing these functions at the clinic level? 

S1

 Agency to which this survey was addressed does certifications and recertifications

 CONTINUE TO SURVEY

 Agency serves as a purely administrative office 

 Not sure PLEASE CONTACT WALTER RIVES AT

ICF MACRO TO CLARIFY IF YOU SHOULD 

FILL OUT THIS SURVEY.

Phone: 1-888-285-7976

Email :

WICSurvey@mmail.macrointernational.com
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-B2

Until directed otherwise, please answer all the questions as they apply to just this location of your 

local agency or clinic.

CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL WIC AGENCY 

1. Which description most closely fits the structure in which your local agency or clinic is located? 

(CHECK ONE)

q1

 Health department or medical clinic

 Social services office or agency 

 Full service hospital 

 School

 Site of non-profit organization

 Site of religious group

 Other: PLEASE SPECIFY _____________________q1oth

2. How many rooms does the WIC program use, excluding such things as 

hallways, bathrooms, kitchen, and storage closets? Please select the total 

for each type of room. [PLEASE GIVE THE NUMBER.]

 Large waiting rooms/reception areas (greater than 15x15 feet) q2_01

 Small waiting rooms/reception areas (15x15 feet or smaller) q2_02

 Rooms, offices or cubicles where clients are seen q2_03

 Large training/conference/multipurpose rooms q2_04

 Small training/conference/multipurpose rooms q2_05

 Administrative offices (no clients seen) q2_06

 Administrative cubicles (no clients seen) q2_07

 Other: q2_951 PLEASE SPECIFY ______________ q2oth

3. How many days a week, on average is the 

agency open to clients/applicants? 

q3

_____ DAYS 

4. How many hours per week, on average, 

is the WIC agency open?

q4

_____ HOURS

5. How many of the hours are “extended 

hours,” meaning they take place before 9 

AM and after 5 PM?

q5

_____ HOURS

6. Approximately how many clients are 

served at the agency per month?

q6 __________ CLIENTS/MONTH

7. Of these, approximately what percentage 

are certifications and recertifications? 

q7

 __________ %
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-B3 National Survey of WIC Participants II

8. What types of public transportation are 

within a 10 minute walk (1/2 mile) of the 

agency? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

Bus q8_1

 Light rail/subway/commuter train q8_2

 Other q8_3

 None q8_4

9. What is the most-frequent means 

of transport used by WIC 

applicants and participants to get 

to your agency? 

q9

 Private car

 Taxi

 Bus

 Light rail/subway/commuter train

 On foot

 Other

10. What is the second most-used 

means of transport used by WIC 

applicants and participants to get 

to your agency?

q10

 Private car

 Taxi

 Bus

 Light rail/subway/commuter train

 On foot

 Other

11. How would you rate the 

physical security of your 

local agency’s location?

q11

 Very safe (No incidents)

 Safe (Occasional minor incidents)

 Unsafe (Occasional major incidents or frequent minor incidents)

 Very unsafe (Frequent major incidents)

12. Does the agency have on-site the necessary technology, equipment, supplies, etc. to do the 

following tasks?

a) Enter/access client certification information via a 

computer?

i. Is this computer networked to other 

computers in the office (i.e. a shared 

drive)? 

ii. Is this computer networked to other 

agencies, clinics or the State WIC 

office?

 Yes  No  Don’t Know q12_a_01

 Yes  No  Don’t Know q12_a_02

 Yes  No  Don’t Know q12_a_03

b) Have internet access?  Yes  No  Don’t Know q12_b

c) Perform hematological tests?  Yes  No  Don’t Know q12_c

d) Take anthropometric measurements for 

weight, BMI (body mass) and height?  Yes  No  Don’t Know q12_d
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-B4

13. For each of the following services, please indicate if your local agency is able to offer the service, 

provide information and/or make referrals in the following areas. “Ability to make a referral” means 

that your local agency’s involvement is required to obtain a particular service whereas “ability to 

provide information” means that you have only given client the information about the problem and 

possibly places to go for help. (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

Offered by 

WIC 

Agency/Clinic

Able to 

provide 

information

Ability to 

make a 

referral

Neither

Maternal health care q13_01_01 q13_01_02 q13_01_03 q13_01_04

Prenatal health care q13_02_01 q13_02_02 q13_02_03 q13_02_04

Children’s health care q13_03_01 q13_03_02 q13_03_03 q13_03_04

Prevention (e.g., immunizations) and Screenings 

(e.g. vision or Early & Periodic Screening)

q13_04_01 q13_04_02 q13_04_03 q13_04_04

Breastfeeding support q13_05_01 q13_05_02 q13_05_03 q13_05_04

Dietitian/nutrition services q13_06_01 q13_06_02 q13_06_03 q13_06_04

Mental health services q13_07_01 q13_07_02 q13_07_03 q13_07_04

STD (sexually transmitted diseases) q13_08_01 q13_08_02 q13_08_03 q13_08_04

Dental q13_09_01 q13_09_02 q13_09_03 q13_09_04

Family planning q13_10_01 q13_10_02 q13_10_03 q13_10_04

Child care/education (e.g., Healthy Start, Head Start) q13_11_01 q13_11_02 q13_11_03 q13_11_04

Parenting support q13_12_01 q13_12_02 q13_12_03 q13_12_04

Employment/life skills training q13_13_01 q13_13_02 q13_13_03 q13_13_04

Other public assistance q13_14_01 q13_14_02 q13_14_03 q13_14_04

Environmental health/screening q13_15_01 q13_15_02 q13_15_03 q13_15_04

Substance abuse counseling/treatment q13_16_01 q13_16_02 q13_16_03 q13_16_04

Smoking cessation q13_17_01 q13_17_02 q13_17_03 q13_17_04

Violence Protection/Prevention (women) q13_18_01 q13_18_02 q13_18_03 q13_19_04

Violence Protection/Prevention (children) q13_19_01 q13_19_02 q13_02_03 q13_19_04

OTHER: SPECIFY______________q13_95_other q13_95_01 q13_95_02 q13_95_03 q13_95_04
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-B5 National Survey of WIC Participants II

FOR ALL ITEMS WHERE REFERRALS ARE CHECKED IN Q13, ASK:

13A. In Q13, you indicated that you give referrals for certain services. For just those services where 

referrals are given, please mark which type of referral is given

a. WIC client gets referral sheet to take to other organization

b. Organization is given name of WIC client to contact (with client’s knowledge)

c. Organization is notified of WIC client situation (without client’s knowledge – e.g., protective 

services – as permitted by law)

d. Other

For all services in Q13 where referrals are given out, check 

all that apply. 

(If no referrals given, leave blank.)

a.

Referral 

sheet

b.

Org’l name is 

given out

c.

Org. is 

notified

d.

Other

Maternal health care q13a_01_01 q13a_01_02 q13a_01_03 q13a_01_04

Prenatal health care q13a_02_01 q13a_02_02 q13a_02_03 q13a_02_04

Children’s health care q13a_03_01 q13a_03_02 q13a_03_03 q13a_03_04

Prevention (e.g., immunizations) and 

Screenings (e.g. vision or Early & 

Periodic Screening)

q13a_04_01

q13a_04_02 q13a_04_03 q13a_04_04

Breastfeeding support q13a_05_01 q13a_05_02 q13a_05_03 q13a_05_04

Dietitian/nutrition services q13a_06_01 q13a_06_02 q13a_06_03 q13a_06_04

Mental health services q13a_07_01 q13a_07_02 q13a_07_03 q13a_07_04

STD (sexually transmitted diseases) q13a_08_01 q13a_08_02 q13a_08_03 q13a_08_04

Dental q13a_09_01 q13a_09_02 q13a_09_03 q13a_09_04

Family planning q13a_10_01 q13a_10_02 q13a_10_03 q13a_10_04

Child care/education (e.g., Healthy Start, Head Start)q13a_11_01 q13a_11_02 q13a_11_03 q13a_11_04

Parenting support q13a_12_01 q13a_12_02 q13a_12_03 q13a_12_04

Employment/life skills training q13a_13_01 q13a_13_02 q13a_13_03 q13a_13_04

Other public assistance q13a_14_01 q13a_14_02 q13a_14_03 q13a_14_04

Environmental health/screening q13a_15_01 q13a_15_02 q13a_15_03 q13a_15_04

Substance abuse counseling/treatment q13a_16_01 q13a_16_02 q13a_16_03 q13a_16_04

Smoking cessation q13a_17_01 q13a_17_02 q13a_17_03 q13a_17_04

Violence Protection/Prevention (women) q13a_18_01 q13a_18_02 q13a_18_03 q13a_18_04

Violence Protection/Prevention (children) q13a_19_01 q13a_19_02 q13a_19_03 q13a_19_04

OTHER: q13a_95_01 q13a_95_02 q13a_95_03 q13a_95_04
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-B6

AGENCY PROCEDURES

14. What types of identification does the agency use to verify the residency of a WIC applicant? 

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Drivers license q14_1

 Current utility/tax bill with address on it q14_2

 Written statement from reliable third party q14_3

 Checkbook q14_4

 Rent receipt, mortgage receipt or lease q14_5

 Other: q14_6 PLEASE SPECIFY ______________________ q14oth1

 Other: q14_7 PLEASE SPECIFY ______________________ q14oth2

 Other: q14_8 PLEASE SPECIFY ______________________ q14oth3

 Other: q14_9 PLEASE SPECIFY ______________________ q14oth4

 Paystub, Paycheck, SSI check, unemployment check q14_11

(added based on recoding of “other” responses)

 Other mail with name and address on it q14_12 

(added based on recoding of “other” responses)

 Medicaid or health insurance card q14_10 

(added based on recoding of “other” responses)

15. Does the agency keep a copy of documents proving adjunctive or automatic eligibility for 

applicants?

 Yes, physical copy q15_1

 Yes, electronic copy (scanned document) q15_2

 No q15_3

16. When does the start-date for a certification occur? (CHECK ONE BEST ANSWER)

q16

 When the WIC applicant first comes into the clinic

 When the WIC application is filled out

 When the WIC application is filled out and all supporting information provided 

17. What discretion, if any, does the state use or grant to local agencies regarding certification periods? 

q17

 No additional discretion is given 

 The following discretion is given: (PROVIDE SUPPORTING POLICY STATEMENTS AS 

APPROPRIATE ) 

q17oth

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-B7 National Survey of WIC Participants II

18. Do certifications have to take place in person?

q18

 Yes [SKIP TO Q20]

 No 

19. If no, by what other means can WIC applicants be certified? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Phone q19_1

 Mail q19_2

 Fax q19_3

 Other: q19_4 PLEASE SPECIFY __________ q19oth

20. Approximately what percentage of WIC applicants are given temporary certification, that is, 30 days 

of food instruments while the validity of their application for WIC certification is being established?

q20

[CIRCLE ONE ANSWER IN BOX WITH...] 

21. Which of the following actions are designated proxies allowed to do on behalf of the WIC participants 

they represent?

 Get certification for the WIC applicant q21_1

 Pick up food instruments q21_2

 Attend educational sessions q21_3

 Other: q21_4 PLEASE SPECIFY _______________________________ q21oth

 Not Applicable. State does not allow proxies q21_5

 Use food instruments at store q21_6 (added based on recoding of “other” responses)

22. What controls are in place to ensure that a WIC applicant is not already participating in WIC at a 

different location? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Applicant must show identification q22_1

 Applicant must submit proof of current residence q22_2

 Computer checks system based on applicant name q22_3

 Computer checks system based on Social Security number q22_4

 Other procedure: q22_5 PLEASE DESCRIBE ___________________ q22oth

 0%

 1 - 10%

11 - 20%

21 - 30%

31 - 40%

41 - 50%

51 - 60%

61 - 70%

71 - 80%

81 - 90%

91 - 100%

20a. How confident are you in the 

range entered here?

q20a

  Very confident

  Somewhat confident

  Not very confident (i.e. a lot 

of guesswork involved)
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-B8

23. Of applicants new to WIC, what percentage is denied certification? 

q23

[CIRCLE ONE ANSWER IN BOX WITH...] 

24. Of WIC participants seeking recertification, what percentage is denied certification? 

q24

[CIRCLE ONE ANSWER IN BOX WITH...] 

25. Please specify the percentage of denials that are attributable to the following eligibility problems. It is 

possible the percentages may sum to more than 100% as applicants may be denied that for more than 

one reason. 

Insufficient identification q25_01 ______%

Income ineligibility q25_02 ______%

Nutritional ineligibility q25_03 ______%

Residency ineligibility q25_04 ______%

Category ineligibility (i.e. not pregnant, child over 5 

years, etc.) q25_05 ______%

Other: PLEASE SPECIFY ______________ q25oth

q25_95______%

 <10%

11 - 20%

21 - 30%

31 - 40%

41 - 50%

51 - 60%

61 - 70%

71 - 80%

81 - 90%

91 - 100%

 <10%

11 - 20%

21 - 30%

31 - 40%

41 - 50%

51 - 60%

61 - 70%

71 - 80%

81 - 90%

91 - 100%

23a. How confident are you in the 

range entered here?

q23a

  Very confident

  Somewhat confident

  Not very confident (i.e. a lot 

of guesswork involved)

25a. How confident are you in the 

percentages entered here?

q25a

  Very confident

  Somewhat confident

  Not very confident (i.e. a lot 

of guesswork involved)

24a. How confident are you in the 

range entered here?

q24a

  Very confident

  Somewhat confident

  Not very confident (i.e. a lot 

of guesswork involved)
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-B9 National Survey of WIC Participants II

26. Does the agency keep information on denied applicants?

q26

 Yes

 No [SKIP TO Q28]

27. What information on Denied Applicants do you retain and how is it retained? (ANSWER b. AND c. 

ONLY IF a. IS CHECKED.)

a. Information Retained 

(CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY)

b. How Retained 

(CHECK ONE)

c. Where Retained 

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Name of applicant

q27a1

 Paper copy only

 Electronic copy only

 Both paper and electronic

q27b_01

 WIC State Agency q27c_01_01

 Your Local Agency q27c_01_02

 Sites/Clinics q27c_01_03

 Address

q27a2

 Paper copy only

 Electronic copy only

 Both paper and electronic

q27b_02

 WIC State Agency q27c_02_01

 Your Local Agency q27c_02_02

 Sites/Clinics q27c_02_03

 Phone number

q27a3

 Paper copy only

 Electronic copy only

 Both paper and electronic

q27b_03

 WIC State Agency q27c_03_01

 Your Local Agency q27c_03_02

 Sites/Clinics q27c_03_03

 WIC applicant 

category

q27a4

 Paper copy only

 Electronic copy only

 Both paper and electronic

q27b_04

 WIC State Agency q27c_04_01

 Your Local Agency q27c_04_02

 Sites/Clinics q27c_04_03

 Reason for denial

q27a5

 Paper copy only

 Electronic copy only

 Both paper and electronic

q27b_05

 WIC State Agency q27c_05_01

 Your Local Agency q27c_05_02

 Sites/Clinics q27c_05_03

 Date of application

q27a6

 Paper copy only

 Electronic copy only

 Both paper and electronic

q27b_06

 WIC State Agency q27c_06_01

 Your Local Agency q27c_06_02

 Sites/Clinics q27c_06_03

 Date of denial

q27a7

 Paper copy only

 Electronic copy only

 Both paper and electronic

q27b_07

 WIC State Agency q27c_07_01

 Your Local Agency q27c_07_02

 Sites/Clinics q27c_07_03
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-B10

28. Does the agency send an official letter of denial to applicants who are denied eligibility for WIC?

q28

 Yes

 No

29. Can an applicant be screened and denied eligibility by telephone?

q29

 Yes 

 No [SKIP TO Q31]

30. For which reasons can an applicant be screened and denied eligibility by telephone? (CHECK ALL 

THAT APPLY)

Insufficient identification q30_1

Income eligibility q30_2

Nutritional eligibility q30_3

Residency eligibility q30_4

Category eligibility q30_5

Other: q30_6 PLEASE SPECIFY:________________________ q30oth

NUTRITION SERVICES

31. What nutrition services are offered by your local agency? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

One-on-one counseling q31_1

Group educational sessions q31_2

Internet-based nutrition education for clients to use q31_3

Other: q31_4 PLEASE SPECIFY__________________ q31oth

32. Who provides these nutrition services? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

WIC Director or Clinic Supervisor q32_01

Registered Dietitians q32_02

Degreed/Licensed Nutritionists q32_03

Trained Nutrition Paraprofessional q32_04

Registered Nurses/Physicians Assistants q32_05

Physicians q32_06

Social Workers/ Psychologists/ Therapists q32_07

Other Health Professionals not listed here q32_08

Other Non-Health Professionals not listed here q32_09

Administrative/clerical/support staff q32_10

Peer Counselors q32_11
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-B11 National Survey of WIC Participants II

33. On average, how much time is spent giving nutrition 

education to an adult client during the certification 

process? 

q33

[CIRCLE ONE:]

34. In a given 3-month period, on average, how much 

time is spent giving nutrition education to an adult 

client during follow-up visits (excluding the initial 

certification)? 

q34

[CIRCLE ONE:]

35. What percentage of infants are certified off-site (e.g. in the hospital)?

q35 _______ %

36. What types of outreach does your local agency do in, or with, hospitals to help bring qualified infants 

into the WIC program? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Agency staff visit currently-certified and prospective WIC mothers in the hospital q36_1

 Agency provides general information and/or specific forms to the hospital for distribution q36_2

 Agency staff provide pregnant mothers with WIC forms (for their infants) for hospital physicians 

to fill out q36_3

 Agency joins with other social service agencies to provide a place at the hospital where 

prospective clients can shop services, all in one place q36_4

 Other: q36_5 PLEASE SPECIFY____________________ q36oth

From this point forward, please answer the remaining 16 questions as they apply to the WIC local 

agency in its entirety, including all clinics, satellites and mobile units.

LOCAL AGENCY ORGANIZATION

37. How would you describe the relationship of your WIC local agency to the WIC State agency? Your 

local agency is... (CHECK ONE)

q37

 part of State agency

 a local government entity administering the WIC program

 a non-profit organization that has been contracted to run the WIC program

 not a local agency, but rather a clinic under a local agency

 Other: PLEASE SPECIFY________________________ q37oth

None

<5 minutes

5 - <10 minutes

10 - <20 minutes

20 - <30 minutes

30 - <45 minutes

45 - <60 minutes

60 minutes or more

None

<10 minutes

10 - <20 minutes

20 - <30 minutes

30 - <45 minutes

45 - <60 minutes

60 - <90 minutes

90 minutes or more
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-B12

38. Please record the number of other WIC sites that operate under the authority of this local agency, by 

type. 

___ Clinics (defined as a permanent location assigned to the WIC program) q38a

___ Satellites (defined as a location such as a school, church or town hall that is only 

temporarily assigned the WIC program each week. WIC staff must carry their own files 

and equipment to the site each week) q38b

___ Mobile Units (a vehicle assigned to the WIC program that may make multiple stops) q38c

39. To what extent are certification services provided by your local agency at the various sites you 

specified in the previous question? 

[WEB SURVEY WILL SHOW CLINICS, SATELLITES AND/OR MOBILE UNITS COLUMN 

ONLY IF RESPONDENT HAS ANSWERED >0 IN Q38.]

Local 

Agency

Clinics Satellites Mobile Units

Agency 

does this

All 

can do

Some 

can do

None 

can do

All 

can 

do

Some 

can do

None 

can 

do

All 

can 

do

Some 

can do

None 

can 

do

Conducts certifications q39a_1 q39b_1 q39c_1 q39d_1

Performs blood testing q39a_2 q39b_2 q39c_2 q39d_2

Takes anthropometric 

measurements for 

height, weight and body 

mass index (BMI)

q39a_3 q39b_3 q39c_3 q39d_3

Conducts nutrition 

counseling q39a_4 q39b_4 q39c_4 q39d_4

Offers other educational 

seminars (e.g. on 

breastfeeding)

q39a_5 q39b_5 q39c_5 q39d_5

Distributes food 

instruments q39a_6 q39b_6 q39c_6 q39d_6

Provides referrals to 

other services q39a_7 q39b_7 q39c_7 q39d_7

Has access to WIC 

participant records 

electronically

q39a_8 q39b_8 q39c_8 q39d_8

Stores paper copies of 

the WIC participant 

records 

q39a_9 q39b_9 q39c_9 q39d_9
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-B13 National Survey of WIC Participants II

40. What is the distribution and average allocation of Nutrition Services and Administration (NSA) funds 

across the following functions?

______ % Certification and re-certification q40_a_number

______ % Nutrition education q40_b_number

______ % Breastfeeding promotion and support q40_c_number

______ % Administration q40_d_number

100 % [TOTAL SHOULD SUM TO 99-101%.]

STAFF & CASELOAD

41. How many staff members work for the 

WIC program at your local agency or 

clinic on a full-time or part-time basis? 

[PLEASE GIVE NUMBER] 

Number of full-time 

staff (working

32- 40+ hours/wk)

Number of 

part-time staff 

(working

<32 hours/wk)

42. Of the total, what 

percentage have 

worked at the 

agency/clinic less 

than 2 years

a) WIC Director or Clinic Supervisor q41_a_fulltime q41_a_parttime ______% q42_a

b) Office Manager q41_b_fulltime q41_b_parttime ______% q42_b

c) Administrative Support Staff q41_c_fulltime q41_c_parttime ______% q42_c

d) Certification Specialist q41_d_fulltime q41_d_parttime ______% q42_d

e) Registered Dietitian q41_e_fulltime q41_e_parttime ______% q42_e

f) Degreed/Licensed Nutritionist q41_f_fulltime q41_f_parttime ______% q42_f

g) Trained Nutrition Paraprofessional q41_g_fulltime q41_g_parttime ______% q42_g

h) Registered Nurse/Physicians Assistant q41_h_fulltime q41_h_parttime ______% q42_h

i) Physician q41_i_fulltime q41_i_parttime ______% q42_i

j) Social Worker/ Psychologist/ Therapist q41_j_fulltime q41_j_parttime ______% q42_j

k) Other Professional (non-medical) q41_k_fulltime q41_k_parttime ______% q42_k

l) Other: PLEASE SPECIFY 

______________q41oth q41_l_fulltime q41_l_parttime ______% q42_l

m) Peer Counselor (added based on 

recoding of “other” responses): q41_M_fulltime q41_M_parttime

TOTAL STAFF   ______% 
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-B14

43. In all, what is the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff who work at your local WIC agency 

or clinic? (IN CALCULATING, NOTE THAT IF THE STANDARD WORK WEEK IS 35-40 HOURS, AN FTE

COULD BE COMPOSED OF 1 FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OR TWO OR MORE PART TIME EMPLOYEES WHO,

COMBINED, WORK THAT NUMBER OF HOURS.)

q43

_____ FTE Staff 

44. What difficulties are faced in retaining, recruiting and hiring staff at your local agency? (CHECK 

ALL THAT APPLY)

 Salaries not competitive q44_01

 Benefits not competitive q44_02

 Minimal training and job growth offered q44_03

 Workload too great q44_04

 Location of local agency unsafe q44_05

 Location of local agency hard to get to q44_06

 Physical space occupied by local agency crowded q44_07

 Low employee morale throughout agency q44_08

 Lack of support for WIC program from State q44_09

 Limited career path or opportunities for promotion q44_10

 Required skillset lacking in prospective employees q44_11

 Other: q44_12 PLEASE SPECIFY_________________ q44oth

 None of the above q44_13

45. Check off any positions for which your local agency is experiencing moderate or acute staffing 

shortages? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Administrative/clerical/support staff q45_01

 Registered Dietitian q45_02

 Degreed/Licensed Nutritionist q45_03

 Trained Nutrition Paraprofessional q45_04

 Registered Nurses/Physicians Assistant q45_05

 Physician q45_06

 Social Worker/ Psychologist/ Therapist q45_07

 Other Professional q45_08

 Other: q45_09 PLEASE SPECIFY __________ q45oth

 None of the above q45_10
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-B15 National Survey of WIC Participants II

46. What percentage of WIC applicants and certificants coming to the agency do NOT speak English 

well enough to communicate about eligibility, procedures, nutrition, breastfeeding and services?

q46

 0%

 1-5%

 6-10%

 11-20%

 21-30%

 31-40%

 41-50%

 51-60%

 61-70%

 71-80%

 81-90%

 91-100%

47. What foreign languages are offered by local agency staff? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 

NONE q47_01

Arabic q47_02

Cambodian q47_03

Cantonese/Mandarin

q47_04

Farsi q47_05

French/Creole q47_06

Fulani q47_07

Hindi q47_08

Hmong q47_09

Khmer q47_10

Korean q47_11

Laotian q47_12

Portuguese

q47_13

Punjabi q47_14

Russian q47_15

Somali q47_16

Spanish q47_17

Swahili q47_18

Tamil q47_19

Tagalog q47_20

Urdu q47_21

Vietnamese q47_22

Other: q47_23

SPECIFY ______ q47oth

48. Approximately what percentage of your WIC population (applicants, participants, and proxies) are 

not served by your combined language capabilities? 

q48

_______ % 

 

46a. How confident are you in the range 

entered here?

q46a

  Very confident

  Somewhat confident

  Not very confident (i.e. a lot of 

guesswork involved)

48a. How confident are you in the 

percentage entered here?

q48a

  Very confident

  Somewhat confident

  Not very confident (i.e. a lot of 

guesswork involved)
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

National Survey of WIC Participants II III-B16

[IF Q48 MARKED < 10%, SKIP TO Q50]

49. In what languages does the agency need further support to serve the WIC population? (CHECK 

ALL THAT APPLY) 

Arabic q49_01

Cambodian q49_02

Cantonese/Mandarin

q49_03

Farsi q49_04

French/Creole q49_05

Fulani q49_06

Hindi q49_07

Hmong q49_08

Khmer q49_09

Korean q49_10

Laotian q49_11

Portuguese

q49_12

Punjabi q49_13

Russian q49_14

Somali q49_15

Spanish q49_16

Swahili q49_17

Tamil q49_18

Tagalog q49_19

Urdu q49_20

Vietnamese q49_21

Other: q49_22

SPECIFY ____ q49oth

PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS 

Thinking of the typical WIC participants served by your local agency each month, please give the 

percentage that fall into the following demographic areas. (PLEASE ROUND PERCEN-TAGES TO 

NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER. PERCENTAGES MAY TOTAL 99-101% DUE TO ROUNDING)

50. CATEGORY 

___% Pregnant q50a

___% Breastfeeding q50b

___% Postpartum q50c

___% Infants q50d

___% Children q50e

100 % TOTAL

51. ETHNICITY 

___% Hispanic or Latino q51a

___% Not Hispanic or Latino q51b

100 % TOTAL

52. RACE 

___% American Indian or Alaska Native q52a

___% Asian American q52b

___% Black or African American q52c

___% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander q52d

___% White q52e

___% Multiracial (Two or more of the above) q52f

100 % TOTAL

53. OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
Volume 4: Technical Report (Final Report)

III-B17 National Survey of WIC Participants II

a. What percentage of participants are migrant farmworkers _____ % q53a

b. What percentage of participants are homeless _____ % q53b

THIS MARKS THE END OF THE SURVEY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME! 

IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS THAT WERE NOT COVERED IN THE SURVEY, YOU MAY 

PROVIDE THEM BELOW.

q54

_______________________________________________________________________________