Economic 

Research 

Service

Electronic Publications from the Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program

Food Stamp Program Access Study

Final Report

By Susan Bartlett, Nancy Burstein, and William Hamilton, with the

assistance of Ryan Kling, Abt Associates Inc.

ERS project representative: Margaret Andrews

Abstract

The Food Stamp Program Access Study was motivated by a desire to learn whether and how

the administrative policies and practices of local food stamp offices influence the chances of

eligible households participating in the program. This report examines the participation decisions of potentially eligible households, together with the local office policies and practices

that may enhance or inhibit program access. The findings indicate that many households with

no recent contact with the FSP would apply for benefits if they believed themselves to be eligible. In addition, outreach activities are effective in communicating eligibility to nonparticipating households. The processes of application and recertification-and to a lesser extent,

complying with ongoing program requirements-are hurdles that a sizable number of apparently eligible households fail to surmount. When surveyed, applicants and program dropouts

cited various procedural obstacles as factors in their decision not to participate. The econometric analysis also identifies a number of office practices that vary across offices and appear

to be significant in participation decisions.

E-FAN-03-013-3

November 2004

This report was prepared by Abt Associates Inc. under a research 

contract from the Economic Research Service. The views expressed are

those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.
Acknowledgements 

The Food Stamp Access Study was conducted under the direction of the Economic Research Service 

(ERS), USDA. We would like to thank our two project officers, Margaret Andrews and Peggy Cook 

for their guidance and support throughout the entire study. Other staff at ERS, in particular Robert 

Gibbs, Mark Prell, David Smallwood, and staff at the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, including 

Jenny Genser, Steve Carlson, Art Foley, Christine Kissmer, Lynn Jordan, Laura Griffin, Carolyn 

Foley, Judith Seymour, Patricia Seward, and Patrick Waldron, attended briefings, reviewed ongoing

work, and provided insightful reviews of the draft report. We would also like to thank David Super 

of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Sue Hall of the Rushmore Group, and James Ohls of 

Mathematica Policy Research, who reviewed drafts of the data collection instruments. 

This study would not have been possible without the generous support of the State and local food 

stamp staff in the 109 local offices across the United States that agreed to participate in this study.

State staff provided data for the local office and household sampling frames and paved the way for

data collection efforts in the local food stamp offices. We spent many months collecting data in the 

local offices and the office directors and their staff volunteered their time to complete telephone 

surveys, locate case file records, and provide guidance to our field staff in reviewing the records. 

Many persons at Abt Associates contributed to the study. In particular, Diane Stoner directed the data 

collection effort on the entire study. Michael Battaglia, as sampling statistician, developed the 

sampling frame and analytic weights. Ryan Kling provided programming support, Frederic Glantz 

served as technical reviewer, and Jan Nicholson produced the report. 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... E-1 

Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1 

Policy Setting ......................................................................................................................................1-1 

Research Objectives............................................................................................................................1-3 

Previous Research on the Impact of Policies on FSP Participation.....................................................1-4 

Organization of the Report..................................................................................................................1-6 

Chapter 2: Study Design...................................................................................................................2-1 

Conceptual Model of FSP Participation Decisions .............................................................................2-1

Research Methodology........................................................................................................................2-4 

Chapter 3: Characteristics and Perceptions of Potentially Eligible Nonparticipant 

Households.........................................................................................................................................3-1 

Who Believes They Are Ineligible? ....................................................................................................3-2 

Why Do Some People Think They Are Ineligible?.............................................................................3-3 

Who Would Not Apply Even If They Found They Were Eligible? ....................................................3-6 

Why Would Some People Not Apply Even If They Believed They Were Eligible? ..........................3-7 

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................3-9 

Chapter 4: Applicant Households....................................................................................................4-1 

Who Applies for Benefits? ..................................................................................................................4-2 

Who Fails to Complete the Application Process? ...............................................................................4-3 

Why Do Some People Fail to Complete the Application Process? .....................................................4-6 

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................4-9 

Chapter 5: TANF-Diverted Households..........................................................................................5-1 

Did Households That Received Diversion Payments Apply for Food Stamp Benefits?.....................5-2 

Who Received Lump Sum Diversion Payments?................................................................................5-3 

Why Do Some Households Not Get FSP Benefits After TANF Diversion? ......................................5-5 

TANF Diversion Reported by Applicants...........................................................................................5-5

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................5-7 

Chapter 6: Households That Left the Food Stamp Program ........................................................6-1 

Who Leaves the Food Stamp Program? ..............................................................................................6-3

Who Fails to Complete the Recertification Process? ..........................................................................6-5

Why Do Some Households Fail to Complete the Recertification Process? ........................................6-7 

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................6-9 

Chapter 7: Local Food Stamp Office Policies and Practices that May Affect Participation 

Decisions.............................................................................................................................................7-1 

Outreach to Nonparticipants................................................................................................................7-3 

Availability of Information for Potential Applicants ..........................................................................7-4 

Office Accessibility.............................................................................................................................7-5 

i
Subjective Office Features ..................................................................................................................7-6 

Certification Requirements..................................................................................................................7-7 

Interim Participation Requirements...................................................................................................7-10 

Recertification Requirements............................................................................................................7-12 

Summary ...........................................................................................................................................7-14 

Chapter 8: Impact of Local Food Stamp Office Policies and Practices on Selected Aspects of 

Participation.......................................................................................................................................8-1 

Models Estimated ................................................................................................................................8-1 

Awareness of Eligibility......................................................................................................................8-6 

Completing the Application Process...................................................................................................8-9 

Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................8-13 

Chapter 9: Conclusions: How Local Offices May Affect the Program’s Accessibility to 

Eligible Households...........................................................................................................................9-1 

Nonparticipants Who Are Not in Contact with the Program...............................................................9-1 

Nonparticipants Who Contact the FSP Office.....................................................................................9-2 

Eligible Participants Who Exit the Program........................................................................................9-4 

The Opportunities to Reduce Nonparticipation among Eligible Households .....................................9-5 

Bibliography...................................................................................................................................Bib-1 

Appendix A: Sample Design and Analysis Weights 

Appendix B: Supplementary Descriptive Tables 

Appendix C: Statistical Methods for Multivariate Analyses 

Appendix D: Supplementary Models 

Appendix E: Data Collection Instruments Used in the Study

ii
Executive Summary 

The Food Stamp Program Access Study was motivated by a desire to learn whether and how the 

administrative policies and practices carried out by local food stamp offices influence the chances that 

eligible households will participate in the program. This report examines the participation decisions 

of potentially eligible households together with the local office policies and practices that may

enhance or inhibit access to the Program. 

How best to ensure that eligible households have access to the Food Stamp Program (FSP) has long 

been a concern of program managers and policymakers. Interest was heightened by the dramatic 

decline in the FSP caseload in the late 1990s, a period characterized not only by an unusually strong 

economy, but also by major changes in the public assistance landscape following the welfare reform

legislation of 1996. Studies have shown that the food stamp caseload declined not only because many

households’ circumstances improved enough to make them ineligible for benefits, but also because a 

smaller percentage of the potentially eligible households were participating in the program. This led 

policymakers and analysts to focus on the broad question of what factors influence FSP participation, 

including the possible role of local food stamp office policies and practices in encouraging or

deterring households’ participation decisions. Although the food stamp caseload increased after

reaching a low point in July 2000, policy makers remain interested in implementing policies and 

procedures that ensure that the program is accessible to eligible households. 

The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture contracted with Abt 

Associates Inc. and Health Systems Research, Inc. to conduct a national study of Food Stamp 

Program accessibility at the local office level. The study collected information describing the policies 

and practices in local food stamp offices, the characteristics of participant and nonparticipant 

households, and the reasons why some eligible households do not participate in the FSP. 

This report, one of three prepared for the study, addresses accessibility from three perspectives. It 

describes the nature and prevalence of local office practices that are hypothesized to influence 

participation. It describes households’ stated reasons for not participating or ending their 

participation, along with the households’ characteristics, attitudes, and experiences that may be 

associated with participation behavior. Finally, the report presents analyses of the association between 

local office practices and household participation behavior. 

The findings presented here are based on data collected in a nationally representative sample of 109 

local food stamp offices. Data collection efforts involved both local office level and household level 

activities for the reference month of June 2000. Telephone interviews with supervisors and 

caseworkers and observations in the sampled offices obtained information on the policies and 

administrative practices that might affect FSP accessibility. Samples of food stamp applicants and 

recipients were drawn from the local offices included in the study. Data were collected through case 

file record abstraction and telephone and in-person surveys and provided detailed information on 

household characteristics, participation decisions, and FSP administrative events. Finally, a randomdigit-dial telephone survey of households that were apparently eligible for food stamp benefits, but 

were not participating in the FSP, was conducted in the geographic areas served by the sampled local 

food stamp offices. 

E-1
Household Participation Decisions 

In order to participate in the Food Stamp Program, households must make certain decisions and take 

actions necessary to fulfill program requirements. An eligible nonparticipant household must know of 

the program’s existence, believe it is eligible for benefits, and be interested in applying. Once a 

household has made the decision to apply, it must complete an application process that includes 

participating in an interview and obtaining necessary documents verifying household circumstances. 

Food stamp recipient households also must take certain actions to continue participating in the 

program. Households need to comply with various participation requirements, such as periodic 

income reporting and employment-related requirements, in order to remain eligible for food stamp 

benefits. Additionally, all households need to complete periodic recertifications by which their 

continuing eligibility for the FSP is determined. 

At any of these points, nonparticipant households may decide not to pursue their FSP application or 

participant households may decide to leave the program. In addition, households may be found to be 

ineligible and denied (further) benefits, and participating households may fail to comply with 

program rules and have their cases terminated. The characteristics, experiences, and attitudes of 

households that may be associated with participant behavior at these junctures and households’ stated 

reasons for not participating or ending their participation are summarized below. 

Why Some Households Think They Are Ineligible 

Over half of the approximately 6 million apparently eligible nonparticipant households in June 2000 

either believed they were ineligible for food stamp benefits or were not sure whether they would be 

eligible. Nonparticipating households in relatively more favorable economic circumstances—i.e., 

closer to the eligibility cutoff—tended to be less certain of their eligibility for food stamps. Those 

who believed themselves ineligible, or who were unsure of their eligibility, were more likely to have 

above-poverty incomes and more likely to have bank accounts. They were also less likely to be food 

insecure or to have experienced hunger in the preceding year. Those who believed they were 

ineligible were less likely to have received food stamps in the past, suggesting they may have had less 

information about eligibility requirements. Demographic characteristics such as age, race, ethnicity,

and household composition were not associated with whether households believed they were eligible 

for food stamp benefits. 

Many of the reasons households provided for believing themselves ineligible for food stamps focused 

on central aspects of the eligibility rules: the amount of earned income (55 percent), the value of an 

owned vehicle (15 percent), and the value of financial assets (12 percent). Because these rules are 

quite complicated, it is not surprising that people do not know exactly how their circumstances 

compare to program eligibility limits, and it would be difficult to communicate sufficient information 

about the rules to the general nonparticipant community. 

A substantial number of households seemed to have significant misperceptions of some program

rules. These households said, for example, that their reason for ineligibility was being employed (40 

percent), receiving other government assistance (19 percent), having reached the time limit on cash 

assistance (2 percent), or having received a TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) lump

sum payment (2 percent). None of these factors necessarily make a household ineligible for food 

E-2
stamp benefits, and from a policy point of view, it would be far easier to communicate that general 

fact than the details of income and asset limits. 

Why Some Households Do Not Apply for Benefits 

Eligible households who applied for benefits had a profile that differed in several respects from the 

general population of nonparticipants. Consistent with the literature on food stamp participation, 

applicant households were younger, more likely to be single-parent households, and in worse 

financial condition. Nonparticipant households that reportedly would apply for benefits if they knew 

they were eligible were more likely to be food insecure than households that were not interested in 

applying. 

While most nonparticipant households (69 percent) reportedly would apply for food stamps if they

knew for certain they were eligible, 31 percent, or 1.9 million households, would not apply. Those 

households cited both personal reasons and reasons related to office policies and practices for their 

lack of desire to apply. Almost all respondents mentioned personal reasons for not applying. The most 

common set of reasons was related to a desire for personal independence (91 percent). In addition, 

nearly three-quarters reported at least one reason related to office policies, including perceived costs 

of applying (64 percent), a previous “bad experience” with the FSP or another government program

(24 percent), costs of FSP participation (17 percent), and confusion about how to apply (12 percent). 

Local office policies would probably not affect the behavior of households that cited only personal 

reasons for not applying to the FSP. Nonetheless, because a substantial majority of nonparticipant 

households mentioned aspects of the application process as deterrents to applying, practices that

enhance accessibility might encourage participation for at least some of these households. 

Why Some Households Do Not Complete the Application Process 

Most (83 percent) of the approximately 440,000 apparently eligible households who applied for 

benefits in June 2000 completed the food stamp application process and received benefits. Applicants 

who failed to complete the application process were in a somewhat better financial situation than 

those who completed the process and received benefits—they were more likely to have earnings and 

to have above-poverty income and less likely to be receiving cash assistance. Demographic 

characteristics were generally not associated with whether households completed the application 

process. However, households consisting of all elderly adults and households in which all adults had 

disabilities were significantly more likely to fulfill all application requirements and receive approval 

for food stamps. 

About one quarter of applicants who did not complete the process indicated that their situation had 

changed and they no longer needed benefits, and about half discontinued their application because 

they believed their income or assets made them ineligible. Some of these households may have been 

correct in believing themselves ineligible. The brief questions that the study used to screen for 

“apparent eligibility” have been shown in previous research to be reasonable predictors of eligibility,

but they do not provide enough detail to determine eligibility with certainty. Even if a sizable 

fraction of these households actually were truly ineligible, however, it seems clear that many

households who would be eligible are unaware of that fact. 

E-3
Just over one quarter of applicant dropouts, or about 21,000 households, reported that their reasons 

for abandoning the application included some aspect of the application process, including the need to 

acquire verification documents (10 percent), the length the length of time before benefits would be 

available (8 percent), long waits in the food stamp office (6 percent), missing work (5 percent), 

paying for someone to care for their child or elderly dependent (5 percent), and general confusion 

about the process (6 percent). For these households, local office policies that reduce the burden of the 

application process might increase participation by making it easier for households to comply with 

application requirements. 

Why Some Households Leave the FSP 

About 5 percent of the food stamp caseload left the rolls during June 2000—2 percent of households 

experienced an interim closure and 3 percent were denied continuing benefits at recertification. 

Consistent with published participation studies, those who left were less likely to be made up entirely

of elderly adults or adults with disabilities and less likely to be one-person households. Households 

who left also tended to be in better economic circumstances than those who stayed. They were more 

likely to have had earnings and above-poverty income at their most recent prior recertification. 

Just over half of the households that left the FSP in June 2000 were due for a recertification in that 

month. Of those that closed at recertification, 35 percent were denied because they no longer met 

program eligibility criteria such as income and resource limits. Most of the remainder did not meet 

all of the requirements of the recertification process. Apart from the cases that were denied because 

of excess income or resources, program records did not indicate whether or not the households who 

left the program were circumstantially eligible. However, a survey of these households found a large 

proportion to be in the category of “apparently circumstantially eligible.” Just over 90 percent of the 

households reached by the survey were in this category, and while a low survey response rate means 

that this estimate is imprecise, it seems that many households who left without an official finding of 

ineligibility were in fact still eligible. 

Asked why they did not complete the recertification, about a third said they believed they were 

ineligible – despite giving information in the survey that indicated apparent eligibility. Although it is 

somewhat surprising that so many people who had been receiving benefits would be unaware of their 

likely eligibility, recall that rate of perceived ineligibility was even higher for the apparently eligible 

households who dropped out of the initial application process. 

Based on the limited available data on the eligibility of households leaving the FSP, the study 

estimated that about 123,000 apparently eligible households exited in their recertification month in 

June 2000. Most (63 percent) did not even begin the recertification process. Smaller proportions 

either did not complete their certification interview (13 percent) or did not complete their verification 

(14 percent). 

Among survey respondents, 38 percent cited some difficulty with the recertification or some program

participation requirement among their reasons. This includes difficulty with verification requirements 

(23 percent), confusion about the process (16 percent), frequency of recertifications (9 percent), and 

the need to miss work (7 percent). TANF issues were not a major factor causing closure at 

recertification according to households’ reports. It is somewhat surprising that households that had 

already successfully negotiated the food stamp application process reported these difficulties with the 

recertification process, which may indicate that other, unreported reasons were at work. Nonetheless, 

E-4
policies that facilitate recertification might lead to continued participation by some households who 

would otherwise leave the program. 

Local Office Policies and Practices that May Affect FSP 

Participation 

Local food stamp office policies and practices may affect household participation decisions at any 

point in the decision-making process. Policies may make it easier or harder to complete required 

activities, or they may also increase the costs or decrease the benefits of FSP participation. Policies of 

other public assistance programs, particularly TANF and Medicaid, may also affect FSP participation 

decisions. The local office surveys asked about policies and practices that were hypothesized to 

influence accessibility. The paragraphs below summarize the prevalence of selected practices, which 

are grouped into seven broad categories. 

Outreach to Nonparticipants 

Outreach activities were quite prevalent, existing in the catchment areas of offices serving threequarters of the national food stamp caseload. 1 Nine different modes of outreach were reported, with 

multiple modes in most areas where any outreach occurred. Practices used in at least half of the areas 

include community presentations; flyers, posters, and brochures; and toll-free numbers or hotlines. 

Outreach efforts were conducted by both the local office and other community organizations in most 

areas that had any outreach, and about a fifth of the areas reported that outreach was conducted only 

by community organizations. Nearly two-thirds of areas had outreach targeted to particular groups, 

most commonly the elderly. Food stamp outreach was coordinated with outreach for Medicaid or 

State Child Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP) in 59 percent of local areas. 

Availability of Information about the FSP 

In nearly all offices studied, households who might wish to apply for food stamps could readily find 

application forms and general program information, particularly information concerning eligibility

requirements. Some reception areas offered general program information only on posters, but others 

used material that might communicate better, such as take-away brochures (64 percent) or videotapes 

(21 percent). Some offices made information available for special groups or issues. Sixty-two percent 

presented information in at least one non-English language, and half had specific information for 

people who were not applying for or already receiving TANF. Among offices serving immigrants, 

about two-thirds provided specific information on eligibility rules for immigrant households. Twothirds of offices made application forms available at other locations in the community besides the 

food stamp office. 

 1 In this report, we describe the distribution of office practices in terms of the weighted percent of offices

engaging in the practice, where the weighting factor is the number of active cases in the office in June 

2000. Thus, “x percent of the offices” is equivalent to “offices serving x percent of the national caseload,” 

and we use these terms interchangeably. 

E-5
Office Accessibility

Households interested in applying for benefits generally must visit the food stamp office at least once 

to complete the application process. Visits to the office are also required for periodic recertification. 

Five dimensions of office accessibility were therefore examined: 

• Hours of operation—About two-fifths of offices conducted some eligibility interviews 

outside standard business hours. Most of these offices offered interviews before 8 am; 

relatively few offered interviews after 5 pm. 

• Transportation—Three-quarters of offices were accessible by public transportation. 

Relatively few offices offered transportation assistance in the form of cash, vouchers, or 

van service. 

• Child-friendliness—Local practices regarding child-friendliness varied considerably. 

Most offices had some play space, and a few offered child care services. A small 

percentage asked clients not to bring children to the office. 

• Physical accessibility and accessibility to non-English speakers—Nearly all offices were

physically accessible. Virtually all offices that routinely saw non-English speaking clients 

had translation services available. 

Subjective Office Features 

The study examined three subjective dimensions that might affect applicants’ sense of the program’s 

accessibility: staff attitudes, the presence of waiting lines, and the adequacy of seating in the reception 

area. To assess attitudes, the supervisor survey asked whether supervisors agreed or disagreed with 

three judgmental statements. Supervisors in over 80 percent of offices expressed “pro-participation” 

positions on the attitudinal items. The vast majority of offices (almost 90 percent) always had enough 

seats for everyone in the reception area, though a small percentage had insufficient seats at some 

times. While about one-third of offices were observed to have no waiting lines at any time, half 

sometimes had lines and one-tenth always did. 

Certification Requirements 

Although basic FSP eligibility criteria and requirements are uniform across locations, local offices 

exercise considerable discretion in structuring the applications process and the study documented 

quite substantial variation across offices. 

• Structure of application process—The eligibility interview is the universally central 

element of the application process, but substantial variation existed in the process leading 

up to the interview. Interviews were scheduled in advance in offices serving 55 percent of 

the national caseload. Meetings prior to the certification interview were required for 

households applying for TANF in 26 percent of offices; 11 percent of offices had a 

similar requirement for households applying only for food stamps. About half of offices 

reported that food stamp applicants usually had to make more than a single visit to the 

office in order to complete the process. 

• TANF-diversion and other job search—Most offices (80 percent) had some form of 

diversion in place for TANF applicants, including lump-sum payments (55 percent), job 

E-6
search requirements (38 percent), and a requirement to seek alternative resources (9 

percent). Some offices (14 percent) required some non-TANF applicants to engage in job

search activities prior to benefit receipt. 

• Verification and anti-fraud procedures—Third party verification was fairly widespread, 

used to verify income for TANF applicants (66 percent of offices), household 

circumstances (53 percent), and shelter costs (43 percent). Third party income

verification was somewhat less common for non-TANF applicants (57 percent). Fraud 

investigations involving unannounced home visits were routine practices in offices that 

served half the national caseload, with 13 percent reporting such investigations for at 

least a quarter of all applications. Fingerprinting or finger imaging was required for at 

least some food stamp applicants in about one-quarter of offices. 

Recertification Requirements 

Recertification requirements are similar to initial certification requirements in that households must 

complete an application, participate in an interview, and provide verification of circumstances. The 

study focused on three practices specific to recertification that could affect accessibility. 

• Certification period—States and local offices have considerable discretion to set the 

length of certification periods, with longer periods generally assigned to types of cases 

whose circumstances are expected to be stable and shorter periods for more volatile 

cases. Reported certification policies varied considerably across local offices even for 

similar types of cases. For example, TANF/FSP cases without earnings were given 4-6 

month certification periods in 58 percent of offices, but 11 percent used shorter periods 

and 31 percent used longer ones. Short certifications (1 to 3 months) for non-TANF cases 

with earnings were reported in about half of the offices, but nearly a third of the offices 

usually assigned certification periods of 7 months or more for this group. Elderly and 

disabled clients received longer certification periods – 7-12 months in 76 percent of 

offices, and 24 months in 17 percent of offices. 

• Telephone or in-home interviews—Most offices offered telephone or at-home 

recertification interviews to persons with disabilities and the elderly (caseload-weighted 

70 percent and 54 percent, respectively). A relatively small percentage of offices offered 

this opportunity to other types of clients who experienced difficulties visiting the office. 

• Missed appointments—One third of offices automatically closed the food stamp cases of 

participants who missed interview appointments; most other offices either automatically

rescheduled the appointment or notified the client to do so. 

Interim Participation Requirements 

In the months between certifications, households in some offices must comply with reporting or 

employment-related requirements in order to continue receiving food stamp benefits. 

• Periodic reporting—About half of all offices reported having a mandatory monthly or 

quarterly reporting requirement, generally applicable to households with earnings. In over 

one-tenth of offices (12 percent), cases were automatically closed for failure to provide 

the required report. 

E-7
• Employment and training requirements—Just over two-thirds of offices had work 

requirements in place for ABAWD (able-bodied adults without dependents) households 

and one third of offices required some non-TANF, non-ABAWD households to 

participate in E&T activities as a condition for continuing eligibility. 

• Sanctions—When food stamp households fail to comply with FSP requirements, or when 

households receiving both food stamp and TANF benefits fail to meet certain TANF 

requirements, local offices may impose sanctions that reduce or terminate food stamp 

benefits. Supervisors in 18 percent of offices reported that non-TANF households could 

be sanctioned for noncompliance with child support requirements. Sanctions for

TANF/food stamp households were reported in 58 percent of offices. 

• TANF leavers—In about one-quarter of offices, households that lost their TANF benefits 

due to full-family sanctions and those that left voluntarily due to employment or other 

reasons were required to visit the office in order to continue receiving food stamps, and in 

8 percent of offices, households that reached the TANF time limit faced this requirement. 

Relationship between Local Office Policies and Household 

Participation Decisions 

Multivariate models were estimated to explore the relationship between apparently eligible 

households’ participation behaviors and the policies and practices of the local offices in their area. 

These household-level models took into account the households’ characteristics and selected 

characteristics of the local areas. The two models focused on: 

• Whether eligible nonparticipating households believed they might be eligible for food 

stamps. 

• Whether households that contacted the office completed the food stamp application 

process. 

Awareness of Eligibility

The first step in the process of becoming a food stamp participant is for the household to be aware of 

its potential eligibility, which we hypothesized to be influenced by local agency outreach. 

In areas where a larger number of outreach modes were employed, nonparticipant households who 

were apparently eligible for food stamps were more likely to perceive themselves as eligible. We 

interpret the number of outreach modes as reflecting the intensity or breadth of the outreach efforts. 

With more outreach, it appears, more people were aware of their potential eligibility. Which 

organization conducted the outreach, and whether it was targeted to particular groups, had no 

statistically significant association with perceived eligibility. 

Coordination of food stamp outreach with Medicaid or SCHIP was negatively related to perceived 

eligibility. This raises the possibility that linking food stamp outreach with that for other programs

may dilute the food stamp message. A coordinated approach may still generate food stamp 

participation, however, if it brings people into the social services network and they are appropriately

referred to the food stamp office. 

E-8
Completing the Application Process 

The multivariate analysis included some 27 dimensions of local office practice, representing 

information availability, office accessibility, subjective dimensions, and certification requirements. 

Five practices were significantly associated with the likelihood that households who contacted the 

office to apply for benefits would successfully complete the application process: 

• Restricted office hours—Households with earnings were less likely to complete all 

application requirements in offices that were only open for interviews between the hours 

of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. 

• Positive supervisor attitudes—“Pro-participation” attitudes expressed by supervisors 

were positively associated with the likelihood that applicants completed the process. 

• Fingerprinting of applicants—In offices where applicants were fingerprinted or finger 

imaged prior to benefit receipt, households were less likely to complete the process. 

• Child-friendliness—Households with young children were less likely to fulfill all 

application requirements in offices that requested that children not be brought into the 

office. 

• Time limits for ABAWDs—ABAWDs in offices with time limits were less likely to 

complete the application process. 

While the findings from the multivariate analysis are reasonable, and consistent with some major 

actions that USDA has taken to improve program access, they are probably not the entire story. Local 

offices do not adopt particular policies in isolation, but do so as part of a procedure to optimize 

across different program goals. The applicant’s overall experience results from the combination of 

many separate office practices. The study sample of 109 offices, although large for studies of this 

type, was not sufficient to explore the effects of all observed combinations of practices. It is therefore 

quite possible that practices other than those identified in the present analysis could have significant 

effects on participation. 

Remaining in the Food Stamp Program 

The study did not include a multivariate analysis of whether eligible participating households remain 

in the FSP because the available data did not indicate the eligibility status of all households exiting 

the program. 

One policy whose importance can be seen without such an analysis is the length of the assigned 

recertification period. Based on the limited available data, it appears that eligible households are 

several times more likely to leave the FSP in a recertification month than in other months. This 

implies that less frequent recertifications would be associated with greater participation by eligible 

households. 

It is likely that other local office practices also influence the likelihood that eligible households will 

leave the program. Households who failed to complete recertification requirements cited several 

factors potentially related to office practices, such as difficulty with documentation requirements, the 

need to miss work, and confusion about what they needed to do. 

E-9
Policy Implications for Reducing Nonparticipation

If policy makers wish to increase the level of participation by eligible households, the biggest target is 

households with no recent contact with the FSP who would apply for benefits if they believed 

themselves eligible. This group included more than 4 million households in June 2000—somewhat 

more than half as many as the number of active participant households in that month. Communicating 

with these nonparticipant households would be difficult because they are not easy to identify and they

are not necessarily the same households from month to month. Nonetheless, increasing these 

households’ understanding of their likely eligibility may be the only way to achieve a substantial 

reduction in the overall rate of nonparticipation. FNS has emphasized outreach in recent years, 

disseminating outreach guidance material and making grants available to States, and the analysis 

suggests that these steps are likely to be helpful in increasing participation. 

Although most eligible nonparticipants are not in contact with the FSP at any given time, it is also 

important to avoid discouraging participation by households who have taken action to seek program

benefits, including both nonparticipants who contact the office and households who are actively 

participating. The processes of application and recertification—and to a lesser extent, complying with 

program requirements in non-recertification months—are hurdles that a sizable number of apparently 

eligible households fail to surmount. 

These “hurdles” are not capricious, however, but represent operations that the program must carry out 

in order to deliver benefits and ensure program integrity. Local office practices can adjust the 

operations somewhat, but cannot remove them. Thus while a substantial proportion of the applicant 

dropouts cited procedural obstacles, the statistical analysis found few variations in office practices to 

be significantly associated with the probability that households would complete the process. 

Moreover, this analytic approach can identify effects only when the policy variation across offices is 

sufficient to influence households’ behaviors. For example, the need to provide documentation of 

income, which is often cited by households as a reason for abandoning the application process, may

not have been significant in the multivariate analysis because the policy differences among offices 

may have been too small to make a real difference in the difficulty that households experienced. For 

these reasons, it is likely that local office practices influence households’ participation behaviors in 

more ways than the models could reveal. 

The 2002 Farm Bill and earlier regulatory initiatives included steps intended to lower barriers to food 

stamp participation, such as allowing States to use longer intervals between recertifications and 

establishing transitional benefits for participants who leave TANF. Such modifications are quite 

consistent with the general study findings, which indicate that many potentially eligible households 

are tripped up by administrative requirements. Lengthening certification periods seems particularly

likely to reduce the frequency with which eligible participating households leave the program. It 

might also be useful to explore new policy options for verifying households’ income and other 

circumstances. Survey respondents mentioned this as a problem at both application and 

recertification, though the existing range of allowable practices was too limited to affect participation. 

Any effort to increase accessibility through local office practices could benefit from further research 

on the links between office practices and household behavior. More focused office-level and 

household-level research is needed to know how much reduction in non-participation can realistically

be achieved, what practices and combinations of practices can have the greatest impact, and how 

E-10
those practices affect goals such as program integrity and administrative costs. Such information 

would provide invaluable guidance for enhancing the Food Stamp Program’s accessibility to eligible 

households. 

E-11
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

The Food Stamp Program Access study was motivated by a desire to learn whether and how the 

administrative policies and practices carried out by local food stamp offices influence the likelihood 

that eligible households will participate in the program. This report addresses the issue from three 

perspectives. It describes the nature and prevalence of local office practices that are hypothesized to 

influence participation. It describes households’ stated reasons for not participating or ending their 

participation, along with the households’ characteristics, attitudes, and experiences that may be 

associated with participation behavior. Finally, the report presents exploratory analyses of the 

association between local office practices and household participation behaviors. 

The Food Stamp Program (FSP), administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the largest Federal food assistance program and the 

cornerstone of the nation’s safety net for low-income persons. Its primary objective is to help lowincome households obtain a more nutritious diet by increasing their food purchasing power. The 

program provides eligible households with electronic benefit transfer cards that are redeemable at 

authorized food stores for a preset dollar amount. Unlike other Federal income maintenance 

programs, the FSP has few categorical eligibility criteria, such as the presence of a child, disabled 

person, pregnant woman, or elderly adult in the household. The majority of FSP recipients are 

children and approximately one-quarter are in households that receive cash assistance from the 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program (TANF) (Cunnyngham, 2001). 

Policy Setting 

A central goal in administering the Food Stamp Program is to assure that all eligible households have 

access to the program. “Access” is generally interpreted to mean that households are aware of the 

program, can readily obtain information about it, and, if they wish to participate, can apply and

receive benefits without undue difficulty. This program goal has resulted in a long-standing interest in 

establishing policies and procedures that would facilitate access, and events of the late 1990s 

intensified that interest. 

The late 1990s were characterized by a complete transformation of welfare policy in the U.S. and by

dramatic declines in the food stamp caseload. These changes led policymakers and analysts to focus 

on issues of access to the Food Stamp Program and the role of local office policies and practices as 

possible barriers to participation. 

In 1996, Federal welfare reform legislation—the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)—was enacted. This law replaced Aid to Families with

Dependent Children, a cash assistance entitlement program, with the block-granted, work-oriented 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. The FSP remained essentially a national 

entitlement program, though PRWORA made a number of important changes to the Food Stamp 

Program, including: 

1-1
• Establishing work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. These 

participants were generally limited to three months of food stamp participation in a threeyear period unless they were employed or participating in a qualified work program.

• Restricting FSP eligibility for immigrants. Most legal immigrants were made ineligible 

for food stamp benefits.1

 

• Providing States with several new food stamp sanction options, including sanctioning 

food stamp recipients for noncompliance with TANF requirements and for 

noncompliance with child support. 

• Weakening the linkages between the FSP and cash assistance programs. For example, 

eligibility interviews for food stamps and TANF could be separate rather than a single 

combined interview, and the food stamp application form did not have to be combined 

with the cash assistance form. 

• Reducing benefits for all participants by lowering the maximum benefit. 

National food stamp rolls declined by almost 40 percent between 1994, when 27.5 million persons 

received food stamps in an average month, and July 2000, when 16.9 million people received 

benefits. Two recent USDA studies suggest that roughly half the observed decline in food stamp 

caseloads was due to the strong economic conditions of the late 1990s and the direct impact of

welfare reform on FSP eligibility rules (FNS, 2001 and Wilde et al., 2000). However, over the period, 

nonparticipation in the Food Stamp Program also increased. The food stamp participation rate, 

calculated as the ratio of the number of program participants to the number of eligible individuals, 

declined by 16 percentage points, from 74.8 percent in September 1994 to 59.7 percent in September 

2000, indicating that fewer eligible individuals participated in the FSP in the late 1990s than 

previously. 

Two general hypotheses have been advanced to explain the decline in Food Stamp Program

participation among eligible individuals. One argument is that the FSP has become less accessible to 

its intended beneficiaries because of policy and operational changes, particularly at the local office 

level, that have accompanied welfare reform. Few changes in Food Stamp Program administration 

were mandated by PRWORA, but many changes have occurred in local welfare offices, most in 

response to changing objectives regarding cash assistance. It is reasonable to suspect that some of the 

changes have affected FSP operations in ways that were not intended, and may not support program

objectives. For example, anecdotal evidence suggests that some offices may have new procedures that 

have increased the burden on applicants. In addition, offices may not have revised their practices to 

ensure that households understand revised eligibility criteria. A second argument is that the behavior 

of low-income individuals has changed over time due to several different factors. The robust 

economy may have affected their perceptions of need, promoting a more optimistic outlook for the 

future. Welfare reform or evolving social mores may have affected their attitudes toward government 

assistance, increasing the stigma of receiving aid. In addition, confusion over the food stamp 

 1

 In 1998, eligibility restrictions on immigrants were partly rescinded. Eligibility was restored for permanent 

residents who were either disabled or were under 18 or aged 65 and older and who were legal residents 

when the PRWORA legislation was enacted. The 2002 Farm Bill, enacted after data collection for this 

study was completed, made further restorations by reinstating food stamp eligibility for legal immigrants 

residing in the U.S. for at least five years, and for all legal immigrant children and disabled individuals. 

1-2
eligibility rules may have led some to erroneously conclude that they were ineligible to receive food 

stamp benefits. 

Food stamp participation and participation-related policies have changed in important ways since this 

study began. After reaching a low point of 16.9 million participants in July 2000, the food stamp 

caseload began growing and reached 23.4 million in January 2004. This growth stemmed partly from

a weakening economy, but it also reflected policy changes that expanded eligibility for benefits. 

Regulatory initiatives in 1999 and 2000 relaxed vehicle ownership rules and expanded the definition 

of households receiving TANF who would also be eligible for food stamp benefits. The 2002 Farm

Bill (P.L. 107-171) restored eligibility for several groups of legal immigrants, including those who 

have resided in the US for five years, all children of legal immigrants, and all legal immigrants with 

disabilities. The bill also added transitional benefits for food stamp households reaching the TANF 

time limit and increased the standard deduction used in the food stamp benefit calculation for some 

larger households. Other important changes included federal grants for States to perform outreach to 

nonparticipants, simplification of certain rules for eligibility and benefit determination, and allowing 

States to reduce household reporting burden by lengthening the interval between required reports. 

Research Objectives 

As part of an effort to more fully understand the factors that affect Food Stamp Program participation 

rates, the Economic Research Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture funded Abt Associates 

Inc. to examine systematically the ways in which local offices affect food stamp use. The key issue 

concerns the extent to which local policies and administrative practices in the FSP or in related 

programs, particularly TANF, can affect levels of participation among potentially eligible households. 

Specifically, the study examined the impact of various policies and practices on households’

decisions to apply for program benefits and their decisions to continue participating once they have 

been approved for food stamp benefits. In order to address the central research objective, the study

utilized two approaches: 

• Examining the reasons that presumably eligible nonparticipant households give for not 

participating in the FSP. These include households that have not applied for program

benefits as well as households that applied, but did not complete the application process. 

• Examining differences in participation behaviors—entry into the FSP and exit from the 

FSP—in offices with differing local policies and practices. 

The study also addressed two secondary objectives: 

• Describing the local office policies and practices that may affect Food Stamp Program

accessibility. 

• Describing the eligible nonparticipant population, including how nonparticipants differ 

from FSP participants. 

In order to provide a systematic and comprehensive examination of the ways that program policies 

and procedures may influence the accessibility of the Food Stamp Program, the study selected a 

nationally representative sample of 109 local food stamp offices and the relevant populations within 

1-3
their catchment areas.2

 Numerous separate data collection and analysis efforts were required, 

involving populations with quite distinct relationships with the FSP—nonparticipants, applicants, 

current recipients, and former recipients. In addition, extensive data collection was required within 

the sampled local offices to obtain detailed information on local office policies and practices that 

might potentially affect accessibility. This report integrates data collected in all aspects of the 

research study, examining the relationship between local office policies and practices and the 

participation decisions of eligible households. 

The study has produced two previous reports, which address the secondary objectives. The first 

report, Food Stamp Program Access Study: Local Office Policies and Practices, produced by our 

subcontractor Health Systems Research, Inc., presents a detailed descriptive analysis of local office 

policies and practices that might affect FSP participation (Gabor et al., 2003). These policies and 

practices cover a variety of operational aspects of the FSP, including those driven by changes made 

under PRWORA. The analysis, the first such detailed investigation at the local level, examines office 

policies that reflect State policy choices in FSP and in TANF as well as those policies and practices 

that are based on local programs’ operational decisions. The characterization of local office policies 

and practices in this report is derived from this analysis. 

The second report, Food Stamp Program Access Study: FSP Eligible Nonparticipants, provides an indepth examination of the population of eligible households that do not participate in the Food Stamp 

Program (Bartlett and Burstein, 2004). This descriptive report examines the characteristics, 

experiences, perceptions, and circumstances of households that appear eligible to receive food stamp 

benefits, but have not applied for them. While a number of previous research studies have examined 

this issue, this is the first national study conducted since full implementation of welfare reform. 

Results from the current study are compared with findings from a nationally representative survey of 

eligible nonparticipants conducted around the time PRWORA was passed (Ponza et al., July 1999). 

Previous Research on the Impact of Policies on FSP Participation 

During the latter half of the 1990s, a number of research studies used econometric modeling 

techniques and national household survey or administrative data from the 1980s and 1990s to

examine the impact of the economy and of policies associated with welfare reform on the food stamp 

caseload. As mentioned above, all recent studies found that the booming economy of the late 1990s 

was responsible for a substantial portion of the food stamp caseload decline in that period. Most 

studies found that specific policy changes associated with welfare reform were responsible for only a 

small fraction of the FSP caseload declines, though a few studies found somewhat larger impacts. 

Using annual FSP caseload data, researchers examined how changes over time were affected by 

variables such as the implementation of AFDC waivers/TANF implementation and ABAWD (ablebodied adults without dependents) waivers. The included variables explained less than 10 percent of 

the FSP caseload declines (Wallace and Blank, 1999; Wilde et al., 2000; Ziliak et al., 2001). Two 

studies that included additional State-level policy variables, such as TANF time limits, sanctions, and 

earnings disregards, were able to explain 15–20 percent of the FSP caseload decline of the late 1990s 

(Kornfeld, 2002; Jacobson et al., 2000). 

 2

 Catchment area is the geographic area served by the local office. It was operationally defined using the

telephone prefix or zip code of FSP applicants and participants in the office. 

1-4
Several studies examined the impact of specific FSP policies on the caseload declines. Kornfeld 

(2002) and Kabbani and Wilde (2003) examined the impact of frequent recertifications, which 

increase participation costs for recipients, on FSP caseloads. They estimated that shorter certification 

periods explained between 7 and 10 percent of the FSP caseload declines during the latter half of the 

1990s. Using household-level data, Currie and Grogger (2001) found that shorter certification periods 

were associated with decreases in food stamp receipt, at least among single-parent households. 

McKernan and Ratcliffe (2003) also found that households with shorter certification periods (four to 

six months) were less likely to participate in the FSP than households with longer periods between 

recertifications. 

Kabbani and Wilde (2003) also included a measure of Federal food stamp outreach expenditures in 

their models. This variable increased participation rates for working households, but had no impact on 

nonworking households. This suggests that outreach may be successful at informing some households 

about the FSP. 

Studies that included a variable measuring EBT implementation found little or no impact on FSP 

caseloads (Ziliak et al., 2001; Wilde et al., 2000; Currie and Grogger, 2001; Kornfeld, 2002; 

McKernan and Ratcliffe, 2003). 

Gleason et al. (2001) also included a single indicator in their model for the post-PRWORA period. 

This variable, which measured the timing of the welfare reform legislation and was constant across 

States, accounted for 26 percent of the FSP caseload declines between 1994 and 1999. The general 

indicator variable could be measuring a number of different concepts—unmeasured policies 

(including changes in food stamp eligibility rules under PRWORA), changes in attitudes towards 

public assistance, and implementation of policies by local welfare workers. 

Two studies, conducted during 2000–2001, used case study methodology to examine strategies that 

might promote participation in the FSP (and Medicaid) among working families, many of whom were 

former welfare recipients. Pavetti et al. (2002) conducted case studies in 15 sites located in 12 States 

and collected data from welfare office staff, clients, and client advocacy groups. Quint and Widom

(2001) conducted surveys and interviews with staff, interviewed clients, and observed worker-client 

meetings in welfare offices in four large urban areas. Two strategies—increasing program awareness 

though outreach activities and simplifying the application and recertification processes to make them

easier and less burdensome—were cited by both studies as likely to increase FSP participation in the 

post welfare reform era. Pavetti et al. also suggested that, because of the changes in TANF, Medicaid, 

and food stamp eligibility and the increased complexity of determining which programs households 

are eligible, having well-trained office staff, explicit case processing procedures, and sophisticated 

automated systems will help insure that benefits are accurately determined. 

As the discussion above suggests, food stamp participation and participation-related policies have 

been examined in national studies using State-level data and in studies of a small number of selected 

local offices. The present study has attempted to fill some of the space between these approaches. To 

examine the effects of policies that vary within States, the study collected both policy and 

participation data at the local office level. To support generalization to the nation as a whole, the 

study used a nationally representative sample of 109 local offices in 39 States and the District of 

Columbia. 

1-5
Organization of the Report 

This report brings together data from all aspects of the research study to examine the relationship 

between local office policies and practices and the participation decisions of eligible households. 

Chapter Two describes the study design, including sampling and data collection activities. Chapters 

Three through Six examine different subgroups of the food stamp eligible population—

nonparticipants, households that applied for FSP benefits, TANF diverted households, and 

households that left the Food Stamp Program. The analyses examine the characteristics of these

groups and the types of households that were more likely to apply and continue participating in the 

program. Households’ experiences and perceptions of the FSP were also examined along with the 

stated reasons households gave for choosing not to receive FSP benefits. Chapter Seven uses data 

collected in local food stamp offices to describe policies and practices that might be hypothesized to 

affect FSP participation. Chapter Eight then presents a set of multivariate models that examine the 

food stamp participation decisions of eligible households. The models relate households’ decisions at 

various stages of the food stamp participation process to local office policies and practices, household 

characteristics, and contextual variables. The final chapter uses findings from the descriptive and 

multivariate analyses to examine potential implications for public policy to improve accessibility of 

the Food Stamp Program. 

1-6
Chapter 2 

Study Design 

Examining how local food stamp office policies and practices affect households’ decisions to 

participate in the FSP required a study design that provided information from local food stamp offices 

and from households with differing connections to the Food Stamp Program. The study was designed 

to provide a comprehensive examination of the population of households eligible for food stamp 

benefits, including those receiving FSP benefits as well as eligible nonparticipant households. This 

design required drawing a nationally representative sample of food stamp offices, obtaining 

information on policies and practices in those offices, and obtaining information on the FSP 

participants and nonparticipants served by those offices. 

The first section of the chapter presents the conceptual framework that provided the basis for the 

study design. The model illustrates the populations of primary interest and the points where they are 

required to make decisions concerning program participation, and therefore the points where local 

office policies and practices may potentially affect program access. The second section of the chapter 

presents the research methodology, including sample selection, data collection efforts, and data

analysis activities. 

Conceptual Model of FSP Participation Decisions 

The population of households that are circumstantially eligible for food stamp benefits is comprised 

of current food stamp recipients and eligible nonparticipants.1

 Circumstantially eligible households 

are those whose income, household size, assets, and other characteristics would meet program

eligibility requirements, and these households are the focus of the study.

At any given point in time, some nonparticipating households apply for food stamp benefits and other 

households currently receiving benefits leave the FSP. Figure 2.1 shows the populations that 

comprise the food stamp eligible population and the participation decisions they make at different 

stages. The model indicates the points at which they can enter the FSP and the points where they can 

leave.2

 

Starting with the population of eligible nonparticipants, households must first determine whether they

are likely to be eligible for food stamp benefits. If they do not think they are eligible, they are unlikely

to bother applying. Households then decide whether or not to contact the food stamp office. Not all 

who make an initial telephone or in-person visit to the office to inquire about assistance will decide to 

continue the process by officially filing a food stamp application. Once an eligible household has 

 1

 Throughout this report, we define households as “apparently circumstantially eligible” based on survey

responses regarding their household size, income, and assets, criteria which have been shown to be quite

accurate in predicting FSP eligibility (McConnell, 1997). Without a full FSP certification interview, it is 

impossible to determine FSP eligibility with certainty. 

2

 For simplicity, the illustration does not depict the dynamic nature of circumstantial eligibility. Households 

that are not circumstantially eligible may become eligible and enter the nonparticipant population. Likewise 

circumstantially eligible households, whether they are participants or nonparticipants, may become

ineligible. 

 2-1 
 2-2 Figure 2.1—Food stamp-eligible households: Program participation decisions This figure excludes circumstantially ineligible households. A circumstantially eligible household may become ineligible at any point shown in the diagram

ineligible may cause a household to be denied at application, closed in an interim month, or closed at recertification. These processes are not represented by 

Nonparticipants—not in contact with FSP Yes Yes 

No No Terminated recipients No Yes 

Recertified recipients Recipients C

rece

= Sampled population Approved applicants Denied applicants Interim closures Applies for benefits? Completes application process? Interim month: complies with participation requirements? Rec

mont

rec

p

Yes Nonparticipants—not in contact with FSP Yes Yes 

No No Terminated recipients No Yes 

Recertified recipients Recipients C

rece

= Sampled population Approved applicants Denied applicants Interim closures Applies for benefits? Completes application process? Interim month: complies with participation requirements? Rec

mont

rec

p

Yes
filed a food stamp application, it must complete numerous steps, including participating in an 

interview and obtaining necessary documents verifying household circumstances, before being 

approved for food stamp benefits. Not all households complete all the necessary requirements, and 

some are denied at this point. 

Food stamp recipient households also must take certain actions to continue participating in the 

program. Households need to comply with various participation requirements, such as periodic 

reporting or job search, in order to remain eligible for food stamp benefits. If they do not comply with 

the requirements that apply to their household type, they may be terminated from the program. Note 

that households that are terminated for noncompliance are still considered circumstantially eligible 

for purposes of this study, as long as their income and resources still fall within the FSP eligibility

limits. 

Additionally, all households need to complete periodic recertification requirements in which their 

continuing eligibility for the FSP is determined. Recertification requirements are generally similar to 

initial certification requirements. Households need to file a recertification application, participate in a 

recertification interview, and provide additional documents to verify their situation. Households that 

do not complete all steps in the recertification process are terminated from the FSP. Those households 

that remain circumstantially eligible for the FSP and complete all necessary requirements are 

approved to continue receiving food stamp benefits. 

This conceptual model assumes that households make sequential decisions about FSP participation by

deciding to take or not take certain steps. These decisions are based on households’ awareness and 

understanding of the requirements and their assessment of the expected costs and benefits of taking 

the required action. Households’ interactions with the FSP often involve other programs as well, 

primarily TANF, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and General Assistance. Because 

these programs are so extensively linked, households will consider the costs and benefits of all 

programs combined, rather than for each program separately. 

At all points in the decision-making process, food stamp policies and practices may affect 

households’ decisions.3

 Some policies may make it easier or harder to complete necessary

requirements. They may increase the costs of obtaining benefits or decrease the value of those 

benefits. For example, in terms of the application process, FSP practices with respect to the number 

and difficulty of the steps required to complete an application may affect whether households apply

for benefits. Additional or more difficult steps raise the cost of applying and therefore reduce the net 

value of participation. This in turn reduces the likelihood that a given household will apply or 

complete the application process. In addition, TANF policies, such as providing lump-sum payments 

in lieu of welfare may affect a households’ decision by altering the expected benefits. Current food 

stamp recipients may be affected by the extent of participation requirements—reporting income on a 

periodic basis and participating in job search activities. They may also be affected by TANF 

requirements and sanctions imposed on TANF and food stamp benefits. 

 3 Households’ decisions will also be affected by their own characteristics and experiences, and these are 

taken into account in the analyses. 

2-3
Research Methodology

The research objectives required a complex sampling, data collection effort, and analysis strategy. It 

involved numerous separate samples and data collection activities at the local office level and 

household level. Sampling and data collection activities were designed to fit together to provide a 

systematic and comprehensive look at how local program policies and procedures influenced 

potentially eligible households’ participation in the Food Stamp Program. This section discusses the 

sampling, data collection and data analysis activities. Additional detail is presented in Appendix A. 

Sample Selection 

The sampling for this nationally representative study involved two steps. In the first step, a nationally

representative sample of local food stamp offices was selected. Samples of food stamp caseworkers 

and their supervisors were selected within the sampled offices and interviewed concerning local 

office policies and practices that might affect access to the FSP. For each office, samples were drawn 

of food stamp eligible nonparticipants, food stamp applicants, households recertifying for food stamp 

benefits, and households leaving the FSP, and information was obtained about their characteristics, 

their relationship to the FSP, and their participation decisions. 

Sample of Offices 

The sampling plan for selection of local food stamp offices was designed to be nationally

representative and to ensure that most States in the continental U.S. would be represented. Welfare 

reform strategies have been quite diverse among States, resulting in distinctive administrative 

practices, which may have important implications for food stamp participation. Therefore, it was 

important to maximize the representation of States. The sampling plan was also designed to yield a 

sufficiently large number of offices to support office-level analysis of the effects of administrative 

practices on caseload entry and exit. 

Each State in the continental U.S. and the District of Columbia provided a complete list of local 

offices, along with caseload information for each office. In places where different offices served 

distinct segments of the local caseload (e.g. the elderly or TANF clients), these offices were 

combined to make a single office that served all segments of the local program population. Offices 

with caseloads less than 150 were excluded from the sampling frame because of the difficulties they

would have presented in obtaining an adequate sample of applicants.4

To ensure a reasonable distribution of local offices across the country and to decrease sampling 

variability, the sampling design involved stratifying the 3,359 local food stamp offices in the U.S. by

the seven FNS regions, and by State within each region. States with small populations were grouped 

together to ensure the representation of smaller States in the office sample. In large States, the sample 

 4

 Our sampling design called for samples in each office of 10 applicant households and 10 households due 

for recertification in the sample month. Assuming 7 percent turnover in caseload per month, the minimum

office size required was estimated to be 150 (10/.07). Of the 3,789 food stamp offices located in the 

continental United States and the District of Columbia, 430 had monthly caseloads below 150. These small 

offices accounted for only 0.44 percent of the total food stamp caseload. The remaining 3,359 offices were 

included in the sampling frame. 

2-4
was further stratified based on the degree of urbanicity (defined as offices located within 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas, or MSAs, versus offices located outside MSAs). 

Probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling was used to draw a sample of 120 local food stamp 

offices. The sampled offices were located in 40 States and the District of Columbia. All selected

States, with the exception of New York, agreed to participate in the research study. New York was 

unable to participate due to a pending lawsuit in New York City, concerning access to the Food 

Stamp Program, which was scheduled for trial during the data collection period. The final research 

sample included 109 local food stamp offices, located in 39 States and the District of Columbia.5

Table 2.1 shows the characteristics of the final sample of offices by region, metropolitan status, 

caseload size, and the number of separate sites that comprised the sampled offices. The table provides 

the unweighted distribution, the weighted distribution, and the distribution of the offices weighted by 

the national caseload. 

Table 2.1—Characteristics of the office sample 

Office Characteristic 

Number of 

Offices in

Sample 

(N=109) 

Percent of 

Sample 

Weighted

Percent of 

National Food

Stamp Offices

Weighted

Percent of 

National 

Caseload 

FNS region 

Northeast 5 5% 2% 8%

Mid-Atlantic 15 14 15 19

Southeast 28 26 25 23

Midwest 19 17 16 16

Southwest 16 15 16 13

Mountain Plains 8 7 7 7

Western 18 17 18 15

Metro/Nonmetro location 

Metropolitan county 80 73 45 77

Nonmetropolitan county 29 27 55 23 

Office size 

FSP caseload less than 2,000 33 30 70 26 

FSP caseload 2,000 or greater 76 70 30 74 

Number of sites 

1 101 93 94 92

2 7 6 5 8

4 1 1 1 1

 5

 Adjustments to the sampling weights were made to account for the nonparticipation of New York State. 

See discussion in Appendix A. 

2-5
The distribution of food stamp office size was moderately skewed. Large offices (with a caseload of 

2,000 or more) served almost three-quarters of the participants, while comprising only 30 percent of 

the offices nationwide. Because of the PPS sampling, large offices comprised about three-quarters of 

the study sample. The sample was thus roughly self-weighting with regard to population served. 

Sample of Caseworker Supervisors 

Caseworker supervisors provided detailed information on local office policies and practices that 

might affect access to the Food Stamp Program. The sample of caseworker supervisors was a 

purposive sample. The objective was to complete one survey in each sampled office. This generally

involved interviewing more than one supervisor as workers specialized in the types of cases they

handled (for example, TANF versus non-TANF cases) or in the part of the food stamp process in 

which they were involved (for example, intake versus ongoing). The local office director identified 

the most knowledgeable supervisor, or the supervisor who had been working at the office the longest, 

to complete the interview. A total of 201 supervisors were selected for interviews across the 109 local 

offices. 

Sample of Caseworkers 

Caseworkers were interviewed concerning their practices for handling different aspects of the food 

stamp application and participation processes. The objective was to obtain two complete interviews in 

each sampled office. As with the supervisor survey, the level of worker specialization determined the 

number of workers interviewed in each office. For example, if the offices consisted of an intake unit 

and a unit for ongoing cases, two caseworkers from each unit were interviewed. The list of all 

caseworkers was divided into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive groups, defined by worker 

responsibility. Caseworkers were then randomly selected within each group. A total of 509 

caseworkers were sampled.

Samples of Applicant, Recertified Recipient, and Terminated Recipient Households 

The samples of new applicants, recertified cases, and terminated cases were drawn from lists

provided by the sampled States (or counties) of all households that, in June 2000, experienced one of 

the following events: 

• New applicants: households that filed a food stamp application in June 2000. These 

included households who completed the application process and were approved to

receive food stamp benefits. They also included households that were denied assistance 

either because they did not meet the eligibility criteria or because they did not complete 

all procedural requirements.6

• Recertified recipients: households whose certification period ended in June 2000 and 

were approved for continuing food stamp benefits. 

• Terminated recipients: households whose food stamp benefits ended in June 2000. These 

included cases that reached the end of their certification period and were not recertified. 

 6

 All analyses excluded households that were denied benefits due to circumstantial ineligibility. These 

households were included in the initial sample frame because excluding them would have presented 

operational difficulties for the State agencies providing the household lists. 

2-6
They also included interim closures—households whose cases were closed in the midst 

of a certification period.7

Within each of the 109 sampled offices, systematic random samples were drawn from the groups of 

interest. The final sample comprised an average of 20 to 25 households in each of the local offices. 

Sample of TANF-diverted Households 

TANF-diverted applicants, defined as households that filed a TANF application and were diverted 

before completing the TANF application process, were a group of particular interest. The concern 

among policy makers was that these households may not receive food stamp benefits for which they

are entitled. The TANF-diverted applicants included in the study were those that received lump-sum

cash benefits, in lieu of on-going TANF benefits, in June 2000. 

In June 2000, ten of the sampled States reported providing cash diversion payments in the offices 

selected for the sample. The 179 households that received such payments comprise the TANFdiverted sample and represent the universe of households that were diverted from applying for TANF 

benefits by the use of lump-sum cash payments.8

 

Sample of Eligible Nonparticipant Households

Eligible nonparticipants are households who are circumstantially eligible for the Food Stamp Program

but are not participating in it. While Food Stamp Program applicants and participants in an office can 

be enumerated, no list or sampling frame exists for eligible nonparticipants. The sample frame was 

created from a random-digit-dialing (RDD) telephone survey of the entire population in the catchment 

areas, or areas served by the 109 sampled offices. Catchment areas were defined by the telephone 

prefixes (or zip codes, when telephone numbers were unavailable) of food stamp applicant and 

participant households.9

 The use of a random-digit-dial sampling approach limits the sample to those 

with working telephones. Adjustments were made to correct for this limitation during creation of 

sample weights. 

A list-assisted RDD sample of 72,711 telephone numbers was drawn using the GENESYS sampling 

system, which helped ensure that a high percentage of the sampled numbers belonged to residential 

households.10 Once a household was reached, a short screening questionnaire was administered to 

 7

 Some terminated recipients in the sample frame left the FSP due to circumstantial ineligibility. To the 

extent possible, they are excluded from relevant analyses. 

8

 Some of these households also appeared on the lists of new applicants, recertified recipients, and closed

cases. They were removed from these lists prior to sample selection.

9

 The lists of applicant and participant households were provided by the States or local offices sampled for 

the study. These lists were used to sample households, as discussed in an earlier section. 

10 The GENESYS sampling system, supported by Marketing Systems Group, a division of AUS, Inc., is a 

hardware and software system that allows one to draw list-assisted RDD samples. In list-assisted RDD 

sampling, each prefix area is divided into 100 banks, each with 100 consecutive telephone numbers. A data 

base of residential directory listed telephone numbers is used to eliminate banks that contain no residential

directory listed numbers. The GENESYS system also contains a zip code module that can be used to

determine which prefix areas overlap with zip codes. 

2-7
determine whether the household was apparently eligible for food stamps, but not currently receiving 

benefits. Households were screened out if they were current FSP participants or had applied for

benefits in the prior month. Households were deemed to be presumptively eligible for food stamps if 

their gross household income was no more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level, their 

financial assets were less than $3,000 if the household included an elderly member and less than 

$2,000 if there were no elderly members of the household, and all vehicles owned were at least five 

years old, unless they were used for business or to transport disabled persons.11 Apparently eligible 

households were then interviewed in more detail, as described below. 

Data Collection 

A variety of methods were used to collect the data required for the study. Local office-level data were 

collected through telephone interviews and by in-person observations. Household-level data were 

collected using telephone surveys, in-person interviews, and through food stamp case record 

abstraction. The rest of this section discusses the various data collection activities. Data collection 

instruments are presented in Appendix E. 

Caseworker Supervisors and Caseworkers 

Caseworker supervisors were interviewed by telephone to collect information about official local 

office policies that may affect accessibility, including:

• Food stamp outreach, application, reporting, and recertification processes operating at the 

local office level; 

• TANF and Medicaid policies and procedures that may impact accessibility to the FSP; 

and 

• Policies affecting specific types of households, including immigrants, TANF-diverted 

households, working families, and elderly and disabled. 

Information concerning supervisors’ views on issues affecting FSP access and the extent to which 

specific policies affected FSP participation was also collected. 

In each office, one supervisor survey instrument was completed. As mentioned above, more than one 

supervisor was generally interviewed, because supervisors were responsible for different types of 

food stamp cases or different parts of the FSP process and could therefore answer only those 

questions within their realm of responsibility. Demographic characteristics, attitudes, and opinions on 

the reasons for the decline in FSP participation and on program changes since welfare reform, and 

recommendations for changes to increase program access were asked of all supervisors surveyed. 

A separate telephone survey, designed to collect detailed information on caseworkers’ practices and 

experiences, was conducted with caseworkers. Topics were similar to those included in the supervisor 

survey. In each office, two caseworker survey instruments were completed to obtain more than one 

perspective on the range of local caseworkers’ practices and experiences. In most offices, 

 11 This set of screening questions has been shown to be quite accurate in predicting FSP eligibility. 

Nonetheless, without collecting information on all factors that determine eligibility, some errors will be

made, and households that are actually eligible will be screened out and others that are ineligible will be

included (McConnell, 1997).

2-8
caseworkers were responsible for different types of food stamp cases and/or different parts of the food 

stamp application process. Therefore, multiple caseworkers were needed to complete a single survey

instrument. An average of five caseworkers were interviewed to complete two full surveys per office. 

Demographics, attitudes, opinions on the reasons for the decline in FSP participation and on program

changes since welfare reform, and recommendations for changes to increase program access were 

collected from all caseworkers surveyed. 12

Data collection began in January 2001 and was completed in June 2001. A total of 201 supervisor 

interviews and 509 caseworker interviews were completed, yielding a response rate of 100 percent. 

Local Office Observations 

Although most measures of local office practices come from supervisor and caseworker survey 

responses, some features could be determined directly by independent observers. Field interviewers 

visited the 109 offices three times to observe unobtrusively various aspects of the office environment, 

including location and accessibility, reception area activities, and waiting times. These observations, 

which were scheduled in advance, occurred on different days of the week and at different times 

during the day. The interviewers’ findings were documented in a close-ended data collection 

instrument. 

Applicant, Recertified Recipient, and Terminated Recipient Households 

Data were collected from the applicant and recipient populations for the sample month of June 2000

using survey and case file record abstraction instruments that were designed to provide information 

about their circumstances and the participation decisions they made. Data collection began in

February 2001 and was completed in August 2001. Data abstraction focused on the application, 

recertification, or closure that occurred in June 2000. The survey questionnaire was retrospective in 

nature, asking respondents about the June 2000 event.

Data abstraction from the food stamp case file records of sampled applicant and recipient households 

provided the majority of information for the analysis. Data on households’ characteristics, including

demographic characteristics and household composition were abstracted from their food stamp case 

files. The files also provided information defining households’ level of need for benefits, including 

income, assets, and expenditures. Finally, case files provided data on administrative events 

surrounding the food stamp application or recertification application and FSP participation 

requirements. 

Data were abstracted from case files of 2,296 food stamp applicant and recipient households in the 

109 local offices (table 2.2). These cases represented 81 percent of the original sample. Most of the 

remaining cases were ineligible for the study, either because they were outside the sampled office’s 

jurisdiction or because the cases did not fit the sample criteria. During the sampling stage, it was 

discovered that, due to constraints of MIS systems, several States would be unable to provide

household lists that conformed exactly to the required specifications. In these States, we oversampled 

to insure that, after excluding ineligible households, we would obtain the desired number of 

completed record abstractions. 

 12 Weighting procedures, detailed in Appendix A, discuss treatment of data from multiple supervisor and

caseworker respondents in the analysis. 

2-9
Table 2.2—Data collection: New applicants, recertifying recipients, terminating recipients 

Sampled Survey Complete

Household Typea Number 

Percent 

of sample 

Record

Abstraction 

Complete Number 

Percent 

of cases 

sampled

New applicant—approved 748 26.4% 748 424 56.7%

New applicant—not approved 316 11.2 316 206 65.2 

Did not complete application 

requirementsb

162 105 64.8

Circumstantially ineligible 154 101 65.6 

Recertifying recipient—approved 753 26.6 753 NA NA 

Terminating recipient 479 16.9 479 

Interim closure 215 NA NA 

Closed at recertification 

Did not complete recertification 

requirementsc

177 71 40.1

Denied due to circumstantial 

ineligibility 

87 NA NA

Undetermined 50 1.8

Ineligibled 485 17.1

Total

e 2,831 100.0% 2,296 701

a As determined during record abstraction. In some cases, this differs from the household type reported by States and used 

for drawing the sample. 

b Includes voluntary withdrawals and cases whose denial reason was not reported.

c Reason for closure at recertification was identified during case record abstraction. Includes all cases not denied due to 

circumstantial ineligibility. 

d Includes cases not in the jurisdiction of the sampled office and cases that were neither new applicants, recertifying

recipients, nor terminating recipients in June 2000. 

e Includes TANF-diverted households that were either new FSP applicants, recertifying FSP recipients, or terminating FSP 

recipients in June 2000. 

NA = Not applicable—group not surveyed. 

New applicant households, both those that were approved and those that were denied food stamp 

benefits, were surveyed to learn about the circumstances that precipitated their application for 

assistance and their understanding of the application process and requirements. These households 

were asked questions about their expected benefits and costs (monetary, time, and psychological) of 

food stamp participation. The survey also collected information on household circumstances not 

available in food stamp case files, including food security. Households that did not complete the 

application process were asked to explain their decision. 

Households due for recertification in June 2000 that did not complete all recertification requirements 

were a group of particular interest. They were surveyed to understand why, after having received food 

stamp benefits, they left the program. These households were asked questions similar to those asked 

2-10
of applicant households, focusing on the circumstances surrounding their decision to not continue in 

the FSP. 

The surveys were conducted by telephone, with in-person followup for those who did not have 

telephones or who could not be reached by telephone. Many of these households were difficult to 

locate. Extensive tracking procedures were implemented, including credit bureau checks and national 

change of address files. Interviews were completed with 630 new applicant households, which 

represented 59 percent of initial sample. Interviews were completed with 71 households that did not 

complete the recertification process, representing 40 percent of the households identified. These 

households were extremely difficult to locate. More than half the sample did not even file a 

recertification application and thus no current contact information was available. They could not be 

located at their last known address or through collateral contacts. 

TANF-diverted Households 

TANF-diverted households were surveyed using the same instrument and procedures employed for 

new applicant households. Interviews were completed with 99 of the 179 selected households, a 

completion rate of 55 percent. Interviews took place between February and August 2001 and asked 

respondents about the events surrounding the TANF diversion payment they received in June 2000. 

Eligible Nonparticipants 

The list-assisted sample of 72,711 telephone numbers was released to the telephone interview center 

beginning in February 2001; interviewing was completed in June 2001. Screeners were completed 

with 16,825 households and of these, 1,374 (8 percent) were determined to be eligible for food stamp 

benefits, based on the screening criteria (table 2.3). An additional 28,933 telephone numbers were 

found to be nonworking or nonhousehold numbers, and thus ineligible for the survey. The resolution 

rate for the screener—62.9 percent—is calculated as the number of nonworking nonhousehold 

numbers plus the number of completed household screeners as a percentage of the total released

sample. 

Households that were determined to be eligible for food stamp benefits were asked to complete the 

full interview questionnaire. Questions focused on respondents’ perceptions, motivations, and 

experiences with the Food Stamp Program, including their perceived eligibility, reasons they had not 

applied for food stamp benefits, previous experiences with the FSP, TANF, and Medicaid programs, 

and their perceptions of the costs and benefits of participation in the FSP. Detailed information on 

their demographic characteristics, economic situation, and food security status were also collected. 

Of the 1,374 households selected for interview, 1,323 completed the survey resulting in a response 

rate of 96.3 percent. Of the 1,323 completed interviews, 1,220 of the households were classified as 

apparently circumstantially eligible. 

2-11
Table 2.3—Data collection: Eligible nonparticipants 

Final status Number Percent 

Screener survey 

Screener complete—food stamp-eligible household 1,374 1.9% 

Screener complete—household ineligible for food stamps 15,451 21.2 

Ineligible telephone number—nonworking, nonhousehold 28,933 39.8 

Unresolved 26,953 37.1

Total screener sample 72,711 100.0% 

Full interview survey 

Complete interview 1,323 96.3% 

Incomplete interview 51 3.7 

Total interview sample 1,374 100.0% 

Data Analysis 

The research questions addressed by the study required the use of both descriptive and multivariate 

analyses. First, descriptive analyses present an overall picture of the characteristics, experiences, and 

perceptions of food-stamp eligible households. Differences between groups, defined by their 

relationship to the FSP—nonparticipants, applicants, recipients, and terminating recipients—are 

examined to shed light on why some eligible households are not participating in the program.

13 Where

relevant, results are compared to those obtained in other studies. Second, descriptive analyses of the 

local office data provide a nationally-representative picture of the policies and practices in effect in 

local food stamp offices that may affect access to the program.

14 Finally, a series of multivariate

logistic models relate food stamp participation by eligible households to local office policies and 

practices, household characteristics, and local area characteristics. 

Sampling weights, needed for both the descriptive and multivariate analyses, were constructed in two 

stages, reflecting the sample design.15 First-stage office weights were constructed for the final sample 

of 109 offices. The base sampling weights—the reciprocal of the probability of selection of the 

office—were adjusted for the nonparticipation of New York and then ratio-adjusted so the weighted 

total number of offices was in agreement with the known total from the sampling frame. 

Second-stage weights were created for all other samples—supervisors, caseworkers, nonparticipants, 

applicants, recertified recipients, terminated recipients, and TANF-diverted households. Supervisor 

and caseload weights were constructed such that weighted responses reflect the percent of the 

national food stamp caseload served by offices with particular practices and policies. The second-

 13 Additional analyses of the eligible nonparticipants can be found in Bartlett and Burstein (2004). 

14 These analyses are summarized in this report. More detailed analyses are presented in Gabor et al. (2003). 

15 Weights are needed for the multivariate analyses because of our use of outcome-based sampling, in which

we drew the same number of applicants, recertifying recipients, and terminating recipients in sites that had 

many such events as in sites that had few.

2-12
stage household-level weights were constructed such that weighted responses reflect the universe of 

each household type sampled. Table 2.4 presents the population estimates, based on the weighted 

sample, for each of the household types analyzed. Appendix A provides a detailed description of how 

the different weights were calculated. 

Table 2.4—Distribution of sampled households by status of food stamp receipt 

Household type 

Population 

(weighted N) Unweighted N 

Eligible nonparticipants 5,500,000 1,220

Applicants 508,770 1,064

Approved 363,164 748

Did not complete application requirements 77,008 162 

Circumstantially ineligible 68,598 154 

Recertifying recipient--approved 726,094 753 

Terminating recipient 383,352 479 

Interim closure 180,178 215 

Circumstantially ineligiblea 44,148 43

All other reasonsa 136,030 172

Closure in recertification month 203,174 264 

Circumstantially ineligible 70,578 87

All other reasons 132,596 177

a Based on closure codes in record abstraction data. All other reasons includes cases in which reason was not reported.

2-13
Chapter 3 

Characteristics and Perceptions of Potentially 

Eligible Nonparticipant Households 

In order to participate in the Food Stamp Program, a potentially eligible person must know of the 

program’s existence, must realize that his or her household might be eligible, and must be interested 

in applying for benefits. In principle then, local office practices could encourage participation by

informing people about the FSP and by structuring the application process to make it easy for people 

to apply for benefits. 

According to the 2000 survey of potentially eligible nonparticipant households, general awareness of 

the FSP is nearly universal (96 percent), as figure 3.1 shows.1

 Only 43 percent of the nonparticipants 

believed that they might be eligible, however, while one-third (35 percent) thought that they were 

ineligible for benefits and the remaining 18 percent were unsure whether or not they would be

eligible.2

 A majority of the respondents (69 percent) said they would apply if they knew for certain 

that they were eligible, although 27 percent said they would not apply and 4 percent were unsure.3

Figure 3.1— Awareness, perceived eligibility, and interest in applying to the FSP among 

eligible nonparticipants

Ever heard of FSP? Perceived eligibility Would apply if certain eligible? 

No

4%

Yes

96%

Ineligible

35%

Eligible

43%

Never

heard of 

FSP

4%

Unsure

18%

Yes

69%

No

27%

Unsure

4%

Data from appendix table B.1.

In our conceptual model of FSP participation, the first step in the process of becoming a food stamp 

participant is for the household to be aware of its potential eligibility. Previous research has indicated 

that many nonparticipant households do not realize that they might be eligible for benefits, and this 

study shows the same pattern. 

 1

 The “reference month” for the study was June 2000. Data abstracted from case records were drawn for this 

month, and participant samples were drawn from lists of applicants and terminating cases in June 2000. 

Other data collection efforts occurred in later months. The eligible nonparticipant survey was conducted 

between February and June 2001. For convenience, we refer to the study in general as the 2000 study. The 

analysis approach assumes that eligible nonparticipants in early 2001 can be considered representative of

those in June 2000. In fact, deterioration in the national economy during this period may have caused some

changes in the population of eligible nonparticipants, which the analysis cannot take into account. 

2

 The survey question asked, “Do you think you may be eligible to receive food stamp benefits?”

3

 The survey question asked, “If you found out you were eligible for food stamp benefits, would you apply?” 

3-1
These patterns are quite similar to the findings of previous studies of FSP non-participation. Reviews 

of participation studies conducted during the 1980s and early 1990s, while not strictly comparable, 

suggest that about half of all households that apparently met food stamp eligibility requirements did 

not believe that they qualified for benefits (McConnell and Nixon, 1996; Bartlett et al., 1992). The 

National Food Stamp Program Survey, conducted in 1996, found even greater confusion, as almost 

three-quarters (72 percent) of all apparently eligible non-participant households reported that they did 

not think they met the food stamp eligibility criteria (Ponza et al., 1999). 

This remainder of this chapter presents descriptive information on factors related to nonparticipants’

perceptions regarding their potential eligibility and their attitudes about applying for benefits, with 

particular attention to factors that may be related to local FSP office policy and practices. The data 

source is the survey of 1220 potentially eligible nonparticipants conducted as part of this study. 

Who Believes They Are Ineligible? 

One might expect households in relatively more favorable economic circumstances—i.e., those who 

are closer to the eligibility cutoff—to be less certain of their eligibility for food stamps. The data 

support this expectation (figure 3.2).4

 Nonparticipants who believed themselves ineligible for 

benefits, or were unsure, were more likely to have above-poverty incomes than those who believed 

themselves eligible (63 percent versus 44 percent).5

 Those who believed themselves ineligible were 

also more likely to have bank accounts (74 percent versus 62 percent). Respondents who believed 

they were ineligible to receive benefits were also less likely to be food insecure or to have 

experienced hunger. Those who believed they were ineligible were also less likely to have received 

food stamp benefits in the past, suggesting they may not have had a very accurate understanding of 

eligibility requirements. 

Demographic characteristics were not closely associated with whether respondents believed they were 

eligible for food stamp benefits (Appendix table B.3). Those who believed they were ineligible were 

somewhat less likely to be black. Two-fifths of nonparticipant households reported feelings of stigma 

 4

 Significance levels are computed using chi-squared tests when there are more than two categories defined 

for the variable (e.g., poverty-level categories, food security), and these significance levels are shown in the 

tables. These chi-squared tests tell us whether the distributions differ as a whole between two strata. They

do not tell us, however, what parts of the distributions are different. For that, t-tests are required. While ttests on the individual categories are not exact, because they were performed after first learning whether 

there was a difference in the distribution as a whole, they nonetheless give interesting supplementary 

information on how and where the distributions differ. We therefore refer in the text to differences in 

specific categories, based on t-tests. 

5

 All nonparticipant households that responded to the survey reported on the screener questionnaire that their 

total family income was less than 130 percent of the poverty level The main body of the survey collected

more detailed information on income and using these responses, some households appeared to have 

incomes above 130 percent of the poverty level. We excluded households whose reported detailed income

exceeded 200 percent of the poverty level but retained those with incomes between 130 percent and 200 

percent. See Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of this issue. 

3-2
associated with FSP participation, but the strength of the feelings was not related to households’

perceived eligibility (Appendix table B.4).6

Figure 3.2—Income, assets, food security status, and prior FSP experience of eligible 

nonparticipants by perceived eligibility for food stamps (percent of group with 

characteristic)

48%

59%

19%

32%

39%

52%

74%

62%

63%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Previously received food

stamps

Food insecure with hunger

Food insecure

Have bank account

Income above poverty level

Believe ineligible Believe eligible

Data from appendix tables B.2 and B.3. 

Why Do Some People Think They Are Ineligible? 

People who wrongly believe that they are ineligible for food stamp benefits presumably have an 

insufficient or incorrect understanding of program rules. To learn what misunderstandings exist, we 

asked about the reasons for perceived ineligibility. Respondents who believed they were not eligible, 

or who were not sure, were asked about a series of possible reasons for their perceptions. Their

responses are shown in figure 3.3. 

Many of the responses focused on central aspects of the eligibility criteria: the amount of earned 

income (55 percent), the value of an owned vehicle (15 percent), the value of financial assets (12 

percent), and citizenship status (6 percent). These rules are quite specific and complicated, so it is not 

surprising that they seem to be an important source of incorrect perceptions of ineligibility.7

 6

 Stigma index created from the responses to a series of questions (four or six questions, depending on

whether the household had ever received food stamps) concerning feelings of stigma associated with the 

FSP. 

7

 It is also important to point out that some of the respondents may actually have been ineligible on these 

grounds, particularly if detailed information on their circumstances differed from the general information 

they provided in the survey. It was beyond the scope of this study to determine eligibility exactly as is done

by the Program.

3-3
Figure 3.3—Reasons for perceived ineligibility

2%

2%

6%

12%

15%

19%

40%

40%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Received TANF lump sum payment

Reached TANF time limit

Citizenship status

Too much savings

Car worth too much

Receive other government assistance

Employed

Told ineligible or previously denied

Earn too much

Data from appendix table B.5.

Note that, while most of these responses probably represent incorrect perceptions of ineligibility, 

some may have been correct. Respondents were screened for apparent eligibility in terms of income 

relative to household size, value of vehicles (estimate based on make, model, and year), and value of 

liquid assets. Such questions have shown to predict eligibility reasonably well, but they do not 

provide the detail that would be needed for a definitive determination of eligibility. Thus some of the 

respondents may actually have been ineligible for the reasons they cited. Most of the rest were 

probably unaware of the specific limits on income and assets or how those limits would apply to their 

own situation. 

Some people who cited their citizenship status as a reason for ineligibility may have correctly

interpreted their situation, but misunderstanding of the rules seems to have been common. For 

example, of 13 respondents who gave this reason and said they were not citizens themselves, 9 had 

children born in the US. Those children, as U.S. citizens, would have been eligible to receive food 

stamp benefits.8

A substantial number of responses seem to indicate misunderstanding of broader program rules. 

These include the responses that the reason for ineligibility was being employed (40 percent),9

receiving other government assistance (19 percent), having reached the time limit on cash assistance 

(2.2 percent of all households and 6.6 percent of households with children), and having received a 

TANF lump sum payment (2 percent of all households and 6 percent of households with children). 

None of these factors necessarily make a household ineligible for food stamp benefits, and from a 

policy point of view, it would be far easier to communicate that general fact than the details of 

income and asset limits. 

 8

 The 2002 Farm Bill restored eligibility for all legal immigrants living in the United States for at least five

years, so after that point the parents also might have been eligible. 

9

 For some of these households, perceived ineligibility was due to employment status combined with amount

of earned income; for others it was due to employment status alone. 

3-4
The most clearly inaccurate perceptions are those indicating that the respondent was ineligible 

because of exceeding TANF time limits or receiving a lump sum payment: neither action could cause 

ineligibility without some other change in household circumstances. To see whether these 

misperceptions were held by particular types of people, we tabulated the characteristics of the survey 

respondents who cited these two reasons for believing themselves ineligible (see Appendix tables B.6 

through B.9). The data must be interpreted with caution, however, as only about 20 respondents cited 

each of these reasons. 

People who believed themselves ineligible because of TANF time limits or lump sum payments were 

more likely to have earnings, had less liquid assets, and were less likely to be elderly than people who 

only cited other reasons for ineligibility.10 These characteristics would be expected in a population 

that had been TANF-eligible, and no other striking differences were observed. Although we suspected 

that the people who believed such TANF events could make them ineligible for food stamps might 

have limited education or be non-English speakers, which might limit their understanding of the rules, 

the data provide no evidence that this occurred. 

Almost two-fifths of the respondents who had previously received food stamps, and a quarter of those 

who had not, thought they were ineligible because they had previously been denied benefits or told 

that they were probably ineligible. Almost half of these respondents had been denied or told they

were ineligible more than one year prior to the survey and another fifth had been told so six to twelve 

months before (Appendix table B.5). This raises the possibility that some people may continue to 

believe an ineligibility message even after their circumstances change in a way that makes them

eligible. 

The reasons for perceived ineligibility differed somewhat depending on whether the household had 

previously received food stamp benefits (Appendix table B.5). Former participants were much more 

likely to note that they had been denied or told they were ineligible, which is not surprising since 

many would have stopped participating because they were found ineligible. Former participants were 

significantly less likely to see excess savings as a cause of ineligibility, but were significantly more

likely to say they were ineligible because they earned too much. This may reflect their own 

experiences, as food stamp participants more commonly become ineligible due to increased earnings 

than increased assets. 

Reviews of previous research studies are consistent with findings from the current study. Past studies 

provide some information on the reasons for perceived ineligibility among apparently eligible 

nonparticipant households, though less detail is available than collected for the current study. Among 

households that did not think they were eligible for benefits, 35 to 40 percent believed that their 

income and/or assets were too high (Coe, 1983; GAO, 1988; Blaylock and Smallwood, 1984). 

Another 8 to 15 percent believed that they did not meet some other FSP eligibility requirements (Coe, 

1983; GAO, 1988). 

 10 Differences in the presence of children are also evident, but this variable was artificially constrained. Some 

respondents who had no children in the household cited lump sum payments or exceeding the TANF time 

limit as reasons for ineligibility. We excluded these responses, which were assumed to reflect confusion

about the question. 

3-5
Who Would Not Apply Even If They Found They Were Eligible? 

Households that reported they would not apply for food stamp benefits even if they knew for certain 

they were eligible were overall more food secure than households that reportedly would apply to the 

FSP, possibly indicating a lower need for benefits (figure 3.4). Households that were not interested in 

the FSP were significantly less likely than others to have experienced hunger in the previous year (13 

percent versus 30 percent) and significantly more likely to be food secure (70 percent versus 48 

percent). 

Figure 3.4—Food security status of eligible nonparticipants by whether would apply for food 

stamps (percent of group with characteristic) 

48%

70%

22%

17%

30%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Food secure

Food insecure without hunger

Food insecure with hunger

Would apply for food stamps Would not apply for food stamps

Data from appendix table B.10. 

The current economic circumstances of households were not associated with whether households 

would apply for food stamp benefits if they found they were eligible (Appendix table B.10). This is 

somewhat surprising, since those who would not apply tended to be more food secure and food 

security is generally positively associated with economic circumstances. The contrast may occur 

because economic circumstances are measured for the most recent month while food security is 

measured for a 12-month period. People who expect to have only a brief period of economic 

deprivation may be less inclined to apply for food stamps than those who expect or have already

experienced a lengthy period. Other evidence related to this point will be seen below. 

Households that reportedly would apply for benefits if they knew for certain they were eligible were 

significantly more likely to have received food stamps in the past compared to households that would 

not apply for benefits (61 percent versus 39 percent as shown in figure 3.5). This indicates that 

previous food stamp participation is not generally a deterrent to future participation, even though 

some former participants report negative experiences with the program. 

Only a few demographic characteristics were associated with whether households would apply for 

benefits (figure 3.5). Those who would apply were less likely to be high school graduates, possibly 

indicating an expectation of long-term low income. Households that reportedly would apply for 

benefits were significantly more likely to include members with disabilities, which may suggest a 

greater need for benefits and less employment potential. Those who would apply were also more 

likely to be black, another factor commonly associated with lower long-term earnings. All of these 

3-6
points are consistent with research showing that many nonparticipants experience relatively brief 

periods of eligibility, with longer-term income well above the eligibility level (Farrell et al., 2003). 

Neither perceived eligibility nor feelings of stigma related to the FSP was associated with whether 

households would apply for benefits if they were told they were eligible (Appendix tables B.12 and 

B.13). 

Figure 3.5—Characteristics of eligible nonparticipants by whether would apply for food

stamps (percent of group with characteristic) 

32%

14%

40%

27%

60%

70%

61%

39%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Black

Members with disabilities

High school graduate

Previous food stamp recipient

Would apply for food stamps Would not apply for food stamps

Data from appendix table B.11. 

Why Would Some People Not Apply Even If They Believed They

Were Eligible? 

Survey respondents who believed they were eligible but had not applied for food stamp benefits, 

together with those who said they would not apply even if they found they were eligible, were read a 

list of 17 “reasons people have provided for deciding not to apply for food stamps” and asked which 

reasons applied to them. Their responses indicate a mix of personal considerations and factors that 

might be related to policies and practices of food stamp offices (figure 3.6). 

Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of respondents chose at least one reason that might be related to 

local food stamp office policies and practices. Perceived costs of applying—including the paperwork 

required, the necessity of taking time away from work or dependent care responsibilities, and the 

difficulty of getting to the food stamp office—were cited by 64 percent of households as reasons for 

not applying for benefits (figure 3.7). Seventeen percent of households indicated that work 

requirements or other participation requirements would deter them from applying. For one-quarter of 

households, a previous “bad experience” with the Food Stamp Program or some other government 

program would prevent them from applying. A relatively small number (12 percent) reported that 

they did not know how to apply. 

3-7
Figure 3.6—Reasons households would not apply for FSP benefits 

Only reasons related to 

office policies

1%

Mix of personal and 

office policies

72%

No reason given

2% Only personal reasons

25%

Data from appendix table B.14. 

Figure 3.7—Detailed reasons households would not apply for FSP benefits

21%

25%

45%

91%

12%

17%

24%

64%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Benefits too small

Desire for privacy

Stigma

Desire for personal independence

Confusion about how to apply

Costs of FSP participation

Previous bad experience

Costs of application process

Data from appendix table B.14. 

Almost all respondents (97 percent) mentioned personal reasons for not applying. The most common 

set of personal reasons, reported by 91 percent of households, was related to a Stated desire for 

personal independence. These reasons include the feeling that the household “could get by on their 

own” without food stamps and the desire not to “rely on government assistance.” Forty-five percent 

of respondents cited reasons that pertained to a perceived stigma of food stamp participation. These 

respondents did not want to be seen shopping with food stamps, did not want people to know they

needed financial assistance, or did not want to go to the welfare office. Other reasons related to 

personal preferences or judgments included a desire for privacy (25 percent) and low expected 

benefits (21 percent). 

3-8
Although households that had never received food stamps gave generally similar reasons as those 

who had previously participated, a few significant differences emerged. Those who had never 

participated more often cited an uncertainty about how to apply. Previous food stamp recipients were 

more likely to mention a negative prior experience and to feel that the benefits were too low to make 

participation worthwhile (Appendix table B.14). 

Respondents to the 1996 survey of eligible non-participants reported similar, though not identical, 

reasons for not applying to the Food Stamp Program (Ponza et. al, 1999). The most commonly cited 

factors in 1996 were related to a desire for personal independence—not wanting to rely on 

government assistance or charity and feeling that they did not need food stamps. High costs of 

program participation, including excessive paperwork and the difficulty of obtaining transportation to 

the welfare office, ranked second, followed by low expected benefits, previous bad experiences with 

the Food Stamp Program, and confusion about how to apply for benefits. 

A larger proportion of respondents in 2000 than 1996 mentioned stigma as a reason for not applying

to the FSP.11 This is somewhat surprising in view of the fact that the 2000 survey found a somewhat 

lower overall level of reported stigma than the 1996 survey, particularly among respondents who had 

not previously received food stamp benefits. 12 Even though fewer people were reporting stigma in 

2000, this factor seemed to have more prominence in the minds of those who would not apply even if 

they knew they were eligible. 

Conclusion 

In the 2000 survey of households that were not participating in the Food Stamp Program despite 

being apparently eligible, over half of respondents either believed that they were ineligible (35 

percent) or were not sure whether they would be eligible (18 percent). Probably some of these 

households actually were ineligible—the survey could not measure income, assets, and other factors 

as carefully as is done in an official eligibility determination. Nonetheless, the magnitude of the 

numbers as well as some of the respondents’ more detailed statements suggest that one of the most 

important reasons that potentially eligible households do not participate is that they do not realize 

they are eligible. 

These findings suggest that outreach might affect participation in the FSP. The issue is not to make 

nonparticipants aware of the program—nearly everyone already knows of it—but to give them better 

information on some key eligibility rules that seem widely misunderstood. For example, outreach 

could convey the message that people may be eligible for food stamp benefits even if they are 

employed, receive TANF or other government assistance, have reached their TANF time limit, or 

have received a TANF lump-sum payment. General outreach cannot deliver enough specific 

 11 Ponza et al., measured reasons for not applying only for respondents who believed they might be eligible

for benefits; among this group, 10.7 percent cited reasons related to stigma. The comparable proportion in

the current study is 44.5 percent. Both studies defined the stigma-related factors as not wanting to be seen 

shopping with food stamps, did not want people to know they need financial assistance, and did not want to

go to the welfare office. 

12 The percent of former participants reporting some stigma was comparable in the two time periods at about 

40 percent, but among those who had never received food stamp benefits, a larger proportion reported some

stigma in 1996 than 2000 (60 vs. 48 percent). See Bartlett and Burstein, 2004, Table B.19. 

3-9
information about income and assets rules to allow a household to determine its eligibility, especially

those households who are relatively close to the eligibility limit and who apparently are least likely to 

think they are eligible. However, community organizations sometimes use counselors or automated 

systems to assess the likely eligibility of individual households. Chapter 8 will therefore examine in 

more detail whether variations in local office outreach practices are related to people’s perception of 

their eligibility. 

Outreach is not the only relevant policy. Many survey respondents said they would not apply for 

benefits even if they believed they were eligible. Most expressed personal reasons, such as a desire 

not to rely on government assistance, and some may have felt little need for food assistance or 

expected their situation to improve soon without assistance. But nearly two-thirds gave some reason 

that concerned the food stamp application process, such as the difficulty of the paperwork or of taking 

time away from their job or from caring for children or elderly household members. Some also

mentioned the program’s work-related requirements as a reason for not applying. Given the evidence 

that these factors are in peoples’ minds when they say they whether they would apply for benefits, 

Chapter 8 will consider whether local variations in the handling of applicants and in work 

requirements are related to the likelihood that nonparticipants actually complete the application 

process. 

It is interesting to note that the levels of program awareness, perceived eligibility, and interest in 

applying for benefits found in this study are very similar to the patterns seen in prior research. These 

characteristics of the nonparticipant population were stable even though the late 1990s saw a 

substantial decline in the food stamp participation rate and a corresponding increase in the proportion 

of potentially eligible households who were nonparticipants. 

The major policy changes associated with welfare reform had little directly identifiable impact on 

nonparticipants’ attitudes and perceptions. Some people did say that they were ineligible for food 

stamp benefits because of exceeding the TANF time limit or receiving a lump sum payment, which 

would indicate a misunderstanding of the program rules. This is a potentially important issue. Effects 

of welfare reform may also underlie some of the reasons that nonparticipants gave for not wanting to 

apply for food stamps—such as the employment and training requirements, stigma-related reasons, 

and difficulties with the application process—but none of these reasons can be explicitly linked to 

welfare reform policies. 

3-10
Chapter 4 

Applicant Households 

People who believe that their household may be eligible for the Food Stamp Program and who are 

interested in participating must apply for benefits. This typically involves visiting the food stamp 

office, filling out forms, having one or more interviews, and providing supplementary documentation 

of the household’s income and other aspects of eligibility. The specific procedures for would-be 

participants vary considerably across local offices, as discussed in Chapter 7, and some of these 

variations may make it easier or harder for applicants actually to complete the process and receive 

benefits. 

Approximately one-tenth of these applicants (9 percent) were circumstantially ineligible—that is, 

their income or some other aspect of their household circumstances did not meet the FSP eligibility

criteria, as shown in Figure 4.1.1

 The other 91 percent of applicants were apparently circumstantially

eligible.2

 Most of those who were apparently circumstantially eligible completed the application 

process and were approved for benefits, but 18 percent failed to meet one or more procedural 

requirements and were denied benefits for this reason. Program records indicate that 7 percent failed 

to provide information that was required to verify eligibility, 3 percent failed to appear for an 

interview, and 1 percent withdrew their applications. For the remaining 6 percent, program records do 

not provide a clear sense of the point at which the household left the application process. 

This chapter examines the characteristics of circumstantially eligible applicants and their experience 

in applying for food stamp benefits, with particular attention to the distinctions between households 

that do and do not complete the application process. The sample includes a total of 910 

circumstantially eligible households for whom data on basic household characteristics and application 

outcome were abstracted from program records. Survey data on households’ experiences and 

perceptions are also available for 529 of those households. 

 1

 The study classified two types of households as circumstantially ineligible: (a) those whose application was 

denied because their household characteristics did not meet eligibility requirements; and (b) those whose 

application was denied for other reasons (such as failing to provide verification) but whose application data 

(supplemented by survey responses if missing data) indicated that they would probably have been ineligible

for benefits because of their household circumstances. 

2

 Households that were approved for benefits were automatically classified as circumstantially eligible. In 

addition, households were classified as circumstantially eligible if their program records (supplemented by

survey responses, if missing data) indicated that they would meet the eligibility criteria based on income 

and household size, vehicle ownership, and liquid assets. Because these factors did not cover all aspects of 

eligibility, we often refer to these households as “apparently” or “potentially” circumstantially eligible. See 

Appendix A for discussion of the accuracy with which these items predict actual circumstantial eligibility. 

4-1
Figure 4.1—Outcome of application process

All applicants Circumstantially eligible applicantsa

No

certification

interview

4%

Voluntary 

withdrawal

2% Other

8%

Incomplete

verification

6%

Circumstantially ineligible

9%

Approved

71%

Other

6%

Voluntary 

withdrawal

1%

No

certification

interview

3%

Incomplete

verification

7%

Approved

83%

a Excludes households whose application was denied for circumstantial ineligibility. Also excludes households whose 

program records indicated that they were denied for not completing the application process and whose circumstances

indicated that they would have been ineligible for benefits. 

Data from appendix table B.15. 

Who Applies for Benefits? 

Eligible households who applied for food stamp benefits had a profile that differed in several respects 

from the general population of apparently eligible nonparticipants (figure 4.2). Relative to the 

apparently eligible nonparticipants, the eligible3

 food stamp applicants were: 

• Non-elderly—The household head was under age 50 in 84 percent of applicant 

households, compared to 56 percent of nonparticipants. 

• Single-parent households—More than a third of applicant households (38 percent) 

consisted of one adult with one or more children, compared to 12 percent of 

nonparticipant households. Fewer applicants than nonparticipants were in households 

consisting of multiple adults with children (17 versus 22 percent), and fewer applicant 

households included multiple adults with no children (7 versus 24 percent). 

• In worse financial condition—A large majority of applicants (88 percent) had below 

poverty incomes, compared to just under half (45 percent) of apparently eligible 

nonparticipants. Relatively few applicants had bank accounts. Their financial assets 

averaged $77 compared to $804 for nonparticipants; this includes cash, checking and 

savings accounts, and other liquid resources such as other bank accounts and financial 

investments. 

 3

 These comparisons are based on all applicant households who were apparently circumstantially eligible, 

including those who were approved for benefits and those who did not complete the application process. 

Because we determined circumstantial eligibility based on reported income and assets, the latter group 

could include some households that would have been determined circumstantially ineligible during the full

food stamp certification process. 

4-2
The fact that applicants were in worse financial condition appears to conflict with the 

earlier finding that economic circumstances were unrelated to whether people would 

apply for benefits if they found out they were eligible (Appendix table B.10). Recall, 

however, that respondents who thought they might be eligible had less income and fewer 

assets, on average, than those who believed themselves ineligible. 

Figure 4.2—Characteristics of food stamp applicants and nonparticipants (percent of group 

with characteristic) 

28%

69%

88%

45%

7%

24%

17%

22%

38%

12%

84%

56%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Have bank account

Income below poverty

Multiple adults without children

Multiple adults with children

Single-parent household

Household head under 50

Applicants Nonparticipants

Data from appendix tables B.16, B.17, and B.18. 

All of these patterns are consistent with the literature on food stamp participation, which shows 

higher participation rates for the non-elderly, for single-parent households, multiple adult households 

with children, and for lower-income households (Cunnyngham, 2003). 

It is worth noting that the applicant and nonparticipant samples did not differ significantly in terms of 

primary language or citizenship of the head of household. Both communications barriers and

regulations concerning aliens might be hypothesized to discourage some people from seeking food 

stamp benefits, but no such problems were visible in this overall comparison. 

Who Fails to Complete the Application Process? 

Eligible applicants who did not complete the application process were in a somewhat better financial 

situation, on average, than those who completed the process and received benefits (figure 4.3). The 

non-completers were more likely to have earnings (51 versus 32 percent) and to have above-poverty

income (24 versus 10 percent). This pattern is again consistent with the research showing that 

participation rates are inversely related to income.

4

 4

 It may also indicate that some of the applicants who did not complete the process would have been

determined ineligible on income grounds during the certification process, even though they appeared 

eligible in the available data. 

4-3
Figure 4.3—Economic circumstances of food stamp applicants among those who did and 

did not complete the application process (percent of group with characteristic) 

10%

2%

10%

24%

32%

51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Received cash assistance

Income above poverty level

With earnings

Completed process Did not complete process

Data from appendix table B.19. 

Households not completing the application process were less likely to be receiving TANF or other 

cash assistance than were the households approved for benefits. Since the income cutoff for cash 

assistance is typically lower than that for food stamps, this is consistent with the idea that applicants 

who do not complete the process are in somewhat better circumstances, on average, than those who 

are approved for benefits. 

Two groups that might be expected to encounter difficulties in the application process—households 

consisting entirely of elderly adults or households in which all adults have disabilities—actually made 

up significantly larger proportions of the successful applicant group than the non-completers (figure 

4.4). The finding regarding the elderly is particularly interesting because of the strong tendency of 

elderly households not to apply for benefits (appendix table B.17). Elderly and disabled persons who 

anticipate difficulty with the application process may decide not to apply for that reason. Those who 

do apply, however, successfully complete the process at an above-average rate. 

Figure 4.4—Demographic characteristics of applicant households among those who did and 

did not complete the application process (percent of group with characteristic) 

17%

7%

5%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

All adults with disabilities

All adults elderly

Completed process Did not complete process

Data from appendix table B.20. 

4-4
Other household characteristics were not significantly different for those who did and did not 

complete the application process. This includes household composition and the head of household’s 

age, gender, race/ethnicity, primary language, citizenship status, and education level. 

The 1990 study of the food stamp application process cited earlier (Bartlett et al., 1992) found similar 

demographic and economic differences between households that completed the application process 

and those that did not. In that in-depth study in five sites, households headed by adults with 

disabilities and those headed by high school dropouts were significantly more likely to complete the 

process than other households.5

 Households with elderly members were also apparently more likely

to complete the process, though the difference (based on a fairly small sample size) was not 

statistically significant. Households with earners were less likely to complete the process and those 

receiving cash assistance were more likely to complete it. 

The 2000 survey of applicants, in addition to asking about general household characteristics, asked 

whether particular “trigger events” had occurred—that is, events that might be expected to precipitate 

an increase in the household’s financial need or its interest in applying for benefits. Respondents were 

asked whether the event was among the reasons that they applied for food stamps and, if so, whether 

it was the most important reason. Figure 4.5 shows the results. 

Figure 4.5—Circumstances precipitating FSP application

5%

3%

13%

3%

13%

4%

29%

5%

25%

6%

17%

6%

21%

10%

62%

30%

87%

31%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Just learned about FSP

Non-contributing member added

Moved

Increased expenses (a)

Contributing adult left

Member became sick/disabled

Loss of income

Harder to make ends meet

Reason reported Most important reason

a Increased rent, mortgage, utilities

Data from appendix table B.21. 

 5

 Our data also show that educational attainment was greater for noncompletes than for those approved for

benefits, though the difference is not statistically significant (Appendix table B.20). 

4-5
Almost 90 percent of all food stamp applicants reported that it became “harder to make ends

which represented some combination of changes in income and expenses. For 31 percent of 

households, this was the most important reason that led to their application. A decrease in income, 

usually because of a termination of employment, was a major reason many other households dec

to apply for food stamp benefits. About 30 percent of households cited income loss as the most 

important trigger event. Other precipitating events were reported much less frequently. About 13 

percent said that they had “just learned about” the Food Stamp Program, a somewhat surprising figure 

since 96 percent of apparently eligible nonparticipants said they were aware of the FSP. This suggests

that some peoples’ a

meet,” 

ided

wareness is quite general and must be supplemented with additional information 

efore they apply. 

e,

reasons were reported by

imilar percentages of households in both the 1996 and 2000 studies. 

reason 

rocess included a larger proportion of households consisting entirely of elderly or disabled persons. 

Why Do Some People Fail to Complete the Application Process?

). These people were presumably not affected by any aspect of local office policies and 

ractices.

too

 

b

This pattern is quite similar to the findings of Ponza et al. (1999), who analyzed reported reasons for 

applying for benefits among the 1996 sample of food stamp participants. As in the present study, the 

two reasons most frequently reported as “most important” were increased need and loss of incom

cited by 40 percent and 25 percent of households, respectively.

6 Other

s

Among the applicants in 2000, trigger events generally did not significantly distinguish applicants 

who completed the application process from those who did not. The main exception is the onset of 

disability or serious illness of a household member. The proportion of respondents citing this

was larger among those who completed the application process (23 percent versus 9 percent, 

appendix table B.21). This is consistent with the earlier finding that the applicants who completed the

p

Applicants who did not complete the process were read a series of possible reasons for abandoning 

their application and asked which ones contributed to their action. About one-quarter (26 percent) of

the applicant dropouts indicated that their situation had changed and they no longer needed benefits

(figure 4.6

p

About half of the dropouts (46 percent) said they believed they were ineligible because they had

much income or assets,7

 even though the information in their application form did not seem to 

indicate ineligibility.8

 These applicants had gotten some information that made them believe they 

were ineligible. Their conclusion may have been correct if, for example, their application form had 

6

 Ponza et al. separately list income change (15 percent) and lost job (10 percent). We combine those 

categories here as “loss of income.” 

7

 Households were classified as indicating “perceived ineligibility” if they responded that (a) they received a 

letter from the food stamp office that said they were ineligible because of income or resources, (b) they 

thought they were ineligible because food stamp staff told them or made them think so, or (c) they 

concluded they were ineligible after hearing the eligibility requirements. 

8

 Interestingly, only 7 percent of those who believed they were ineligible also reported that their situation had 

changed and they no longer needed food stamps. Most of those who said their circumstances had changed 

did not say that they now believed themselves ineligible. 

4-6
under-reported their income. Alternatively, they might have reached the wrong conclusion, perh

by misinterpreting information such as a caseworker statement that the applicant would not be 

eligible for TANF. Th

aps

e available data do not allow us to assess the accuracy of applicants’ belief that 

ey were ineligible.

9

Figure 4.6—Detailed reasons for not completing application processa

th

5%

5%

6%

6%

8%

10%

46%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Have to pay for dependent care

Have to miss work

Confusion about process

Long waits in office

Benefits not available quickly

Difficulty acquiring verification

Perceived ineligibility due to income/assets

Situation changed

a Includes reasons reported by more than 4 percent of respondents.

Data from appendix table B.22. 

About 27 percent of the applicant dropouts said that their reasons for abandoning the application 

included some aspect of the process or the program (figure 4.7). Their issues included the need to 

acquire documents for verification (10 percent), the length of time before benefits would be availa

(8 percent), long waits in the food stamp office (6 percent), missing work (5 percent), paying for 

someone to care for t

ble

heir child or elderly dependent (5 percent), and general confusion about the 

rocess (6 percent).

on

de

me more applicant-friendly, but there is certainly no evidence that it has 

ecome more difficult. 

 

p

These responses are generally similar to those found in the 1990 study of the food stamp applicati

process in five sites (Bartlett et al., 1992), which also indicated that perceived ineligibility was a 

reason for not completing the application by approximately half of all dropout households. A larger 

proportion of respondents in 1990 than 2000 cited problems with the application process as a factor 

that deterred them. Small samples and the difference in study designs make it impossible to conclu

that the process has beco

b

9

 The single most common reason for classifying people as “perceived ineligible” was the response that they 

“got a letter from the food stamp office saying you were not eligible because you have too much income or

resources.” This would suggest that many of these households were actually ineligible. However, the case

records for these applicants did not indicate that the applications were denied for circumstantial reasons. 

Thus we do not know what kind of letter the applicants actually received or whether they interpreted it 

correctly. 

4-7
We had hypothesized that apparently eligible applicant dropouts would be distinguished from

completers by cost-benefit considerations—that is, the dropouts would experience greater difficulty

with the application process, or they would expect to get lower food stamp or other program benefits. 

The data provide quite limited support of the hypothesis, however (appendix table B.23). On the one 

hand, applicants who completed the process were significantly more likely to find the office hours 

convenient (85 versus 70 percent) and to expect to receive monthly benefits of over $200 (21 versus 9 

percent).10 On the other hand, no significant difference was found for the convenience of office 

location, or whether the applicant was also applying for cash assistance or Medicaid. 

Figure 4.7—Reasons for not completing application requirements: process versus other

a

reasons

No reason 

reported

21%

Mix of process 

and other 

reasons

17%

Only nonprocess related 

reasons

53%

Only process 

related reasons

10%

a Other reasons include: perceived ineligibility due to income/assets, benefits too small, situation changed and no

longer needed benefits, and other. 

Data from appendix table B.22. 

Although application difficulties were not substantially different for applicants who completed the 

process and those who did not, those who completed and were approved for benefits reported 

significantly higher levels of satisfaction with the process (appendix table B.24). Far fewer of the 

dropouts expressed satisfaction with the overall process (43 versus 76 percent) and they had 

significantly more negative comparisons of the food stamp office to other government offices (figure 

4.8). This pattern cannot be taken as a clear indication of problems with the application process, 

because we cannot know whether the dropouts abandoned the process because they were less satisfied 

with the experience or whether, in making a retrospective assessment, the people who got benefits felt 

more satisfied with the process than those who did not. Nonetheless, analysis in Chapter 8 shows that 

applicants are more likely to complete the process successfully when supervisor attitudes are positive, 

which may contribute to the pattern of differential satisfaction seen here. 

The costs of application include out-of-pocket costs and time associated with completing all the 

application requirements. Those applicants who completed the process reported making an average of 

 10 Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level based on t-test. 

4-8
2.4 trips to the food stamp office for filing the application, meetings, and dropping off documentation 

(appendix table B.25).11 They spent, on average, 6.1 hours completing the process—3.9 hours at the 

office and 2.2 hours traveling between their home and the office. On average, they made 1.2 

additional trips to other locations to acquire necessary documentation of their circumstances. 

Households also applying for TANF or Medicaid made 0.4 extra trips to complete the additional 

application(s). Twelve percent of households—39 percent of those with earnings—reported that they

missed work in the course of applying for food stamps. Nine percent of applicants incurred dependent 

care expenses, either for the care of children or elderly household members. 

Figure 4.8—Treatment at food stamp office compared to other government officesa

Completed process Did not complete process

Treated 

worse

17%

Treated same

62%

Treated better

21% Treated better

11%

Treated same

54%

Treated 

worse

35%

a Other government offices include Division of Motor Vehicles, voter registration, WIC, post office, unemployment

office. 

Data from appendix table B.24. 

It appears that completing the food stamp application required somewhat more visits to the food 

stamp office in 2000 than during the 1990s. In 1996, participants reported making an average of 1.6 

trips to the food stamp office for their most recent application (Ponza et al., 1999). Approved 

applicants made an average of 1.8 trips to the local food stamp office in the course of applying for 

benefits in 1990 (Bartlett et al., 1992). These figures compare to an average of 2.4 trips in 2000. In 

addition, applicants in 2000 made an average of 1.3 additional trips to obtain documentation 

compared to an average of 0.7 trips in 1996. The total time spent at the food stamp office and 

traveling to the office also increased between 1996 and 2000—from 3.9 hours to 6.1 hours, on 

average. 

Conclusion 

Of those applicants who were not found to be ineligible because of excess income or other household 

circumstances, 18 percent failed to complete the application process. About a quarter of those dropout 

households abandoned the application after their circumstances changed and they felt they no longer 

needed food stamp benefits. The remaining 13 percent of applicants would amount to about 57,000 

 11 These data are not tabulated for those who did not complete the application process because by definition

they did not go through all the necessary visits and hours. 

4-9
households each month nationwide. This is a small fraction of the estimated 6 million eligible 

nonparticipant households, but not a trivial number. 

Many applicant dropouts may have been discouraged from pursuing their application in part by some 

aspect of local office practices. About 27 percent mentioned some aspect of office policy or practice 

as a reason for abandoning the application. They emphasized the need to acquire documents for 

verification, the length of time before benefits would be received, long waits in the office, and the 

need to take time off from work or to pay for child or elder care. Most of those who did not mention 

specific aspects of the application process said that they believed they were ineligible because of 

having too much income or assets; it is quite possible that some of these people misinterpreted

information that they received during the process. 

The analysis suggests that difficulty with the application is not focused on particular population 

subgroups. For example, although elderly households are much less likely to participate in the 

program, age is not significantly related to completing the application process, and households 

consisting exclusively of elderly or adults with disabilities were significantly more likely to complete 

the process. Non-English speakers were no less likely to complete the application process, suggesting 

that office practices have overcome most difficulties that might be associated with language barriers. 

The patterns of application behavior—who applies, who fails to complete the process, and their 

reasons—do not differ markedly from those found in the prior studies of these issues. In particular, 

the percentage of applicants who abandoned the application process was quite similar to the 

proportion seen in a five-site study in 1990 by Bartlett et al. (20 percent of all applicants in 2000, 

compared to 19 percent in 1990). The data suggest that the number of times that applicants must visit 

the food stamp office has increased over time and that, as a result, the total hours spent in completing 

the application process has increased. Thus, despite concerns that the application process has become

more complex since the welfare reforms of 1996, the evidence on complexity is mixed and the rate of 

failure to complete the process does not appear to have increased substantially. 

4-10
Chapter 5 

TANF-Diverted Households 

Welfare reform gave States the option of using TANF diversion policies to encourage families not to 

become TANF recipients. Diversion policies are designed to help TANF applicants find employment 

or temporary financial assistance rather than seek welfare benefits. States use a variety of diversion 

policies, including requiring TANF applicants to conduct job searches before they can apply or be 

approved for TANF benefits, offering lump sum cash payments or expense vouchers to help 

households deal with short-term financial crises, and requiring applicants to explore programs and 

resources besides TANF before filing an application. 

Diversion is not a component of the Food Stamp Program, but because TANF and food stamp 

applications are usually conducted concurrently, concerns have been raised that applicants might be 

confused about the differing program requirements. Some applicants might think, for example, that 

accepting TANF lump sum payments would make them ineligible for food stamp benefits. (A 1999 

regulatory initiative clarifying this issue indicated that families who receive any form of TANF

benefit are categorically eligible for food stamps.) Or they might view a TANF job search 

requirement as a hurdle that must be cleared before they could receive food stamps. Such confusion 

and misunderstanding might discourage some households from applying for food stamp benefits or 

from completing the application process once they begin it. 

To examine this issue, a special survey focused on households that received lump-sum diversion 

payments. Job search diversion was not covered in this survey because it proved impossible to obtain 

lists of the households subject to this policy.

1

 In addition to the special survey, the survey of 

applicants provided some limited information on households who experienced TANF diversion. 

Lump-sum diversion was found to be a rather uncommon TANF practice. In June 2000, the focus 

month for the special survey, only 18 of the 40 States in the study reported that they used lump-sum

diversion.2 Even those States with a diversion policy applied the policy infrequently. Seven of the 18 

States made no lump-sum diversion payments to cases in the sample office in June 2000, and one 

State kept no separate records of lump sum payments. Ten States made some diversion payments in 

June 2000, but the total number of payments in the sampled offices was only 179 and only about half 

of the sampled offices in those States had one or more cases that received a lump-sum payment.

Based on sampling ratios, this implies that 3,246 households received TANF lump sum payments in 

June 2000. 

All of the 179 households that were given cash payments in lieu of applying for TANF in June 2000 

were included as candidates for the survey. The survey questions were designed to learn about their 

 1

 Few States or local offices could provide lists of applicants subject to job search requirements. Information

on job search appears to be maintained in a variety of ways, but often is accessible only at the caseworker

level.

2

 Our sample States varied in their adoption of other types of TANF diversion policies in 2000. According to

Maloy et al. (2000), nine of the 40 States had no TANF diversion policy, 24 States used some type of job

search diversion and 7 States required applicants to seek alternative resources. 

 5-1
household circumstances, whether or not they applied for food stamps, and their experiences and 

perceptions that might bear on their pursuit of food stamp assistance. The survey was able to reach 99 

of those households. All these households are included in the analysis. 

Did Households That Received Diversion Payments Apply for Food 

Stamp Benefits? 

When concerns are expressed about the effect of TANF diversion on food stamp participation, the 

usual assumption is that the diverted household would be a nonparticipating household applying for 

TANF who might also apply for food stamp benefits. Almost three-quarters of the TANF-diverted 

households (73 percent) found in the study fit the assumed model, but the other 27 percent of the 

cases were in fact already participating in the FSP (figure 5.1). 

Figure 5.1—FSP status of TANF-diverted households in month of lump-sum payment

Not already 

participating in

FSP

73%

Already 

participating in 

FSP

27%

Percentages derived from appendix table B.26. 

Two-thirds (65 percent) of the TANF-diverted households that were not already receiving food stamp 

benefits went on to do so—they filed FSP applications and were approved (figure 5.2). The remaining 

households were divided between those who did not apply for food stamps (21 percent) and those 

who filed an application but did not complete the application process (14 percent). The latter group 

may include some households that filed a food stamp application before receiving the lump sum 

TANF payment and abandoned their application after the lump sum was awarded. The available data 

do not describe the sequence of these events, however. Excluding the households who did not apply

for food stamps, 83 percent of the TANF-diverted households were approved for food stamps—

almost exactly the same as the approval rate for circumstantially eligible applicants seen in Chapter 4. 

Among the TANF-diverted households that were already receiving FSP benefits, just over three 

quarters (77 percent) were due for recertification in the month in which they received the lump sum

payment. These cases might not have been receiving TANF previously and used the FSP 

recertification as an opportunity to apply. Alternatively, they may have been receiving TANF benefits 

already, and the opportunity to receive the lump-sum diversion payment may have arisen as part of 

the TANF recertification. Whatever the circumstances, 35 of the 77 percent—or 45 percent of those 

in their recertification month—completed the food stamp recertification process and were approved 

for continued benefits. The 45 percent continuation rate for TANF diverted households was 

 5-2
considerably lower than the 78 percent continuation rate for all households that were in their 

recertification month in June 2000. 

Figure 5.2—FSP status by whether receiving FSP benefits at TANF diversion

Not receiving food stamps Receiving food stamps

Incomplete 

applicationa

14%

Did not

apply/

receive

food 

stamps

21%

Approved 

application

65%

Interim

month

23%

Incomplete 

recertificationa

42%

Approved 

recertification

35%

a Households who received diversion payments were categorically eligible for food stamps. All denials are therefore

assumed to have occurred because the household did not complete the required application or recertification process. 

Percentages derived from appendix table B.26. 

The remaining 23 percent of TANF-diverted households who were already receiving food stamp 

benefits were not in a food stamp recertification month when they received their lump sum payment. 

All of these households continued to receive FSP benefits following receipt of the lump sum.

In sum, nearly two-thirds of the households who received lump sum TANF payments went on to 

receive food stamp benefits. The other 36 percent did not receive food stamps; either they did not file 

a food stamp application or they did not complete their certification or recertification process. 

The households who did not receive food stamp benefits after receiving a TANF lump sum payment 

are the ones of primary concern here. These households would have been categorically eligible for 

food stamp benefits, provided that all members of the food stamp household were considered in 

making the TANF award. We therefore look more closely below at the characteristics and 

experiences of this group, and compare them with the households who did go on to receive FSP 

benefits after TANF diversion. Because the sample is so small, these comparisons can be only

suggestive. 

Who Received Lump Sum Diversion Payments? 

TANF-diverted households all included children and were predominantly headed by women, as

expected given that they qualified for TANF benefits (appendix table B.27). In other respects, their 

characteristics were very similar to those of the food stamp applicant population (compare to 

 5-3
appendix table B.20). The demographic characteristics of TANF-diverted households did not differ 

significantly between those who did and those who did not subsequently receive FSP benefits. 

The economic profile of TANF-diverted households (appendix table B.28) is similar to that of FSP 

applicants (compare to appendix table B.19). Among the TANF-diverted households, the data contain 

some hints that the group that did not subsequently receive food stamp benefits may have been better 

off economically than those who did receive benefits. These differences are generally not statistically

significant, however. 

TANF-diverted households were asked whether particular “trigger events” had occurred that led them

to apply for assistance. Respondents were also asked whether the event was the most important 

reason. Figure 5.3 shows the results. 

Figure 5.3—Circumstances precipitating application for assistance

6%

4%

4%

0%

5%

3%

31%

5%

26%

6%

12%

7%

27%

18%

71%

20%

71%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Just learned about FSP

Contributing adult died/left

Increased expenses

Moved/released from institution

Non-contributing member added

Member became sick/disabled

Harder to make ends meet

Loss of income

Reason reported Most important reason

Data from appendix table B.29. 

One might expect that the events precipitating an application for benefits would tend to be of a shortterm nature for TANF-diverted households, because the lump sum is intended to meet relatively 

temporary needs. No statistically significant differences were observed, however, between the “most 

important” trigger events for these households (appendix table B.29) and for food stamp applicants in 

general (see appendix table B.21). Likewise, the trigger events for TANF-diverted households who 

subsequently received food stamp benefits did not differ significantly from the events occurring to 

those who did not participate. 

 5-4
Why Do Some Households Not Get FSP Benefits After TANF 

Diversion? 

Because very few households nationwide received lump sum payments and most of those 

subsequently received food stamp benefits, the survey reached only a small number of households for 

whom TANF diversion might have been an obstacle to receiving food stamp benefits. The sample

includes 32 households that did not go on to receive food stamp benefits. Of those households, 16 

applied for initial benefits and did not complete all application requirements, 9 closed at 

recertification, and 7 applied only for TANF and did not apply for food stamp benefits. It is obviously

not possible to derive precise estimates from such a small number, but it is still worth examining the 

experiences of these households as illustrative examples. 

TANF-diverted households that applied to the FSP all cited numerous reasons for not completing the 

application process. Many did not think that they were eligible for food stamp benefits. We do not 

know exactly why they believed they were ineligible, but if they made the judgment of the basis of 

receiving a TANF diversion payment, additional information from the local office could clarify their 

FSP eligibility. Households also cited the inconvenience, cost, and hassle associated with the 

application process. Confusion about the process and the length of time required to apply and receive 

benefits were also noted by a number of the households. 

Most of the TANF diverted households that left the FSP at recertification did not even bother to file 

their recertification application. The predominant reason cited in this small sample was that the 

recertification process was too difficult or costly or required too much time. Some reported that their 

situation changed and they no longer needed or wanted food stamp benefits. A few households also 

reported that there were too many rules to comply with or that it was too difficult to participate in the 

program. All these reasons suggest that these households essentially decided that the food stamp 

benefits received were no longer worth the costs of participation. 

Three-quarters of the TANF-diverted households that did not go on to receive FSP benefits believed 

that they were eligible for the program, though they tended to believe that they would receive only

small benefits (appendix table B.30). Almost a fifth believed their benefit would be $100 or less, and 

only 23 percent expected it to exceed $150. In contrast, 46 percent of those who did receive food 

stamp benefits after TANF diversion expected a benefit over $150. 

About half the TANF-diverted households reported some feelings of stigma associated with the FSP. 

Their feelings were not, however, more intense than those of food stamp applicants (compare to 

appendix table B.23), nor were there significant differences between TANF-diverted households that 

received food stamp benefits and those that did not. 

TANF Diversion Reported by Applicants 

The data described above came, as noted, from a special survey of households identified in agency

records as having received TANF lump sum payments in June 2000. In addition, the survey of 

applicants provides a glimpse of TANF diversion from the perspective of would-be participants. The 

survey asked applicants whether, when they contacted the local office, the caseworker arranged for a 

lump sum payment, assigned job search activities, or suggested contacting other agencies instead of 

 5-5
applying for assistance. A small number of the responding applicants did report encountering these 

forms of diversion, as described below. 

Most food stamp applicants said they did not experience TANF diversion (figure 5.4). Among those 

who did, job search diversion was the most commonly reported, with 12 percent of households with 

children (7 percent of all applicants) indicating that their caseworker had assigned job search 

activities.3

 Referral to alternative resources was next most common, reported by 7 percent of 

applicants with children, while 2 percent of applicants with children reported lump sum payments. 

Figure 5.4—Percent of applicants reporting TANF diversion 

12%

7%

7%

4%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Job search

Alternative resources

Lump sum

Percent of applicants with children Percent of all applicants

Data from appendix table B.31. 

This response pattern corresponds to information provided in the local office supervisor survey

regarding the prevalence of the policies. Over a third of offices (38 percent, weighted by caseload) 

reported a job search requirement for food stamp applicants who were also applying for TANF, and 

most of these offices applied the requirement to at least half of the TANF/food stamp applicants.4

Only 9 percent of offices required applicants to explore alternative resources before applying for 

TANF, but most of these required it of all TANF/food stamp applicants. Lump sum payment policies 

were reported in more than half of the offices (55 percent), but as discussed previously, very few such 

payments were made in any given month.5

 3

 Some households without children, who would not have been eligible for TANF, responded positively to 

diversion questions. The analyses presented include only households with children. Because the procedures

and terminology of diversion vary considerably from office to office, and each form of diversion was 

covered in a single brief question, some respondents may have reported incorrectly that they experienced 

(or did not experience) diversion. 

4

 Gabor et al., 2003, Appendix tables A3.4, A3.5, and A3.6. 

5

 About half of the households who reported lump sum diversion on the applicant survey were on the 

agencies’ lists of households receiving lump sum payments in June 2000. Some households may have 

received their payment in a different month (for example, although their application was filed in June, they 

might have received a lump sum payment in July). Some households may have discussed the lump sum

payments with their worker but not actually received such a payment. 

 5-6
TANF diversion has been considered an issue for food stamp participation because of the possibility

that diversion would prevent eligible households from pursuing the food stamp application. The 

survey did not provide any evidence of such an effect. More than 90 percent of the applicants who 

reported each form of TANF diversion successfully completed the food stamp application process and 

were approved for benefits (Appendix table B.32). This successful completion rate was actually a bit 

higher than the rate for respondents who did not experience diversion, although the difference is not 

statistically significant. 

These data do not rule out the possibility that TANF diversion sometimes led households away from

the FSP. The applicant survey included only households who actually filed a food stamp application, 

and the previous discussion showed that a fifth of the nonparticipating households that received 

TANF lump sum payments in June 2000 did not apply for food stamps. 

The data do suggest, however, that TANF diversion may not affect many people who are sufficiently

“in the system” to file an application. This would be consistent with information from supervisors and 

caseworkers in the local offices, which indicated that most offices have taken steps to deal with the 

issue. Supervisors in offices with diversion policies generally said that workers are trained to inform

clients that the diversion does not affect FSP eligibility, and caseworkers reported that they usually 

encouraged diversion clients to apply for food stamps. 6

Households who reported TANF diversion had economic and demographic profiles similar to those of

other applicants with children, although the small numbers of respondents reporting diversion make 

such comparisons tenuous (Appendix tables B.33–B.38). A small number of statistically significant 

differences appear in the tables, but these do not appear to reflect any meaningful general pattern. 

Conclusion 

The data reviewed in this chapter provide a mixed and fragmentary view of the role of TANF 

diversion in food stamp participation. Overall, TANF diversion appears to have affected a relatively

small proportion of eligible non-participants. Based on the survey of households applying for food 

stamp benefits in June 2000, about 51,000 households experienced one or more forms of TANF 

diversion. That would amount to about 21 percent of the eligible food stamp applicants with children, 

or 12 percent of all food stamp applicants. Food stamp agency records suggest that TANF lump sum

payments, the least common form of TANF diversion, were made to about 3,200 households 

nationwide in June 2000. This includes 1,850 who were applying for benefits, 670 who were already

participating and were in their recertification month, 200 who were participating in an interim month, 

and 480 who were neither participating in nor applying for benefits.

Although most eligible applicants were not touched by TANF diversion, the issue is still important if 

TANF diversion frequently leads to confusion about whether the household is eligible for food stamp 

benefits or what it must do to receive them. The study suggests that some confusion did exist: about a 

quarter of the households who failed to complete the food stamp application or recertification after 

receiving TANF lump sum payments said they believed they were ineligible, which was incorrect. On 

the other hand, over 90 percent of the applicants who said they had experienced TANF diversion went 

 6

 Gabor et al., 2003, Appendix tables A3.4, A3.5, and A3.6. 

 5-7
on to receive food stamps. And only 1 percent of households who failed to complete the application 

process gave reasons that seemed related to TANF diversion. 

In addition to the applicants, Chapter 3 showed that 2 percent of non-participants who believed they

were ineligible for food stamps (6 percent of those with children) said it was because they had

received a lump sum payment. This suggests that confusion about eligibility after TANF diversion 

may not only lead some households to abandon their food stamp application or recertification, but

may have a lasting effect on the households’ perception of their eligibility.

It remains puzzling that about a third of the households that received TANF lump sum payments did 

not subsequently receive food stamp benefits. Most or all of these households would have been 

categorically eligible for food stamps, three-quarters perceived themselves to be eligible, and all were 

in contact with the social services network. Unfortunately, the number of these households reached by

the survey was too small, and their circumstances and stated reasons for nonparticipation were too 

various, to determine whether they represent a problem that should be addressed or simply a group of

households that chose not to participate in the FSP. 

 5-8
Chapter 6 

Households That Left the Food Stamp Program 

Households receiving food stamp benefits must comply with various participation requirements, such 

as reporting changes in their household circumstances or participating in employment and training 

activities, as a condition of continued participation. The specific requirements depend on individual 

State and local policies, and vary depending on the type of household. In addition, all households 

must periodically be recertified through a process that is similar to the initial application for benefits: 

completing a recertification application, attending an interview, and providing documents verifying 

household circumstances. Households that fail to comply with participation or recertification 

requirements are removed from the Food Stamp Program.

1

 

The active food stamp caseload can be subdivided into four groups: 

• Households in a month when they are not required to recertify for benefits (an “interim

month” and who continue to receive benefits in the following month (non-recertification 

month, continue)2

; 

• Households that close in the midst of a recertification period, also called “interim

closures” (non-recertification month, close); 

• Households whose certification period ends during the month, who reapply, and who are 

approved to continue receiving food stamps (recertification month, continue); and 

• Households whose certification period ends during the month and who are denied 

continuing benefits (recertification month, close). 

In any given month, the vast majority of the food stamp caseload is in the midst of an active 

certification period and will continue to receive benefits in the following month. For the sample 

month of June 2000, 85 percent of the active caseload was in this situation (figure 6.1). An additional 

10 percent of cases were recertified during month, and thus continued to receive benefits the 

following month. A relatively small proportion of cases closed during the month—2 percent of 

households experienced interim closures and 3 percent were denied continuing benefits at 

recertification. 

The discussion below examines the characteristics and experiences of households that left the FSP in 

June 2000. The 109 food stamp offices participating in the study provided for June 2000 lists of all 

food stamp cases that were due for recertification, plus all cases that were closed but not in a 

recertification month. For a sample of 1,232 cases, data were abstracted from the households’ case 

files. These data include information on the nature of the action (such as whether the certification was 

approved or denied and a reason for denial, if available) and the characteristics of the case as recorded 

at the most recent previous (re)certification. The 177 households in the sample that were due for a 

 1

 In some circumstances a participant may have multiple opportunities to meet the requirements, so 

termination of benefits does not necessarily follow from (initial) non-compliance. 

2

 This also includes households that submitted a new application and were approved for benefits during the 

month and will thus continue to receive benefits in the following month. 

6-1 
recertification but did not complete the process were targeted for a follow-up survey. These 

households were no longer in contact with the program and were therefore difficult to reach, but 

interviews were completed with 71 of the households. The survey obtained additional information on 

the households’ circumstances when they left the FSP in June 2000 and their perceptions of the 

recertification process. 

Figure 6.1—Status of active food stamp caseload

Recertification month, 

continue

10%

Recertification month, 

close

3%

Non-recertification 

month, close

2%

Non-recertification 

month, continue

85%

Data from appendix table B.39. 

Among food stamp cases that closed in non-recertification months, 29 percent were closed because 

the household no longer met the eligibility criteria for income and assets (see figure 6.2). Another 20 

percent were sanctioned, most commonly for failing to comply with income reporting requirements. 

Agency codes for recording cases that closed for other reasons were quite inconsistent across 

locations, and sometimes no closure reason could be found in the file. About 15 percent were 

recorded as having terminated voluntarily or moved, and it is quite possible that these reasons also 

apply to some closures in the “other” category. Because no survey was conducted of households 

exiting in interim months, we do not know what proportion were still circumstantially eligible among 

the households whose cases were closed for reasons other than excess income or assets. 

About 35 percent of households that exited in recertification months were denied because of excess 

income or assets. Most of the remaining households had their certification denied because they failed 

to complete the recertification process.3

 Just two percent were sanctioned, considerably less than in 

interim months (although failure to complete the recertification process is analogous to failure to 

comply with interim reporting requirements). 

 3

 The coding of cases closed at recertification for reasons other than excess income/assets and sanctions is 

based on agency codes and, for survey cases, responses to survey questions. Some cases that would have 

been coded "other or not recorded” were reclassified, nearly always to “certification process not complete.” 

Among households that were targeted for the survey but not reached, 20 percent were “other or not 

recorded.” 

6-2 
Figure 6.2—Recorded reasons for case closures

Closed in interim month Closed in recertification month

Other or not

recorded

36%

Voluntary 

termination,

moved

15%

Sanctioned

20%

Excess 

income or

assets

29%

Certification

process not

completed

39%

Other or not

recorded

19%

Voluntary 

withdrawal

5%

Sanctioned

2%

Excess 

income or

assets

35%

Data from appendix table B.40. 

Many households who did not complete the recertification process appear to have been 

circumstantially eligible for continued benefits. Among those surveyed, 93 percent were categorized 

as circumstantially eligible on the basis of their survey responses. The low survey response rate 

makes it difficult to know whether this high rate of circumstantial eligibility applies to the other 

households who closed at recertification. However, at the time of their most recent previous 

(re)certification, the surveyed households had very similar characteristics to the households not 

surveyed (see Appendix tables B.41 and B.42).4

 In fact, the survey respondents seem to have been 

economically better off than the non-respondents, on average, with significantly more of the 

respondents having above-poverty incomes. Thus it seems likely that a very substantial proportion of 

the households who did not complete the recertification process were potentially circumstantially 

eligible. This is consistent with follow-up studies on households leaving the FSP, which have found 

more than half of the households had incomes that would apparently make them eligible for benefits 

(Mills and Kornfeld, 2000; Jensen et al., 2002; Richardson et al., 2003). 

Although the circumstantially eligible households are the ones of principal interest to the study, most 

of the tables presented in this chapter include all households who exited the FSP, including those who 

were closed or denied because of excess income or assets. Tables based only on survey data are 

limited to circumstantially eligible households, and are so indicated. 

Who Leaves the Food Stamp Program? 

The households who left the Food Stamp Program in June 2000 were significantly younger, on

average, than the participating households who continued to receive benefits (figure 6.3).5

 In 

 4

 Survey respondents appear in table B.41 to include a significantly smaller proportion of households headed

by Hispanics than the abstract-only respondents. However, this information was missing from the case 

record in a substantial proportion of cases and, for those surveyed, survey responses were used when case 

record data were missing. 

5

 This analysis includes all households who left the FSP, including those who closed due to circumstantial 

ineligibility. 

6-3 
particular, the departing households were significantly less likely to be made up entirely of elderly

adults or adults with disabilities. Because most one-person households in the FSP are elderly or 

people with disabilities, the households leaving the program included a smaller proportion of oneperson households than those that continued. However, the exiting households included a 

significantly larger proportion of one-person households in which the recipient was an able-bodied 

adult (i.e., neither elderly nor with disabilities). 

Figure 6.3—Demographic characteristics of households that left the FSP and households 

that continued (percent of group with characteristic) 

17%

9%

32%

42%

12%

38%

4%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Single-person, not elderly, without disabilities

Single-person households

All adults with disabilities

All adults elderly

Households that left FSP Households that continued in FSP

Data from appendix table B.43. 

The households who left the FSP in June 2000 also tended to be in better economic circumstances 

than those who stayed (where circumstances are those reported at the beginning of the certification 

period that ended in June). Significantly more of the departing households had earnings (figure 6.4). 

On average, the earnings of those who left the FSP were $1004 compared to $791 for households that 

remained (Appendix table B.44). Moreover, 22 percent of the cases leaving the FSP had incomes 

above the federal poverty line, compared to 12 percent of participating households who continued to 

receive benefits. In contrast, the departing cases included significantly fewer households with Social 

Security or SSI income and with cash assistance. 

None of these patterns are surprising. Elderly participants and participants with disabilities have long 

been observed to be in circumstances that fluctuate little over time, which is the major reason that 

such cases are traditionally assigned relatively long certification periods.6

 Conversely, households 

with earnings have more opportunity for income increases that will make them ineligible for FSP 

benefits, and consequently they are often assigned short certification periods. The one somewhat 

surprising pattern in the data is the relatively high prevalence of Hispanic households among interim

month closures (29 percent, compared to 14 percent of the continuing cases in non-recertification 

 6

 When continuing cases in recertification months are compared to continuing cases in non-recertification 

months, we find a significantly smaller proportion of elderly/disabled and one-person households in the

former group. 

6-4 
months). This pattern is not repeated among cases in their recertification month, so it is not clear 

whether it is meaningful or simply a random feature of this particular sample.7

Figure 6.4—Economic characteristics of households that left the FSP and households that 

continued (percent of group with characteristic)

18%

23%

23%

44%

22%

12%

45%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Received cash assistance

Received social security/SSI

Income above poverty level

With earnings

Households that left FSP Households that continued in FSP

Data from appendix table B.44. 

Who Fails to Complete the Recertification Process? 

Just over half (53 percent) of the households that left the Food Stamp Program in June 2000 were due 

for recertification in that month (Appendix table B.39). Of those that closed in their recertification 

month, 35 percent were determined to be ineligible on the basis of their income or other household 

circumstances.8

 Most of the remaining households failed to complete the recertification process, 

although a small fraction were sanctioned. For convenience, we will refer to all households who were 

neither approved for benefits nor denied for excess income/assets as having failed to complete the 

recertification process. 

 

Households that failed to complete the recertification tended to be in better economic circumstances 

(as measured at the most recent previous recertification) than those households who were approved 

for continuing benefits at recertification, but somewhat worse off than those who closed at 

recertification due to circumstantial ineligibility (figure 6.5). As noted in the previous section, 

households that left the FSP were more likely than those who stayed to have earnings. Among 

households with earnings, those who did not complete the recertification process had average 

monthly earnings of $930, higher than the $803 reported by households that continued in the FSP, but 

lower than the $1,362 of those deemed circumstantially ineligible for benefits at recertification. A 

similar pattern is observed in total family income—21 percent of households that failed to complete 

recertification had incomes exceeding the poverty level, compared to 9 percent for those that

 7

 See table B.45. A substantial proportion of case records on closed cases did not have sufficient data on

race/ethnicity for accurate coding. Survey responses supplemented the case record data, but no households 

who closed in interim months were surveyed.

8

 Calculated from data in table 2.4. 

6-5 
remained in the FSP and 35 percent for those whose circumstances made them ineligible for benefits 

at recertification. 

Figure 6.5—Characteristics of households due for recertification (percent of group with

characteristic)

7% 2%

3%

27%

14% 8%

9%

4%

2%

17%

23%

35%

44%

36% 31%

9%

21%

35%

35% 48%

48%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Non-citizen head

All adult members with

disabilities

All adults elderly

Multiple adults and children

Single adults with children

Income above poverty level

With earnings

Approved recertification Failed to complete recertification requirements Circumstantially ineligible

Data from appendix tables B.46 and B.47. 

The food security of households that did not complete the recertification process was similar to that of 

applicant households—two-thirds reported food insecurity and one-quarter experienced hunger 

(Appendix table B.48). 

The household composition of those that left the FSP for failing to complete all recertification 

requirements differed from that of households who continued to receive benefits. While both groups 

were equally likely to include children, households that left were more likely to include multiple 

adults and thus less likely to be headed by single adults. In addition, one-person households were 

equally represented in both groups, but households that failed to complete the recertification process 

were less likely to be comprised of only elderly adults or only adults with disabilities. 

One might expect that households headed by non-citizens would be more likely not to complete food 

stamp recertification due to concern or confusion over alien regulations. This does not appear to be 

the case, however, as these households comprised a smaller proportion of those that failed to 

complete all requirements than of those approved for continuing benefits at recertification. 

6-6 
Why Do Some Households Fail to Complete the Recertification 

Process? 

Many households who failed to complete the recertification process did not even begin it. Almost 

two-thirds of the survey sample of non-completers (63 percent) reportedly did not file an application 

(figure 6.6). Smaller proportions of households either did not complete their certification interview or 

did not complete their verification—13 or 14 percent in each category, based on case records and 

survey responses. The remaining 10 percent reported a variety of other responses or could not 

remember enough about the certification process to classify them. The patterns seen in the survey

responses and the case files are roughly similar after excluding the “not reported” group (Appendix 

table B.49). 

Figure 6.6—Status of recertification application of households that did not complete the 

process 

Verification incomplete

14%

Not reported

4%

Other

6%

No certification interview

13%

No application filed

63%

Data from appendix table B.49. 

Nearly all of the households (93 percent) that failed to complete their recertification were still 

apparently eligible for food stamp benefits, based on the income and household information they

provided in the survey describing their circumstances in June 2000. The discussion below focuses on 

those survey respondents who failed to complete the process and were apparently circumstantially

eligible for benefits.9

 The relatively small number of households (67) makes the estimated 

proportions imprecise, as indicated by their standard errors, and cautious interpretation is needed. 

Like the households who failed to complete the initial application process (described in Chapter 4), 

those who failed to complete their recertification were read a list of possible obstacles to participation 

and asked whether these factors applied to their situation and, if so, whether they were reasons for not 

completing the recertification. The survey also asked about food security, stigma, and satisfaction 

with the Food Stamp Program. 

 9

 One household whose circumstantial eligibility could not be determined is also included. 

6-7 
Eighteen percent of households that failed to complete their recertification said that their 

circumstances had improved so that they had less need of benefits (figure 6.7), including 9 percent 

who said they believed they were ineligible for continued participation. Another 20 percent believed 

themselves ineligible even though they did not indicate that their situation had improved. For 29

percent to believe themselves ineligible is somewhat surprising, given that these households were 

already participating in the program and might be expected to have relatively good understanding of 

program rules.10 

Figure 6.7—Reasons circumstantially eligible households did not complete recertification 

requirementsa

3%

4%

5%

7%

9%

16%

23%

18%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Difficulty of getting to the office

Monthly reporting

Treated badly by office staff

Would miss work

Too frequent recertifications

Confused about the process

Verification too difficult

Situation improved

Perceived ineligibility due to income/assets

a Includes only households classified as circumstantially eligible based on their survey responses. 

Data from appendix table B.50. 

Overall, 38 percent cited some difficulty in the recertification process or some program participation 

requirement as their reason for not completing the recertification, including 24 percent who cited 

these reasons only and 14 percent who also mentioned a change in their situation and/or perceived 

ineligibility (Appendix table B.50). About a quarter of the non-completers said that the verification 

requirements were too difficult and 16 percent reported that confusion about the recertification 

process played a role in their decision not to pursue the recertification. In addition some households 

mentioned program reporting requirements—9 percent cited the requirement for periodic 

recertifications and 4 percent cited monthly reporting—as reasons for not completing the process. No 

 10 Recall that about half (46 percent) of households who did not complete the initial application process 

believed themselves ineligible (see Appendix table B.22). This figure is not significantly different from the 

perceived ineligibility percentage among households not completing recertification. On the other hand, 

some of these households may, in fact, have been ineligible. As mentioned earlier, the income and assets

criteria used to determine eligibility have been shown to be quite accurate, but will lead to some

classification errors. 

6-8 
one mentioned employment and training requirements, child support, or child immunization 

requirements, however. 

It is interesting to note that TANF issues were not a major factor. None of the households who failed 

to complete the process saw the receipt of TANF benefits, the termination of TANF receipt, or being 

subjected to some type of TANF diversion as a reason for food stamp ineligibility. 

Questions regarding the perceived convenience of the office location and office hours show that

inconvenience was not a problem for most households who failed to complete their recertification 

(appendix table B.51). Responses were quite similar to those of households who successfully

completed an initial application. Likewise, the level of perceived stigma was quite similar to that 

reported by successful applicants. These patterns are not surprising, since the households leaving the 

program were once successful applicants. 

Finally, households who failed to complete their recertification expressed mixed opinions about the 

FSP and their treatment by program personnel (appendix table B.51). Overall, the majority (59 

percent) were “satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied,” but 41 percent were “dissatisfied” or “somewhat 

dissatisfied” with the program. Comparing treatment by the food stamp office to that by other 

government offices, most households saw no important difference; but households who felt the food 

stamp office treated them worse than other government offices outnumbered those who felt better 

treated in the food stamp office (figure 6.8). These point estimates lie between (but are not 

statistically different from) the pattern for successful applicants and the pattern for applicants who did 

not complete the application process. 

Conclusion 

In June 2000, about 203,000 participating households who were in their recertification month left the 

FSP. Based on the limited available data, we project that as many as 123,000 of these households may

still have been circumstantially eligible for benefits.11 This is approximately 50 percent greater than 

the number of apparently eligible initial applicants who failed to complete the application process. 

This suggests that, to the extent that local office policies and practices can influence participation 

among people who are already in contact with the program, the opportunity for influence may be 

greater at recertification than initial certification. Nonetheless, both the recertification and initial 

certification numbers are small compared to the number of apparently eligible households who were 

not in any direct contact with the program during a given month. 

 11 About 71,000 households were denied continued benefits because their income or resources exceeded 

program eligibility limits. Of the remainder, 93 percent of those who were reached by the survey were 

classified as apparently circumstantially eligible. If the rate of circumstantial eligibility was the same for 

households not reached by the survey, 123,000 households would be classed as circumstantially eligible. 

While this is the best estimate available, the low survey response rate suggests that it should be viewed with

caution. 

6-9 
Figure 6.8—Treatment at food stamp office compared to other government officesa 

Better

15%

Same

58%

Worse

27%

a Includes only households classified as circumstantially eligible based on their survey responses. 

Data from appendix table B.51. 

Among the small sample (67) of apparently eligible households who failed to complete the 

recertification, 29 percent believed that they were not eligible. This proportion is rather surprising—

one might expect active food stamp recipients to be more knowledgeable about program eligibility

rules—and may represent an opportunity for communication to influence participation. 

Another somewhat surprising finding is that nearly a quarter of the households who failed to complete 

their recertification cited difficult verification requirements as a reason. Verification requirements at 

recertification are not normally more stringent than those at initial application, and these households 

had already succeeded at passing through the application process.12

Consistent with the findings in previous chapters, households’ responses do not indicate that 

confusion related to TANF policies has any pervasive effect on FSP participation. If important effects 

exist, they are apparently too subtle or indirect to be captured by the types of direct questions used in 

the surveys. 

 12 Because verification requirements do vary across offices, the multivariate analysis reported in Appendix D 

will examine whether this variation is associated with the likelihood that a household will continue to

receive benefits after its recertification month. 

6-10 
Chapter 7 

Local Food Stamp Office Policies and Practices that 

May Affect Participation Decisions 

The survey results presented in Chapters 3-6 show that household participation in the food stamp 

program depends on a complicated set of perceptions, such as believing that the household may be 

eligible for benefits, and actions, such as filing an initial application or appearing for recertification. 

The data further suggest that people’s perceptions and actions are influenced by aspects of their own 

situation, such as whether they are employed, and by factors that may be related to policies and 

practices in place at the local food stamp office, such as the convenience of office hours. 

To learn about office practices that might influence participation, the study design included surveys of 

supervisors and caseworkers in the same 109 local offices where nonparticipants and participants 

were surveyed. The supervisor and caseworker surveys asked about a very large number of practices

that were expected to affect some household perception or action related to food stamp participation. 

A previous report (Gabor et al., 2003) presented a comprehensive description of these policies and 

practices. It showed very substantial variation in practices: in practically every area examined, some

offices employed practices that would be hypothesized to promote or facilitate participation, while 

others chose practices that seemed less likely to encourage participation. 

This chapter summarizes the previous report’s findings regarding variations in local practice that may

affect participation. This information sets the stage for analyses presented in Chapter 8 and Appendix 

D, which examined the extent to which local practices are associated with the likelihood that 

households will perceive themselves eligible for benefits, successfully complete the application 

process, and continue receiving benefits once they have been approved. 

The surveys and the analysis were guided by a broad set of hypotheses about what kinds of local 

office practices might influence each of five key household perceptions or decisions: 

• Whether a household thinks it might be eligible for food stamps; 

• Whether, thinking it might be eligible, a household contacts the local food stamp office; 

• Whether, having contacted the food stamp office, a household files an application and 

completes all the necessary steps for approval; 

• Whether, having been approved for benefits, a household continues to participate 

throughout the certification period; and 

• Whether, having participated throughout the certification period, a household completes 

all the necessary steps for recertification. 

Chapter 8 presents two multivariate models, which examine the first three decision points. One model 

focuses on factors affecting the likelihood that an apparently circumstantially eligible household will 

be aware that it is eligible. The second analyzes the likelihood that, once a circumstantially eligible 

7-1 
household believes it is eligible and contacts the food stamp office, it will file an application and 

successfully complete the application process.1

Ideally we would estimate a parallel model of the likelihood that households who are approved for 

benefits and remain circumstantially eligible will continue participate through their recertification 

period and then be approved for continued benefits at recertification. Because the data do not indicate 

circumstantial eligibility for some groups of households who left the FSP, we estimated models of the 

factors affecting the likelihood that a participating household will exit the program, including eligible 

and ineligible exiters indistinguishably. This analysis is presented in Appendix D. 

The local office practices and policies that might influence participation were grouped into seven 

categories: 

• Outreach to nonparticipants in the community; 

• Availability of information about the FSP to nonparticipants who are interested; 

• Office accessibility, such as the flexibility of office hours or availability of child care; 

• Subjective office features that could influence the household’s in-office experience, such 

as waiting lines or staff attitudes; 

• Certification requirements that an applicant must meet to be approved for benefits, 

including factors such as the number of required office visits or a requirement for preapproval job search; 

• Interim month requirements, such as periodic reporting or participation in employmentrelated activities; and 

• Recertification requirements, such as the required frequency of recertification and 

practices for rescheduling missed recertification appointments. 

Many office practices might influence more than one of the household decisions, and therefore to 

have multiple types of influence on participation. Most practices, however, are expected mainly to 

affect one or two actions, and the principal hypotheses are summarized in table 7.1 below. 

The sections below consider in turn each of the seven groups of office practices that are hypothesized 

to affect participation. For each group, we describe the general hypothesis, summarize the prevalence 

of office practices (from Gabor et al., 2003), and indicate how the relevant office practices are 

represented in the multivariate analysis. 

 1

 The sample for this second analysis combines respondents to the applicant survey with those respondents to

the nonparticipant survey who said they had contacted the agency recently. 

7-2 
Table 7.1—Characteristics of the office sample 

Awareness of

eligibility

Contact office 

and completion

of application

Interim month 

participation Recertification

Outreach to nonparticipants 9

Availability of Information 9

Office accessibility 9 9

Subjective office features 9 9 9

Certification requirements 9

Interim month requirements 9 9 9

Recertification requirements 9 9

Outreach to Nonparticipants 

Nearly all nonparticipant households that appear to be eligible for FSP benefits had heard of the 

Stamp Program (96 percent). Nonetheless, 55 percent of those who knew about the program reported 

that they did not think they were eligible for food stamps, or did not know if they are eligible. 

Outreach to nonparticipant households might increase participation by increasing these households’ 

awareness of the program and their potential eligibility. The USDA encourages outreach and supports 

it through special demonstration grants as well as general administrative funding sources. 

Local Office Outreach Practices 

The survey of local office supervisors found that outreach campaigns were quite prevalent, existing in

76 percent of offices nationwide (weighted by office caseload size).2

 Nonetheless, substantial 

variations were observed in outreach practices: 

• Outreach was conducted by the FSP agency in 57 percent of offices. Other community

agencies conducted outreach in the same proportion of offices, and 38 percent of the 

areas were served by outreach from both sources. 

• Nine distinct outreach modes were used, with multiple modes in many areas. The modes 

and the proportion of areas in which they were used were: 

 Community presentations—70 percent of the areas 

 Flyers, posters, and brochures—69 percent 

 Toll-free number or hotline—54 percent 

 Newspaper articles—37 percent 

 Public service announcements—33 percent 

 Internet—28 percent 

 Direct mailing—24 percent 

 Calls or home visits to former participants—14 percent 

 2

 Throughout this chapter, we describe the distribution of office practices in terms of the weighted percent of 

offices engaging in the practice, where the weighting factor is the number of active cases in the office in

June 2000. Thus, “x percent of the offices” is equivalent to “offices serving x percent of the national

caseload.” 

7-3 
 Billboards or advertisements on buses—10 percent 

• Some outreach was targeted to particular types of nonparticipants, with 63 percent of 

offices reporting some targeted outreach. About 37 percent of offices targeted elderly

households, which was the most commonly targeted group. Other groups targeted in 

more than 10 percent of the offices include immigrant and refugee populations, persons 

with disabilities, homeless persons, working families, and former TANF recipients. 

• Food stamp outreach was coordinated with outreach for Medicaid or State Child Health 

Insurance (SCHIP) in 59 percent of the offices. 

Approach to Multivariate Analysis

The first analysis presented in Chapter 8 explores the possibility that these variations in outreach 

influence eligible nonparticipants’ perceptions of their own eligibility for food stamp benefits. Six 

measures of outreach policy are used. These include indicators of whether outreach is performed by

the food stamp agency and/or community agencies and whether it is coordinated with 

Medicaid/SCHIP. Other measures indicate the number of population groups to which outreach is 

targeted and, for each respondent to the nonapplicant survey, whether the household is in a group that 

is targeted in that area. Finally, the model includes a count of the total number of outreach modes 

used, which is intended to reflect the intensity and breadth of coverage of outreach. 

It seems quite possible that these measures will not fully capture the effect of variations in local 

outreach strategies. Given the nonparticipant survey results reported in Chapter 3, it would have been 

desirable to have more information on the content of outreach, such as whether outreach emphasized 

that earnings are not an automatic barrier to eligibility. It would also be desirable to know more about 

the intensity of outreach (e.g., the number of flyers or brochures distributed relative to the size of the 

nonparticipant population). These limitations should be borne in mind in interpreting the analysis. 

Availability of Information for Potential Applicants 

Many nonparticipants said in the survey that they would not apply for food stamp benefits even if 

they were sure they were eligible, typically because they did not want to depend on government 

assistance. But other nonparticipants were not opposed to applying, and a few (4.6 percent of 

nonparticipants) said they had recently contacted the FSP office but had not applied. Households who 

might wish to apply, and especially those who visit the office, may be influenced by whether they can 

easily obtain program information and application forms. 

Information Available in Local Offices 

Observers visited the food stamp offices in the local office survey and found general program

information to be readily available in nearly all offices (91 percent). Potential applicants could obtain 

application forms in the reception area of most offices (90 percent), though 10 percent required the 

individual to see a caseworker to request the form; 87 percent would mail an application form to 

anyone who requested it. 

Other practices varied in ways that might affect participation, as summarized below. 

7-4 
• Some reception areas offered general program information only on posters, but others 

used material that might communicate better, such as take-away brochures (64 percent) 

or videotapes (21 percent). 

• Some offices made information available for special groups or issues. Sixty-two percent 

presented information in at least one non-English language, and 49 percent had 

information for people who were not applying for or already receiving TANF. 

• About three quarters of offices reported that they routinely served immigrants. Among 

those offices, about two-thirds provided specific information on eligibility rules for those 

households, and almost all of those provided information in at least one non-English 

language. 

• Two thirds of offices made application forms available at other locations in the 

community besides the food stamp office. Common locations included hospitals and 

clinics, community action agencies, and senior centers. 

Approach to the Multivariate Analysis 

The multivariate analysis examines whether informational materials influence the probability that a 

household that contacts the food stamp office will apply for benefits and complete the application 

process. The analysis includes two items measuring the availability of information. One measure 

indicates whether brochures and pamphlets were available to potential applicants and the other 

represents whether information about the FSP was shown on video in the reception area. These items, 

which showed substantial variation among offices, were selected to represent policies that might 

potentially be particularly effective means of communicating basic information about the FSP and its 

eligibility requirements. 

Office Accessibility

Applicants who were certified for food stamp benefits reported making an average of 2.4 visits to the 

local food stamp office. Making those visits always requires some time and effort, and may entail 

taking time off from work, paying for transportation, or paying for child or elder care. The survey of 

applicants and applicant dropouts (see Chapter 4) indicated that getting to the office, travel costs, 

taking time off from work, paying for care, and the convenience of office hours are factors that affect 

people’s assessment of the feasibility of an office visit. 

Local office practices may determine how accessible the office is—i.e., how much time, effort, and 

financial expense the potential applicant has to spend on the visit. Practices that make the office more 

accessible are expected to make would-be applicants more likely to complete the application process 

and receive benefits. 

Local Office Practices 

The local office survey examined five dimensions of office accessibility: hours of operation, 

transportation options, physical accessibility, adaptations for non-English speakers, and child 

friendliness. Results are summarized below. 

7-5 
• About two-fifths of offices (43 percent) conducted some eligibility interviews outside the 

standard business hours of Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Pre-8:00 interviews 

were conducted in 39 percent of offices, post-5:00 interviews in 16 percent, and Saturday 

interviews in 2 percent. Late-hour interviews were significantly more common in offices 

with more than 2,000 cases. 

• About one-quarter of offices provided a secure after-hours drop box which could be used 

for application materials. 

• Although 63 percent of offices had some clients who lived 10 miles or more from the 

office, public transit routes came within half a mile of 76 percent of offices. 

• Just over one-quarter of offices offered transportation assistance in the form of cash, 

vouchers or transit tokens (15 percent) or van or car service (11 percent). 

• Nearly all offices provided free parking, signage outside the building with the office 

name, handicapped parking, and wheelchair accessibility. Each of these features was 

available in 88 to 95 percent of offices. 

• Bilingual caseworkers or interpreters were available during most office hours in virtually

all offices that routinely saw non-English speaking clients. 

• Local practices regarding child-friendliness varied considerably: 88 percent of offices had 

some space where children could play; 47 percent had diaper changing areas; 41 percent 

had some toys or materials for children; and 15 percent made child care available at the 

office. Clients in 6 percent of offices were asked not to bring children. 

Approach to the Multivariate Analysis 

Chapter 8 presents a multivariate model examining the likelihood that an eligible nonparticipant who 

contacts the food stamp office will successfully complete the application process. The model includes 

predictor variables representing all of the local office practices described above that show meaningful

variation across offices. No measures are included for physical accessibility (parking, etc.) or for nonEnglish language accessibility because nearly all offices met each of these criteria. Child-friendliness 

is represented by three variables: indicators of whether child care is provided and whether parents are 

asked not to bring children, and an index combining the remaining three practices. 

Subjective Office Features 

Subjective aspects of clients’ experience in the food stamp office may encourage or discourage them

from persisting in the application process. For example, 6 percent of applicants who failed to 

complete the application process said that one reason was the long wait in the office. Many of the 

nonparticipants who said they would not apply for benefits even if they were eligible cited a previous 

“bad experience.” In general, we expect that local practices that tend to provide a more subjectively 

pleasant in-office experience will encourage a higher proportion of applicants to complete the 

process. 

Local Office Practices 

The local office surveys focused on three factors that seemed likely to reflect the extent to which a 

client would find an office visit pleasant: the adequacy of seating in the reception area, the presence 

7-6 
of waiting lines, and the attitudes of office staff. The first two factors were assessed by observers who 

visited the offices. To address staff attitudes, the supervisor survey asked whether the supervisor 

agreed or disagreed with three judgmental statements related to food stamp participation. The results 

are summarized below. 

• Over a third of offices (37 percent) were observed to have no waiting lines at any time, 

while 52 percent sometimes had lines and 11 percent always did. Lines were much more

common in large offices than smaller ones. 

• The vast majority (87 percent) always had enough seats for everyone in the reception 

area, and the remaining 13 percent had insufficient seating at some times. 

• At least 80 percent of supervisors expressed pro-participation positions on each of the 

following three attitude items: 

 Being on food stamps encourages dependency (81 percent chose “disagree” or 

“strongly disagree”). 

 People who leave TANF and are potentially eligible for food stamps should be 

actively encouraged to apply for food stamps (95 percent agreed or strongly agreed). 

 Immigrants should not get food stamps until they become citizens (81 percent 

disagreed or strongly disagreed). 

Approach to the Multivariate Analysis 

The local office variations above are represented in two items in the model of the probability of 

completing the application process. One measure combines the seating and waiting line issues in an 

indicator that some problem existed—either there were not always enough seats, or the average 

waiting time was at least 5 minutes, or both. The second measure is a supervisor attitude scale based 

on a count of the number of pro-participation responses (as defined above) to the three items. 

Certification Requirements 

The certification process involves multiple steps that place varying requirements on applicants. Some

steps require understanding potentially complex rules, such as the distinctions between TANF and 

food stamp eligibility criteria. Some require applicants to take actions, such as obtaining 

documentation or carrying out a job search. Some require cooperation with procedures that might 

seem invasive, such as fingerprinting and home visits. Applicants who dropped out of the process 

listed among their reasons difficulty with the application form, confusion about the application 

process, and problems in acquiring necessary documents. A few stated concerns about third party 

verification and fingerprinting. 

Although basic FSP eligibility criteria and requirements are uniform across locations, local offices 

exercise considerable discretion in structuring the application process. Local office practices that 

make the application process simpler, shorter, less invasive, and with fewer required applicant actions 

are expected to increase the proportion of eligible applicants who complete the process. 

Local Office Practices 

The eligibility interview is the universally central element of the application process, but the local 

office surveys found substantial variation in the process leading up to the interview. 

7-7 
• Applicants in 55 percent of the offices scheduled appointments in advance. In 47 percent 

of offices, applicants would visit the office, sign in, and be interviewed as soon as 

possible. Two percent of the offices used both procedures. 

• Some offices required attendance at meetings or group sessions prior to the eligibility

interview, usually to discuss employment-related issues and to review program

information. Applicants for TANF faced this requirement in 26 percent of offices, and 11 

percent of offices also required pre-interview meetings for FSP-only applicants. 

• The signing of the application form, which begins the 30-day period within which

agencies must determine eligibility, occurred before the eligibility interview in 64 percent 

of offices, during the interview in 35 percent, and after the interview in 1 percent. 

• Supervisors in about half the offices said that applicants usually needed only one visit to 

the food stamp office during the application process (51 percent reported one meeting for 

non-TANF applicants, 48 percent for TANF applicants). Only 2 percent of offices 

reported that more than 2 visits were usually needed. (Note, however, that successful 

applicants reported an average across all offices of 2.4 visits. This includes visits to 

complete the interview, provide documents, and receive an EBT card and training.) 

• When applicants missed their interview, the interview was automatically rescheduled in 

17 percent of offices and the application was automatically denied in 5 percent. Most of 

the remaining offices either notified the client to reschedule (31 percent) or held the case 

open for client-initiated rescheduling (45 percent). Two percent had some other 

procedure. 

Some practices in the application process are designed to encourage applicants to move toward

employment rather than depend on assistance. In terms of completing the application process, 

however, these practices constitute additional steps that the client must take and complexities to

understand. 

• Most offices (80 percent) had some form of “diversion” policy in place for TANF 

applicants. Policies included a lump sum payment option (55 percent), job search before 

the application could be approved (38 percent), and a requirement to seek alternative 

resources before applying (9 percent).3

• TANF applicants were typically informed about the relevant diversion policies during the 

same interview in which they would sign the food stamp application. Diversion 

information preceded the point of FSP application signing in 14 percent of all offices for 

lump sum payments, 9 percent for job search, and 1 percent for alternative resources. 

• Some non-TANF applicants were required to conduct up-front job search in 14 percent of 

offices. The requirement was usually applicable to able-bodied adults without dependents 

(13 percent) and sometimes to all mandatory work registrants (10 percent). 

 3

 While a large proportion of offices had lump sum diversion policies available, relatively few households

received such payments in June 2000. 

7-8 
FSP eligibility rules for the elderly and disabled allow a special deduction from income for the costs 

of medical care and medications. National statistics show that the deduction is rarely used, perhaps 

because of the complexity of the rule or the difficulty of documenting medical expenses. 

• To ensure that caseworkers understood the special rules, 69 percent of offices had held 

special training sessions, 47 percent had developed simplified guides for caseworkers, 

and 8 percent made this issue a topic in staff meetings. 

• To help their elderly and disabled clients use the deduction, caseworkers in 92 percent of 

offices reported providing written or oral information, 48 percent called medical 

providers or pharmacists directly, and 18 percent helped applicants review medical 

receipts. Special assistance was more common in offices with fewer than 2,000 cases. 

Some elements of the application process are designed to prevent error or fraud in the food stamp 

benefits awarded. Some of these procedures may require action by the applicant (e.g., obtaining 

documents), and some may be perceived as embarrassing or harmful to the individual’s reputation 

(e.g., contacts with employers) or as invasive or intimidating (e.g., fingerprinting). 

• Special forms usually had to be filled out by third parties to verify TANF applicants’ 

income (56 percent of offices), household circumstances (45 percent), or shelter costs (37 

percent). Thirty percent of offices required no third-party forms for TANF applicants, 

while 22 percent required forms for all three types of verification. Third party income

verification was somewhat less common for non-TANF applicants, with 45 percent of 

offices usually requiring it. 

• Caseworkers routinely contacted third parties to verify one or more of these same three 

topics (income, household circumstances, and shelter costs) for TANF applicants in 45 

percent of offices. No third-party contacts were usually made for TANF applicants in 55 

percent of offices, while all three topics involved third-party contacts in 12 percent. 

Third-party contacts for income verification were somewhat less common for non-TANF 

applicants. No third-party contacts were routinely made for non-TANF applicants in 62 

percent of offices; 10 percent of offices used third-party contacts for all three items. 

• For clients applying for TANF as well as food stamp benefits, 50 percent of offices 

required third-party verifications of topics other than income, household circumstances, 

and shelter costs. 

• When some required verification documents are missing at the end of the 30 day

processing period, most offices (77 percent) notified the applicant of the missing item

before denying the application, but 22 percent proceeded to an automatic denial.

• Fraud investigations involving unscheduled home visits were conducted in 49 percent of 

offices, with 13 percent reporting such investigations for at least a quarter of all 

applications. These investigations were much more common in larger than smaller offices 

and more common for households whose expenses exceeded their income and for 

households whose household composition or income was questionable. 

• Fingerprinting or finger imaging was required for at least some food stamp applicants in 

23 percent of offices, and for all food stamp applicants in 18 percent. This practice was 

significantly more common offices with caseloads over 2,000. 

7-9 
Approach to Multivariate Analysis

The model of the probability of completing the application process needs to take into account 

variations in local office practice that may affect the applicant’s perception of how difficult or 

burdensome the process is. Because the list of varying practices is so long, however, it is necessary to 

select among practices or to combine multiple practices in summary index variables. In addition, 

many practices apply only to some households—such as elderly and disabled, or TANF applicants—

and useful measures should interact the practice with household characteristics. For example, an 

office’s job search requirements may be applicable only for households applying for TANF as well as 

food stamp benefits, so the appropriate measure must distinguish between households that are 

applying for TANF and are in an office requiring TANF job search and households that either are not 

applying for TANF or are applying in an office with no job search requirement.4

For the analysis, we combine information on required trips and meetings into a single indicator that 

clients needed to attend a pre-interview meeting or to visit the office more than once in the course of 

being certified. This measure is defined separately for TANF and non-TANF applicants. An indicator 

of whether walk-in appointments were allowed is also included. Regarding diversion policies, 

indicators are included for the presence of a TANF lump sum option, a requirement to seek 

alternative resources, a TANF job search requirement, and a non-TANF job search requirement (each 

defined only for the appropriate group). To represent practices regarding the medical deduction for 

elderly or disabled applicants, we use an indicator of whether caseworkers routinely called medical 

providers or pharmacists directly to get information on medical expenses (defined only for elderly

and disabled applicants). Third party verification practices are represented by two indices. One 

indicates how many of the three verification topics (income, household circumstances, and shelter 

costs) involved getting third parties to submit forms. The other indicates the number of topics 

involving caseworker contact with third parties. Finally, we include indicators for whether the office 

conducted any home visits or did any fingerprinting. 

Interim Participation Requirements 

Among households who are actively receiving food stamp benefits, it is far more common to end their 

FSP participation in a recertification month than an interim month. Still, in any given month, 2.4 

percent of households in an interim month leave the program. Some exit because their situation 

changed in a way that would make them ineligible and some for other reasons that may not have 

changed their circumstantial eligibility. We do not know what proportion fell in each of these 

categories, and this study did not interview participants who exited in interim months.5

 

 4

 Whether potential TANF applicants (i.e. households with dependent children under age 18 that are not

already receiving TANF) actually do file a TANF application could be affected by the office’s policies. 

Potential TANF applicants that decide not to apply for TANF, as well as actual TANF applicants, might be

discouraged from applying for food stamps by TANF diversion or job search requirements. Hence,

potential rather than actual TANF application was interacted with the relevant policy variables. 

5

 A six-State study of the FSP negative action Quality Control system found that 79 percent of cases 

terminated in interim months failed to comply with all procedural requirements and 21 percent terminated 

due to circumstantial ineligibility (Mills et al., 1990). The study could not, however, analyze whether 

households that closed for procedural reasons were also circumstantially ineligible. In the current study, we 

collected information on a sample of 71 cases that failed to complete recertification requirements. All but 4 

(6 percent) of the cases were apparently still circumstantially eligible for food stamps when they 

7-10 
Whatever the overall frequency of interim exits by circumstantially eligible households, we expect 

exits to be more likely when the households perceive the requirements for continued participation to 

be burdensome or onerous, or when they perceive the benefit to be too small to justify the effort of 

continued participation. 

Local Office Practices 

Local office practices that might influence perceived burden of continued participation include 

requirements for participant action, such as reporting household information or participating in 

employment-related programs. 

• At the time of the local office survey, half of the local offices reported having a 

mandatory periodic reporting requirement for some cases. This included 28 percent of 

offices that used monthly reporting and 29 percent that used quarterly reporting. Other 

offices, rather than requiring reports at specified intervals, required participants to report 

specified types of changes in circumstances whenever such changes occurred. Both 

monthly and quarterly reporting requirements were applicable mainly to households with 

earnings and infrequently to other kinds of households. 

• When a household fails to submit a required monthly or quarterly report on time, most 

offices reported sending a notice instructing the client to report within a specified time 

period. In 12 percent of offices, however, the case was automatically closed. 

• Caseworkers reported that 69 percent of offices had a Food Stamp Employment and 

Training (FSET) program available. The program was usually available to non-TANF 

non-ABAWD cases as well as ABAWDs. 

• In 33 percent of offices, FSET participation was required as a condition of eligibility for 

some non-TANF non-ABAWD households. 

• The ABAWD work requirement was applicable in 69 percent of offices and waived in 31 

percent; 14 percent had the work requirement but no FSET services. 

• Among offices with ABAWD work requirements, most offices reported no follow-up 

with ABAWDs who had reached their time limit (59 percent). Other offices sent written 

notices (31 percent) or made telephone calls (12 percent) to explain how the household 

might regain eligibility.

Policies that could reduce or end participants’ food stamp benefits, such as sanctions or time limits, 

might lead participants to see a lower value in continued participation. FSP/TANF participants who 

leave TANF may similarly feel that continuing with food stamp benefits alone is not worth much 

effort. Local practices regarding the actions necessary to maintain food stamp benefits may

consequently affect participation. 

 

terminated, according to income and asset information collected through telephone and in-person

interviews. The survey did not, however, collect information on whether households were ineligible due to

procedural violations. 

7-11 
• States have the discretion to impose food stamp sanctions on TANF/FSP participants who 

fail to comply with TANF rules. This practice was employed in 58 percent of offices, 

with 55 percent applying sanctions for non-compliance with TANF work requirements 

and 25 percent sanctioning non-compliance with other TANF rules. 

• Eighteen percent of offices applied sanctions to non-TANF households failing to comply

with child support requirements. 

• When FSP/TANF households exit the TANF program, they may be required to visit the 

food stamp office within a month to have their benefit adjusted, be recertified, or reapply 

for benefits. Twenty-five percent of offices reported applying such requirements for cases 

that lost their TANF benefits due to full-family sanctions, 22 percent for cases exiting 

due to employment or other reasons, and 8 percent for cases reaching the TANF time

limit. 

Approach to the Multivariate Analysis 

Because this study is principally concerned about circumstantially eligible households, and the 

available data do not allow us to determine circumstantial eligibility for most households who left the 

FSP in interim months, Chapter 8 does not include multivariate analysis on this topic. However, 

Appendix D presents models of the probability of closing versus continuing to receive benefits in 

which the sample includes all households who exited the program. The main model includes a term

indicating whether the month is an interim month or a recertification month. This term is interacted 

with variables representing the practices described above—that is, each practice variable is 

conditional on the household being in an interim month. 

The model includes predictor variables intended to represent all of the dimensions of local office 

practice identified above. The measures of periodic reporting, one for monthly reporting and one for 

quarterly reporting, are tailored to a household characteristics (e.g., TANF status, presence of 

earnings) to indicate whether the household was subject to monthly or quarterly reporting in its

particular office. Two indicators of FSET services are included: availability of any FSET services, 

and participation requirement, given households’ characteristics. A single measure of presence of any

food stamp sanctions for any TANF violations is used. 

Recertification Requirements 

Recertification requirements are largely similar to initial certification requirements. The main 

differences are that some requirements do not have to be repeated (e.g. fingerprinting), and eligibility 

interviews are nearly always prescheduled. Given the participant’s familiarity with the process, it is 

somewhat surprising that a larger proportion of the households exiting the program in the 

recertification month failed to complete the recertification process. Many of those households cited 

confusion or difficulty with the process, with particular emphasis on the verification requirements. 

Some cited having to do recertifications frequently as an obstacle. Others mentioned features of the 

program that were not specific to recertification, such as periodic reporting requirements. For these 

people, the recertification was apparently a convenient point to stop participating. 

Whether eligible households continue to receive food stamp benefits after a recertification month may

be influenced in part by practices that make the recertification process more/less difficult or 

convenient for the recipient. In addition, we expect that continued participation may be influenced by 

7-12 
routine participation requirements, such as periodic reporting or participation in employment-related 

programs. These requirements may pose a burden that discourages participation, and failure to meet 

the requirements may lead to sanctions, including termination. 

Local offices exercise discretion not only in the structure of the recertification procedure, but in the 

frequency with which each case is recertified—households with shorter certification periods are 

recertified more frequently. Because recertification requires the household to complete a more 

complicated and demanding process than is required in interim months, we expect households to be 

more likely to stop participating in a recertification month than an interim month. 

Local Office Practices 

Apart from practices described previously, the local office survey examined only two practices that 

were specific to the structure of the recertification process: whether participants were required to 

come to the food stamp office for a recertification interview and, for those required to appear, what 

happened if the participant missed the appointment. 

• Telephone or at-home interviews were routinely offered to persons with disabilities and 

the elderly in 70 percent and 54 percent of offices, respectively. Smaller numbers of 

offices offered this opportunity to households with transportation problems (16 percent), 

homebound or hospitalized clients (14 percent), and clients with work-related scheduling

conflicts (7 percent). 

• When participants missed recertification appointments, 33 percent of offices 

automatically closed the case. Most other offices either automatically rescheduled the 

appointment (10 percent) or notified the client to do so (51 percent). 

Another key policy issue concerns the frequency with which recertifications are required. States and 

local offices have considerable discretion to set the length of certification periods, with longer periods 

generally assigned to types of cases whose circumstances are expected to be stable (e.g., elderly and 

disabled persons) and shorter periods for more volatile cases (e.g., ABAWDs). Certification policies 

reported by supervisors varied considerably across local offices, as illustrated by the following 

examples. 

• For elderly or disabled clients, 17 percent of offices used certification periods of more

than 12 months and 76 percent used 7–12 month periods. 

• For TANF cases without earnings, 58 percent of offices usually set 4-6 month 

certification periods, but 11 percent used shorter periods and 31 percent used longer ones. 

• Among offices in which ABAWDs were subject to time limits, 73 percent of offices used 

1–3 month certification periods and 37 percent used longer certification periods. 

Approach to the Multivariate Analysis 

Because the available data do not indicate circumstantial eligibility for many of the sample 

households who left the FSP in their recertification month, closures at recertification are not analyzed 

in Chapter 8. Appendix D presents models exploring the relationship between office practices and all 

closures at recertification, not distinguishing between eligible and ineligible households. As described 

7-13 
previously, the main model examines the probability that a participating household will continue or 

not continue to receive benefits in a given month, with a term indicating whether it is a recertification 

month. Recertification practices are interacted with the recertification month term. 

The local office requirement for office visits is represented by a variable indicating whether the 

individual is in a group for which telephone or at-home interviews are allowed. For the treatment of 

missed appointments, we use an indicator of whether cases that miss appointments are automatically

closed. We also include a number of variables discussed previously to capture dimensions such as the 

difficulty of getting to the office, staff attitudes, and verification policies. Because the survey data 

suggested that participants who were unhappy with routine reporting or participation requirements 

may have chosen not to pursue recertification, we include those interim-month practices in the 

recertification portion of the model as well. 

Certification length is represented by in the model by two variables: the indicator of whether the 

month is an interim or recertification month, and the measure of the length of the certification period.6

The coefficient on the recertification month term indicates the extent to which cases are more or less 

likely to continue participating in a recertification month than an interim month. The certification 

length term, which is conditional on being in a recertification month, indicates whether this 

probability increases with certification length, testing whether participants with short recertification 

periods are less likely to complete the recertification process. 

Summary

Although the Food Stamp Program is a national program, with a uniform set of rules governing 

eligibility and benefit amounts, local administration of the program varies in ways that might affect 

participation. This chapter has summarized about 50 distinct dimensions of administrative variation 

identified by the local office supervisor and caseworker surveys. The more detailed data presented in 

Gabor et al. show an even greater array of differing practices. 

The variations in local practice are expected to affect household participation in several ways. The 

extent of outreach, for example, may determine whether a nonparticipant knows enough about the 

FSP to understand that his or her household might be eligible for benefits. The structure of the 

application process may determine whether the household finds it too confusing, difficult, or 

unpleasant to continue. Staff attitudes may suffuse all office operations, encouraging or discouraging 

households in their participation decisions. 

Some of the practices that may affect participation are related to changes introduced by the 1996 

welfare reform legislation. Examples include TANF diversion practices and time limits for 

ABAWDS. The majority of the practices identified, however, have long been matters of State or local 

discretion and are not directly connected to changes at the Federal level. 

 6

 The length of the certification period was estimated using the FY 2000 FSP Integrated Quality Control 

System Database. For each State in the study sample, the frequency distribution of certification lengths was 

calculated for each of 10 case profiles. All individuals were assigned the mean certification period length 

found for their case profile within their State. The certification period lengths for each State are shown in 

Appendix C, table C.2.

7-14 
 

For most practices, one can readily hypothesize the direction but not the magnitude of an effect on 

participation. For example, we would expect that a requirement for applicants to be fingerprinted 

would not encourage participation, and might—or might not—discourage it. But given such a large 

number of practices that might encourage or discourage participation, it is important to learn which 

ones actually do so. Local offices cannot simply adopt all practices that might encourage 

participation; they must also attempt to maximize the accuracy of their eligibility and benefit 

decisions, minimize administrative cost, meet processing deadlines, and comply with federal and 

State regulations. Although this study cannot address those tradeoffs, Chapter 8 presents initial 

analyses of the links between local office practices and selected household participation behaviors. 

7-15 
Chapter 8 

Impact of Local Food Stamp Office Policies and 

Practices on Selected Aspects of Participation 

In this chapter we present a pair of multivariate models that relate food stamp application behavior by

eligible households to local office policies and practices, household characteristics, and contextual 

variables. The sections below describe the models to be estimated and present the results for each 

model in turn. 

Models Estimated 

Local office policies and practices were hypothesized to affect particular aspects of FSP participation, 

as described in Chapter 7: 

• Whether eligible nonparticipating households believe they might be eligible for food 

stamps could be affected by outreach activities.

• Whether households that contact the office complete the food stamp application 

process could be affected by logistical considerations (such as office hours and 

availability of public transportation), subjective considerations (office ambience, 

supervisor attitudes), availability of information (such as videos and pamphlets), and 

specific local office application procedures (such as TANF diversion and third-party

verification of documentation) and participation requirements (such as periodic reporting

or employment and training).

In addition, whether households that are approved for food stamps continue to receive food stamps

could be affected by a variety of local office policies and practices, including required frequency of 

recertification. This chapter does not include models for continuation in interim and recertification 

months, however, because the available data do not allow us to distinguish clearly between 

circumstantially eligible and ineligible households. Models estimating the effect of policies on 

continued participation can be found in Appendix D.1

Most of the measures of these policies were taken from the supervisor and caseworker surveys. The 

exceptions were the presence of videotapes in the reception area, the presence of pamphlets and 

brochures in the reception area, office ambience, and child friendliness, measures of which were 

based on unobtrusive observations; and certification period length, which was calculated from the FY 

2000 Food Stamp Program Integrated Quality Control Database.2

 Many of the policies considered are 

relevant only for households with particular characteristics, such as earned income, TANF benefit 

 1

 Local office policies and practices could also affect the likelihood that households that think they may be

eligible contact the food stamp office. We were, however, unable to estimate a satisfactory model in this

area. See Appendix D for details. 

2

 The distribution of certification lengths was analyzed by State for each of 10 types of households, and each 

household was assigned the corresponding expected value. These means are shown in table C.2 in

Appendix C. 

 8-1
receipt, presence of young children, and so on. These policies appear in the model interacted with the 

appropriate characteristics. Policy measures considered for inclusion in the models are listed and 

described in table 8.1. The samples included in the models are summarized in table 8.2. 

The models discussed in this chapter include a wide array of policy variables. This approach was 

taken, rather than a more parsimonious one, because of a desire to use the rich data on policies and 

practices to explore the potential effects of many possible influences, including such hard-to-measure 

conditions as office ambience and supervisor attitudes. Policy measures that were similar were 

combined to the extent possible, either by averaging items to develop a measure of intensity for a set 

of related practices, or else by creating indicators that offices used one or more of a list of related 

practices. Even so, the number of policies to be considered in some models was large. To test that the 

models were not failing to find significant effects as a result of the large number of policies 

considered simultaneously, auxiliary models were also examined that included only one policy

variable at a time. The results were nearly always consistent, increasing our confidence in the models

presented here. We ultimately excluded “superfluous” policy measures from our final models, i.e., 

measures for which the standard errors substantially exceeded the estimated coefficients, in order to 

increase the precision of the estimated coefficients of interest.3

In addition to the policy measures, two other types of variables are included in the models: household 

characteristics and contextual variables. Household characteristics were obtained from case record 

abstractions or surveys. They include: 

• Demographics of case head (indicators for gender, age, marital status, and 

race/ethnicity)

4

; 

• “ABAWD-like” status5

; 

• Presence of children (indicators for children under age 5 and under age 18); 

• Measures of resources (presence of earnings, presence of assets, income under FPL); and 

• Benefit receipt (current receipt of TANF, previous receipt of food stamps).6

Contextual variables, which describe the county in which the office is located, include: 

• The county unemployment rate 

• A rural/urban indicator 

 3

 The criterion for inclusion was generally that the magnitude of the estimated coefficient be at least 0.75 

times its standard error. The full models appear in Appendix D. 

4

 Excluded categories are female, age 54 and under, ever married, and white non-Hispanic. 

5

 It is not possible to determine with certainty whether a case with given characteristics would have been

subject to ABAWD time limits in a given office in June 2000. Offices differed in how they exempted cases 

based on presence of dependent children, employment status, and other factors. We identified “ABAWDlike” cases as childless households containing at least one able-bodied adult aged 18 to 50, and households

with dependent children containing at least two able-bodied adults aged 18 to 50. 

6

 Several additional characteristics were included in the model of perceived eligibility to identify groups that 

were specifically targeted for outreach in some localities: presence of any non-citizens, presence of any 

elderly household members, presence of any disabled household members, and current or previous receipt 

of AFDC/TANF. Other targeted groups were already identified by indicators for presence of earnings and 

ABAWD-like status.

 8-2
Table 8.1—Policy measures 

Domain Policy Measure

Local office 

outreach 

Indicator that some outreach is conducted by local food stamp 

office 

Community group 

outreach 

Indicator that some outreach is conducted by local community

groups 

Coordination with 

MA/SCHIP 

Indicator that outreach is coordinated between Food Stamp 

Program and Medicaid/SCHIP 

Intensity of 

outreach 

Number of modes of outreach used in local area (0 to 9, scaled 

0 to 1) 

Targeted personal 

outreach 

Indicator that household is in a group specially targeted for 

outreach in local area

Outreach 

Number of targeted 

groups 

Number of categories that local office targets for outreach 

Limited hours of 

operation 

Indicator that eligibility interviews are available only between the 

hours of 8 AM and 5 PM, Monday to Friday, interacted with

presence of earners 

Child care available Indicator that child care is available at local office, interacted

with presence of young children (under age 5) 

Clients asked to

leave children home 

Indicator that clients are asked to leave their children home, 

interacted with presence of young children (under age 5) 

Child-friendliness Number of other child-friendly features (0 to 3, scaled 0 to 1), 

interacted with presence of young children (under age 5) 

Public 

transportation 

Indicator that office is served by public transportation

Transportation 

assistance 

Indicator that office provides transportation assistance when

needed 

Logistical 

considerations

Drop-box available Indicator of presence of drop-box for completed applications

and documentation 

Negative ambience Indicator of not enough seats in waiting room, or waiting times 

of 5+ minutes to see receptionist 

Subjective 

considerations

Positive supervisor 

attitudes 

Supervisor’s positive attitudes with respect to receipt of food 

stamps by TANF leavers, immigrants, general population (0 to 

3, scaled 0 to 1)

Availability of 

information 

Videotapes Indicator that informational videotapes are shown in reception 

area 

Pamphlets and

brochures 

Indicator that informational pamphlets and/or brochures are 

available in reception area

—Continued 

 8-3
Table 8.1—Policy measures—Continued 

Domain Policy Measure

Certification 

requirements 

Fingerprinting Indicator that fingerprinting required of all applicants 

Third party

verification: forms 

Number of types of third parties from whom verification forms 

are required, specific to TANF versus non-TANF (0 to 3, scaled

0 to 1) 

Third party

verification: 

contacts 

Number of types of third parties who are contacted by the 

caseworker for verification, specific to TANF versus non-TANF

cases (0 to 3, scaled 0 to 1) 

Medical deduction 

assistance 

Indicator that caseworker helps elderly or disabled applicants 

obtain documentation for medical expense deduction 

Home visits Indicator that up-front home visits are conducted for fraud 

investigation 

Extra trips, visits, 

meetings 

Indicator that more than one office visit, visits to another 

building, or a pre-interview meeting is required 

TANF diversion: 

lump-sum 

Indicator that TANF-eligible applicants are offered lump-sum

payment in lieu of TANF benefits, interacted with TANF

eligibility 

TANF diversion: 

alternative 

resources 

Indicator that TANF-eligible applicants are required to explore 

alternative resources before being approved for TANF benefits, 

interacted with TANF eligibility 

Job search

requirement 

Indicator of job search requirement for non-elderly, non-disabled

case members, specific to TANF versus non-TANF cases 

Only prescheduled

interviews

Indicator that certification interview must be prescheduled, 

cannot be walk-in 

Serious 

consequences for 

missing 

prescheduled 

interviews

0 if walk-in interviews, 1/3 if caseworker automatically

reschedules or notifies client to reschedule, 2/3 if kept pending

or sent to supervisor, 1 if application automatically denied 

Monthly reporting Indicator that household is in a group that must file monthly 

reports 

Quarterly reporting Indicator that household is in a group that must file quarterly 

reports 

Ongoing 

participation 

requirements 

Employment and 

training services

available 

Indicator that office offers employment and training services for 

non-ABAWD households 

Employment and

training 

requirements 

Indicator that office has any employment and training 

requirements, specific for ABAWDs and other types of nonTANF households 

TANF sanctions

affect FS benefits 

Indicator that TANF work or nonwork sanctions lead to food 

stamp benefit reduction or case closure, interacted with TANF

participation 

—Continued 

 8-4
Table 8.1—Policy measures—Continued 

Domain Policy Measure

TANF closures

require FS action 

Indicator that client needs to come to the office within a month 

of TANF closure in order to maintain food stamp benefits, 

interacted with TANF participation 

Time limit for 

ABAWDs 

Indicator that office has time limits for ABAWDs, interacted with

ABAWD status 

Certification period

length 

Expected number of months in certification period, conditional 

on case characteristics 

Table 8.2—Analysis samples for multivariate models 

Model 

Types of households 

included Affirmative responses 

Household thinks it may be 

eligible (given that it apparently 

is eligible but is not 

participating)

Eligible nonparticipants, 

including applicants 

Nonparticipants who reportedly 

think they might be eligible, 

applicants 

Apparently eligible household 

completes FSP application 

process (given that it contacts 

the local FSP office) 

Applicants, near applicantsa Approved applicants 

a Near applicants are defined as households that contacted the food stamp office but did not file an application. They

were identified in the RDD sample of eligible nonparticipants. 

• Regional indicators (North, Midwest, and West).7

The models describe dichotomous outcomes for households, such as completing or not completing an 

application. Office policies and contextual variables are included in the models as attributes of the 

households. Use of the SAS procedure GENMOD and the SUDAAN procedure LOGISTIC, with 

observations nested by office and stratified to reflect sample construction, ensured the correct 

calculation of standard errors. The statistical methods used are described in detail in Appendix C. 

 7

 Excluded region is the South. This standard four-way categorization was used rather than the FNS set of 

seven regions in consideration of the possibility that some office policies or practices could be linked to 

FNS region and their effects obscured if FNS regional indicators were also in the model. Among the States 

included in this study, the North comprised Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

and Rhode Island; the South comprised Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; the Midwest comprised Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin; and the West comprised Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

 8-5
Awareness of Eligibility

Among households that were apparently eligible to receive food stamps, but were not doing so, about

half (49 percent) were aware that they might be eligible. Local offices and community groups engage 

in a variety of activities to raise the consciousness of eligible households with regard to the Food 

Stamp Program. These include, for example, articles in newspapers, public service announcements on 

radio or television, telephone hotlines, presentations to community groups, direct mailings, and 

telephone calls to former recipients. 

 

The model included six measures of outreach activity. The first two measures were indicators of 

whether any outreach activity was carried out by the local food stamp office or community groups, 

respectively. Intensity of outreach was measured by the number of modes used, ranging from 0 to 9 

and scaled 0 to 1 for convenience. The model included an indicator or whether FSP outreach was 

coordinated with Medicaid/SCHIP, and two measures of targeting. One targeting measure was an 

indicator that a particular household was targeted for outreach, which (conditional on its 

characteristics) should increase its awareness of eligibility. The second targeting measure was a count 

of the number of groups targeted by the local office; a larger number of targeted groups might 

indicate a dilution of outreach efforts and reduce the likelihood that a particular targeted household 

was aware of its eligibility. 

The model was estimated using data on nonparticipants from the nonparticipant survey and data on 

applicants from the applicant survey and record abstraction. Table 8.3 shows the results, with results 

for policy variables shown in italics and statistically significant results (p < 0.10) shown in bold. 

The analysis indicates that employing a larger number of outreach modes increased the likelihood that 

households thought they might be eligible (p < 0.01).8 We interpret this result as indicating a positive 

return to increasing the scope or intensity of information dissemination. 

The model provides no evidence that targeted outreach was more effective than other forms. 

Coordinating outreach efforts with Medicaid/SCHIP was found to significantly reduce the likelihood 

that a household believed it was eligible, by 16 percentage points.9

 This finding might indicate that 

 8

 We have not attempted to calculate a percentage point effect of the number of modes used. The number of

types of outreach is only a rough proxy for outreach intensity. We do not assume that intensity increased by 

a fixed amount per mode. 

9

 For policies that potentially affected all clients, and were not interacted with household characteristics, 

impacts were estimated as follows: 

Let f = frequency of policy in the weighted sample 

p = overall mean of dependent variable in the weighted sample

 p1 = mean of dependent variable, in the presence of the policy 

 p0 = mean of dependent variable, in the absence of the policy 

Then we note that 

 p = p1 f + p0 (1 – f), 

and the desired estimate is 

 p1 – p0. 

Furthermore, if we denote the logistic of p1 and p0 by m1 and m0, respectively, and the coefficient on the

policy indicator in the logistic regression as b, then we have

 8-6
such joint outreach activities can sometimes dilute the message about food stamps, or possibly 

confuse households that are eligible for one but not the other. 

Several personal characteristics were associated with the likelihood that an apparently eligible 

household thought it might be eligible for food stamps. Households with Hispanic heads were 

significantly less likely, while those without assets and with income under the federal poverty level 

were more likely to think they might be eligible. The latter two results reflect the universal awareness 

that food stamps are means-tested. Two groups of households that are often targeted for outreach 

were significantly less likely to think they were eligible: those with elderly members, and those 

containing apparent ABAWDs. 

The results regarding household characteristics may be compared with the bivariate analyses in 

Chapter 3. The two key results, that the absence of assets and low household income were

significantly associated with households being more likely to think they might be eligible, were found 

in both the descriptive and the multivariate analysis. While both approaches found that, compared to 

non-Hispanic whites, blacks tended to be more likely, and Hispanics less likely, to think they might 

be eligible, only the difference between blacks and whites was statistically significant in the bivariate 

comparisons, and only the difference between whites and Hispanics was significant in the 

multivariate model. In addition, former food stamp recipients were significantly more likely than 

other households to think they might be eligible in the bivariate comparisons, but not in the 

multivariate analysis, after controlling for such characteristics as income and assets. 

 

 p1 = exp (m1) / (1 + exp (m1)),

 p0 = exp (m0) / (1 + exp (m0)), and 

 m1 = m0 + b. 

This system of equations can be solved numerically (not analytically) to yield the desired estimates of p1, 

p0, and their difference.

Outreach was coordinated with Medicaid/SCHIP used in offices that served 63.7 percent of the sample, and 

the mean proportion was 49.0 percent. So we have f=0.637, p=0.490, b=–0.658 (from table 8.3), from

which we calculate p1=0.431, p0=0.594, and p1–p0 = -16.3 percentage points. (Solution obtained via SAS

procedure MODEL.) 

For policies that affect only a subset of the population, the value used for p is the mean of the dependent 

variable for the subset (e.g., households with children under age 5). 

 8-7
Table 8.3—Logistic model of awareness of eligibility

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Policy variables 

Number of modes of outreach, scaled 0-1 1.684*** 

(0.489) 

Outreach coordinated with Medicaid/SCHIP -0.658** 

(0.277) 

Contextual variables 

County unemployment rate in 1999 -0.022 

(0.033) 

Office located in urban area -0.231 

(0.229) 

Office located in Northern State -0.172 

(0.497) 

Office located in Midwestern State 0.311 

(0.262) 

Office located in Western State -0.197 

(0.295) 

Household characteristics 

Male head of household 0.171 

(0.218) 

Black head of household 0.191 

(0.263) 

Hispanic head of household -0.396* 

(0.227) 

Head of household never married -0.006 

(0.332) 

Current TANF receipt -0.753 

(0.896) 

Prior food stamp receipt 0.212 

(0.202) 

Household has children under 5 0.161 

(0.345) 

Household has children under 18 -0.148 

(0.269) 

Head of household is elderly (≥ 60) -0.158 

(0.419) 

Household has earnings -0.048 

(0.205) 

Household has some assets -0.413** 

(0.199) 

—Continued

 8-8
Table 8.3—Logistic model of awareness of eligibility—Continued 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Household’s income is below poverty level 1.075*** 

(0.208) 

Household is ABAWD-like -0.593*** 

(0.213) 

Additional potential targeting criteria for outreach

Household contains any non-citizens 0.163 

(0.437) 

Household contains any elderly members -0.661* 

(0.376) 

Household contains any disabled members 0.040 

(0.259) 

Current or previous AFDC/TANF receipt -0.087 

(0.207) 

Intercept 1.229 

(0.412) 

Mean of dependent variable 0.490 

Sample size 2079 

Policy measures and their effects shown in italics; variables with statistically significant effects (p < 0.10) shown in bold. 

*** Statistically significant at the 1 percent level. 

** Statistically significant at the 5 percent level. 

* Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

Completing the Application Process 

Once a household has contacted the local FSP office, completion of the application process is 

hypothesized to be most affected by logistical considerations, subjective considerations, availability

of information, certification requirements, and ongoing participation requirements. Overall, 78.4 

percent of eligible households completed the application process and were approved for benefits. 

Based on data from the applicant survey and file abstraction, the factors found to be significant are 

(table 8.4): 

• Restricted office hours for households that include earners (p < 0.05) 

• Positive supervisor attitudes (p < 0.10). 

• Asking clients to leave children at home, for households with young children (p < 0.10) 

• Fingerprinting of applicants (p < 0.01) 

• Time limits for ABAWDs (p < 0.05) 

The estimated coefficients correspond to sizeable impacts on application completion. These impacts, 

calculated at the sample means, are –21 percentage points for asking clients with young children to 

 8-9
leave their children at home, –23 percentage points for fingerprinting,10 and –17 percentage points for 

time limits for ABAWD-type cases. The estimated effect of restricted office hours for households 

with earnings is –9 percentage points. Finally, an additional positive response by a supervisor on the 

three item index is associated with a 10 percentage point increase in the likelihood of application 

completion. 

Nearly two dozen other policies were considered but were not found to have significant effects on 

application completion. Some of these were deleted from the model presented in table 8.4 because the 

corresponding standard errors were above our threshold. These included: availability of a drop-box 

for completed applications and documents, third party verification contact requirements, caseworker 

assistance to elderly and disabled with medical deductions, home visits for fraud investigation, job 

search requirements, scheduling of interviews, treatment of missed interview appointments, monthly

reporting requirements, availability of application forms prior to meeting with caseworker, brochures 

and pamphlets in the reception area, and certification length. Others were retained in the model but 

also did not have significant effects: provision of child care to visitors, an index of child friendliness, 

availability of public transportation, availability of transportation assistance, shortage of seats and 

long wait times, informational videotapes in the reception area, third party verification forms, a 

requirement for extra visits and/or meetings, TANF lump sum payment diversion, TANF alternative 

resource requirements, and quarterly reporting. 

As might have been anticipated, application completion was significantly more likely in counties with 

higher unemployment rates, i.e., with fewer alternatives for households in need. Of households that 

contacted the office, completion was significantly less likely among those with some earnings and 

resembling ABAWDs, and significantly more likely among households with young children and with 

income below the federal poverty level. These demographic results also correspond to a pattern of 

households with fewer alternatives being more likely to complete their applications. 

The bivariate analyses in Chapter 4 similarly found that households with earnings were significantly

less likely to complete the application process, and those with income under the federal poverty level 

were significantly more likely to do so. Furthermore, the significantly higher rate of completion seen 

in the bivariate analyses for TANF applicants may correspond to the multivariate result for 

households with young children. Elderly applicants, though seen in Chapter 4 to be significantly more 

likely on average to complete their applications, were not found to be so after controlling for their 

household characteristics and other factors. 

 10 In their report on biometric identification technology, Sticha et al. (1999) conclude that the best available 

estimate of the impact of a finger-imaging requirement on program participation is that obtained by Ernst 

and Young (1995) in their study of the automated fingerprint image reporting and match system for AFDC

recipients in Los Angeles. This impact, 1.3 percent, includes both fraud reduction and deterrence of eligible 

householders. 

8-10
Table 8.4—Logistic model of application completion 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Policy variables 

Office open only Monday to Friday, 8 to 5 x household includes 

earners 

–0.448** 

(0.206) 

Children not allowed in office × household includes children 

under 5

–1.039* 

(0.567) 

Child care provided to office visitors × household includes children 

under 5 

–0.266 

(0.470) 

Index of child friendliness of office × household includes children 

under 5 

–0.877 

(0.608) 

Public transportation goes near office 0.302 

(0.333) 

Transportation assistance to office offered 0.433 

(0.297) 

Long wait times or shortage of seats in reception area –0.454 

(0.355) 

Informational videotapes in reception area 0.406 

(0.314) 

Positive supervisor attitudes 1.522* 

(0.860) 

Fingerprint applicants of household type (TANF versus nonTANF) –1.170*** 

(0.305) 

Third party verification forms required, by household type (TANF

versus non-TANF) 

0.306 

(0.316) 

More than one visit, visits to other building, or pre-interview 

meeting required to complete application, by household type 

(TANF versus non-TANF)

0.348 

(0.417) 

TANF diversion × potential TANF applicant: lump sum 0.322 

(0.376) 

TANF diversion × potential TANF applicant: alternative 

resources

0.788 

(0.686) 

ABAWDs subject to time limits × ABAWD-type household –0.990** 

(0.413) 

Quarterly reporting required –0.308 

(0.320)

—Continued 

8-11
Table 8.4—Logistic model of application completion—Continued 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Contextual variables 

County unemployment rate in 1999 0.250*** 

(0.076) 

Office located in urban area –0.193 

(0.251) 

Office located in Northern State –0.677* 

(0.347) 

Office located in Midwestern State –0.346 

(0.309) 

Office located in Western State –0.366 

(0.310) 

Household characteristics 

Male head of household 0.238 

(0.294) 

Black head of household –0.343 

(0.301) 

Hispanic head of household –0.193 

(0.455) 

Head of household never married –0.182 

(0.269) 

TANF recipient 0.430 

(0.480) 

Prior FSP recipient 0.271 

(0.251) 

Household has children under 5 0.993** 

(0.481) 

Household has children under 18 –0.348 

(0.432) 

Head of household is elderly (≥60) 0.193

(0.431) 

Household has earnings –0.660** 

(0.266) 

Household has some assets 0.070 

(0.241) 

Household’s income is below poverty level 0.903*** 

(0.299) 

Household is ABAWD-like –0.679** 

(0.335) 

—Continued 

8-12
Table 8.4—Logistic model of application completion—Continued 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Intercept –1.153 

(1.111) 

Mean of dependent variable 0.784 

Sample size 976 

Policy measures and their effects shown in italics; variables with statistically significant effects (p < 0.10) shown in bold. 

*** Statistically significant at the 1 percent level. 

** Statistically significant at the 5 percent level. 

* Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

Conclusions 

The survey results reported in Chapter 3 showed that one of the most important reasons that lowincome households were not participating in the FSP was that they did not think they were likely to

be eligible. The analysis presented here suggests that outreach is a policy tool that can influence such 

perceptions. Nonparticipants were more likely to think themselves eligible if they lived in areas where 

relatively intense outreach included the use of multiple modes, such as community presentations, 

flyers and posters, and public service announcements. The extent of outreach appears to be more 

important than what agency implements the outreach or whether it is targeted to particular types of 

households. 

These findings are consistent with Food and Nutrition Service policies encouraging the use of 

outreach, such as “best practice” guidelines and outreach grants (Food and Nutrition Service, 2002). 

Somewhat surprisingly, however, the analysis found that coordinating food stamp outreach with 

outreach for Medicaid or SCHIP was negatively associated with perceived eligibility. Such 

coordination has often been recommended as a means of bringing nonparticipant households into the 

network of assistance programs, presumably leading to participation for all programs for which the 

household is eligible. The analysis finding raises the possibility that coordinated outreach may be less 

effective than focused food stamp outreach in getting households to understand their eligibility for the 

FSP. Of course, if coordinated outreach succeeds in bringing households into the network, they might 

be referred to the food stamp agency even though they did not previously think they were eligible. 

The analysis presented here addresses only the effect on perceptions of eligibility, not the effect on 

ultimate participation. 

Several local office practices were significantly associated with the likelihood that households who 

actually contacted the food stamp office would complete the application process and be approved for 

benefits. Households with earnings were more successful where the office offered extended hours, 

and households with children were less successful where offices discouraged bringing children. 

Positive supervisor attitudes were associated with higher completion rates, while requiring that all 

applicants be fingerprinted was negatively linked to completion. 

None of these findings is surprising and they are generally consistent with “best practice” guidelines, 

but they do show some interesting contrasts with the survey results reported in Chapter 4. For 

8-13
example, only 1 percent of applicants who failed to complete the process mentioned fingerprinting as 

a reason, while 10 percent cited the difficulty of acquiring documents – yet fingerprinting had a

significant effect in the model, while the requirements for documentation did not. 

Although we cannot be certain about the source of these differences, several factors seem likely to be 

at work. First, even if a policy causes many households to drop out of the application process, the 

modeling approach will not find an effect if the policy does not vary enough across offices to cause 

real differences in the dropout rate. Documentation requirements, for example, are a virtually 

universal element of the food stamp application process, and it is quite possible that the local 

variations in requirements are not sufficient to make a clear difference in the number of people who 

find the requirement an insurmountable hurdle. Second, people’s survey responses may not accurately

reflect the factors influencing their behavior for reasons such as recall error, hesitation about 

mentioning some topics (some might fear that objecting to fingerprinting would suggest they have 

something to hide), or a phrasing of the survey question that fails to resonate with the respondent’s 

experience. Finally, even where the model shows significant effects, as with supervisor attitudes, the 

significant variable may be acting as a proxy for other practices that were not measured in the study.

Local office practices may affect not only the likelihood that eligible nonparticipants are approved for 

food stamp benefits, but also the chances that a circumstantially eligible participating household will 

leave the program. Data limitations make it impossible to model the probability that households will 

leave the program while still circumstantially eligible. Nonetheless, a model that did not distinguish 

between eligible and ineligible households found that the availability of childcare in the food stamp 

office was significantly related to the probability that households with children would successfully 

complete the recertification and receive continued benefits (see Appendix D). This practice would not 

affect the ineligible households because they would be denied benefits whether they completed the 

recertification or not. It is quite possible that an analysis limited to circumstantially eligible 

households would identify additional practices that influence their departure. 

8-14
Chapter 9 

Conclusions: How Local Offices May Affect the 

Program’s Accessibility to Eligible Households 

About 7.2 million households received food stamp benefits in June 2000. An additional 6.3 million 

households had income and resources that would have made them eligible, based on participation 

rates estimated for that fiscal year (Cunnyngham, 2002).1

The Food Stamp Program is intended to be accessible to all households who are eligible and wish to 

receive benefits. Some eligible households deliberately choose not to seek food stamp benefits,

however. The survey of eligible nonparticipants found that 27 percent, or 1.7 million households, 

would not apply even if they were certain that they were eligible. These deliberate nonparticipants 

typically cited a desire not to depend on government assistance or a belief that they did not need it, 

although many also mentioned some aspect of FSP policy or practice as a reason for not wanting to 

participate. About 25 percent gave only personal reasons and 72 percent mentioned both personal and 

program issues. Thus it is reasonable to say that the accessibility of the FSP was not an issue for 

somewhere between 0.4 million and 1.7 million of the eligible nonparticipating households. 

Accessibility was potentially an issue for the remaining 4.6 to 5.9 million eligible nonparticipating 

households. But the policies and practices affecting accessibility would be different for three different 

groups of nonparticipant households: those who have no direct contact with the FSP in a given 

month, those who contact the program with an interest in receiving benefits, and those who exit the 

program despite continued eligibility.

Nonparticipants Who Are Not in Contact with the Program 

Excluding households that say they would not apply for benefits, about 4.6 million eligible 

nonparticipant households in June 2000 had no contact with the FSP in that month. This was by far 

the largest group whose nonparticipation might have been influenced by local office policies and 

practices. 

A key hurdle for these nonparticipants was whether they perceived themselves to be eligible for 

benefits. More than a third believed they were ineligible, another fifth were unsure whether they were 

eligible, and a few (4 percent) were unaware of the Food Stamp Program. Those who believed 

themselves ineligible gave some reasons that suggested misunderstanding of program rules, such as 

the fact that they were employed or had reached their TANF time limit. 

Outreach to nonparticipants might provide information on key aspects of the FSP eligibility criteria 

and thereby help nonparticipants understand their eligibility situation. Outreach activities—conducted 

by the local food stamp office, other community organizations, or both—were reported in about 

three-quarters of the areas examined. The multivariate analysis showed that eligible nonparticipants in 

 1

 These figures represent food stamp units (all people in a household who eat together) rather than

households as sampled in the nonparticipant survey (all people living in a dwelling unit), which could

contain more than one food stamp unit. 

9-1 
areas where a greater number of outreach modes were employed (community presentations, public 

service announcements, etc.) were more likely to be aware of their potential eligibility. The number 

of modes seems to represent the intensity or breadth of outreach, and hence the likelihood that any

given member of the nonparticipant population was reached. 

Because so much of the eligible nonparticipant population is not in direct contact with the FSP, it 

would be very useful for future research to expand upon the limited information that the present study

could provide. One would like to know, for example, what outreach modes and levels of intensity are 

most effective in reaching various segments of the nonparticipant population. It would also be

desirable to examine alternative strategies for influencing perceptions of eligibility, such as directly

providing information on key eligibility criteria vs. individualized telephone hot-lines or in-person 

application assistance. The national FSP emphasis on outreach in recent years, exemplified in the 

outreach grants to States, may make such information particularly useful. 

Research on outreach effectiveness should also consider the dynamic nature of the eligible 

population, where the present study could provide only a static view. Households move into and out 

of eligibility (see Farrell et al., 2003). At any given time the audience for an outreach message 

includes some newly eligible households who may not have heard (or paid attention to) any previous 

outreach, while others have been eligible long enough to have heard the message multiple times. It 

would be useful to know whether outreach modes and messages are differentially effective for 

households at differing points in their eligibility spell. 

Nonparticipants Who Contact the FSP Office 

In June 2000, an estimated 463,000 circumstantially eligible nonparticipant households contacted a 

food stamp office, and 363,000 were approved for benefits. But 23,000 did not apply for benefits and 

57,0002 applied but did not complete the application process. These 80,000 households may have 

faced accessibility issues related to the application process. 

Applying for food stamp benefits can be a difficult, time-consuming, and perhaps intimidating 

experience. Applicants who were ultimately approved for benefits reported spending an average of 

6.1 hours at the process, with 2.4 required trips to the food stamp office. For most applicants, some

information must be obtained from third parties such as employers or landlords. Some applicants 

receive unscheduled home visits, and some are fingerprinted. 

About a quarter of those who abandoned the application process mentioned among their reasons 

experiences that were related to office policies or practices. They emphasized the need to acquire 

documents for verification, the length of time before benefits would be received, long waits in the 

office, and the need to take time off from work or to pay for child or elder care. 

Local offices have a great deal of discretion in structuring the procedures and requirements of the 

application process. The surveys of local office supervisors and caseworkers found more than 30 

major areas in which practices varied across offices in ways that were hypothesized to affect the 

program’s accessibility to all or a subset of nonparticipants. The multivariate analysis confirmed the 

 2

 This excludes about 20,000 applicants who did not complete the process but said it was because their 

circumstances had changed and they no longer needed benefits. 

9-2 
proposition that such variations can make a difference, finding that failure to complete the application 

process was significantly related to the following practices: 

• No office hours outside Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM 

• Fingerprinting of applicants

• Supervisor attitudes less positive toward participation 

• Asking clients to leave children at home, for households with young children 

• Time-limits for ABAWDs 

These findings from the multivariate analysis are plausible and useful, but are probably not the whole 

story. The significant relationships are all in the expected direction and are consistent with some 

major themes that have been presented in “promising practices” guidance for improving program

access (FNS, 2002), such as “family friendly” arrangements and minimally intrusive verification. 

If there is any surprise in these findings, it is that so few of the practices that would be hypothesized 

to enhance access show statistically significant relationships to household behavior. This probably 

occurred because the study design was simply not strong enough to capture and disentangle the 

effects of complicated combinations of practices. Local offices do not adopt a particular practice in 

isolation, but as part of a procedure that is intended to optimize across the goals of accessibility, 

program integrity, timeliness, and administrative efficiency. For example, the choice of verification 

practices involves a potential tradeoff between accessibility and program integrity, and offices may

deliberately choose a mix of less intrusive (e.g., no third-party contacts) and more intrusive (e.g., 

fingerprinting) practices in seeking to balance competing objectives. Findings regarding a single 

policy in isolation may be misleading if offices avoid one stringent policy but adopt another one 

instead. Our sample of 109 offices, though quite large for studies of this type, was not sufficient to 

explore the effects of all combinations of practices, and it even provides limited power for examining 

large numbers of presumably independent practices. Research using larger samples of offices and 

households or focusing on narrower sets of practices might reveal more ways in which office 

practices influence participation. 

Note also that the multivariate analysis can find effects only when practices differ across offices—a 

particular practice might be very difficult and discouraging for applicants, but if all agencies 

implement it similarly, the multivariate analysis would not find a significant effect. A case in point 

might be the requirement for applicants to provide documentation of their circumstances. Although 

10 percent of people who began but did not complete the application process said that the difficulty of 

providing documents was one of the reasons for non-completion. Variations in documentation 

requirements among offices, though included in the model, may have been too small to affect 

applicant completion rates. 

One hypothesis when the study began was that policy changes stemming from welfare reform might 

have made the application process more difficult or burdensome, or the FSP less appealing, especially

for households applying for TANF as well as food stamp benefits. The study provides only limited 

direct support for this hypothesis, but does not rule it out. A handful of applicants mentioned TANF 

diversion as a reason for not completing the application process, but none mentioned sanctions or 

work requirements; the ABAWD time limit had significant effect in the multivariate analysis, but no 

other welfare reform-related policies were significant in that analysis. More generally, applicants who 

successfully completed the application process in 2000 reported making an average of 2.4 trips to the 

9-3 
food stamp office and spending 6.1 hours traveling to and dealing with the office, compared to 

estimates of 1.6 trips and 3.9 hours in the 1996 study. This might reflect an increase in the overall 

complexity and burden of the application process, but there is no clear link to welfare reform.

3

 In any

event, the overall applicant dropout rate in 2000 was quite similar to that found in earlier studies, as 

were the general characteristics of the dropouts and the reasons they gave for failing to complete the 

application. 

Even though we cannot see clear links between welfare reform and the likelihood that eligible

households would complete the application process, one cannot dismiss the possibility that welfare 

reform reduced overall participation by eligible households. Other research has shown that the

percentage of eligible households receiving benefits declined sharply in the late 1990s, from 69.2 

percent in 1996 to 59.7 percent in 2000 (Cunnyngham, 2003). The economic recovery during this 

period reduced the number of households whose income and resources met FSP eligibility criteria, 

but would be expected to have less influence on whether eligible households would participate. It is 

reasonable to suspect that welfare reform contributed to the declining participation rate even though 

the effect of specific policies cannot be isolated. 

Eligible Participants Who Exit the Program 

Some eligible households that received benefits in June 2000 ended their participation in that month 

and became eligible nonparticipants in July. The study provided only imprecise information on how 

many of the 383,000 households who exited in that month were circumstantially eligible. We 

estimated that 123,000 households terminating in their recertification month may have been 

circumstantially eligible, but the estimate was derived from survey whose response rate was low 

enough to warrant caution. No data were obtained on the circumstances of households exiting in nonrecertification months, but many may have been circumstantially eligible. Even allowing for 

imprecision, it appears that the eligible participating households who exited the FSP in June 2000 

substantially exceeded the number of nonparticipants who contacted the food stamp office but failed 

to become participants. 

Households who failed to complete the recertification usually did not even file a recertification or 

appear for the recertification interview. Most non-completing households said that some aspect of the 

recertification process was too difficult, such as providing documentation or missing work, or that 

they were not sure what they needed to do to complete the process. These reasons are somewhat 

surprising, since these households had previously completed at least the initial certification process, 

which is usually more demanding than the recertification. Moreover, more than a quarter of the 

recertification dropouts said that they believed they were ineligible, despite providing information in 

the survey that indicated apparent eligibility. 

Because the study did not obtain data on circumstantial eligibility for some types of households 

exiting the program, we could not directly model the effect of local office practices on this aspect of 

eligible households’ participation behavior. 

 3

 It would be interesting to examine time estimates separately for TANF and non-TANF households. 

However, published data for 1996 do not present this information. 

9-4 
One policy whose importance can be seen even without multivariate analysis is the length of the 

certification period, which determines the frequency with which households are recertified. Nearly a 

tenth of households who did not complete the recertification mentioned the frequency of 

recertification as an issue. Participating households who were in their recertification month were far 

more likely to leave the program than those who were in an interim month. Closures in June 2000—

not counting cases that were closed because of excess income or resources—represented 14.3 percent 

of the cases that were in a recertification month, compared to 2.3 percent of cases in an interim month 

(derived from table 2.4 and Appendix table B.39). Unless circumstantial ineligibility rates were

dramatically different for these two types of households, being in a recertification month substantially

increased the likelihood that a circumstantially eligible case would close rather than continue to 

receive benefits in the following month. 

The Opportunities to Reduce Nonparticipation 

among Eligible Households 

If policy makers wish to increase the level of participation by eligible households, the most obvious 

target is the households who have had no recent contact with the FSP and who would apply for 

benefits if they believed themselves eligible. This group included more than 4 million households in 

June 2000—somewhat more than half as many as the number of active participant households in that 

month. Communicating with these nonparticipant households would be difficult because they are not 

easy to identify and they are not necessarily the same households from month to month. Nonetheless, 

increasing these households’ understanding of their likely eligibility may be the only way to achieve a 

substantial reduction in the overall rate of nonparticipation. The State outreach grants and outreach 

guidance offered since the study period may be useful steps in this direction. 

Numbers notwithstanding, a higher program objective may be to avoid discouraging participation by

households who have taken action to seek program benefits, including both nonparticipants who 

contact the office and households who are actively participating. The processes of application and 

recertification—and to a lesser extent, complying with program requirements in non-recertification 

months—are hurdles that a sizable number of apparently eligible households fail to surmount. The 

2002 Farm Bill and earlier regulatory initiatives introduced changes intended to simplify eligibility

rules and the application process. Time and future research will tell whether these changes have 

effectively lowered the hurdles. 

It is important to remember, however, that these processes are not capricious, but are necessary for 

the program to deliver benefits and to ensure program integrity. Local office practices can adjust the 

height of the hurdles somewhat, but cannot remove them. Thus while substantial proportions of the 

application and recertification dropouts cited procedural obstacles, the statistical analysis found few 

variations in office practices that showed significant effects on the probability that households would 

complete the processes. 

Any effort to increase accessibility through local office practices could benefit from further research 

on the links between office practices and household behavior. Much of the research to date has been 

limited to descriptive analysis of households’ experiences and stated reasons for their behavior. These 

analyses can point to practices that may influence participation, but they cannot indicate whether 

variations in the practices actually affect participation behaviors. Analyses that model participation 

behaviors have used State-level policy variables, which do not account for differences in office 

9-5 
practices within a State. Such variation is quite substantial: even though the study included only a few 

offices in each State, we found hardly any policies with no within-State variation.4

More focused office-level and household-level research is needed to know how much reduction in 

non-participation can realistically be achieved, what practices and combinations of practices can have 

the greatest impact, and how those practices affect goals such as program integrity and administrative 

costs. Such information would provide invaluable guidance for enhancing the Food Stamp Program’s 

accessibility to eligible households. 

 4

 As an illustration, we selected ten practices that were included in dichotomous form in the multivariate 

models (whether: any outreach was conducted; targeted outreach was conducted; outreach was coordinated 

with Medicaid/SCHIP; the office had any extended office hours; clients were asked not to bring children to 

the office; non-TANF clients were fingerprinted; unscheduled home visits were conducted; employment 

and training services were available to ABAWDS; employment and training requirements existed for nonABAWDS; and TANF closure requires visiting the food stamp office to continue benefits). For each of the 

26 States with 2 or more offices in the sample, we determined how many of the State’s sample offices gave 

the same response. The number of States in which all offices reported the same policy ranged from 6 to 25

across the ten variables, with an average of 12.2. Since 17 of the 26 States had only 2 or 3 offices in the 

sample, and we selected variables that only allowed a yes/no choice, it is clear that the extent of withinState policy variation was even greater than indicated by this exercise. 

9-6 
Bibliography 

Bartlett, Susan and Nancy Burstein. 2004. Food Stamp Program Access Study: Eligible 

Nonparticipants. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. EFAN-03-013-2. 

Bartlett, Susan, Nancy R. Burstein, Gary Silverstein and Dorothy Rosenbaum. 1992. The Food Stamp 

Application Process: Office Operations and Client Experiences. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. 

Cohen, Barbara, James Ohls, Margaret Andrews, Michael Ponza, Lorenzo Moreno, Amy

Aambrowski, and Rhoda Cohen. 1999. Food Stamp Participants’ Food Security and Nutrient 

Availability. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Cunnyngham, Karen. 2002. Trends in FSP Participation Rates: 1994-2000. Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Cunnyngham, Karen. 2003. Trends in FSP Participation Rates: 1999-2001. Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Currie, Janet, and Jeffrey Grogger. 2001. “Explaining Recent Declines in Food Stamp Program

Participation.” In Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2001. Washington, DC: The 

Brookings Institution. 

Dean, Stacy, and Dorothy Rosenbaum. 2002. Implementing New Changes to the Food Stamp 

Program: A Provision by Provision Analysis of the Farm Bill. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget 

and Policy Priorities. 

Ernst & Young. 1995. Fingerprint/Hand Imaging System Feasibility Study Final Report. 

Farrell, Mary, Michael Fishman, Matthew Langley, and David Stapleton. 2003. The Relationship of 

Earnings and Income to Food Stamp Participation: A Longitudinal Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. E-FAN-03-011. 

Food and Nutrition Service. 2001. The Decline in Food Stamp Participation: A Report to Congress. 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service. E-FAN-03-011. 

Food and Nutrition Service. 2002. State Best Practices Improving Food Stamp Program Access: June 

2002 Updates. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Food and Nutrition Service. 2004. “Food Stamp Program Participation and Costs (Data as of June 24, 

2004).” Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm.

Accessed July 15, 2004. 

Food Research and Action Center. 1999. “FRAC Special Analysis: Food Stamp Administrative 

Initiatives—July 1999.” http://www.cfpa.net/foodstamps/FRAC%20Analysis.html. Accessed July 15, 

2004. 

Bib-1
Frankel, Martin R., K.P. Srinath, David C. Hoaglin, Michael P. Battaglia, Philip J. Smith, Robert A. 

Wright, and Meena Khare. 2003. “Adjustments for Non-telephone Bias in Random-digit-dialling 

Surveys.” Statistics in Medicine 22. 

Gabor, Vivian, Brooke Layne Hardison, Christopher Bosko, and Susan Bartlett. 2003. Food Stamp

Program Access Study: Local Office Policies and Practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. E-FAN-03-013. 

Gleason, Philip, Carole Trippe, Scott Cody, and Jacquie Anderson. 2001. The Effects of Welfare

Reform on the Characteristics of the Food Stamp Population. Report submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc.

Holcomb, Pamela A., Karen Tumlin, Robin Koralek, Randy Capps, and Anita Zuberi. 2003. The 

Application Process for TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid and SCHIP: Issues for Agencies and 

Applicants, Including Immigrants and Limited English Speakers. Report submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Jacobson, Jonathan, Nuria Rodriguez-Planas, Loren Puffer, Mary Grider, and Emily Pas. 2000. The 

Consequences of Economic Change for the Food Stamp Program: Illustrations from 

Microsimulation. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Reseach, Inc. 

Jensen, Helen H., Steve Garasky, Cory Wessman, and S. M. Nusser. 2002. Iowa Food Stamp Leavers 

Study: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

E-FAN-02-014-1. 

Kabbani, Nader S., and Parke E. Wilde. 2003. “Short Recertification Periods in the U.S. Food Stamp 

Program.” Journal of Human Resources 38(S): 1112-1138. 

Kornfeld, Robert. 2002. Explaining Recent Trends in Food Stamp Program Caseloads: Final Report. 

Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Cambridge, 

MA: Abt Associates Inc. 

Maloy, Kathleen A., LaDonna A. Pavetti, Peter Shin, Julie Darnell, and Lea Scarpulla-Nolan. 2000. 

Description and Assessment of State Approaches to Diversion Programs and Activities Under 

Welfare Reform: An Interim Report of the Findings of the First Phase of the Research. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/diverzn/. Accessed 

July 15, 2004. 

McConnell, Sheena and Lucia Nixon. 1996. Reaching the Working Poor and the Poor Elderly Study: 

Report on Literature Review and Data Analysis. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

McConnell, Sheena. 1997. Predicting Food Stamp Program Eligibility Using Survey Data: What 

Information is Needed? Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Bib-2
McKernan, Signe-Mary, and Caroline Ratcliffe. 2003. Employment Factors Influencing Food Stamp 

Program Participation: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, E-FAN-03-012. 

Mills, Gregory, and Robert Kornfeld. 2000. Study of Arizona Adults Leaving the Food Stamp

Program: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. E-FAN-01-001. 

Mills, Gregory B. David C. Hoaglin, Margaret M. Hart, Marjorie Levin, Dorothy A. Rosenbaum, and 

Mary Beth Sullivan. 1990. Redesign of the Negative Action Quality Control System in the Food 

Stamp Program: Final Report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. 

Pavetti, LaDonna, Kathleen Maloy, and Liz Schott. 2002. Promoting Medicaid and Food Stamp 

Participation: Establishing Eligibility Procedures that Support Participation and Meet Families’ 

Needs: Final Report. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Ponza, Michael, James Ohls, Lorenzo Moreno, Amy Zambrowski, and Rhoda Cohen. 1999.

Customer Service in the Food Stamp Program. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Quint, Janet, Rebecca Widom, and Lindsay Moore. 2001. Post-TANF Food Stamp and Medicaid 

Benefits: Factors that Aid or Impede Their Receipt. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation. 

Rangarajan, Anu, and Philip M. Gleason. 2001. Food Stamp Leavers in Illinois—How Are They 

Doing Two Years Later?: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. E-FAN-01-002. 

Richardson, Philip, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Marc Tecco. 2003a. 

Food Stamp Leavers Research Study—Study of ABAWDs Leaving the Food Stamp Program in South 

Carolina: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. E-FAN-03-002. 

Richardson, Philip, Gregg Schoenfeld, Susan LaFever, Frances Jackson, and Marc Tecco. 2003b. 

Food Stamp Leavers Research Study—Study of Nonwelfare Families Leaving the Food Stamp 

Program in South Carolina: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service. E-FAN-03-003. 

Scott, Alastair and Chris Wild. 2001. “Case-control Studies with Complex Sampling.”Applied 

Statistics 50 (Part 3).

Sticha, Paul J., David Thomas, Chris Zamberlan, and Monica A. Gribben. 1999. Use of Biometric 

Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program: Final Report. Arlington, 

VA: R. Lewis & Company, Inc. 

Wallace, Geoffrey, and Rebecca Blank. 1999. “What Goes Up Must Come Down? Explaining Recent 

Changes in Public Assistance Caseloads.” Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform, edited by

Sheldon Danziger. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute.

Bib-3
Wilde, Parke, Peggy Cook, Craig Gundersen, Mark Nord, and Laura Tiehen. 2000. The Decline in 

Food Stamp Program Participation in the 1990's. (Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report 

No. 7.) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and 

Rural Economics Division. 

Ziliak, James P., Craig Gundersen, and David N. Figlio. 2001. “Welfare Reform and Food Stamp 

Caseload Dynamics.” Unpublished paper. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 

Bib-4
Appendix A 

Sample Design and Analysis Weights 

This study analyzes data from a nationally representative sample of local food stamp offices and 

households served by those offices. To obtain these data, the design used a two-stage cluster sampling 

approach. The first stage led to the selection of a national probability sample of local food stamp 

offices. Within the sampled offices, second stage samples were drawn and data were collected in two 

domains: policies and practices, and participation (figure A.1). Data on policies and practices came 

from surveys of local office supervisors and caseworkers, and from unobtrusive observations in and 

around the offices.1

 Data on participation came from a survey of eligible nonparticipants living in the 

catchment areas of the sampled offices who did not apply for food stamp benefits in the month prior 

to the study, and from surveys and case record abstractions of five groups of applicants and 

participants in June 2000: approved applicants, denied applicants, approved recertifications, case 

closures, and TANF diversions.2

 (This last category could overlap with any of the other participant 

groups.) 

Figure A.1—Data collection 

Supervisor 

survey

Caseworker

survey

Unobtrusive 

observations

RDD survey

of eligible

nonparticipants

Approved

applicants

Denied

applicants

Case

closures

TANF 

diversions

Approved

receritifications

Policies and 

practices

Participation

Local Office

Supervisor 

survey

Caseworker

survey

Unobtrusive 

observations

RDD survey

of eligible

nonparticipants

Approved

applicants

Denied

applicants

Case

closures

TANF 

diversions

Approved

receritifications

Policies and 

practices

Participation

Local Office

The sampling objectives were to achieve national representation, to encompass substantial variation 

in administrative practices both between States and within States, and to support office-level analyses 

of the effects of administrative practices on caseload entry and exit. The sampling plan was designed 

to ensure that most States (among the 48 in the continental US and the District of Columbia) were 

represented. Maximizing the representation of States was deemed an important consideration, because 

welfare reforms under PRWORA created distinctive administrative regimes in each State, which may

have had important implications for food stamp participation. Appropriate weights were used to make 

the household samples represent the universe of food stamp-eligible households in its entirety:

 1

 These policies and practices are described in Chapter 7 and Gabor et al. (2003). 

2 The eligible nonparticipant survey was conducted between February and June 2001. Households were 

neither current FSP recipients nor applicants for benefits in the month prior to the survey. We assume that 

they are similar to eligible nonparticipant households in June 2000. 

A-1
households that were not participating and did not apply in a given month, approved and denied

applicants, ongoing cases in recertification months, and ongoing cases in interim months. 

The following sections in this appendix describe the two-stage sample and the construction of the 

weights used in the analyses: 

• The first stage sample (local food stamp offices) 

• The second stage sample 

 Caseworker supervisors 

 Caseworkers

 New applicants, recertifying cases, closed cases 

 TANF diverted cases 

 Expansion sample of ongoing cases in interim months 

 Eligible nonparticipants 

• Office, supervisor, and caseworker weights 

• Participant household weights 

• Eligible nonparticipant household weights 

First-Stage Sample: Local Food Stamp Offices 

In the first stage sampling, the universe of 3,359 local food stamp offices3 was stratified by FNS 

region, and State within region to maximize the diversity of the distribution of sampled offices 

throughout the various States. Within States, sub-stratification was based on degree of urbanicity, 

using the OMB definition of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) to define metropolitan versus

nonmetropolitan areas. In those instances where the expected number of office selections for an 

individual State fell below one, neighboring States were placed in frame proximity in order to assure 

the proportionate representation of the first stage sample with respect to groups of neighboring States. 

This approach helped ensure that most States had at least one sample office. 

 

Probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling was used to draw a sample of 120 local food stamp 

offices from the strata, with caseload as the measure of size.4

 Using this methodology, larger offices 

within a stratum had a greater probability of being selected than smaller offices. The sampled offices 

were located in 40 States and the District of Columbia. All selected States, with the exception of New 

York State, agreed to participate in the research study. New York declined to participate due to a 

pending lawsuit in New York City concerning access to the Food Stamp Program that was scheduled 

 3

 A local office is defined as the smallest geographic jurisdiction within which food stamps are administered 

to all segments of the program population. Thus, within any geographic area, separate sites that served

discrete segments of the caseload (for example, cash assistance cases or the elderly) were combined to form

one office. We excluded the 430 offices with monthly caseloads below 150 from the sampling frame 

because of the difficulties in obtaining an adequate sample of applicants. These small offices accounted for 

only 0.44 percent of the total food stamp caseload. 

4

 In some States caseload information was not available by office, and summary caseload data by county was 

used instead. For those counties that were selected, office and caseload lists were then obtained, and 

specific offices chosen. 

A-2
for trial during the data collection period. The final research sample included 109 local food stamp 

offices, located in 39 States and the District of Columbia.5

Second Stage Sample: Caseworker Supervisors 

The supervisor survey was designed to collect information on office policies that may affect access to 

the Food Stamp Program. These policies included those regulating food stamp intake, application 

processing, and ongoing case maintenance for all different types of households. The objective of the 

data collection effort was to complete one survey in each sampled office. The level of worker 

specialization determined the number of supervisors interviewed in each office. 

In offices with generic workers, one supervisor was able to answer all the survey questions. In offices 

in which the caseworkers did not have generic roles and supervisors were therefore specialized based 

on the types of clients their workers served (for example, households receiving TANF, or elderly 

cases) or by the portion of the application and eligibility process for which their workers were

responsible (for example, intake versus ongoing cases), multiple supervisors were interviewed, each 

about his or her areas of specialization. 

Supervisors were selected for interviewing based on their responsibilities. When multiple supervisors 

had the same responsibilities, the supervisor designated by the office manager as most knowledgeable 

was interviewed. If the office manager did not designate a specific individual, then the supervisor 

who had been working at the office the longest was interviewed. A total of 201 supervisors was 

selected for interviews. 

Second Stage Sample: Food Stamp Office Caseworkers 

The caseworker survey was designed to collect information regarding caseworker practices. The goal 

was to obtain two caseworker responses for each set of questions covering particular types of cases. 

(This was not possible in small offices that did not have two caseworkers handling particular types of 

cases.) As with the supervisors, the level of worker specialization determined the number of workers 

interviewed in each office

 

Caseworkers hired after April 1, 2000 were excluded from the sample frame because of their limited 

experience in the office. In addition, they may have undergone a training period and not worked a full 

caseload for very long. All other caseworkers were included in the sampling frame. The list of 

caseworkers for each office was divided into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive groups 

defined by responsibility. Caseworkers were then randomly selected from each group. A total of 509 

caseworkers, an average of 5 workers per office, were sampled. 

 5 Three of the offices initially sampled were determined to be specialized offices—processing initial 

applications only, or serving only elderly/persons with disabilities or institutional clients—and therefore 

ineligible for the study. They were replaced with three additional offices. See table 2.1 for summary 

characteristics of the sampled offices. 

A-3
Second-Stage Sample: 

New Applicants, Recertified Cases, Closed Cases 

The second stage participant household samples were drawn directly from pools of new applicants, 

reapproved cases, and case closures within the sampled local food stamp offices in June 2000. The 

universe for these food stamp cases included: 

• New applicants: households who filed a food stamp application in June 2000. These 

households included two subcategories of interest: those whose application was 

subsequently approved for assistance; and those whose application was not approved, 

because it was denied by the agency (for failure to meet either a circumstantial or 

procedural requirement of initial eligibility) or was voluntarily withdrawn by the client 

prior to an agency decision. 

• Recertified cases: households whose food stamp certification expired in June 2000 and

were reapproved for continuing benefits. 

• Closed cases: households whose food stamp benefits ended in June 2000. These included 

cases that reached the end-month of their certification period and were not approved for 

continued assistance, and cases that were closed by the agency in the midst of a 

certification period (interim case closures)—either for failure to comply with some 

participation requirement such as ABAWD work requirements or monthly reporting, 

because the household voluntarily withdrew from the program, or because income and/or 

assets exceeded eligibility limits. 

In order to have analytic samples of sufficient size to answer the research questions, a target initial 

sample size of 2,400 applicants and recipients was needed. The sample allocation relied on stratified 

sampling within each office to obtain samples of the domains of interest. The allocation oversampled 

the two new applicant domains in order to have a sufficient number for analysis purposes. Table A.1 

shows the sampling plan and the target initial sample sizes by type. 

Table A.1—Initial sampling plan 

Domain Target initial sample size Actual initial sample size

New applicantsCapproved 800 882

New applicantsCnot approved 400 400

Recertifying 

applicantsCapproved

600 652

Closures 600 821 

Total 2,400 2,755

The sampling of four different domains per office required careful control over the sample selection 

equations. For each domain we first computed an approximate overall sampling fraction. Given the 

probability of selection of the office, we divided the overall sampling fraction for each domain by the 

office selection probability to obtain a within-office sampling fraction for each domain. The 

A-4
reciprocal of this within-office sampling faction was used as a sampling interval to draw a systematic

random sample of applicants from a given domain. The final sample comprised an average of 20 to 

25 households in each of the 109 offices. 

The samples of new applicants, recertified cases, and closures in June 2000 were drawn from lists 

provided by the sampled States (or counties). In some instances, due to the structure of a State’s 

management information system, the State was unable to provide files conforming exactly to the 

required specifications. We anticipated, in some States, that the files would contain some ineligible 

households. In these cases, we increased sampling rates in order to obtain the desired number of cases 

in the final sample. The actual initial sample sizes are also shown in table A.1. 

Second Stage Sample: TANF Diversions 

TANF-diverted applicants, defined as households who entered the TANF application process and 

were diverted before completing the application process, are a group of particular concern to policy

makers to the extent that they may not receive food stamp benefits for which they are eligible. Three 

types of TANF diversion policies are commonly used to encourage families to avoid becoming TANF 

recipients: 

• Lump-sum cash benefits provide a cash payment to help families with short-term

emergency needs. 

• Applicant job search requires some TANF applicants to begin to look for work as a 

condition of eligibility. 

• Referral to alternative assistance sources, where caseworkers encourage households to 

look for other sources of assistance before filing a TANF application. 

The TANF-diverted applicants sampled for the current study were those that received lump-sum cash 

benefits in June 2000. The sample was restricted to this group of households as management 

information systems in the sampled States did not keep track of applicants assigned to job search or 

those referred to other assistance sources. 

In June 2000, eighteen of the sampled States reported that they had lump-sum diversion policies in 

effect. Seven States reported that no one in any of the sampled offices received a payment in June 

2000 and one other State could not provide any information on payments. The remaining ten States 

provided lists of households in the sampled offices that received cash payments. The 179 households 

listed comprised the TANF-diverted sample and represent the universe of households who were 

diverted from applying for TANF by the use of lump-sum cash payments in the sampled offices in 

June 2000. These cases were removed from the lists of new applicants, recertified cases, and closed 

cases before the respective samples were drawn. 

Second Stage Sample: Expansion Sample 

The samples described above were not sufficient to represent the entire active caseload in June 2000, 

for use with multivariate models involving interim closures (Appendix D) and in the descriptive 

analysis of households leaving the FSP (Chapter 6). They cover cases that were in their first month of 

receipt (approved applicants), in their last month of receipt (closures), or in the final month of a 

A-5
recertification period that is not the last month of receipt (approved recertifications). Omitted is the 

great majority of active cases in ongoing interim months, for whom no case action was taken in June 

2000. These cases must be accounted for correctly in order to be able to represent the full caseload by

the sampled cases. 

This gap was filled by noting that in a steady state, the cohort of cases with six-month recertification 

periods ending in June 2000 looked very similar to five other cohorts of cases with six-month 

recertification periods that ended in July, August, September, October, and November 2000. The first 

cohort was sampled for this study, although the other five cohorts were not. We could represent the 

unsampled cases, therefore, by “expanding” the sample that we already have, creating five additional 

observations for every one we drew. (In general, we expanded by a factor of (L–1), where L is the 

certification length.) 

This solution needs to be elaborated upon in three regards. First, while this expansion provides 

representation of cases which will reach their next recertification in July, August, etc., it does not 

represent cases that will experience interim closures in that period. To cover these cases as well, we 

similarly expanded the sample of interim closures, by a factor of (E–1), where E is the time elapsed 

since the last certification or recertification. For example, for a cohort of cases that was recertified in 

March and closed in June, we assumed that there were two similar cohorts of cases, recertified in 

April and May, respectively, that would experience interim closures in July and August, respectively.

We expanded the sampled cohort by a factor of two, to represent the two cohorts that were not 

sampled. 

The second issue was the need to avoid double counting of initial months of a spell. The expansion 

sample generated from cases in their first certification period included the first month of that period; 

but those months were, in fact, already represented by approved applications. It is not generally 

possible to tell if a particular sampled case is in its first or subsequent certification period. Therefore 

Month 1 of the expansion samples was given a relative weight of (R/(R+A)), where R was the 

estimated number of cases coming up for recertification in June 2000, and A was the estimated

number of approved initial applications in June. 

The final issue was the need to determine the length of the certification period for each sampled case, 

in order to know how many replicates it should contribute to the expansion sample. This turned out to

be surprisingly difficult. The case records of a substantial proportion of closed and recertified cases 

did not include the date of the last certification, and many of the dates that were included were 

implausible (e.g. in the same month as the current certification, or many years previously).6

 A second 

data source that was considered was the usual certification period length reported by the office 

supervisor for cases of each type (e.g. all members elderly and disabled, TANF cases with earnings, 

ABAWDs subject to time limits, and so on). This approach was also unsatisfactory because the 

supervisor reports contained numerous anomalies, such as cases with all elderly and members with 

disabilities being assigned 3-month certification periods while TANF cases in the same office had 12-

month certification periods, or cases with earnings being assigned 24-month certification periods. 

While the central tendencies of the reported certification lengths were reasonable, there was concern 

 6

 The case record abstraction form included an item that was to record the start date of the certification

period ending June 2000 (or the most recent certification, for cases closed in June 2000). This item was 

missing for 21 percent of cases, and represented a date less than one month previous or more than 24

months previous to the June recertification date for an additional 17 percent of cases. 

A-6
that random inaccuracies could lead to biases in the composition of the expansion sample. The chosen 

solution was to determine certification lengths from an external source, namely the FY 2000 FSP 

Quality Control Database. For each State in the study sample, the frequency distribution of 

certification lengths was calculated for each of ten case profiles.7

 For example, in Alabama, 61 

percent of active cases with both TANF and earnings had certification lengths of 12 months, another 

13 percent had certification lengths of 6 months, etc. Certification lengths were assigned to 

recertifying cases by drawing probabilistically from these frequencies, given the State and the case 

characteristics. 

To determine the number of replicates for the much smaller expansion sample generated from interim

closures, no alternative existed to compare the recorded date of last recertification with June 2000. 

When this information was missing or implausible, elapsed months since last recertification was 

imputed probabilistically, based on the certification length appropriate to the type of case and the 

observed distribution of time elapsed for other interim closure cases with the same certification 

length. For example, if a case was assigned a six-month certification length based on its State and 

characteristics, and among cases with six-month certification periods that experienced interim

closures 40 percent experienced the closure in the second interim month, then that case had a 40 

percent chance of being assigned a second interim month closure. 

The characteristics of the expansion sample households are similar to the characteristics of similar 

households in the food stamp Quality Control data (table A.2)—evidence of the validity of the 

procedures used to create the expansion sample. 

Second Stage Sample: Eligible Non-Participants 

Eligible nonparticipants are households who are circumstantially eligible for the Food Stamp Program

but are not participating in it. While Food Stamp Program applicants and participants in an office can 

be enumerated, no list or sampling frame exists for eligible nonparticipants. As described in Chapter 

2, the sample frame was created from a random-digit-dialing telephone survey of the entire 

population in the catchment areas around the 109 sampled offices. Catchment areas were defined by

the telephone prefixes (or zip codes, when telephone numbers were unavailable) of the food stamp 

new and recertifying applicant households that were included in the applicant and participant 

sampling frames discussed above. The use of a random-digit-dial sampling approach limits the 

sample to those with working telephones. Adjustments were made to correct for this limitation during 

creation of sample weights (see page A-13). 

 7

 The ten household types were child only, all adults elderly and/or disabled but with earnings, all adults

elderly and/or disabled with no earnings, ABAWD-like with children, ABAWD-like without children,

other non-TANF cases with earnings, other non-TANF cases with no earnings but government benefits, 

other non-TANF cases with neither earnings nor government benefits, other TANF cases with earnings,

and other TANF cases without earnings. It is not possible to determine with certainty whether a case with 

given characteristics would have been subjected to ABAWD time limits in a given office in June 2000.

Offices differed in how they exempted cases based on presence of dependent children, employment status, 

and other factors. We identify “ABAWD-like” cases as childless households containing at least one ablebodied adult aged 18 to 50, and households with dependent children containing at least two able-bodied 

adults aged 18 to 50. 

A-7
Table A.2—Sample Characteristics: Food stamp access study vs. June 2000 quality control 

data 

Food stamp cases in interim 

months, June 2000a

Active food stamp cases,

June 2000b

Characteristics 

Food stamp 

access 

study data

FSP quality

control data

Food stamp 

access 

study data

FSP quality

control data

Characteristics of household head

Male 22.5 22.8 22.5 21.3

Female 77.5 77.2 77.5 78.7

Race of household head

White 57.9 45.0 56.5 44.7

Black 24.5 34.3 25.2 34.9

Hispanic 13.3 17.0 14.2 16.6

Other 4.2 3.8 4.1 3.8

Citizenship of household head

US citizen 95.2 91.4 94.9 91.9

Non-citizen 4.8 8.6 5.1 8.1

Household composition 

Single adult without children 44.5 43.0 41.5 40.6

Multiple adults without children 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.4

Single adult with children 37.2 34.5 38.3 37.1

Multiple adults with children 12.2 12.0 14.0 12.4

Children only 1.2 4.8 1.2 4.6

Elderly in household 15.8 22.9 14.1 20.4

Income sources 

Earned income 23.3 26.2 26.6 28.7

Cash assistance (TANF or GA) 23.5 33.9 27.9 30.1

SSI 36.5 34.7 38.4 31.6

Social security 23.6 27.9 26.1 25.1

Income as a percent of poverty 

0-50 41.0 29.1 44.8 31.8

>50 –100 45.1 58.9 43.0 56.0

>100-130 10.4 10.5 9.3 11.0

>130 2.8 1.4 2.9 1.2

a Interim months include all active cases except those in the first month of a certification or recertification in June

2000. For the food stamp access study data, this includes the expansion sample and the interim closure sample (who

received benefits in June 2000). 

b Active cases are those that received food stamp benefits in June 2000, including approved applicants, ongoing cases, 

and terminating cases. 

A list-assisted RDD sample of 72,711 telephone numbers was drawn using the GENESYS sampling 

system, which helped ensure that a high percentage of the sampled numbers belonged to residential 

households. Once a household was reached, a short screening questionnaire was administered to 

determine whether the household was apparently eligible for food stamps, but not currently receiving 

benefits. Households were screened out if they were current FSP participants or had applied for

benefits in the prior month. Households were deemed to be presumptively eligible for food stamps if: 

A-8
• Their gross household income was no more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level; 

• Their financial assets were less than $3,000 if the household included an elderly member 

and less than $2,000 if there were no elderly members of the household; and 

• All vehicles owned were at least five years old, unless they were used for business or to 

transport disabled persons.

This set of screening questions has been shown to be quite accurate in predicting FSP eligibility 

(McConnell, 1997).8

 All respondents included in the complete survey responded that their total 

income was less than the threshold amount. The main body of the survey collected more detailed 

information on income, including earnings and receipt of various types of unearned income. Using 

these responses, a second measure of household income was calculated and, as expected, some 

households appeared to have incomes above 130 percent of the poverty level. We excluded 

households whose reported detailed incomes exceeded 200 percent of the federal poverty level, 

though we retained those with incomes between 130 percent and 200 percent. Even if we excluded 

the latter group, we would still not have a true measure of FSP eligibility. The survey did not collect 

all the information necessary for a full determination of eligibility, and undoubtedly not all the

reported information is accurate, as we did not require proof, such as wage receipts for verification of 

earnings. In addition, some households that were excluded on the income screening question would 

have provided detailed income information that resulted in a measure of total income equal to or less 

than 130 percent of poverty. In order to make certain that survey results were not affected by this 

aspect of the sampling methodology, all analyses reported in the eligible nonparticipant report 

(Bartlett and Burstein, 2004) were also conducted on a sample that excluded households with incomes 

greater than 130 percent of the poverty level. No substantial differences were noted in the results 

between the two approaches and thus the tables present analyses using the full sample of 1,220 

households. 

Office, Supervisor, and Caseworker Weights 

First-stage office weights were calculated for the final sample of 109 offices. The base sampling 

office weight equals the reciprocal of the probability of selection of the office. (When the office had 

been chosen within a county, the base sample weight associated with the selection of the county was 

multiplied by the inverse of the probability of selection for the office within the county.) Office 

nonresponse was taken into account at this stage.9

 For each office in the sampling frame, a set of 

 8

 The screening procedures did not take into account changes in eligibility rules instituted with PRWORA

(e.g., immigrant status). 

9

 The nonresponse adjustments made to the sampling weights accounted for the nonparticipation of New 

York State, mentioned above. This involved increasing the weights of offices in the Northeast and MidAtlantic regions that were similar in size and degree of urbanicity to the New York State offices. All the 

selected offices in New York City were large, urban offices, and thus the weights of other large, urban 

offices were increased. To the extent that offices in New York City are similar to other large urban offices 

in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic along the dimensions measured in the study, bias will be minimized. If 

food stamp policies and practices in New York City are very different from other large, urban offices, the 

study will not accurately represent the practices in New York. The other four offices in New York were a 

mix of small, medium, and large offices, and thus the weights of similar offices in the Northeast and MidAtlantic were appropriately increased. 

A-9
ratio-adjustment cells was formed by three variables: FNS region (five categories, with New England 

and the Mid-Atlantic regions combined and the Western and Mountain Plains regions combined); 

MSA vs. non-MSA status; and office size (four categories).10 The weights of the offices that 

participated in the study were then ratio-adjusted so that the weighted total number of offices was in 

agreement with the known totals from the sampling frame. 

A caseload-adjusted office weight was also created by multiplying the office weights by the office 

caseloads. These could be used to determine the fraction of the national caseload subject to particular 

policies (in contrast to the fraction of offices implementing particular policies). These weights were 

ratio-adjusted using office caseload to create the ratio-adjustment cells. A final adjustment was made 

to these weights so that the weighted caseload by region was in agreement with total caseload for 

November 1999, the month used for sampling local offices.11 

The caseload-adjusted office-level weights were used directly in analyzing office-level data in the 

description of policies and practices in Gabor et al. (2003) and in Chapter 7 of this report. The 

supervisor survey was designed so that a single supervisor answered each item even if multiple 

supervisors were interviewed. Hence the weights for this survey were simply the caseload-adjusted 

office weights. Multiple caseworkers in a office were asked the same questions about procedures (for 

example, “If someone comes in at least 30 minutes late for their food stamp appointment with you, do 

you usually reschedule their appointment for that same day, or reschedule the appointment for another 

day, or automatically deny the application?”) and could respond differently. Their responses were 

given equal proportional weight, adding up to the office weight—that is, the office weight was 

divided up among the caseworkers in that office answering each question. 

Office weights (not caseload-adjusted) were also a component of the weights used to analyze data on 

individual households. The household-level weights were conceptually equal to the office-level 

weights divided by the probability that the household would be included in the sample once the office 

had been selected. These weights were intended to add up to the corresponding national populations 

for each group. This calculation was done separately by analysis sample, as described below. 

Participant Household Weights 

Participant households were sampled from lists provided by the 109 sites in five categories, 

corresponding to events occurring in June 2000: 

• approved applications 

• denied applications 

• approved recertifications 

• case closures

• TANF diversions 

 10 Size categories were caseloads of 1,651 and under, caseloads of 1,652 to 4,261, caseloads of 4,262 to

7,834, and caseloads of 7,835 and over. 

11 The total caseload in the sample frame was 7.29 million, compared with an actual total of 7.4 million based

on more accurate FNS data. The FNS total was available by State. We aggregated this total by region 

(using the five categories) and scaled the caseload weights to get the correct totals. 

A-10
In general, the sample comprised 6 to 8 approved applications, 3 to 5 denied applications, 5 to 6 

approved recertifications, and 5 to 6 case closures from each site.12 In Indiana, Tennessee, and Ohio, 

the lists provided by States did not conform to our requested specifications. Cases in offices from

those States were therefore oversampled, so that the number of completes would be adequate. Also, 

three offices in Ohio were unable to provide any lists of case closures. It was not possible to obtain 

closure samples for the Ohio offices, so these sites were dropped from the corresponding analyses. 

All identified TANF diversions in the sample were included—a total of 179 households. 

In principle the weights assigned to each household were equal to the size of the list divided by the 

number of sampled cases in each category and site. Several adjustments to this procedure were 

needed, however, following the steps outlined below. 

Step 1: Due to the inability of some sites to provide separate listings of approved and denied 

applications, occasionally cases in these two categories could not be distinguished. In these instances 

the categories for new applications were collapsed within an office. In addition, other offices could 

not provide separate lists of denied applications and case closures. These categories were similarly

collapsed. This type of adjustment occurred in 13 offices. 

Step 2: Once the proper adjustments to the sample categories were made, base sampling weights for 

the first four categories were constructed using the actual numbers sampled and numbers in the lists 

provided by each office for each category. If shj is the number of cases sampled and phj is the number 

of cases on the case list in site h and category j, then the base sampling weight BSW1hj = phj / shj. 

Alternate procedures were required in the Kansas office, which was unable to provide a list of case 

closures. In this instance, samples were physically drawn from the file cabinets, sampling at every 62 

inches. The Kansas office estimated an average case file is one inch thick, so BSW1 for the case 

closures in Kansas is 62. 

Step 3: As noted above, all identified TANF-diverted cases were selected into the sample. (Only a 

few offices practiced TANF diversion.) These households could appear on any of the other four lists, 

as they could be approved applicants, denied applicants, and so on. Their identity as a TANF 

diversion trumped their other identity with regard to sampling. Since these households were selected 

with certainty, BSW1 for these households equals 1. 

Step 4: The goal was to have the sample drawn represent the total number of applicants, 

recertifications, closed cases and TANF-diverted cases in the country for June 2000. BSW2hj was 

defined as BSW1hj multiplied by the caseload weight for each office described in section 1. If 

completed data was obtained on all of the sampled cases, this was the analysis weight used. However, 

abstraction data for a few of the sampled cases did not exist, so a non-response adjustment was made 

to BSW2. If a is the number of cases sampled in an office, and b is the number of cases with complete

data, then the final analysis weight Whj = BSW2hj × (a/b). The non-response adjustments generated 

 12 The exact numbers drawn varied from office to office for two reasons. First, the desired sample size per 

office in each category was not an integer, so in some offices the number drawn was the next lowest integer 

and in others the next highest integer. Second, after New York State declined to participate in the study, a 

supplemental sample was drawn to replace it, leading to additional cases being taken from offices whose 

samples had already been drawn.

A-11
weights outside of the median plus 6 times the interquartile range for three denied applicants, who 

consequently had their weights trimmed. 

Once the samples were drawn, the record abstraction sometimes found that a case was of a different 

type than its sample type (e.g. a case that was on the list of approved applicants might actually have 

been an approved recertification). Such cases were reclassified for the purpose of analysis, but their 

weights still reflected the basis on which they were selected into the sample. 

Some groups of participant households were also surveyed, in addition to having their case records 

abstracted: approved applicants, denied applicants, incomplete recertifications, and TANF diversions. 

The survey weights were the same as the abstraction weights, with an additional factor representing 

survey nonresponse. 

Eligible Nonparticipant Household Weights 

Eligible nonparticipants were identified in the random digit dialing (RDD) survey. For each site h, a 

list was constructed of telephone exchanges of households that would be served by that office (based 

on the actual telephone exchanges of cases served by that office).13 From these exchanges, a list of 

phone numbers was randomly generated. 

The final disposition codes for the released phone numbers were as follows: 

1: Nonworking, business, or nonresidential 

2: Unresolved; unknown whether in category 1, 3, 4, 5, or 6 

3: Known to be a household, but not known if eligible for RDD interview (i.e. might be a 

current FSP participant or ineligible for food stamps) 

4: Known household, ineligible for RDD interview 

5: Known household, known eligible for RDD interview, but interview incomplete 

6. Known household, eligible for RDD interview, interview complete (the analysis sample). 

The goal of weighting was to make households in Category 6 represent not only themselves, but also: 

(a) Category 5; (b) that fraction of Category 3 that was eligible for the interview; and (c) that fraction 

of Category 2 that was eligible for the interview. This was done as described below. 

Step 1: Let Nh = the total number of phone numbers in the site (= number of exchanges × 10,000); mh

= the number of sample phone numbers released; th = the number of phone numbers drawn in all

sample replicates (including those not released); and sh = the number of phone numbers remaining in 

all sample replicates after GENESYS ID removed identifiable nonworking and business numbers.14

The ratio between sh and th was assumed to be the same for all replicates and released replicates. The 

base sampling weight for each site, BSWh, was then equal to (Nh / mh ) × (sh / th). This weight was 

assigned to each household in Category 6. 

 13 Some offices were unable to provide this information. In these cases the offices’ catchment area was

defined in terms of covered zipcodes—either based on case records or as stated by office staff—and then

the corresponding telephone exchanges were determined. 

14 GENESYS ID only captures a portion of these numbers. For example, it could identify the Abt main

switchboard number (492-7100), but not the individual office phone numbers at Abt (e.g. 349-2796). 

A-12
Step 2: For each of the completes, the number of voice-use lines in the household was known from

the survey (or randomly imputed when missing, based on the distribution of this variable in the site). 

The average number of voice-use lines per eligible complete in each site was calculated as vh, and the 

baseweight was adjusted for this factor: BSW_Ph = BSWh /vh.

15 

Step 3: Three nonresponse adjustments (NRAs) were then applied to take account of Categories 2, 3, 

and 5 above. Let Nj be the number of phone numbers in Category j in a site. In each site, 

• The completes were scaled up so they also represent the known eligibles who did not 

complete: NRA1 = (N5+N6) / N6 = known eligibles / eligible completes. 

• The known eligibles were scaled up further so they also represent households of unknown 

eligibility—under the assumption that the same proportion of Category 3 are eligible as 

among Categories 4, 5, and 6 (for whom eligibility is known): 

NRA2 = {(N5+N6) + [N3 × (N5+N6) / (N4+N5+N6)]} / (N5+N6) 

= {known eligibles + [households, eligibility unknown 

 × (known eligibles / households, eligibility known)]} / known eligibles 

• The numerator of NRA2 corresponds to total estimated eligibles among phone numbers 

known to be residential. For the final nonresponse adjustment, the count was scaled up so it 

also included an appropriate fraction of those phone numbers for which it was not known 

whether they were nonworking, business, nonresidential, or households. This fraction, the 

estimated proportion of unresolved numbers that are residential, was taken to be 0.27.16

NRA3 = [{(N5+N6) + [N3 ×(N5+N6)/(N4+N5+N6)]} + ((N5+N6)/ (N4+N5+N6)) 

 × N2 × 0.27}/ {(N5+N6) + [N3 ×(N5+N6)/(N4+N5+N6)]}

 = {total estimated eligibles, residential status known 

+ (known eligibles/ households, eligibility known) × unresolveds × 0.27} 

/ total estimated eligibles, residential status known 

The nonresponse-adjusted base sampling weight applied to the completes in each site is then given by 

W = BSW_P × NRA1 × NRA2 × NRA3. 

Step 4: An adjustment was made to account for households without telephones, which according to

the March 2001 CPS comprises 12.4 percent of households under 130 percent of poverty. These 

households were represented by sampled households that experienced interruptions in phone 

service.17 The adjustment was performed by proportionately increasing the weight on that subgroup of 

households. 

 15 Recall that the weights are intended to sum to the number of households. Thus if eligible households in a 

site have on average 1.1 voice-use lines, then the number of their voice-use lines (represented by BSWh) 

should be divided by 1.1, to get the number of eligible households per se.

16 The source for this estimate is the National Immunization Survey (NIS) run by Abt Associates. For the NIS 

we drew a large sample of unresolved numbers and called local telephone company business offices to

determine if the numbers were residential, business, or not assigned.

17 Sixteen percent of the sample reported that they had experienced an interruption in phone service of a week 

or more in the past 12 months. For further discussion of this issue, see Frankel et al. (2003). 

A-13
Step 5: An adjustment was made to account for the exclusion from the sampling frame of telephone 

exchanges which accounted for only a few active cases in an office.18 The rule for constructing the 

sampling frame was as follows. Starting with the set of exchanges that accounted for at least 75 

percent of cases in an office, as many exchanges as necessary were added to bring in an additional 10 

percent of cases, as long as that addition to the set was no greater in number than the original set. For 

example, 4 exchanges might comprise 81 percent of the cases, while another 4 exchanges might bring 

the total to 89 percent of the cases. The final adjustment increased the sum of the weights in each site 

to include households not in the sample frame of exchanges. Weights were then truncated at the 

median plus 6 times the interquartile range. 

Step 6: The weights constructed up to this point were constant within a catchment area. As a final 

step, these weights were raked to correspond to national control totals for 2000 from the Current 

Population Survey (CPS) and the FSP Quality Control (QC) Database, as reported in Cunnyngham

(2002).19 Characteristics that were taken into account in the raking were household type (presence of 

children, single versus multiple adults), presence of elderly, presence of earnings, presence of

noncitizens, and household income relative to FPL (0 to 50 percent, 50 to 100 percent, over 100 

percent). 

A subsample of eligible nonparticipants of special interest in the analysis was near-applicants: 

households that contacted the local FSP office but did not formally apply. As this was a rare event, 

households were asked about their contacts with the local office in the past year. It could thus be 

supposed that the sample included 12 times as many near applicants as would have been identified for 

any one month. When combined with applicants in June 2000 to represent all households contacting 

the local office in a month, the weights on the nonparticipant near-applicants were therefore divided 

by 12.

20 

 18 This adjustment was not made for offices whose catchment area was defined by zipcodes.

19 The number of eligible nonparticipants is calculated as the difference between the number of eligible 

households (from the CPS) and the number of participating households (from QC data). 

20 While the assumption that near-applicants contacted the office only once in 12 months is questionable, it 

seemed the most reasonable procedure. The weight on near-applicants who responded early in the course of

the survey was adjusted further, to account for the fact that data on near-applicant status was initially 

collected only for the past 6 rather than the past 12 months. To make the adjustment it was assumed that the 

ratio of non-participants who were near applicants 1 to 6 months ago to those who were near applicants 7 to

12 months ago was the same in the earlier and the later segments of the sample; this ratio could be

calculated for the later respondents. 

A-14
Appendix B 

Supplementary Descriptive Tables 

Table B.1—Awareness, perceived eligibility, and interest in applying to the FSP among 

potentially eligible nonparticipant households 

Percent 

Ever heard of the FSP? 

Yes 96.4% 

(0.8) 

No 3.6 

(0.8) 

Total 100.0% 

Perceived eligibility 

Eligible 43.2% 

(2.5) 

Ineligible 35.0 

(2.4) 

Unsure 18.2 

(2.0) 

Never heard of FSP 3.6 

(0.8) 

Total 100.0% 

Would apply if certain of eligibility? 

Would apply 69.1 

(2.5) 

Would not apply 27.1 

(2.4) 

Unsure if would apply 3.9 

(0.8) 

Totala

100.0% 

Unweighted N 1220 

a Excludes the 51 households that never heard of the FSP. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-1
Table B.2—Level of need of eligible nonparticipant households by perceived eligibility 

Level of need

Don’t believe

eligible for 

food stampsa

Believe

eligible for 

food stamps Total

Economic characteristics of household 

Earnings in previous month (%) 52.0% 46.8% 49.8% 

(2.9) (4.0) (2.2)

Mean earnings of those with positive earnings $1219 $1130 $1181 

($58) ($62) ($41)

Unearned income (% receiving)b

Cash assistance 1.0 1.3 1.1

(0.9) (0.7) (0.6)

Social Security/SSI 48.0 48.2 48.1

(3.2) (3.5) (2.2)

Other 23.1 20.4 22.0

(2.6) (2.7) (1.8)

Percent of poverty (%)

Less than 50% 13.2††† 20.4 16.3

(1.9) (3.1) (1.5)

50-less than 100% 23.6 35.8 29.0 

(2.8) (3.8) (2.3)

100-less than 130% 34.8 18.5 27.6 

(3.5) (3.4) (3.0)

Greater than 130% 28.5 25.3 27.1

(3.5) (3.5) (2.6)

Assets 

Bank accounts (%) 73.8** 62.2 68.7 

(2.5) (3.9) (2.3)

Other financial assets (%) 9.3 9.8 9.5 

(2.7) (3.2) (2.3)

Mean amount in accounts $938 $600 $804 

($204) ($128) ($132)

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $1078 $675 $915 

($228) ($159) ($147)

Any motor vehicles 66.2 56.9 62.4 

(3.2) (5.2) (3.2)

Food security status (%)

c

Food secure 60.9††† 47.9 55.2

(2.6) (3.8) (2.5)

Food insecure without hunger 20.3 20.3 20.3 

(2.2) (2.3) (1.8)

Food insecure with hunger 18.8 31.9 24.5 

(3.2) (3.7) (3.0)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nd 707 513 1220

—Continued 

B-2
Table B.2—Level of need of eligible nonparticipant households by perceived eligibility—

Continued 

a Includes responses of “unsure,” “don’t know,” and those who never heard of the FSP. This is consistent with the approach 

used in multivariate modeling.

b Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

c The food security questions reference the year preceding the survey.

d Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 19 to 293 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-3
Table B.3—Characteristics of eligible nonparticipant households by perceived eligibility

Characteristics 

Don’t believe

eligible for 

food stampsa

Believe

eligible for 

food stamps Total

Demographic characteristics of household head

Female (%) 72.9% 74.5% 73.6%

(2.8) (2.5) (1.9)

Age (mean years) 49.3 47.1 48.3

(1.7) (1.6) (1.3)

Black (%) 22.3* 31.2 26.1 

(3.9) (5.2) (4.0)

Hispanic (%) 13.6 9.6 11.9 

(2.7) (2.2) (2.2)

Non-English speaker (%) 6.7 4.8 5.9 

(1.6) (1.1) (1.1)

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 5.8 4.2 5.1 

(1.6) (1.2) (1.1)

High school graduate (%) 63.8 61.8 62.9 

(3.1) (4.4) (2.6)

Previous FSP recipient (%) 47.6*** 59.1 52.6 

(3.8) (3.1) (2.9)

Household composition

One-person household (%) 39.3 46.7 42.5 

(3.0) (3.6) (2.1)

Multiple adults without children (%) 27.3 19.9 24.1 

(2.4) (2.1) (1.6)

Single adult with children (%) 10.7 12.6 11.5 

(1.6) (1.8) (1.0)

Multiple adults with children (%) 22.8 20.8 21.9 

(2.2) (2.6) (1.6)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

All adults elderly (%) 26.8 25.2 26.1 

(3.3) (3.0) (2.5)

Any members with disabilities (%) 34.4 38.0 36.0 

(3.0) (3.4) (1.8)

Unweighted Nb 707 513 1220

a Includes responses of “unsure,” “don’t know,” and those who never heard of the FSP. This is consistent with the 

approach used in multivariate modeling.

b Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 129 depending upon the item.

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-4
Table B.4—Perceptions of stigma associated with the FSP among nonparticipant households 

by perceived eligibility

Stigma index 

Don’t believe

eligible for 

food stampsa

Believe eligible

for food 

stamps Total

0 No stigma 64.5% 56.7% 61.1%

(2.9) (4.0) (2.2)

1 Low stigma 15.4 22.1 18.3

(2.7) (2.6) (1.8)

2 10.0 12.3 11.0

(1.7) (2.2) (1.4)

3 4.2 5.7 4.8

(1.4) (1.7) (1.0)

4 High stigma 5.9 3.2 4.8

(1.5) (1.3) (1.2)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mean stigma 0.7 0.8 0.7 

(0.1) (0.1) (0.1)

Unweighted Nb 707 513 1220

a Includes responses of “unsure,” “don’t know,” and those who never heard of the FSP. This is consistent with the approach 

used in multivariate modeling.

b Tabulations exclude 26 households with missing data. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-5
Table B.5—Reasons for perceived ineligibilitya

Previously

received food 

stamps

Never received 

food stamps Total

Stated reasons

Earn too much money 60.5%* 49.1% 54.9% 

(4.0) (4.9) (3.0)

Told ineligible or previously denied 56.4*** 23.4 40.2 

(5.5) (3.6) (3.5)

Employed 44.3 35.1 39.8

(4.0) (4.3) (2.9)

Receive other government assistance 21.6 16.6 19.1

(4.1) (3.3) (2.8)

Car is worth too much 16.0 14.0 15.0 

(3.4) (3.5) (3.1)

Have too much in savings 4.2*** 19.8 11.9 

(1.7) (4.5) (2.7)

Citizenship status 6.3 5.5 5.9

(1.8) (1.8) (1.2)

Reached time limit on cash assistance 4.0** 0.4 2.2 

(1.5) (0.3) (0.8)

Received lump sum payment 2.3 1.6 2.0 

(1.2) (0.8) (0.7)

When told was ineligible 

Within the last month 1.4 10.0 4.0

(0.9) (6.5) (2.2)

Within the last 6 months 34.2 16.5 28.8

(5.9) (8.6) (5.2)

Within the last year 16.5 21.7 18.1

(3.5) (8.3) (3.5)

More than a year ago 47.1 49.0 47.7 

(6.3) (6.5) (4.9)

Don’t know 0.8 2.8 1.4

(0.6) (1.7) (0.7)

Unweighted N 351 303 654

a Includes only households that did not think they were eligible for food stamps or were unsure of their eligibility. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-6
Table B.6—Level of need of eligible nonparticipant households who do not believe they are 

eligible for food stamp benefits by reason for perceived ineligibility

Level of need

Perceived ineligible 

because reached

time limit on cash 

assistance 

Perceived 

ineligible for 

other reasons Total

Economic characteristics of household 

Earnings in previous month (%) 93.0** 51.7 52.5

(5.5) (3.2) (3.1)

Mean earnings of those with positive earnings $1,391 $1,216 $1,220

($223) ($60) ($59)

Unearned income (% receiving)a

Cash assistance 0.0 1.1 1.1

(—) (1.0) (0.9)

Social Security/SSI 29.2 49.3 48.9

(17.7) (3.4) (3.3)

Other 3.0** 23.9 23.5

(2.5) (2.8) (2.7)

Percent of poverty (%)

Less than 50% 20.9 11.7 11.9

(12.9) (1.8) (1.8)

50-less than 100% 14.0 24.1 23.9

(7.3) (2.9) (2.8)

100-less than 130% 35.9 36.5 36.5

(24.3) (3.6) (3.5)

Greater than 130% 29.2 27.7 27.8

(15.0) (3.5) (3.5)

Assets 

Bank accounts (%) 77.2 74.9 75.0

(10.4) (2.4) (2.4)

Other financial assets (%) 0.0* 9.8 9.6

(0.0) (2.9) (2.8)

Mean amount in accounts $349*** $872 $861

($121) ($181) ($177)

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $503** $998 $990

($82) ($205) ($200)

Any motor vehicles 90.3* 67.3 67.9

(5.8) (3.6) (3.5)

Food security status (%)

b

Food secure 45.5 61.0 60.7

(19.5) (2.7) (2.7)

Food insecure without hunger 45.8 20.3 20.8

(19.0) (2.4) (2.4)

Food insecure with hunger 8.7 18.7 18.5

(4.2) (3.4) (3.3)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nc 21 633 654

—Continued 

B-7
Table B.6—Level of need of eligible nonparticipant households by perceived eligibility—

Continued 

a Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

b The food security questions reference the year preceding the survey. 

c Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 168 depending upon the item.

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-8
Table B.7—Characteristics of eligible nonparticipant households who do not believe they are 

eligible for food stamp benefits by reason for perceived ineligibility

Characteristics 

Perceived ineligible 

because reached

time limit on cash 

assistance 

Perceived 

ineligible for 

other reasons Total

Demographic characteristics of household head

Female (%) 94.1* 73.4 73.8 

(5.6) (2.8) (2.8)

Age (mean years) 41.0 49.5 49.3 

(6.0) (1.6) (1.6)

Black (%) 63.7 21.6 22.5 

(18.4) (4.2) (4.1)

Hispanic (%) 10.1 13.4 13.3 

(6.7) (3.1) (3.0)

Non-English speaker (%) 6.3 4.9 4.9 

(4.8) (1.4) (1.4)

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 7.7 3.9 3.9 

(6.3) (1.2) (1.2)

High school graduate (%) 48.8 64.9 64.6 

(19.6) (3.0) (3.0)

Previous FSP recipient (%) 92.0** 49.8 50.8 

(5.6) (4.0) (3.9)

Household composition

One-person household (%) 0.0†† 40.3 39.4

(—) (3.3) (3.3)

Multiple adults without children (%) 0.0 27.9 27.3 

(—) (2.6) (2.6)

Single adult with children (%) 27.3 10.9 11.3 

(16.3) (1.5) (1.7)

Multiple adults with children (%) 72.7 20.9 22.1 

(16.3) (2.4) (2.3)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

All adults elderly (%) 0.0*** 26.4 25.8 

(—) (3.3) (3.2)

Any members with disabilities (%) 10.7* 35.5 35.0 

(6.7) (3.0) (3.1)

Unweighted Na 21 633 654

a Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 61 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-9
Table B.8—Level of need of eligible nonparticipant households who do not believe they are 

eligible for food stamp benefits by reason for perceived ineligibility

Level of need

Perceived 

ineligible 

because 

received lump 

sum payment

Perceived 

ineligible for 

other reasons Total

Economic characteristics of household 

Earnings in previous month (%) 91.6** 51.7 52.5 

(4.2) (3.2) (3.1)

Mean earnings of those with positive earnings $1,529 $1,213 $1,220

($329) ($60) ($59)

Unearned income (% receiving)a

Cash assistance 0.9 1.1 1.1

(1.0) (1.0) (0.9)

Social Security/SSI 29.6 49.3 48.9

(15.4) (3.4) (3.3)

Other 3.6** 23.9 23.5

(2.7) (2.8) (2.7)

Percent of poverty (%)

Less than 50% 18.9 11.8 11.9

(13.1) (1.8) (1.8)

50-less than 100% 12.8 24.1 23.9 

(5.2) (2.9) (2.8)

100-less than 130% 37.5 36.5 36.5 

(22.3) (3.5) (3.5)

Greater than 130% 30.8 27.7 27.8

(13.2) (3.5) (3.5)

Assets 

Bank accounts (%) 53.9 75.3 75.0 

(10.7) (2.4) (2.4)

Other financial assets (%) 0.0* 9.8 9.6 

(0.0) (2.9) (2.8)

Mean amount in accounts $592 $865 $861 

($78) ($181) ($177)

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $658 $995 $990 

($90) ($204) ($200)

Any motor vehicles 80.0 67.6 67.9 

(11.6) (3.5) (3.5)

Food security status (%)

b

Food secure 25.5 61.3 60.7

(9.5) (2.7) (2.7)

Food insecure without hunger 72.0 19.9 20.8 

(9.4) (2.4) (2.4)

Food insecure with hunger 2.5 18.8 18.5 

(2.0) (3.3) (3.3)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nc 19 635 654

—Continued 

B-10
Table B.8—Level of need of eligible nonparticipant households who do not believe they are 

eligible for food stamp benefits by reason for perceived ineligibility—Continued 

a Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

b The food security questions reference the year preceding the survey. 

c Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 168 depending upon the item.

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-11
Table B.9—Characteristics of eligible nonparticipant households who do not believe they are 

eligible for food stamp benefits by reason for perceived ineligibility

Characteristics 

Perceived ineligible 

because received

lump sum payment 

Perceived 

ineligible for 

other reasons Total

Demographic characteristics of household head

Female (%) 72.5 73.8 73.8 

(18.1) (2.8) (2.8)

Age (mean years) 45.5 49.4 49.3 

(3.9) (1.6) (1.6)

Black (%) 37.9 22.2 22.5 

(5.8) (4.2) (4.1)

Hispanic (%) 17.2 13.2 13.3 

(10.5) (3.0) (3.0)

Non-English speaker (%) 2.8 4.9 4.9 

(1.8) (1.4) (1.4)

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 5.3 3.9 3.9 

(2.8) (1.2) (1.2)

High school graduate (%) 62.8 64.7 64.6 

(14.1) (2.9) (3.0)

Previous FSP recipient (%) 60.0 50.6 50.8 

(11.6) (4.0) (3.9)

Household composition

One-person household (%) 0.0†† 40.2 39.4

(—) (3.3) (3.3)

Multiple adults without children (%) 0.0 27.8 27.3 

(—) (2.7) (2.6)

Single adult with children (%) 13.6 11.2 11.3 

(10.1) (1.8) (1.7)

Multiple adults with children (%) 86.4 20.8 22.1 

(10.1) (2.3) (2.3)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

All adults elderly (%) 2.2** 26.3 25.8

(2.3) (3.3) (3.2)

Any members with disabilities (%) 36.7 35.0 35.0 

(17.3) (3.1) (3.1)

Unweighted Na 19 635 654

a Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 61 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-12
Table B.10—Level of need of eligible nonparticipant households by whether would apply for 

benefits if knew eligible 

Level of need

Would not 

apply if 

eligiblea

Would apply if 

eligible Total

Economic characteristics of household 

Earnings in previous month (%) 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 

(4.3) (2.7) (2.3)

Mean earnings of those with positive earnings $1122 $1204 $1180 

($85) ($59) ($42)

Unearned income (% receiving)b

Cash assistance 0.2 1.6 1.2

(0.1) (0.9) (0.6)

Social Security/SSI 46.0 49.8 48.6

(4.3) (2.4) (2.3)

Other 25.0 20.8 22.1

(3.6) (2.1) (1.9)

Percent of poverty (%)

Less than 50% 19.4 14.3 15.7

(4.0) (1.6) (1.6)

50-less than 100% 31.3 28.7 29.4 

(4.8) (2.7) (2.4)

100-less than 130% 23.9 30.0 28.3 

(5.0) (3.4) (3.0)

Greater than 130% 25.4 27.0 26.6

(4.7) (3.2) (2.6)

Total

Assets 

Bank accounts (%) 80.2** 64.4 69.1 

(2.6) (3.3) (2.3)

Other financial assets (%) 12.6 8.5 9.7 

(3.8) (2.2) (2.3)

Mean amount in accounts $737 $763 $755 

($122) ($156) ($116)

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $832 $874 $859 

($130) ($181) ($130)

Food security status (%)

c

Food secure 70.3††† 48.2 54.9

(4.7) (2.2) (2.4)

Food insecure without hunger 16.9 22.2 20.5 

(3.4) (2.3) (1.9)

Food insecure with hunger 12.9 29.7 24.6 

(3.1) (3.5) (3.0)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nd 333 836 1169

—Continued 

B-13
Table B.10—Level of need of eligible nonparticipant households by whether would apply for 

benefits if knew eligible—Continued 

a Includes responses of “don’t know.” 

b Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

c The food security questions reference the year preceding the survey.

d The 51 households that never heard of the FSP were not asked whether they would apply. Tabulations exclude households 

with missing data, ranging from 17 to 273 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-14
Table B.11—Characteristics of eligible nonparticipant households by whether would apply for 

benefits if eligible 

Characteristics 

Would not 

apply if 

eligiblea

Would apply if 

eligible Total

Demographic characteristics of household head

Female (%) 73.5% 74.5% 74.2%

(4.6) (2.1) (1.8)

Age (mean years) 50.2 47.4 48.3

(1.7) (1.4) (1.2)

Black (%) 13.8*** 31.9 26.4 

(2.6) (5.8) (4.1)

Hispanic (%) 8.5 13.0 11.6

(2.8) (2.6) (2.2)

Non-English speaker (%) 3.4 5.5 4.9 

(1.2) (1.3) (1.1)

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 2.1* 4.9 4.0 

(1.1) (1.1) (0.9)

High school graduate (%) 70.3** 60.4 63.4 

(3.4) (3.0) (2.6)

Previous FSP recipient (%) 39.2*** 61.4 54.6 

(4.4) (2.8) (2.9)

Household compositionb

One-person household (%) 50.2 39.2 42.6 

(4.0) (2.8) (2.3)

Multiple adults without children (%) 21.6 25.0 23.9 

(3.3) (2.0) (1.7)

Single adult with children (%) 8.7 13.3 11.9 

(1.9) (1.4) (1.0)

Multiple adults with children (%) 19.5 22.5 21.6 

(2.8) (2.0) (1.6)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

All adults elderly (%) 29.6 23.7 25.5 

(4.0) (2.5) (2.4)

Any members with disabilities (%) 27.0*** 40.3 36.3 

(3.8) (2.3) (1.8)

Unweighted Nb 333 836 1169

—Continued 

B-15
Table B.11—Characteristics of eligible nonparticipant households by whether would apply for 

benefits if eligible—Continued 

a Includes responses of “don’t know.” 

b The 51 households that never heard of the FSP were not asked if they would apply. Tabulations exclude households with 

missing data, ranging from 0 to 118, depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-16
Table B.12—Whether nonparticipant households would apply for food stamps by perceived 

eligibility

Whether would apply for benefits if knew eligible 

Don’t believe

eligible for 

food stampsa

Believe

eligible for 

food stamps Total

Would apply 66.1% 72.7% 69.1%

(3.4) (3.6) (2.5)

Would not apply 29.3 24.2 27.1 

(3.3) (3.5) (2.4)

Unsure if would apply 4.5 3.0 3.9 

(1.1) (1.1) (0.8)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nb 707 513 1220

a Includes responses of “unsure” and “don’t know.” 

b Tabulations exclude the 51 households that never heard of the FSP and were not asked whether they would apply.

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-17
Table B.13—Perceptions of stigma associated with the FSP among nonparticipant households 

by whether would apply for benefits if knew eligible 

Stigma index 

Would not 

apply if 

eligiblea

Would apply if 

eligible Total

0 No stigma 60.8% 61.3% 61.2%

(4.6) (2.8) (2.1)

1 Low stigma 16.3 19.6 18.5

(3.4) (2.5) (1.8)

2 7.9 12.4 11.0

(1.8) (1.7) (1.4)

3 7.1 3.9 4.9

(2.2) (0.9) (1.0)

4 High stigma 7.9 2.8 4.4

(2.6) (0.9) (1.2)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mean stigma 0.9 0.7 0.7 

(0.1) (0.0) (0.0)

Unweighted Nb 333 836 1169

a Includes responses of “don’t know.” 

b The 51 households that never heard of the FSP were not asked if they would apply. Tabulations exclude 26 households 

with missing data. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-18
Table B.14—Reasons households would not apply for FSP benefitsa

Reason 

Previously

received food 

stamps

Never 

received food 

stamps Total

Personal reasons

Desire for personal independence 86.6% 94.4% 91.4% 

(5.1) (2.2) (2.4)

Stigma 40.7 46.9 44.5

(7.2) (5.5) (5.0)

Desire for privacy 29.5 22.3 25.1 

(5.8) (4.2) (3.5)

Benefits too small 31.3* 14.0 20.7

(6.2) (4.2) (3.2)

Related to office policies and practices 

Costs of application process 69.0 60.0 63.5

(7.7) (4.2) (3.5)

Previous bad experience 47.3*** 9.3 24.1 

(5.5) (3.6) (3.3)

Costs of FSP participation 24.7 12.4 17.1 

(5.4) (4.3) (3.1)

Confusion about how to apply 3.2*** 18.2 12.4 

(2.1) (4.8) (3.4)

Overall

Only personal reasons 14.9† 32.0 25.4

(5.2) (4.2) (3.5)

Only reasons related to office policies 2.2 0.1 0.9 

(1.4) (0.1) (0.6)

Mix of personal and office policies 81.2 66.0 71.9 

(5.2) (4.1) (3.2)

No reason given 1.7 1.9 1.8 

(1.0) (1.1) (0.8)

Unweighted N 156 177 333

a Includes only households that reportedly would not apply for food stamp benefits even if they were certain of their

eligibility

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-19
Table B.15—Outcome of application process 

Outcomea All applicants 

Circumstantially

eligible applicants 

Approved 71.4% 82.5%

(1.8) (1.5)

Denied 28.6 17.5

(1.8) (1.5)

Circumstantially ineligible 9.1

(1.4) —

Did not complete the application process 11.8 12.0 

(1.4) (1.5)

No certification interview 3.5 3.1 

(0.9) (1.0)

Incomplete verification 6.4 6.9 

(1.1) (1.3)

Other 1.5 1.7

(0.5) (0.5)

Reason not reported 0.3 0.3 

(0.2) (0.2)

Voluntary withdrawal

b 2.0 1.4

(0.8) (0.5)

Other 2.8 2.1

(0.7) (0.5)

Don’t know 2.9 2.0 

(1.1) (0.7)

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted N 1064 910

a Outcome as reported in case records

b Household may have withdrawn its application before or after completing all application requirements. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-20
Table B.16—Characteristics of eligible nonparticipant and applicant households 

Characteristic of Household Head Eligible nonparticipants Eligible applicants 

Age 

Less than 20 0.4%††† 4.0% 

(0.2) (0.9)

20 to 49 55.3 79.9 

(3.2) (1.5)

50 to 59 13.6 8.9 

(1.6) (1.2)

60 and over 30.7 7.2 

(2.8) (1.1)

Gender 

Male 26.4 25.4

(1.9) (2.3)

Female 73.6 74.6

(1.9) (2.3)

Race/Ethnicity

White (non-Hispanic) 52.8†† 49.3 

(4.1) (3.7)

Black (non-Hispanic) 26.1 29.8 

(4.0) (4.2)

Hispanic 11.9 17.0

(2.2) (2.9)

Other (non-Hispanic) 9.2 3.9 

(1.4) (1.2)

Primary language 

English 94.1 94.7

(1.1) (1.1)

Spanish 4.5 4.1

(1.0) (1.0)

Other 1.3 1.2

(0.7) (0.5)

Citizenship 

U.S. citizen 94.9 94.8 

(1.1) (1.3)

Non-citizen 5.1 5.2

(1.1) (1.3)

Marital Status 

Married 33.1††† 24.4 

(3.1) (2.9)

Divorced/separated 26.7 31.7

(2.1) (2.6)

Widowed 17.4 4.8

(2.2) (1.0)

Never married 22.8 39.1 

(3.2) (3.4)

Unweighted Na 1220 910

—Continued 

B-21
Table B.16—Characteristics of eligible nonparticipant and applicant households—Continued 

a Tabulations exclude households with missing data ranging from 17 to 129 for the nonparticipants and 0-149 for the 

applicants. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-22
Table B.17—Household composition of eligible nonparticipant and applicant households 

Household Composition Eligible nonparticipants Eligible applicants

One-person households 42.5%††† 37.2% 

(2.1) (3.0)

Multiple adults without children 24.1 6.6 

(1.6) (1.3)

Single adults with children 11.5 37.5 

(1.0) (2.6)

Multiple adults with children 21.9 16.7 

(1.6) (2.4)

Child-only households 2.0 

(0.5)

Total 100.0% 100.0%

All adults elderly 26.1*** 4.8 

(2.5) (0.9)

Some members with disabilities 36.0*** 24.9 

(1.8) (2.2)

Unweighted Na 1220 910

a Tabulations exclude 9 applicant households with missing data. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-23
Table B.18—Economic characteristics of eligible nonparticipant and applicant households 

Eligible nonparticipants Eligible applicants 

Earnings

Earnings in previous month (%) 49.8%*** 35.0% 

(2.2) (2.2)

Mean household earnings of those with

positive earnings $1181*** $746 

($41) ($30)

Mean household earnings of all households $529*** $293 

($37) ($21)

Unearned income—percent receivinga

Cash assistance 1.1*** 8.4 

(0.6) (1.3)

SSI 19.9 21.3 

(2.6) (2.2)

Social Security 24.6*** 14.7 

(2.6) (2.3)

Other unearned income 19.6 21.2 

(1.8) (1.9)

Total income—percent of poverty 

Less than 50% 16.3††† 57.0 

(1.5) (2.9)

50 to less than 100% 29.0 30.5 

(2.3) (2.5)

100 to less than 130% 27.6 8.9 

(3.0) (1.6)

Greater than 130% 27.1 2.5 

(2.6) (0.9)

Assets 

Bank accounts (%) 68.7*** 27.8 

(2.3) (2.7)

Other financial assets (%) 9.5*** 1.9 

(2.3) (0.6)

Mean amount in accounts $804*** $77 

($132) ($11)

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $915*** $271 

($147) ($35)

Unweighted Nb 1220 910

—Continued 

B-24
Table B.18—Economic characteristics of eligible nonparticipant and applicant households—

Continued 

a Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

b Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 19-286 for the eligible nonparticipants and 0-213 for the 

applicants..

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-25
Table B.19—Level of need of circumstantially eligible applicants 

Level of need

Completed 

application 

process 

Did not 

complete 

application 

process Total

Economic characteristics of household 

Earnings in previous month (%) 32.2%*** 50.9% 35.2% 

(2.4) (5.7) (2.2)

Mean earnings of those with positive earnings $721 $831 $747 

($36) ($63) ($30)

Unearned income (% receiving)a

Cash assistance 9.8*** 2.1 8.5 

(1.6) (1.3) (1.4)

Social Security/SSI 26.8 22.8 26.1

(2.2) (6.1) (2.4)

Other 22.2 16.9 21.3

(2.4) (5.0) (1.9)

Percent of poverty (%) 

Less than 100% 89.7** 76.2 87.5 

(1.8) (7.3) (2.2)

100% and greater 10.3** 23.8 12.5 

(1.8) (7.3) (2.2)

Assets

Bank accounts (%) 29.1 24.3 28.2 

(2.9) (5.7) (2.8)

Other financial assets (%) 2.4*** 0.2 2.0 

(0.7) (0.2) (0.6)

Mean assets $77 $85 $78

($11) ($39) ($11)

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $257 $342 $269 

($34) ($123) ($33)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nb 748 139 887

Food security status (%)

c

Food secure 37.3 26.5 35.7

(2.8) (6.1) (2.6)

Food insecure without hunger 31.7 33.4 31.9 

(2.6) (6.2) (2.2)

Food insecure with hunger 31.0 40.1 32.3 

(2.5) (8.0) (2.6)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nd 424 85 509

—Continued 

B-26
Table B.19—Level of need of circumstantially eligible applicants—Continued 

a Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

b Tabulations exclude the 23 households whose application status could not be determined (and therefore total column 

differs from table B.20). Tabulations also exclude households with missing record abstraction data, ranging from 12 to 79 

depending upon the item. 

c The food security questions reference the year preceding the survey.

d Tabulations exclude the 14 households with missing survey data. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-27
Table B.20—Characteristics of circumstantially eligible applicant households 

Characteristics 

Completed 

application 

process 

Did not 

complete 

application 

process Total

Demographic characteristics of household head

Female (%) 74.4 75.7 74.6

(2.3) (4.2) (2.3)

Age (mean years) 36.4 34.6 36.2

(0.6) (1.6) (0.6)

Black (%) 27.6 40.1 29.7

(4.0) (8.2) (4.3)

Hispanic (%) 17.4 16.5 17.2

(3.3) (4.1) (2.9)

Non-English speaker (%) 5.8 3.4 5.4 

(1.2) (1.5) (1.1)

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 5.5 3.2 5.2 

(1.5) (1.5) (1.3)

High school graduate (%)a 59.2 69.4 60.7

(3.0) (10.2) (2.9)

Household composition 

One-person household (%) 37.3 32.8 36.6 

(3.3) (5.6) (3.0)

Multiple adults without children (%) 6.0 9.5 6.5 

(1.1) (4.9) (1.3)

Single adult with children (%) 38.4 35.9 38.0 

(2.6) (5.1) (2.6)

Multiple adults with children (%) 16.2 20.5 16.9 

(2.8) (4.0) (2.4)

Child only (%) 2.1 1.3 2.0 

(0.6) (0.8) (0.5)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

All adults elderly (%) 5.4** 2.0 4.9 

(1.0) (1.2) (0.9)

All adults with disabilities (%) 17.0* 7.2 15.4 

(3.0) (5.0) (2.8)

Unweighted Nb 748 139 887

—Continued 

B-28
Table B.20—Characteristics of circumstantially eligible applicant households—Continued 

a Survey data only (unweighted n = 509). 

b Tabulations exclude the 23 households whose application status could not be determined (and therefore total column 

differs from tables B.18 and B.19). Tabulations also exclude households with missing data ranging from 1 to 149

depending upon item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-29
Table B.21—Circumstances precipitating Food Stamp Program application 

Reason Reported Most Important Reason 

Circumstance

Completed 

application 

process 

(%)

Did not 

complete 

application 

process 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Completed 

application 

process 

(%)

Did not 

complete 

application 

process 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Harder to make ends meet 86.7 89.7 87.1 31.1 29.5 30.9

(1.7) (4.2) (1.5) (3.4) (6.5) (3.2)

Loss of income 62.4 58.3 61.8 29.4 29.9 29.5

(3.2) (7.2) (2.7) (3.0) (6.7) (3.1)

Earned less 54.3 52.9 54.1 24.8 27.6 25.2

(3.0) (7.4) (2.5) (2.5) (6.7) (2.3)

Stopped working 36.8 30.2 35.8 

(3.2) (9.8) (2.9)

Worked fewer hours 12.0 20.0 13.1 

(2.1) (8.6) (1.8)

Wage rate reduced 6.4*** 1.1 5.6 

(1.5) (1.0) (1.3)

Lost unearned income 15.9 17.0 16.1 4.5** 0.0 3.8

(2.9) (9.3) (3.7) (1.7) (—) (1.4)

Lost TANF income 2.3 9.1 3.3 

(0.9) (8.9) (1.4)

Lost unemployment 2.7** 0.2 2.4

compensation (0.9) (0.2) (0.7)

Lost SSI 2.1 3.1 2.3 

(1.0) (2.3) (0.9)

Lost child support 8.2 5.7 7.8 

(2.3) (2.8) (2.1)

Lost help from relative/friend 12.1 18.3 13.0 0.7 2.6 1.0

(1.8) (9.2) (2.0) (0.5) (1.9) (0.5)

Household member became sick/ 22.8*** 9.2 20.9 10.4* 4.1 9.5

disabled (3.0) (3.5) (2.5) (1.7) (2.6) (1.5)

Contributing adult died 1.4 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.0 1.0

(0.9) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (—) (0.8)

Contributing adult left household 16.7 21.3 17.4 5.4 8.9 5.9

(2.7) (9.6) (2.8) (1.6) (4.4) (1.3)

Due to a marital breakup 10.2 17.6 11.3 

(2.2) (9.5) (2.6)

Increased rent, mortgage, utilities 25.3 24.4 25.2 5.5 8.1 5.8

(3.2) (5.4) (2.8) (1.7) (3.3) (1.4)

Moved, released from institution 30.4 23.5 29.4 4.6 3.8 4.5

(2.6) (5.8) (2.4) (1.3) (2.0) (1.2)

Non-contributing household member 12.0 15.9 12.6 4.7 2.6 4.4

added (1.8) (9.2) (2.5) (1.5) (1.6) (1.4)

Newborn 5.8 11.3 6.6

(1.7) (8.9) (1.4)

Older child 2.2 0.7 1.9 

(0.8) (0.5) (0.7)

Adult 1.3 3.9 1.7

(0.7) (1.7) (0.7)

Just learned about the FSP 12.3 16.9 13.0 2.3 9.3 3.3

(1.7) (6.8) (1.6) (0.8) (6.3) (1.0)

—Continued

B-30
Table B.21—Circumstances precipitating Food Stamp Program application—Continued

Reason Reported Most Important Reason 

Circumstance

Completed 

application 

process 

(%)

Did not 

complete 

application 

process 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Completed 

application 

process 

(%)

Did not 

complete 

application 

process 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Other 4.7 6.2 4.9 2.8 2.7 2.8

(1.2) (3.6) (1.2) (1.0) (1.7) (0.9)

Not reported 2.4 1.3 2.3 

(0.6) (1.0) (0.6)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Na 424 85 509 424 85 509

a Tabulations exclude the 5 households with missing data. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-31
Table B.22—Reasons for not completing the application process 

Stated reasons

Situation 

occurred

Reason for not

completing the 

application 

process 

Process-related 

Difficulty of application process 28.7 20.6 

(9.4) (8.7)

Time to get benefits too long 13.3 7.9 

(8.1) (6.7)

Wait in the office too long 8.2 5.5 

(5.0) (4.7)

Application form 9.6 2.5 

(3.9) (2.0)

Getting to food stamp office 6.4 3.3 

(3.9) (2.2)

Confusion about process 5.6 5.6 

(3.1) (3.1)

Costs of application 17.5 11.9 

(7.0) (6.2)

Travel costs 8.0 2.4 

(4.9) (1.9)

Miss work 6.7 4.9 

(4.7) (4.6)

Pay child/elder care to apply 8.6 4.6 

(5.6) (4.6)

Verification and anti-fraud requirements 14.2 9.5 

(7.4) (6.7)

Acquiring documents 14.2 9.5 

(7.4) (6.7)

Third-party verification 0.9 0.9 

(0.9) (0.9)

Fingerprinting 0.9 0.9

(0.9) (0.9)

Home visits 0.0 0.0 

— —

Costs of participation 6.4 1.8 

(5.0) (1.9)

Monthly reporting 0.9 0.9 

(0.9) (0.9)

Frequent recertifications 5.5 0.9

(4.7) (0.9)

Stigma 0.0 0.0

— —

Perceived ineligibility due to TANF diversion 1.4 1.4 

(1.0) (1.0)

Citizenship issues 0.0 0.0 

— —

—Continued 

B-32
Table B.22—Reasons for not completing the application process—Continued 

Stated reasons

Situation 

occurred

Reason for not

completing the 

application 

process 

Not process-related 

Perceived ineligibility due to income/assets 46.2 45.6 

(11.1) (11.1)

Benefits too small 5.3 3.1 

(3.9) (3.1)

FSP benefits 5.3 3.1 

(3.9) (3.1)

Bundled benefits 3.1 0.0 

(3.1) —

Situation changed and no longer needed benefits 25.8 25.8

(12.0) (12.0)

Other 7.9 0.9

(6.7) (0.9)

Type of reasona

Only process-related reasons 11.2 9.8 

(5.5) (5.3)

Only not process-related reasons 48.9 52.8 

(10.1) (9.8)

Mix of process and not process-related reasons 23.2 16.5 

(8.5) (7.9)

No reason reported 16.7 21.0 

(6.2) (6.8)

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted N 52 52

a Groups defined as above. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding.

B-33
Table B.23—Expected benefits and costs of FSP participation

Expected benefits 

Completed 

application 

process 

Did not 

complete 

application 

process Total

Expected FSP benefit

$50 or less 8.4%† 0.0% 7.3%

(2.3) (–) (1.9)

$51-50 11.8 19.7 12.9

(1.8) (7.7) (1.9)

$101-150 18.6 15.5 18.1

(2.8) (5.9) (2.6)

$151-200 14.2 25.9 15.8

(2.5) (11.8) (3.1)

$201-300 15.5 5.0 14.0

(2.4) (2.6) (1.9)

Over $300 5.5 3.8 5.3

(1.4) (2.9) (1.3)

Unsure 25.9 30.1 26.5

(4.0) (7.3) (3.9)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Other applications filed 

Cash assistance (TANF, GA, SSI) 27.4 34.5 28.4

(3.4) (9.2) (3.1)

Medical assistance (Medicaid, SCHIP) 59.0 52.0 58.0 

(3.4) (7.0) (3.3)

Other 8.8** 2.0 7.9

(2.7) (1.1) (2.3)

Stigma index

0 No stigma 55.0%† 59.7% 55.5%

(3.4) (9.3) (3.3)

1 Low stigma 20.7 21.9 20.9

(3.2) (6.5) (3.0)

2 14.1 8.2 13.5

(2.3) (4.0) (2.2)

3 5.8 0.9 5.3

(1.2) (0.9) (1.2)

4 High stigma 4.3 9.2 4.8

(1.8) (8.1) (1.7)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mean stigma 0.8 0.8 0.8

(0.1) (0.3) (0.1)

Convenience 

Location convenient (%) 83.4 76.5 82.4

(3.0) (6.9) (2.7)

Office hours convenient (%) 85.3* 69.6 82.9 

(3.0) (6.2) (2.3)

Unweighted Na 424 85 509

—Continued 

B-34
Table B.23—Expected benefits and costs of FSP participation—Continued

a Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 3 to 46 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-35
Table B.24—Satisfaction with FSP application process 

Satisfaction

Completed 

application 

process 

Did not 

complete 

application 

process Total

Satisfied with receptionist 87.9 84.3 87.4

(2.6) (5.7) (2.1)

Satisfaction with caseworker 

Satisfied with caseworker 87.1 77.7 86.1

(3.1) (7.5) (2.7)

Dissatisfied with caseworker 12.9 22.3 13.9

(3.1) (7.5) (2.7)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Satisfied with overall application process 75.9%*** 43.1% 71.1% 

(3.4) (7.7) (2.9)

Treatment at food stamp office compared to other 

government offices

Treated better 21.4 11.0 19.8

(2.1) (5.7) (1.9)

Treated same 61.6 54.4 60.5

(3.1) (8.0) (2.7)

Treated worse 17.1* 34.6 19.6 

(3.0) (8.3) (2.7)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Na 424 85 509

a Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 3 to 46 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-36
Table B.25—Costs of FSP application for households that completed the process 

Percent 

Number of trips to FSP office (mean) 2.4 

(0.1) 

Total travel time, all trips (mean hours) 2.2 

(0.2) 

Total time at FSP office (mean hours) 3.9 

(0.2) 

Number of additional trips to acquire documentation (mean) 1.2 

(0.1) 

Number of additional trips for TANF or Medicaid (mean) 0.4 

(0.1) 

Missed work to apply for benefits (%) 12.4 

(2.3) 

Paid child/elder care to apply for benefits (%) 8.7 

(1.7) 

Unweighted Na 424 

a Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 10 depending upon the item. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

B-37
Table B.26—Food Stamp Program status of households receiving lump sum TANF diversion 

FSP status Percent 

Not receiving food stamps at TANF diversion 

Did not apply for, or receive food stamps 15.0% 

(9.7) 

Approved application 47.8 

(10.0)

Denied applicationa 10.1 

(3.3) 

Receiving food stamps at TANF diversion 

Interim month, continued participating 6.2 

(1.9) 

Recertification, approved 9.5 

(6.3) 

Recertification, denieda 11.3 

(10.7)

Total 100.0% 

Unweighted N 99 

a Because households receiving TANF lump sum payments are categorically eligible for food stamps, all denials are 

assumed to occur because the household did not complete the required application or recertification process.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-38
Table B.27—Characteristics of households receiving lump sum TANF diversion 

Characteristics 

Currently

receiving or 

approved for 

food stamps

Did not apply

or application/

recertification 

was denied Total

Demographic characteristics of household head

Female (%) 96.7 93.1 95.4

(2.4) (6.1) (3.7)

Age (mean years) 30.8 32.3 31.4

(1.8) (3.2) (1.8)

Black (%) 35.0 42.3 37.6

(6.2) (22.7) (9.2)

Hispanic (%) 14.4 11.7 13.4

(7.2) (6.8) (6.8)

Non-English speaker (%) 11.5 10.2 11.1 

(7.1) (6.6) (6.3)

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 3.4 6.4 4.5 

(2.5) (4.4) (2.8)

High school graduate (%) 68.1 67.6 67.9 

(3.7) (6.4) (2.4)

Household composition 

Single adult with childrena (%) 67.5 80.4 72.4

(6.8) (6.2) (4.8)

Multiple adults with children (%) 32.5 19.6 27.6 

(6.8) (6.2) (4.8)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nb 67 32 99

a Includes child-only households. 

b Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 2 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-39
Table B.28—Level of need of households receiving lump sum TANF diversion 

Level of need

Currently

receiving or 

approved for 

food stamps

Did not apply

or application/

recertification 

was denied Total

Economic characteristics of household 

Earnings in previous month (%) 49.8 49.1 49.5 

(10.7) (9.0) (8.2)

Mean earnings of those with positive earnings $674** $1182 $866 

($125) ($123) ($113)

Unearned income (% receiving)a

Cash assistance 14.1 28.0 22.4

(12.4) (15.2) (10.5)

Social Security/SSI 17.5 21.8 20.0

(9.4) (4.8) (3.6)

Other 26.6 34.3 31.2

(12.6) (5.1) (7.1)

Percent of poverty (%)

Less than 50% 44.7 24.6 37.6

(10.9) (7.0) (8.8)

50-100% 46.4 38.4 43.6

(12.3) (11.9) (7.9)

100-130% 1.1 36.1 13.5

(1.0) (15.0) (5.8)

Greater than 130% 7.7 0.9 5.3

(5.3) (1.2) (4.1)

Assets

Bank accounts (%) 39.2 42.2 41.1 

(15.7) (6.6) (8.6)

Other financial assets (%) 0.0 0.4 0.3 

(0.0) (0.5) (0.3)

Mean amount in accounts $51 $96 $71 

($24) ($65) ($37)

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $130 $157 $144 

($35) ($56) ($36)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Food security status (%)

b

Food secure 46.3 38.8 43.6

(14.8) (7.9) (9.0)

Food insecure without hunger 37.2 38.0 37.4 

(12.1) (9.0) (10.1)

Food insecure with hunger 16.5 23.3 19.0 

(6.0) (16.6) (7.5)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nc 67 32 99

—Continued 

B-40
Table B.28—Level of need of households receiving lump sum TANF diversion—Continued 

a Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

b The food security questions reference the year preceding the survey. 

c Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 43 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-41
Table B.29—Circumstances precipitating application for assistance of households receiving 

lump sum TANF diversion 

Reason reported Most important reason 

Did not 

apply or 

application/ 

recertification was 

denied

(%)

Did not 

apply or 

application/ 

recertification was 

denied

(%)

Currently

receiving or 

approved

for food

stamps 

(%)

Currently

receiving or 

approved

for food

stamps 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Total 

Circumstance (%)

Loss of income 71.5 70.5 71.1 33.1 37.5 34.6

(5.3) (6.8) (5.0) (6.6) (4.7) (5.1)

Harder to make ends meet 72.1 68.7 70.9 21.3 17.2 19.9

(7.6) (14.0) (8.9) (8.6) (4.9) (6.6)

Household member become sick/ 25.4 30.8 27.3 15.3 22.7 17.8

disabled (7.9) (13.9) (9.4) (10.7) (10.6) (10.8)

Non-contributing household member 11.8 13.4 12.3 4.5 12.8 7.4

added (3.6) (5.5) (3.0) (2.8) (5.4) (3.0)

Moved, released from institution 25.3 27.6 26.1 8.5 0.2 5.7

(5.2) (6.2) (4.0) (6.6) (0.2) (5.0)

Increased expenses 30.1 33.9 31.4 7.2 0.8 5.0

(8.3) (5.6) (4.6) (6.5) (1.0) (4.8)

Contributing adult died/left household 4.8 4.1 4.6 2.7 4.1 3.2

(3.8) (4.3) (2.9) (2.9) (4.3) (2.6)

Just learned about the FSP 5.4 1.9 4.2 0.2 0.4 0.3

(4.6) (1.8) (3.5) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2)

Other 7.1 3.8 6.0 4.3 3.8 4.2

(3.2) (3.8) (2.2) (2.1) (3.8) (1.3)

Not reported — — — 3.1 0.4 2.2

(2.7) (0.5) (2.0)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted N 67 32 99 67 32 99

a Tabulations exclude the 3 households with missing data. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-42
Table B.30—Expected benefits and costs of FSP participation of households receiving lump 

sum TANF diversion 

Expected benefits 

Currently

receiving or 

approved for 

food stamps

Did not apply

or application/

recertification 

was denied Total

Perceived eligible for FSP 

Yes 74.7

(2.8)

No 20.6

(3.5)

Unsure 4.7

(3.9)

Total 100.0%

Expected FSP benefita

$50 or less 0.0† 0.7 0.2

(0.0) (0.7) (0.2)

$51-100 6.5 17.3 10.2

(5.6) (14.0) (7.2)

$101-150 9.2 30.6 16.6

(3.1) (4.3) (3.7)

$151-200 25.3 9.6 20.0

(8.1) (4.9) (5.7)

$201-300 11.3 13.6 12.1

(4.4) (6.1) (3.8)

$Over $300 9.0 0.0 5.9

(3.5) (0.0) (2.2)

Unsure 38.7 28.0 35.0

(11.5) (4.9) (8.2)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Stigma index

0 No stigma 49.4 58.6 53.0

(9.7) (5.9) (7.7)

1 Low stigma 28.7 21.7 25.9

(9.8) (2.7) (5.6)

2 20.8 11.2 17.0

(6.1) (1.2) (4.4)

3 0.3 0.0 0.2

(0.3) (0.0) (0.2)

4 High stigma 0.9 8.4 3.8

(0.7) (9.4) (2.9)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mean stigma 0.7 0.8 0.8

(0.1) (0.3) (2.9)

Unweighted N 67 32 99

—Continued 

B-43
Table B.30—Expected benefits and costs of FSP participation of households receiving lump 

sum TANF diversion—Continued 

a Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 18. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-44
Table B.31—Reported TANF diversion among FSP applicants

Type of TANF diversion All households Households with children

Lump-sum payment 1.4 2.4 

(0.5) (0.8)

Job search diversion 7.3 12.0 

(1.5) (2.5)

Alternative resources 4.3 7.1 

(1.5) (2.3)

Unweighted N 524 325

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

B-45
Table B.32—Status of food stamp application among households with children, by receipt 

of TANF diversion

Lump Sum Payment 

FSP application status Received Did not receive

Approved 94.5 83.9

(5.7) (2.5)

Denied 5.5 16.1

(5.7) (2.5)

Did not complete application 0.0 11.2 

(—) (3.3)

No certification interview 0.0 2.0 

(—) (1.0)

Incomplete verification 0.0 6.3 

(—) (2.1)

Other 0.0 2.3

(—) (1.2)

Don’t know reason 0.0 0.6 

(—) (0.6)

Voluntary withdrawal 0.0 2.7 

(—) (2.0)

Other 5.5 1.0

(5.7) (0.4)

Don’t know why denied 0.0 1.2 

(—) (0.8)

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted N 22 293

Job Search

FSP application status Subject to diversion Not subject to diversion 

Approved 90.6 83.4

(5.2) (2.8)

Denied 9.4 16.6

(5.2) (2.8)

Did not complete application 8.7 11.1 

(5.2) (3.6)

No certification interview 0.1 2.2 

(0.1) (1.1)

Incomplete verification 6.5 6.0 

(4.7) (2.2)

Other 2.2 2.2

(2.2) (1.2)

Don’t know reason 0.0 0.7 

(—) (0.7)

Voluntary withdrawal 0.0 3.0 

(—) (2.2)

Other 0.2 1.2

(0.2) (0.5)

Don’t know why denied 0.5 1.3 

(0.5) (0.9)

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted N 47 269

—Continued 

B-46
Table B.32—Status of food stamp application among households with children, by receipt 

of TANF diversion—Continued

Alternative Resources

FSP application status Subject to diversion Not subject to diversion 

Approved 92.1 83.7

(5.4) (2.6)

Denied 7.9 16.3

(5.4) (2.6)

Did not complete application 7.9 11.1 

(5.4) (3.3)

No certification interview 4.2 1.8 

(4.4) (1.0)

Incomplete verification 3.7 6.3 

(3.0) (2.2)

Other 0.0 2.4

(—) (1.2)

Don’t know reason 0.0 0.6 

(—) (0.6)

Voluntary withdrawal 0.0 2.8 

(—) (2.1)

Other 0.0 1.2

(—) (0.5)

Don’t know why denied 0.0 1.3 

(—) (0.9)

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted N 22 293

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-47
Table B.33—Characteristics of circumstantially eligible applicant households with children, 

by receipt of TANF lump sum diversiona

Characteristics

Received TANF

lump sum 

diversion 

Did not receive

TANF lump sum 

diversion Total

Household demographics

Female 96.2 92.3 92.4

(3.8) (1.5) (1.4)

Age 27.6 31.3 31.3

(2.4) (0.7) (0.7)

Black 10.5* 31.2 30.7

(7.9) (4.0) (3.9)

Hispanic 36.5 15.9 16.4

(17.6) (3.3) (3.1)

Non-English speaking 19.4 7.1 7.4 

(13.0) (1.6) (1.5)

Non-citizen 19.4 5.8 6.1

(13.0) (1.9) (1.8)

High school graduate 81.7 61.4 61.8 

(10.4) (3.8) (3.7)

Household composition 

One adult 0.0† 0.0 0.0 

(—) (—) (—)

Multiple adults, no children 0.0 0.0 0.0 

(—) (—) (—)

Single adult with children 70.8 67.2 67.3 

(16.3) (4.9) (4.9)

Multiple adults with children 29.2 29.6 29.6 

(16.3) (4.8) (4.8)

Child only 0.0 3.2 3.1 

(—) (1.0) (1.0)

All adults elderly 0.0 2.0 1.9 

(—) (1.6) (1.6)

All adults with disabilities 10.4 3.9 4.0 

(7.9) (1.6) (1.6)

Unweighted N 22 293 315

a Based on survey data only. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-48
Table B.34—Characteristics of circumstantially eligible applicant households with children, 

by whether subject to job search diversiona

Characteristics

Subject to job

search diversion 

Not subject to 

job search

diversion Total

Household demographics

Female 100.0*** 91.4 92.4

(—) (1.8) (1.4)

Age 31.4 31.1 31.3

(1.1) (0.8) (0.7)

Black 49.0 27.9 30.7

(12.8) (4.1) (3.9)

Hispanic 21.6 16.3 16.4

(8.1) (3.5) (3.1)

Non-English speaking 1.1*** 8.0 7.4 

(0.9) (1.6) (1.5)

Non-citizen 0.4*** 6.6 6.1

(0.4) (2.0) (1.8) 

High school graduate 71.8 61.0 61.8 

(12.7) (4.2) (3.7)

Household composition 

One adult 0.0†† 0.0 0.0

(—) (—) (—)

Multiple adults, no children 0.0 0.0 0.0 

(—) (—) (—)

Single adult with children 78.0 65.9 67.3 

(8.3) (4.9) (4.9)

Multiple adults with children 22.0 30.6 29.6 

 (8.3) (4.8) (4.8) 

Child only 0.0 3.5 3.1 

 (—) (1.1) (1.0) 

All adults elderly 0.0 2.2 1.9 

 (—) (1.8) (1.6) 

All adults with disabilities 8.8 3.4 4.0 

 (5.3) (1.6) (1.6) 

Unweighted N 47 268 315

a Based on survey data only. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-49
Table B.35—Characteristics of circumstantially eligible applicant households with children, 

by whether subject to alternative resources diversiona

Characteristics

Subject to 

alternative 

resources 

diversion 

Not subject to 

alternative 

resources 

diversion Total

Household demographics 

Female 100.0** 91.8 92.4 

 — (1.6) (1.4) 

Age 33.8 31.0 31.3 

 (2.9) (0.7) (0.7) 

Black 32.3 30.4 30.7 

 (15.2) (3.9) (3.9) 

Hispanic 8.9 17.3 16.4 

 (6.8) (3.6) (3.1) 

Non-English speaking 4.2 7.2 7.4 

 (4.4) (1.6) (1.5) 

Non-citizen 4.2 6.2 6.1 

 (4.4) (1.9) (1.8) 

High school graduate 78.1 61.2 61.8 

 (10.9) (4.4) (3.7) 

Household composition 

One adult 0.0†† 0.0 0.0 

 (—) (—) (—) 

Multiple adults, no children 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 (—) (—) (—) 

Single adult with children 85.0 66.2 67.3 

 (9.2) (4.6) (4.9) 

Multiple adults with children 15.0 30.5 29.6 

 (9.2) (4.6) (4.8) 

Child only 0.0 3.3 3.1 

 (—) (1.0) (1.0) 

All adults elderly 0.0 2.0 1.9 

 (—) (1.7) (1.6) 

All adults with disabilities 16.1 3.1 4.0 

 (11.0) (1.5) (1.6) 

Unweighted N 22 293 315 

a Based on survey data only. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-50
Table B.36—Level of need of circumstantially eligible applicant households with children, 

by receipt of TANF lump sum diversiona

Characteristics

Received TANF

lump sum 

diversion 

Did not receive

TANF lump sum 

diversion Total

Economic characteristics 

 

Earnings in previous month (%) 25.7 49.6 49.0 

 (16.4) (3.3) (3.3) 

Mean earnings of those with earnings $1,365** $865 $871 

 ($236) ($49) ($48) 

Unearned incomeb 

Cash assistance (%) 31.9 6.6 7.1 

 (16.8) (2.0) (1.9) 

Social Security/SSI (%) 18.6 15.2 15.3 

 (11.4) (3.5) (3.4) 

Other (%) 21.8 26.0 25.9 

 (14.9) (4.3) (4.2) 

Percent of Poverty 

Less than 50% (%) 64.0 51.6 51.9 

 (16.5) (4.4) (4.3) 

50-100% (%) 17.2 30.0 29.7 

 (9.8) (3.6) (3.5) 

100-130% (%) 18.8 15.6 15.7 

 (16.8) (4.2) (4.1) 

>130% (%) 0.0 2.8 2.7 

 (—) (1.3) (1.3) 

Assets 

Any bank accounts (%) 5.3** 36.9 36.2 

 (5.6) (4.0) (3.8) 

Any other assets (%) 0.0 1.1 1.1 

 (—) (0.6) (0.6) 

Mean assets $26 $72 $71 

 ($28) ($20) ($20) 

Mean assets of those with assets $494*** $190 $191 

 ($21) ($51) ($49) 

Unweighted N 22 293 315 

a Based on survey data only. 

b Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-51
Table B.37—Level of need of circumstantially eligible applicant households with children, 

by whether subject to job search diversiona

Characteristics

Subject to job

search diversion 

Not subject to 

job search

diversion Total

Economic characteristics 

 

Earnings in previous month (%) 24.5** 52.4 49.0 

 (9.0) (3.3) (3.3) 

Mean earnings of those with earnings $874.2 $867.9 $871 

 ($57.9) ($50.1) ($48) 

Unearned incomeb 

Cash assistance (%) 10.0 6.7 7.1 

 (4.5) (2.0) (1.9) 

Social Security/SSI (%) 24.9 13.8 15.3 

 (13.5) (3.7) (3.4) 

Other (%) 42.9 23.7 25.9 

 (14.0) (3.3) (4.2) 

Percent of Poverty 

Less than 50% (%) 58.7 50.6 51.9 

 (13.1) (4.7) (4.3) 

50-100% (%) 20.1 31.4 29.7 

 (9.0) (4.0) (3.5) 

100-130% (%) 18.4 15.3 15.7 

 (13.7) (4.4) (4.1) 

>130% (%) 2.8 2.7 2.7 

 (2.9) (1.4) (1.3) 

Assets 

Any bank accounts (%) 27.9 37.3 36.2 

 (9.6) (4.3) (3.8) 

Any other assets (%) 0.0* 1.2 1.1 

 (—) (0.7) (0.6) 

Mean assets $88 $69 $71 

 ($58) ($21) ($20) 

Mean assets of those with assets $295 $182 $191 

 ($164) ($55) ($49) 

Unweighted N 47 268 315 

a Based on survey data only. 

b Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-52
Table B.38—Level of need of circumstantially eligible applicant households with children, 

by whether subject to alternative resources diversiona

Characteristics

Subject to 

alternative 

resources 

diversion 

Not subject to 

alternative 

resources 

diversion Total

Economic characteristics 

 

Earnings in previous month (%) 68.9 47.8 49.0 

 (12.9) (3.6) (3.3) 

Mean earnings of those with earnings $703** $889 $871 

 ($51) ($52) ($48) 

Unearned incomeb 

Cash assistance (%) 13.8 6.6 7.1 

 (8.9) (2.1) (1.9) 

Social Security/SSI (%) 9.1 15.2 15.3 

 (6.4) (3.5) (3.4) 

Other (%) 41.6 24.9 25.9 

 (21.6) (3.6) (4.2) 

Percent of Poverty 

Less than 50% (%) 28.0 53.0 51.9 

 (11.5) (4.2) (4.3) 

50-100% (%) 34.2 29.8 29.7 

 (14.5) (3.2) (3.5) 

100-130% (%) 33.1 14.6 15.7 

 (23.1) (3.3) (4.1) 

>130% (%) 4.7 2.6 2.7 

 (5.0) (1.3) (1.3) 

Assets 

Any bank accounts (%) 46.4 35.8 36.2 

 (24.2) (4.2) (3.8) 

Any other assets (%) 0.0 1.1 1.1 

 (—) (0.7) (0.6) 

Mean assets $33 $74 $71 

 ($33) ($21) ($20) 

Mean assets of those with assets $68 $202 $191 

 ($92) ($51) ($49) 

Unweighted N 22 293 315 

a Based on survey data only. 

b Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-53
Table B.39—Status of active food stamp caseload

Status Percent Weighted N 

Non-recertification month—continue 85.1% 6,356,227 

(0.6) 

Non-recertification month—close 2.4 180,178 

(0.3) 

Recertification month—continue 9.7 726,094 

(0.5) 

Recertification month—close 2.7 203,174 

(0.2) 

Total 100.0% 7,465,674a

Unweighted N 1980 

a Active caseload estimates from study data. FNS administrative data indicate that 7,303,373 households received FSP 

benefits in June 2000. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-54
Table B.40—Reasons for closure in recertification and interim monthsa

Reason Percent 

Recertification month closures

Denied for income, resources 34.7 

(5.5) 

Sanctioned 2.0 

(1.8) 

Voluntary withdrawal 5.1 

(2.1) 

Certification process not completed 39.3 

(4.3) 

No application filed 19.2 

(3.5) 

Certification interview not completed 9.1 

(3.4) 

Verification not completed 4.8 

(1.8) 

Other/Not recorded 6.3 

(2.4) 

Other or not recorded 18.8 

(3.3) 

Total 100.0%

Unweighted N 264 

Interim month closures

Denied for income, resources 28.7 

(4.4) 

Sanctioned 20.1 

(4.1) 

Noncompliance with income reporting 14.5 

(3.7) 

Noncompliance with FSP E&T 2.1 

(1.0) 

Noncompliance with TANF E&T 2.0 

(1.4) 

Intentional program violation 1.5 

(0.8) 

Voluntary termination/moved 15.1 

(3.9) 

Voluntary termination 10.1 

(3.3) 

Moved 5.0 

(1.7) 

Other 36.1 

(5.8) 

Total 100.0%

Unweighted N 215 

—Continued 

B-55
Table B.40—Reasons for closure in recertification and interim monthsa

—Continued 

a Excludes the 26 households with missing data. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed

categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-56
Table B.41—Characteristics of food stamp households: Survey sample vs. Abstract data 

only sample

Characteristicsa

Survey 

sample 

Abstract data 

only sample Total

Demographic characteristics of household head 

Female (%) 81.7 80.2 81.1 

(5.7) (5.9) (4.3) 

Age (mean years) 34.5 33.5 34.1 

(1.6) (1.5) (1.0) 

Black (%) 33.8 27.9 32.4 

(7.0) (9.8) (5.5) 

Hispanic (%) 4.9*** 45.2 14.6 

(2.2) (9.3) (3.1) 

Non-English speaker (%) 3.2 4.3 3.6 

(1.8) (2.1) (1.5) 

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 2.7 1.8 2.4 

(1.7) (0.9) (1.3) 

Household composition 

One-person household (%) 38.7 33.0 36.5 

(7.8) (5.8) (5.7) 

Multiple adults without children (%) 0.4 9.8 4.0 

(0.4) (4.8) (2.1) 

Single adult with children (%) 30.2 35.9 32.4 

(7.3) (8.6) (4.8) 

Multiple adults with children (%) 30.6 20.0 26.6 

(7.3) (6.7) (5.5) 

Child only (%) 0.0 1.3 0.5 

 (—) (1.0) (0.4) 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

All adults elderly (%) 2.4 4.7 3.3 

(1.7) (2.5) (1.4) 

All adults with disabilities (%) 14.8 13.1 14.2 

(5.2) (3.9) (3.7) 

Unweighted Nb 71 106 177 

a Household characteristics as of the beginning of the certification period that ended in June 2000. 

b Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 52 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-57
Table B.42—Characteristics of food stamp households: Survey sample vs. Abstract data 

only sample

Level of needa

Survey 

sample 

Abstract data 

only sample Total

Economic characteristics of household 

Earnings in previous month (%) 52.4 45.0 49.5 

 (7.2) (7.5) (5.7) 

Mean earnings of those with positive earnings $870 $969 $905 

 ($117) ($146) ($90) 

Unearned income (% receiving)b 

Cash assistance 16.0 21.2 17.9 

 (5.3) (5.0) (4.1) 

Social Security/SSI 20.6 19.7 20.3 

 (7.3) (4.9) (4.7) 

Other 13.1 16.9 14.5 

 (4.8) (5.0) (3.5) 

Percent of poverty (%) 

Less than 100% 65.0*** 88.7 74.1 

 (7.5) (2.8) (5.0) 

100% and greater 35.0*** 11.3 25.9 

 (7.5) (2.8) (5.0) 

Assets 

Bank accounts (%) 26.7 22.8 25.4 

 (7.0) (7.9) (5.4) 

Other financial assets (%) 1.0 1.9 1.3 

 (1.0) (1.9) (0.9) 

Mean amount in accounts $61 $118 $79 

 ($34) ($66) ($32) 

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $251 $790 $373 

 ($118) ($161) ($135) 

Unweighted Nc 71 106 177 

a Household characteristics as of the beginning of the certification period that ended in June 2000. 

b Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

b Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 2 to 33 depending upon the item. 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-58
Table B.43—Characteristics of food stamp households, by FSP status

Food stamp case status

Characteristicsa Continued in FSP Left FSP

Demographic characteristics of household 

head

 

Female (%) 77.4 79.7 

 (2.7) (2.9) 

Age (mean years) 41.9*** 35.8 

 (0.8) (1.0) 

Black (%) 25.3 23.8 

 (4.4) (4.3) 

Hispanic (%) 13.7*** 22.7 

 (2.5) (4.1) 

Non-English speaker (%) 7.5 6.7 

 (1.6) (1.5) 

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 5.1 4.2 

 (1.2) (0.8) 

Household composition 

One-person household (%) 42.0††† 32.4 

 (4.4) (3.8) 

Multiple adults without children (%) 5.3 4.1 

 (0.9) (1.5) 

Single adult with children (%) 38.2 39.1 

 (3.1) (3.3) 

Multiple adults with children (%) 13.3 23.5 

 (1.3) (3.1) 

Child only (%) 1.2 1.0 

 (0.5) (0.4) 

Total 100.0% 100.0%

All adults elderly (%) 11.7*** 3.8 

 (1.8) (1.0) 

All adults with disabilities (%) 37.8*** 11.9 

 (4.0) (1.8) 

One-person household, not elderly, without 

disabilities, not child-only (%)

8.6***

(1.2) 

17.4 

(2.4) 

Unweighted Nb 1865 479 

a Household characteristics as of the beginning of the certification period that ended in June 2000. 

b Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 2 to 594 depending upon the item.

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-59
Table B.44—Level of need of food stamp households, by FSP status 

Food stamp case status

Level of needa Continued in FSP Left FSP

Economic characteristics of household 

Earnings in previous month (%) 26.3*** 45.2 

 (2.2) (2.9) 

Mean earnings of those with positive earnings $791*** $1,004 

 ($37) ($58) 

Unearned income (% receiving)b 

Cash assistance 23.0* 18.1 

 (2.4) (2.9) 

Social Security/SSI 44.2*** 23.3 

 (2.8) (2.4) 

Other 23.5 23.3 

 (2.4) (3.4) 

Percent of poverty (%) 

Less than 100% 88.3*** 77.8 

 (1.7) (2.4) 

100% and greater 11.7*** 22.2 

 (1.7) (2.4) 

Assets 

Bank accounts (%) 31.7 31.7 

 (3.4) (3.3) 

Other financial assets (%) 2.9* 0.9 

 (1.1) (0.6) 

Mean amount in accounts $88 $133 

 ($24) ($38) 

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $347 $468 

 ($84) ($121) 

Unweighted Nc 1865 479 

***, ††† Statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all 

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all

listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to

the excluded category or across all listed categories. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-60
Table B.45—Characteristics of food stamp households, by status 

Food stamp case status

Characteristicsa

Non-recertification 

month—

continue

Non-recertification 

month—

close

Recertification 

month—

continue

Recertification 

month—

close 

Demographic characteristics of household head 

Female (%) 77.4 77.0 77.6 82.1 

(2.6) (4.5) (3.4) (2.6) 

Age (mean years) 42.1 36.9 39.9* 34.8*** 

(0.8) (1.6) (0.8) (1.0) 

Black (%) 25.1 18.5 27.2 28.3 

(4.4) (5.4) (4.8) (5.5) 

Hispanic (%) 13.5 29.4*** 15.4 17.0 

(2.5) (5.4) (2.9) (4.1) 

Non-English speaker (%) 7.3 8.4 9.0* 5.2 

(1.6) (2.6) (2.2) (1.7) 

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 4.9 6.3 6.6* 2.3** 

(1.1) (1.6) (1.8) (0.9) 

Household composition 

One-person household (%) 43.1 31.2†† 31.7††† 33.4†††

(4.5) (5.0) (3.9) (4.3) 

Multiple adults without children (%) 5.3 3.5 5.6 4.7 

(0.9) (2.1) (1.0) (2.1) 

Single adult with children (%) 37.5 44.4 44.4 34.3 

(3.1) (5.2) (3.1) (3.8) 

Multiple adults with children (%) 12.9 19.8 17.1 26.8 

(1.3) (3.9) (2.1) (4.5) 

Child only (%) 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.9 

(0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

All adults elderly (%) 12.1 4.2*** 8.6*** 3.3***

(1.9) (1.5) (1.6) (1.3) 

All adults with disabilities (%) 39.0 12.0*** 27.1*** 11.8*** 

(4.1) (3.0) (3.1) (2.8) 

Unweighted N 1865 215 753 264 

a Household characteristics as of the beginning of the certification period that ended in June 2000. 

b Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 2 to 355 depending upon the item.

***, ††† Compared to non-recertification month continuation cases, statistically significant difference at the 1 percent level

relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

**, †† Compared to non-recertification month continuation cases, statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level

relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

*, † Compared to non-recertification month continuation cases, statistically significant difference at the 10 percent level

relative to the excluded category (t-test) or across all listed categories (chi-squared test), respectively.

Numbers without asterisks (*) or daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level relative to the 

excluded category or across all listed categories.

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-61
Table B.46—Level of need of food stamp households due for recertification, by status 

Food stamp case status

Level of needa Continued in FSP 

Closed due to

incomplete 

recertification 

requirementsb

Closed due to

circumstantial 

ineligibilityc

Economic characteristics of household 

Earnings in previous month (%) 35.0† 47.9 47.7 

 (3.1) (6.0) (7.7) 

Mean earnings of those with positive 

earnings $803††† $930 $1,362 

 ($38) ($94) ($109) 

Unearned income (% receiving)d 

Cash assistance 24.3 18.4 21.1 

 (2.8) (4.1) (7.0) 

Social Security/SSI 34.7†† 19.6 30.1 

 (2.9) (3.6) (5.6) 

Other 25.8† 17.1 13.6 

 (3.0) (3.7) (5.0) 

Percent of poverty (%) 

Less than 100% 91.0††† 78.8 64.6 

 (1.3) (4.4) (8.7) 

100% and greater 9.0††† 21.2 35.4 

 (1.3) (4.4) (8.7) 

Assets 

Bank accounts (%) 29.7 26.1 33.2 

 (3.3) (5.8) (7.5) 

Other financial assets (%) 2.6 1.5 2.3 

 (0.9) (1.1) (2.4) 

Mean amount in accounts $83 $107 $114 

 ($45) ($47) ($30) 

Mean (non-zero) amount in accounts $383 $502 $378 

 ($184) ($168) ($83) 

Unweighted Ne 753 177 87 

a Household characteristics as of the beginning of the certification period that ended in June 2000. 

b Includes households identified in case records as having not completed recertification requirements or having

voluntarily withdrawn their recertification. 

c Includes households identified in case records as denied for eligibility-related reasons or for reasons other than not

completing recertification requirements and voluntary withdrawal. 

d Households can report more than one source of unearned income. 

e Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 227 depending upon the item.

††† Differences among the three groups of households statistically significant at the 1 percent level. 

†† Differences among the three groups of households statistically significant at the 5 percent level. 

† Differences among the three groups of households statistically significant at the 10 percent level. 

Numbers without daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-62
Table B.47—Characteristics of food stamp households due for recertification, by status 

Food stamp case status

Characteristicsa

Continued in

FSP 

Closed due to

incomplete 

recertification 

requirementsb

Closed due to

circumstantial 

ineligibilityc

Demographic characteristics of household head 

Female (%) 77.6 81.8 82.7 

 (3.4) (3.9) (4.4) 

Age (mean years) 39.9††† 33.6 37.3 

 (0.8) (1.1) (2.4) 

Black (%) 27.2 30.2 24.6 

 (4.8) (6.4) (7.5) 

Hispanic (%) 15.4†† 22.6 6.4 

 (2.9) (5.3) (3.0) 

Non-English speaker (%) 9.0†† 3.8 8.0 

 (2.2) (1.5) (3.8) 

Non-U.S. citizen (%) 6.6†† 2.2 2.6 

 (1.8) (1.0) (2.0) 

Household composition 

One-person household (%) 31.7† 34.0 32.1 

 (3.9) (4.8) (8.1) 

Multiple adults without children (%) 5.6 6.4 1.2 

 (1.0) (3.2) (1.0) 

Single adult with children (%) 44.4 35.8 31.1 

 (3.1) (4.9) (9.1) 

Multiple adults with children (%) 17.1 23.0 34.5 

 (2.1) (4.7) (8.7) 

Child only (%) 1.2 0.8 1.0 

 (0.5) (0.6) (0.8) 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

All adults elderly (%) 8.6†† 3.9 2.2 

 (1.6) (1.7) (1.9) 

All adults with disabilities (%) 27.2††† 13.6 8.3 

 (3.1) (3.2) (4.9) 

Unweighted Nd 753 177 87 

a Household characteristics as of the beginning of the certification period that ended in June 2000. 

b Includes households identified in case records as having not completed recertification requirements or having

voluntarily withdrawn their recertification. 

c Includes households identified in case records as denied for eligibility-related reasons or for reasons other than not

completing recertification requirements and voluntary withdrawal. 

d Tabulations exclude households with missing data, ranging from 0 to 288 depending upon the item.

††† Differences among the three groups of households statistically significant at the 1 percent level. 

†† Differences among the three groups of households statistically significant at the 5 percent level. 

† Differences among the three groups of households statistically significant at the 10 percent level. 

Numbers without daggers (†) are not statistically significantly different at the 10 percent level. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-63
Table B.48—Food security status households that did not complete the recertification process 

Food security statusa Percent 

Food secure 33.6 

(7.1) 

Food insecure without hunger 39.4 

(7.4) 

Food insecure with hunger 27.0 

(6.3) 

Total 100.0% 

Unweighted Nb 71 

a The food security questions reference the year preceding the survey.

b Tabulations exclude the 11 households with missing data. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

Table B.49—Status of recertification application for households that did not complete the 

recertification process 

Excluding “not reported” 

Circumstance

Total

sample 

Survey 

sample 

Total

sample 

Survey 

sample 

No application filed 33.0 63.3 44.5 65.7 

(5.4) (7.7) (6.8) (7.4) 

Certification interview not completed 14.0 12.7 18.9 13.2 

(4.5) (5.8) (6.4) (6.0) 

Verification not completed 8.0 14.1 10.7 14.6 

(2.8) (5.8) (3.9) (6.1) 

Sanctioned 3.0 0.6 4.1 0.6 

(2.7) (0.4) (3.6) (0.4) 

Voluntary withdrawal 7.9 0.2 10.6 0.2 

(3.2) (0.8) (4.2) (0.2) 

Other 8.2 5.4 11.1 5.6 

(3.6) (3.6) (4.5) (3.7) 

Not reported 25.9 3.7 — — 

 (3.9) (3.3) 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Unweighted N 177 71 128 67 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-64
Table B.50—Reasons apparently circumstantially eligible households did not complete the 

recertification process

Stated reasons

Situation happened to

respondent 

Reason for not

completing the 

certification process 

Perceived ineligibility 33.8 28.9 

(10.2) (8.5) 

Due to income/assets 33.8% 28.9% 

 (10.2) (8.5) 

Due to TANF diversion 0.0 0.0 

 (—) (—) 

Due to TANF ineligibility 0.0 0.0 

 (—) (—) 

Due to receipt of TANF 0.0 0.0 

 (—) (—) 

Difficulty of recertification process 25.1 16.9 

(8.8) (5.7) 

Confusion about process 24.5 16.3 

 (8.8) (5.7) 

Getting to food stamp office 4.2 3.1 

 (2.7) (2.5) 

Costs of recertification process 34.6 34.6 

(6.1) (6.1) 

Verification requirements too difficult 26.6 23.4 

 (7.3) (7.5) 

Miss work 11.6 6.5 

 (6.7) (4.3) 

Treated badly by office staff 5.7 4.6 

 (3.1) (2.8) 

Travel costs 3.6 0.0 

(2.7) (—) 

Pay child/elder care to apply 0.0 0.0 

(—) (—) 

Costs of participation 17.8 11.0 

(6.2) (4.9) 

Frequent recertifications 10.0 8.9 

 (4.8) (4.8) 

Monthly reporting 5.9 3.7 

(3.0) (2.6) 

Stigma 5.7 0.0 

 (4.2) (—) 

Job search requirements 0.0 0.0 

(—) (—) 

Child support/child immunization requirements 0.0 0.0 

(—) (—) 

 —Continued 

B-65
Table B.50—Reasons apparently circumstantially eligible households did not complete the 

recertification process—Continued

Stated reasons Situation occurred

Reason for not

completing the 

application process 

Situation improved 27.8 18.3 

(9.4) (8.3) 

Type of reasona 

Only process-related reasons 29.7 23.9 

 (9.3) (7.5) 

Only other reasons 23.2 24.0 

 (7.5) (8.6) 

Mix of process-related and other reasons 29.3 14.1 

 (10.2) (6.5) 

No reason reported 17.8 38.0 

 (5.0) (6.5) 

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Unweighted Nb 54 54 

a “Other reasons” include: perceived ineligibility due to income/assets and situation improved. Process reasons include all

other reasons listed in table. 

b The four households that were apparently circumstantially ineligible were not included. The tabulations also exclude 13 

households with missing data. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-66
Table B.51—Stigma, convenience, and satisfaction associated with FSP participation for 

eligible households that did not complete the recertification process 

Stigma index 

0 No stigma 60.9 

(9.3) 

1 Low stigma 13.2 

(5.6) 

2 16.0 

(7.5) 

3 5.6 

(4.0) 

4 High stigma 4.3 

(4.1) 

Mean stigma 0.8 

(0.2) 

Convenience 

Location convenient (%) 76.5 

(5.5) 

Office hours convenient (%) 86.1 

(5.4) 

Satisfaction

Satisfied with FSP 59.0 

(8.6) 

Treatment at food stamp office compared to other government offices 

Treated better 15.4 

(5.1) 

Treated same 57.8 

(8.3) 

Treated worse 26.8 

(8.5) 

Unweighted Na 67 

a The four households that were apparently circumstantially ineligible are not included. The tabulations also exclude 

households with missing data, ranging from 1 to 13 depending upon the item. 

Standard errors shown in parentheses. 

Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. 

B-67
Appendix C 

Statistical Methods for Multivariate Analyses 

Multivariate models for two outcomes were presented in Chapter 8, and several additional models are 

presented in Appendix D. In this appendix we describe the statistical methods used. 

Analysis Samples 

The unit of analysis is the household. The samples were constructed as follows. 

Model 1 (table 8.3): Apparently eligible non-participant household thinks it might be eligible. 

Households in this model were all apparently eligible non-participants, including those who were just 

applying in that month. All applicants were deemed to think they might be eligible for food stamps 

(although we acknowledge that some applicants might have only come to think so after showing up at 

the welfare office to ask about cash assistance). Among non-applicants interviewed in the RDD 

survey, some thought they might be eligible and some did not think so. 

Model 2 (table 8.4): Household that contacts the local office completes the application

process. Households in this model were circumstantially eligible applicants, both completers and 

non-completers, and near applicants, those who contacted the office but had not filed a food stamp 

application some time during the past 12 months. To derive monthly estimates, near applicants 

received a weight of 1/12. An adjustment was made for households for whom near applicant status 

was known based only on the past 6 months.1

Model 3 (table D.3): Household that is receiving benefits continues to do so in an interim or 

recertification month. Households in this model comprised the expanded samples based on cases 

coming up for recertification and interim closures, the interim closures themselves, and approved and 

denied recertifications. 

Model 4 (table D.4): Household that is receiving benefits continues to do so in interim month. 

This model used the interim month sample from Model 3. 

Model 5 (table D.4): Household that comes up for recertification completes the process. This 

model used the recertification month sample from Model 3. 

Model 6 (table D.5): Household that thinks it might be eligible contacts the local office. 

Households in this model were circumstantially eligible applicants, both completers and noncompleters, plus non-applicants who thought they might be eligible. Applicants were known to have 

contacted the local office. Most non-applicants did not. A small number of these, however, were 

identified as near applicants, who had contacted the office (but not applied) sometime during the past 

12 months. For the purposes of estimating contacts within a month, these households were given a 

weight of 1/12 as contactors, and 11/12 as non-contactors. 

 1

 At the outset of the survey, we believed near-applicants to be much more prevalent than turned out to be 

the case. Hence the items about contacting the local food stamp office were expanded to cover 12 instead 

of 6 months part way into the survey. 

C-1 
Policy Measures 

Most of the policy measures used in the model were taken from the supervisor and caseworker 

surveys. The exceptions were availability of information in the reception area, office ambience, and 

child-friendliness, measures of which were based on unobtrusive observations; and certification 

period length, which was calculated from the FY 2000 Food Stamp Program Integrated Quality 

Control Database. The source for each policy measure is shown in table C.1, and the values used for 

certification period lengths are shown in table C.2. The instruments are designated by their section 

and question number. For example, SE4 is from the supervisor survey, section E, question 4.

Missing data were extremely rare. In the few cases in which a caseworker or supervisor “didn’t 

know” if a policy or practice was in effect (e.g., if the office practiced some type of outreach), the 

response was interpreted as a negative. 

Table C.1—Data sources for policy measures 

Policy

Source and item 

(S=supervisor survey, C=caseworker survey, 

O=unobtrusive observations) 

Local office outreach SE1 

Community group outreach SE2 

Coordination with MA/SCHIP SE5 

Intensity of outreach SE4, items a through i (articles in newspapers, public

service announcements on radio/television, 

flyers/posters/brochures, billboards/advertisements on

buses/taxis/trains, presentations to community groups, tollfree telephone number/hotline, direct mailings, telephone 

calls/home visits to clients who left the program, the Internet) 

Targeted personal outreach SE3, items for working families, elderly, former TANF 

recipients, immigrant/refugee populations, ABAWDs, 

disabled 

Number of targeted groups SE3 

Limited hours of operation SB1, SB2, SB3 used to construct indicator for office open 

only Monday to Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM 

Child care available SD2 

Clients asked to leave children at 

home 

SD1 

Child-friendliness OB8, OB9, OB11 (Toys available, space for children to play, 

diaper-changing area) 

Public transportation CD2 (public transportation available within 1⁄2 mile of office) 

Transportation assistance CD4 

Drop-box for applications and 

documents 

SB6 

—Continued 

C-2 
Table C.1—Policy measures—Continued 

Policy

Source and item 

(S=supervisor survey, C=caseworker survey, 

O=unobtrusive observations) 

Negative ambience OC2, OC4: Waiting time to see a receptionist greater than 5 

minutes (average of 3 observations, occasionally 4 

observations) and/or sometimes or always not enough seats 

in reception area 

Positive supervisor attitudes SP1, SP4, SP6: Supervisor disagrees or strongly disagrees 

that “being on food stamps encourages dependency,” 

“immigrants should not get food stamps until they become 

citizens”; agrees or strongly agrees that “people who leave 

TANF and are potentially eligible for food stamps should be 

actively encouraged to apply for food stamps” 

Informational videotapes in

reception area

OB5_3 

Informational pamphlets and 

brochures in reception area

OB5_2, OB6_2, OB7_2 

Fingerprinting SI4, SI5

Third party forms: verification CH1, CH3, CH5, CH7, CH8, CH10, CH12 

Third-party verification: contacts CH2, CH4, CH6, CH7, CH9, CH11, CH13 

Medical deduction assistance SJ2 

Home visits SI3 

Extra trips, visits, meetings CB5, SF1, SF3A for TANF applicants; CB8, SF9, SF11A for 

non-TANF applicants 

TANF diversion: lump sum SG5 

TANF diversion: alternative 

resources

SG1 

Job search requirement SG11, SH1 for TANF and non-TANF applicants 

Pre-scheduled interviews CC1 

Serious consequences for missing 

prescheduled interviews 

CC2 

Monthly reporting SN1, SN2 (by case type: TANF with earnings, TANF without 

earnings, non-TANF with earnings) 

Quarterly reporting SN1, SN2 (by case type: TANF with earnings, TANF without 

earnings, non-TANF with earnings) 

Employment and training services

available for non-ABAWDS 

SM2 

—Continued 

C-3 
Table C.1—Policy measures—Continued 

Policy

Source and item 

(S=supervisor survey, C=caseworker survey, 

O=unobtrusive observations) 

Employment and training 

requirements 

SM1, SM2, SM3 (for ABAWDs, non-ABAWDs)

TANF sanctions affect food stamp 

benefits 

CJ1, CJ2 

TANF closures require food stamp 

action 

CJ6, CJ7, CK10, CK11, CK6, CK7, CK1, CK2, CK3 

Time limits for ABAWDs ABAWDWAV in supervisor survey 

Certification period length National QC data, FY 2000, by State, for 10 case profiles 

(see table C.2) 

In-person recertification interviews SO2, SO4, SO6, SO8, S10 (for elderly/disabled, ABAWDs

subject to time limits, non-TANF, TANF without earnings, 

TANF with earnings)

Closure for missed recertification 

appointment 

CN4 

Analysis Weights 

Conceptually, the weights for the multivariate analyses are the same as for the descriptive analyses. 

(Note that it was essential to weight the sample because of our use of outcome-based sampling; we 

drew the same number of non-participants, closures, etc. in sites that had many such events as in sites 

that had few.) To increase the power of the multivariate analysis, we then scaled the weights to be 

proportional to the relative sample sizes of “successes” and “failures” in each model. For example, if 

80 percent of all applications were completed, but our sample comprised equal numbers of completes 

and incompletes, then we multiplied the weights on the completes by 50/80, and the weights on the 

incompletes by 50/20 (see Scott and Wild, 2001). 

Model Estimation 

The models are logistic. Office clustering was taken into account by using the SAS procedure 

GENMOD and SUDAAN-based logistic procedure, LOGISTIC, with exchangeable correlations, 

Liang-Zeger empirical standard errors, and observations nested by office. 

C-4 
Table C.2—Mean certification lengths, by State and case type

State Child only

Elderly/

disabled 

with

earnings

Elderly/

disabled 

without

earnings

ABAWDlike, no

childrena

ABAWDlike, with

childrenb

Other nonTANF with

earnings

Other nonTANF with

government 

benefitsc

Other nonTANF 

Alabama 10.9 12.0 11.8 8.7 11.6 11.6 9.9 9.3 Arizona 3.7 5.4 8.2 3.8 3.8 3.4 5.1 3.9 Arkansas 11.0 12.0 19.8 11.3 11.8 11.9 12.1 11.4 California 12.1 24.0 12.0 11.1 12.5 11.4 11.5 12.0 Colorado 4.5 9.6 11.8 6.8 4.4 4.6 6.8 3.9 Connecticut 11.4 13.1 21.2 10.3 11.4 11.2 8.4 10.9 District ofColumbia 9.7 13.0 14.5 8.1 10.2 9.1 10.6 8.4 Florida 4.5 7.2 10.5 4.3 4.0 4.0 6.5 4.1 Georgia 4.1 6.0 11.0 4.2 3.5 3.3 5.7 4.7 Idaho 5.8 10.3 11.2 6.2 5.6 5.7 6.8 4.9 Illinois 10.8 17.7 18.1 8.1 11.4 10.7 12.0 9.8 Indiana 7.8 9.1 10.9 5.4 5.4 6.1 9.9 7.3 Kansas 11.6 13.0 13.8 11.2 11.7 11.8 12.6 11.4 Kentucky 4.4 13.4 20.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 6.7 4.5 Louisiana 6.0 9.4 17.3 4.2 4.3 3.8 5.7 4.2 Maine 4.6 8.3 11.1 4.6 3.6 3.6 6.4 3.9 Maryland 7.5 5.7 11.6 7.1 5.0 4.5 8.3 5.2 Massachusetts 8.2 8.0 13.9 8.2 6.8 3.4 9.4 4.1 Michigan 7.2 10.2 17.5 6.6 6.1 4.6 10.6 8.7 Minnesota 12.0 11.9 11.9 11.3 11.8 11.7 11.4 11.9 

 C-5 
Table C.2—Mean certification lengths, by State and case type—Continued

State Child only

Elderly/

disabled 

with

earnings

Elderly/

disabled 

without

earnings

ABAWDlike, no

childrena

ABAWDlike, with

childrenb

Other nonTANF with

earnings

Other nonTANF with

government 

benefitsc

Other nonTANF 

Mississippi 8.6 11.1 10.5 7.4 10.4 11.2 8.6 7.7 Missouri 3.8 9.6 14.9 3.9 3.1 3.2 5.6 3.3 Montana 11.8 11.9 11.7 11.6 11.7 11.7 9.7 11.3 Nebraska 5.4 11.7 12.9 4.9 4.2 4.9 9.3 4.7 New Jersey 6.8 9.7 12.6 6.0 7.5 6.3 6.3 6.0 New Mexico 4.1 8.0 11.3 4.7 3.5 3.5 5.1 4.0 North Carolina 3.6 8.4 11.5 4.0 3.6 3.4 8.0 3.9 Ohio 5.2 9.4 10.8 5.8 4.5 3.8 6.4 5.9 Oklahoma 4.5 9.8 15.6 4.0 3.4 3.3 4.8 3.0 Oregon 6.0 12.0 11.4 5.9 6.2 5.7 7.9 5.8 Pennsylvania 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.2 11.8 11.6 12.0 10.6 Rhode Island 11.2 12.0 11.9 8.0 11.3 8.9 9.1 9.1 South Carolina 12.0 12.0 15.2 11.4 11.8 11.9 12.0 11.9 Tennessee 3.8 5.9 10.4 4.0 3.6 3.2 5.6 3.7 Texas 4.4 7.2 9.4 3.7 4.0 3.9 4.7 3.5 Utah 4.5 9.2 10.8 5.7 4.0 4.2 7.6 5.0 Virginia 3.9 7.6 11.8 4.7 4.2 4.1 6.7 3.8 Washington 4.6 6.3 11.6 3.7 4.4 4.6 3.8 3.5 West Virginia NA 12.8 16.1 6.1 5.4 3.7 9.6 6.5 Wisconsin 3.1 11.0 11.0 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.7 a Containing at least one adult aged 18 to 50, not disabled, and no children.b Containing at least two adults aged 18 to 50, not disabled, and at least one child under age 18. c Social Security, SSI, Veteran’s benefits, General Assistance, “other” government benefits. 

 C-6
Appendix D 

Supplementary Models 

In this appendix, we present three sets of models supplementing those described in Chapter 8. First, 

we show expanded versions of models that appeared in more compact form Chapter 8. Second, we 

present models for continuation in recertification months and in interim months, which were of

necessity estimated on samples in which circumstantially eligible and ineligible households could not 

be clearly distinguished. Finally, we describe our unsuccessful attempt to model the likelihood that a 

household that thought it might be eligible for food stamps contacted the local FSP office. 

Full Models of Perceived Eligibility and Application Completion 

The multivariate models presented in Chapter 8 were re-estimated with superfluous policy variables 

eliminated (those whose estimated coefficients were less than 0.75 times the corresponding standard 

errors), in order to show more clearly the effects of the more pertinent policies. This re-estimation did 

not qualitatively change the results, except that requesting visitors to leave their children at home, not 

previously statistically significant in the application completion model, became statistically

significant at the 10 percent level. 

The full models and the more focused models (corresponding to tables 8.3 and 8.4) are shown side by

side for awareness of eligibility and application completion in tables D.1 and D.2, respectively. They 

are seen to be extremely similar. 

D-1 
Table D.1—Logistic model of awareness of eligibility

Full model Focused Model 

Coefficient

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Policy variables 

Local food stamp office does any outreach -0.013 

(0.296) 

Local community groups do any outreach -0.150 

(0.329) 

Number of modes of outreach, scaled 0-1 1.872** 

(0.756) 

1.684*** 

(0.489) 

Outreach coordinated with Medicaid/SCHIP -0.644** 

(0.276) 

-0.658** 

(0.277) 

Household targeted for outreach in this area -0.022 

(0.378) 

Number of categories targeted for outreach in this 

area 

-0.003 

(0.230) 

Contextual variables 

County unemployment rate in 1999 -0.027 

(0.035) 

-0.022 

(0.033) 

Office located in urban area -0.216 

(0.240) 

-0.231 

(0.229) 

Office located in Northern State -0.162 

(0.492) 

-0.172 

(0.497) 

Office located in Midwestern State 0.319 

(0.272 

0.311 

(0.262) 

Office located in Western State -0.169 

(0.336) 

-0.197 

(0.295) 

Household characteristics 

Male head of household 0.176 

(0.219) 

0.171 

(0.218) 

Black head of household 0.186 

(0.265) 

0.191 

(0.263) 

Hispanic head of household -0.391 

(0.234) 

-0.396* 

(0.227) 

Head of household never married -0.002 

(0.334) 

-0.006 

(0.332) 

Current TANF receipt -0.747 

(0.890) 

-0.753 

(0.896) 

Prior food stamp receipt 0.210 

(0.203) 

0.212 

(0.202) 

—Continued 

D-2 
Table D.1—Logistic model of awareness of eligibility—Continued 

Full model Focused Model 

Coefficient

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Household has children under 5 0.161 

(0.345) 

0.161 

(0.345) 

Household has children under 18 -0.145 

(0.269) 

-0.148 

(0.269) 

Head of household is elderly (≥ 60) -0.161 

(0.410) 

-0.158 

(0.419) 

Household has earnings -0.055 

(0.212) 

-0.048 

(0.205) 

Household has some assets 0.411** 

(0.198) 

-0.413** 

(0.199) 

Household’s income is below poverty level 1.079*** 

(0.209) 

1.075*** 

(0.208) 

Household is ABAWD-like -0.595*** 

(0.214) 

-0.593*** 

(0.213) 

Additional potential targeting criteria for outreach

Household contains any non-citizens 0.180 

(0.446) 

0.163 

(0.437) 

Household contains any elderly members -0.658* 

(0.373) 

-0.661* 

(0.376) 

Household contains any disabled members 0.042 

(0.262) 

0.040 

(0.259) 

Current or previous AFDC/TANF receipt -0.088 

(0.202) 

-0.087 

(0.207) 

Intercept 1.226

(0.435) 

1.229 

(0.412) 

Mean of dependent variable 0.490 0.490 

Sample size 2079 2079 

Policy measures and their effects shown in italics; variables with statistically significant effects (p < 0.10) shown in bold. 

*** Statistically significant at the 1 percent level. 

** Statistically significant at the 5 percent level. 

* Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

D-3 
Table D.2—Logistic model of application completion 

Full Model Focused Model 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Policy variables 

Office open only Monday to Friday, 8 to 5 –0.434** 

(0.213) 

–0.448** 

(0.206) 

Clients asked to leave children at home × household 

includes children under 5

–0.856 

(0.621) 

–1.039* 

(0.567) 

Childcare provided to office visitors × household includes 

children under 5 

–0.404 

(0.487) 

–0.266 

(0.470) 

Index of child friendliness of office × household includes 

children under 5 

–0.853 

(0.649) 

–0.877 

(0.608) 

Public transportation goes near office 0.268 

(0.335) 

0.393 

(0.267) 

Transportation assistance to office offered 0.406 

(0.290) 

0.433 

(0.297) 

Drop-box available for applications and documentation -0.145 

(0.276) 

Long wait times or shortage of seats in reception area –0.508 

(0.375) 

–0.454 

(0.355) 

Informational videotapes in reception area 0.353 

(0.325) 

0.406 

(0.314) 

Brochures and pamphlets in reception area 0.065 

(0.267) 

Positive supervisor attitudes 1.518* 

(0.877) 

1.522* 

(0.860) 

Eligibility interviews must be prescheduled –0.129 

(0.767)

Severe consequences for missed eligibility interview –0.531 

(1.157) 

Application forms not available until meet with caseworker –0.431 

(0.598) 

Fingerprint applicants of household type (TANF 

versus non-TANF) 

–1.157*** 

(0.333) 

–1.270*** 

(0.305) 

Home visits for fraud investigation –0.112 

(0.231) 

Third party verification forms required, by household type

(TANF versus non-TANF) 

0.320 

(0.360) 

0.306 

(0.316) 

—Continued 

D-4 
Table D.2—Logistic model of application completion—Continued 

Full Model Focused Model 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Third party verification contacts required, by household type

(TANF versus non-TANF) 

-0.082 

(0.578) 

0.306 

(0.316) 

More than one visit, visits to other building, or pre-interview

meeting required to complete application, by household type

(TANF versus non-TANF) 

0.614 

(0.492) 

0.348 

(0.417) 

TANF diversion × potential TANF applicant: lump sum 0.349 

(0.400) 

0.322 

(0.376) 

TANF diversion × potential TANF applicant: alternative 

resources 

0.613 

(0.688) 

0.788 

(0.686) 

Job search requirements (TANF versus non-TANF) 0.084 

(0.274) 

Caseworkers assist elderly/disabled with medical deductions –0.154 

(0.479) 

ABAWDs subject to time limits × ABAWD-type 

household 

–1.030** 

(0.441) 

–0.990** 

(0.413) 

Monthly reporting required, for household type –0.001 

(0.378) 

Quarterly reporting required, for household type –0.319 

(0.328)

–0.308 

(0.320)

Expected certification length for household profile –0.030 

(0.038) 

Contextual variables 

County unemployment rate in 1999 0.237*** 

(0.072) 

0.240*** 

(0.076) 

Office located in urban area –0.311 

(0.289) 

–0.193 

(0.251) 

Office located in Northern State –0.645* 

(0.381) 

–0.677* 

(0.347) 

Office located in Midwestern State –0.310 

(0.323) 

–0.346 

(0.309) 

Office located in Western State –0.338 

(0.366) 

–0.366 

(0.310) 

Household characteristics 

Male head of household 0.239 

(0.297) 

0.238 

(0.294) 

Black head of household –0.380 

(0.313) 

–0.343 

(0.301) 

—Continued 

D-5 
Table D.2—Logistic model of application completion—Continued 

Full Model Focused Model 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Hispanic head of household –0.218 

(0.469) 

–0.193 

(0.455) 

Head of household never married –0.186 

(0.280) 

–0.182 

(0.269) 

TANF recipient 0.430 

(0.480) 

0.430 

(0.480) 

Prior FSP recipient 0.263 

(0.250) 

0.271 

(0.251) 

Household has children under 5 1.004** 

(0.500) 

0.993** 

(0.481) 

Household has children under 18 –0.451 

(0.441) 

–0.348 

(0.432) 

Head of household is elderly (≥60) 0.159

(0.441) 

0.193 

(0.431) 

Household has earnings –0.702** 

(0.279) 

–0.660** 

(0.266) 

Household has some assets 0.103 

(0.252) 

0.070 

(0.241) 

Household’s income is below poverty level 0.909*** 

(0.315) 

0.903*** 

(0.299) 

Household is ABAWD-like –0.749** 

(0.351) 

–0.679** 

(0.335) 

Intercept –0.359

(1.186) 

–1.153 

(1.111) 

Mean of dependent variable 0.784 0.784 

Sample size 976 976 

Policy measures and their effects shown in italics; variables with statistically significant effects (p < 0.10) shown in bold. 

*** Statistically significant at the 1 percent level. 

** Statistically significant at the 5 percent level. 

* Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

D-6 
Supplementary Models of Food Stamp Continuation 

Overall, about 5 percent of active FSP recipients exit the Food Stamp Program per month. This 

percentage varies dramatically, however, between recipients that are in the middle and those that are 

at the end of a recertification period. Closure rates in interim months are around 2.4 percent; in 

recertification months, they are around 22 percent. These closure rates include cases that were closed 

because of circumstantial ineligibility as well as closures of circumstantially eligible households.1

 

Local office policies are hypothesized to affect closure rates for both circumstantially ineligible and 

circumstantially eligible households. For circumstantially ineligible households, more extensive or 

frequent income reporting and recertification might increase the likelihood that ineligible households 

would be identified and terminated quickly. Households who know they are ineligible might decide 

not to submit reports or appear for recertification, which would have the same effect. In addition, 

policies designed to increase self-sufficiency, such as employment and training requirements, might 

increase the likelihood that a household would become circumstantially ineligible. 

For circumstantially eligible households, these same participation and reporting requirements might 

affect closure rates in two ways. First, these requirements determine the cost of participation, and 

higher participation costs are hypothesized to cause more participants to leave the program

voluntarily. Such participants might notify the agency of their intention, or they might simply

abandon contact with the program. Second, participation and reporting requirements may lead to

sanctions – which can include termination of benefits – for households who fail to meet the 

requirements. In addition to the effect of participation and reporting requirements, ABAWD time 

limits may lead to the cessation of benefits for some circumstantially eligible households. 

Because participation and reporting requirements are hypothesized to affect closure rates similarly for 

eligible and ineligible households, and because circumstantial eligibility is unknown for many

households who left the program, the analyses presented here cannot definitively indicate the effect of 

the policies on circumstantially eligible households. 

There are partial exceptions to this statement, however. Some recertification policies, such as the 

availability of public transportation or the child-friendliness of an office, could affect the participant’s 

cost of participation but should not affect the nature or frequency of information collected at 

recertification. Similarly, a requirement that participants visit the food stamp office if their TANF 

case closes would be expected only to increase participation costs. Because these policies would not 

be expected to have any effect on the closure rate for circumstantially ineligible cases, any observed 

effect may be attributed to an effect on circumstantially eligible households. 

Because the overall closure rate is much higher in recertification than non-recertification months, the 

most important policy determinant of continuation for a household is therefore expected to be

whether it faces a recertification in a given month—and for groups of households of various types, the 

frequency with which they face recertification. Certification lengths for apparently similar cases vary

considerably across and within States. For example, for cases in which all adults are elderly or 

disabled, and have no earnings, recorded certification lengths in the QC data for the 40 States in this 

 1

 As discussed in Chapter 7, the available data do not indicate circumstantial eligibility for some groups of

exiting households. 

D-7 
study run the gamut from 1 to 24 months. While most such cases (61 percent) have certification 

lengths of exactly 12 months, certification lengths of 6 months or shorter, and of 24 months, are each 

seen for 10 to 15 percent of this quite homogeneous group. Much greater variation is seen for other 

groups. 

Local office policies can be expected to affect households differently depending on whether they are 

in a recertification month. Some policies apply primarily or exclusively to the recertification 

requirements per se: office hours, child friendliness of the office, in-person interview requirements, 

third party verification, and so on. Others apply directly to interim months: periodic reporting, E&T 

requirements, etc. Yet it can be anticipated that interim month requirements can affect continuation in

recertification months as well, because participants will reconsider the net benefits of food stamp 

receipt when they are due for recertification. In the combined model presented below, policies have 

been interacted as appropriate with whether the participant household was observed in an interim or a 

recertification month. Separate models of continuation in interim and recertification months produced 

similar results, as discussed subsequently. 

Combined Model of Continuation 

The following local office policies significantly affect the likelihood that food stamp recipients will 

continue to participate in the program (table D.3, second column): 

• Being in a recertification month (p < 0.01) 

• In recertification months, 

 provision of child care, for households with children under 5 (p < 0.10) 

 E&T requirements, by household type (p < 0.10) 

• In interim months, 

 E&T requirements, by household type (p < 0.05) 

The model used data from case record abstractions on approved recertifications and closed cases. 

Over two dozen other local office policies were considered, but not found to have significant effects 

(table D.3, first column). Those that were dropped from the model because of large standard errors in 

the coefficient estimates were recertification month interacted with short office hours, with asking 

clients with young children to leave them at home, with availability of public transportation, with 

availability of a drop-box for completed forms and documentation, with shortage of seats and long 

waits to see the receptionist, with supervisor attitudes, with in-person interview requirements, with 

case closures for missed interviews, with third party verification contacts, with third party verification 

forms, with quarterly reporting requirements, and with food stamp requirements associated with 

TANF closures; and interim month interacted with monthly reporting requirements, with quarterly

reporting requirements, and with E&T availability. Policy measures included in the model that did not 

have significant effects on participation were recertification month interacted with child friendliness, 

with transportation assistance, with monthly reporting, with time limits for ABAWD cases, with food 

stamp requirements associated with TANF sanctions, and certification length; and interim month

interacted with food stamp requirements associated with TANF closures and with food stamp 

requirements associated with TANF sanctions. 

D-8 
Table D.3—Logistic models of continuing to receive food stamps 

Full Model Focused Model 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Policy variables 

Recertification month –2.527*** 

(0.147) 

–2.532*** 

(0.147) 

Recertification month × office open only Monday to Friday, 

8 to 5 

0.061 

(0.244)

Recertification month × clients asked to leave children at 

home × household includes children under 5

–0.006 

(0.867))

Recertification month × childcare provided to office

visitors × household includes children under 5 

1.349* 

(0.719) 

1.340* 

(0.676) 

Recertification month × child friendliness index × 

household includes children under 5 

–0.132 

(0.494) 

–0.056 

(0.469) 

Recertification month × public transportation goes near 

office 

–0.048 

(0.238) 

Recertification month × transportation assistance offered –0.273 

(0.257) 

–0.309 

(0.247) 

Recertification month × drop-box available for applications 

and documentation 

–0.075 

(0.292) 

Recertification month × long wait times or shortage of 

seats in reception area

–0.080 

(0.414) 

Recertification month × positive supervisor attitudes 0.344 

(0.797) 

Recertification month × in-person interview required for 

household type

0.116 

(0.245) 

Recertification month × office closes case for missed 

appointment 

0.315 

(0.426) 

Recertification month × third-party verification forms 

required 

–0.067 

(0.314) 

Recertification month × third party verification contacts 

required 

–0.315 

(0.455) 

Recertification month × monthly reporting required for 

household type

–0.599 

(0.392) 

–0.500 

(0.449) 

Recertification month × quarterly reporting required for 

household type

–0.048 

(0.395) 

Recertification month × E&T requirements for household 

type 

–0.514* 

(0.293) 

–0.558* 

(0.310) 

Recertification month × ABAWDs subject to time limits × 

ABAWD-type household 

–0.409 

(0.335) 

–0.425 

(0.324) 

Recertification month × TANF sanctions affect food stamp 

benefits × TANF recipient 

0.501 

(0.506) 

0.526 

(0.407) 

—Continued 

D-9 
Table D.3—Logistic models of continuing to receive food stamps—Continued 

Full Model Focused Model 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Recertification month × TANF closure requires food stamp 

office visit × TANF recipient 

–0.088 

(0.460) 

Recertification month × expected certification length for 

household profile 

0.036 

(0.031) 

0.024 

(0.028) 

Interim month × positive supervisor attitudes –0.820 

(0.746) 

–0.973 

(0.753) 

Interim month × required to participate in E&T 

activities, by household type

–0.643** 

(0.309) 

–0.650** 

(0.269) 

Interim month × E&T services available to non-ABAWDs –0.071

(0.279) 

Interim month × monthly reporting requirement for 

household type

–0.104 

(0.381) 

Interim month × quarterly reporting requirement for 

household type

–0.042 

(0.477) 

Interim month × TANF sanctions affect food stamp 

benefits × TANF recipient 

0.352 

(0.425) 

0.359 

(0.401) 

Interim month × TANF closure requires FS office visit ×

TANF recipient 

0.386 

(0.345) 

0.395 

(0.372) 

Contextual variables 

County unemployment rate in 1999 0.025 

(0.027) 

0.024 

(0.027) 

Office located in urban area –0.099 

(0.294) 

–0.105 

(0.297 

Office located in Northern State –0.104

(0.320) 

–0.105 

(0.297) 

Office located in Midwestern State 0.734*** 

(0.245) 

0.747*** 

(0.237) 

Office located in Western State –0.053 

(0.274) 

–0.053 

(0.274) 

Household characteristics 

Male head of household 0.142 

(0.165) 

0.140 

(0.165) 

Black head of household 0.193 

(0.207) 

0.185 

(0.198) 

Hispanic head of household –0.267 

(0.254) 

–0.266 

(0.260) 

Head of household never married –0.055 

(0.159) 

–0.055 

(0.161) 

—Continued 

D-10 
Table D.3—Logistic models of continuing to receive food stamps—Continued 

Full Model Focused Model 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error)

TANF recipient –0.271 

(0.342) 

–0.297 

(0.306) 

Prior FSP recipient 0.526** 

(0.204) 

0.526** 

(0.203) 

Household has children under 5 –0.169 

(0.150) 

–0.185 

(0.140) 

Household has children under 18 0.005 

(0.177) 

0.020 

(0.275) 

Head of household is elderly (≥60) 0.332

(0.276) 

0.317 

(0.268) 

Household has earnings –0.334** 

(0.166) 

–0.350** 

(0.166) 

Household has some assets –0.076 

(0.166) 

–0.077 

(0.163) 

Household’s income is below poverty level 0.272* 

(0.151) 

0.278* 

(0.149) 

ABAWD-type household –0.504*** 

(0.155) 

–0.494*** 

(0.152) 

Intercept 1.532

(0.456) 

1.536 

(0.432) 

Mean of dependent variable 0.955 0.955 

Sample size 2441 2441 

Policy measures and their effects shown in italics; variables with statistically significant effects (p < 0.10) shown in bold. 

*** Statistically significant at the 1 percent level. 

** Statistically significant at the 5 percent level. 

* Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

A key methodological feature of this model is that the policies specific to recertification and interim

months were measured as deviations from the mean. Consequently, the coefficient on the certification 

month variable itself can be interpreted as the impact on continuation of being in a recertification 

month per se, at the mean values of all of the policies that have effects in recertification months. This 

effect is –20 percentage points. That is, other things equal, cases are 20 percentage points more likely

to close in recertification months than in interim months. Changing a group of cases from a 3-month 

certification period to a 6-month certification period would change its likelihood of a recertification in 

a given month from 0.25 to 0.167, a drop of 8.3 percentage points. This would reduce the monthly

closure rate for these cases by 0.20 × 0.083, or 1.7 percentage points. 

Within recertification months, households with preschool children were more likely to continue if 

their offices provided child care, by 16 percentage points. An E&T requirement reduced continuation 

by 13 percentage points at recertification, and by 3.5 percentage points in interim months.

D-11 
The effect of the availability of child care presumably represents an effect on circumstantially eligible 

households, as it would not be expected to influence the likelihood that an ineligible case would 

close. The employment and training result could represent an effect on either ineligible households 

(if it caused households’ incomes to increase enough to make them ineligible) or circumstantially 

eligible households (if they failed to meet the requirement or abandoned contact with the program). 

It is perhaps not surprising that other policies did not have significant effects on continuation. Interim

closure rates are generally quite low for most groups, so any effects of policy would be expected to be 

small and difficult to measure. Ongoing recipients had already experienced and overcome potential 

barriers to recertification such as transportation and limited office hours at their initial application, 

and might be expected to do as well at recertification. 

Continuation rates were significantly higher for former food stamp recipients and for households 

whose income was under the Federal poverty level at the prior certification. They were significantly

lower for households with earnings and with ABAWDs at the prior certification. These demographic 

results again suggest the importance of alternative opportunities for needy households. 

The descriptive analyses presented in Chapter 6 had likewise noted the lower likelihood for 

households to continue with the FSP if they had earnings, and the greater likelihood if their income 

was under the Federal poverty level. Neither the lower continuation rates for Hispanics, nor the higher 

rates for the elderly and for recipients of means-tested benefits, retained statistical significance in the 

multivariate analyses when other factors such as household income were taken into account. 

Separate Models of Continuation in Recertification and Interim Months 

Similar but not identical results were obtained from models that analyzed continuation in 

recertification and interim months separately. The joint model presented in table D.3 is shown side by

side with the two individual models in table D.4, all three with superfluous policy variables removed. 

Regardless of whether the recertification and interim month continuation models are estimated jointly 

or separately, we find the same policy variables significant with the following exceptions, all relating 

to variables of marginal statistical significance: 

• A monthly reporting requirement was found to significantly reduce the likelihood of 

completing recertification (p < 0.10) in the separate recertification model only. Its effect in 

the combined model was negative, but not statistically significant at conventional levels. 

Given the dwindling importance of monthly reporting since these data were collected, the 

policy implications of a monthly reporting effect would not be great. 

• Conversely, an E&T requirement was found to significantly reduce the likelihood of 

completing recertification (p < 0.10) in the combined model only. Its effect in the separate 

recertification model was negative, but not statistically significant at conventional levels. 

• Similarly, the provision of child care to office visitors significantly increased the likelihood 

of completing recertification (p < 0.10) in the combined model only. Its effect in the separate 

recertification model was positive, but did not attain statistical significance. 

D-12 
Table D.4—Logistic models of continuing to receive food stamps 

Recertification 

and interim 

months

Recertification 

months only

Interim months 

only

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Policy variables 

Recertification month –2.532*** 

(0.147) 

Recertification month × clients asked not to 

bring children to office × household 

includes children under 5 

–0.373 

(0.446)) 

Recertification month × child care

provided to office visitors × household 

includes children under 5

1.340* 

(0.676) 

1.266 

(0.580)

Recertification month × child friendliness 

index × household includes children under 

5 

–0.056 

(0.469) 

–0.419 

(0.486) 

Recertification month × transportation 

assistance offered 

–0.309 

(0.247) 

–0.203 

(0.224) 

Recertification × in-person interview

required 

0.192

(0.239) 

Recertification × case closed for missed 

interview 

0.412

(0.405) 

Recertificaiton × third party verification

contacts required 

–0.347

(0.445) 

Recertification month × monthly reporting 

required for household type

–0.500 

(0.449) 

–0.510* 

(0.291) 

Recertification month × E&T 

requirement for household type

–0.558* 

(0.310) 

–0.306 

(0.273) 

Recertification month × ABAWDs subject 

to time limits × ABAWD-type household 

–0.425 

(0.324) 

Recertification month × TANF sanctions 

affect food stamp benefits × TANF

recipient 

0.526 

(0.407) 

0.770 

(0.593) 

Recertification month × expected 

certification length for household profile 

0.024 

(0.028) 

Interim month × positive supervisor 

attitudes 

–0.973 

(0.753) 

–0.935

(0.976) 

Interim month × required to participate 

in E&T activities, by household type

–0.650** 

(0.269) 

–0.665**

(0.288) 

Interim month × TANF sanctions affect 

food stamp benefits × TANF recipient 

0.359 

(0.401) 

0.416

(0.455) 

—Continued 

D-13 
Table D.4—Logistic models of continuing to receive food stamps—Continued 

Recertification 

and interim 

months

Recertification 

months only

Interim months 

only

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Interim month × TANF closure requires FS

office visit × TANF recipient 

0.395 

(0.372) 

Contextual variables

County unemployment rate in 1999 0.024 

(0.027) 

0.042 

(0.032) 

0.012 

(0.039) 

Office located in urban area –0.105 

(0.297) 

–0.455* 

(0.243) 

0.142 

(0.396) 

Office located in Northern State –0.099

(0.309) 

0.348 

(0.267) 

–0.498 

(0.554) 

Office located in Midwestern State 0.747*** 

(0.237) 

1.275*** 

(0.269) 

0.494 

(0.334) 

Office located in Western State –0.053 

(0.274) 

0.424 

(0.227) 

–0.306 

(0.371) 

Household characteristics

Male head of household 0.140 

(0.165) 

0.487 

(0.297) 

–0.059 

(0.246) 

Black head of household 0.185 

(0.198) 

0.297 

(0.256) 

0.154 

(0.362) 

Hispanic head of household –0.266 

(0.260) 

0.223 

(0.269) 

–0.356 

(0.307) 

Head of household never married –0.055 

(0.161 

–0.432** 

(0.202) 

0.146 

(0.221) 

TANF recipient –0.297 

(0.306) 

–0.533 

(0.514) 

0.035 

(0.397) 

Prior FSP recipient 0.526** 

(0.203) 

0.408* 

(0.217) 

0.603*** 

(0.227) 

Household has children under 5 –0.185 

(0.140) 

–0.036 

(0.305) 

–0.185 

(0.197) 

Household has children under 18 0.020 

(0.275) 

0.349 

(0.309) 

–0.178 

(0.244) 

Head of household is elderly (≥60) 0.317

(0.268) 

0.316 

(0.594) 

0.414 

(0.395) 

Household has earnings –0.350** 

(0.166) 

–0.471** 

(0.279) 

–0.381* 

(0.218) 

Household has some assets –0.077 

(0.163) 

–0.024 

(0.233) 

–0.086 

(0.211) 

—Continued 

D-14 
Table D.4—Logistic models of continuing to receive food stamps—Continued 

Recertification 

and interim 

months

Recertification 

months only

Interim months 

only

Coefficient 

(standard error)

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Coefficient 

(standard error) 

Household’s income is below poverty

level 

0.278* 

(0.149) 

0.807*** 

(0.237) 

0.106 

(0.240) 

ABAWD-type household –0.494*** 

(0.152) 

–1.039*** 

(0.240) 

–0.370* 

(0.210) 

Intercept 1.536

(0.432) 

0.212 

(0.407) 

2.340 

(0.947) 

Mean of dependent variable 0.955 0.782 0.976

Sample size 2441 1016 1425

Policy measures and their effects shown in italics; variables with statistically significant effects (p < 0.10) shown in bold. 

*** Statistically significant at the 1 percent level. 

** Statistically significant at the 5 percent level. 

* Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

Supplementary Model of Likelihood of Contacting the Food Stamp 

Office 

Contacting the food stamp office, conditional on perceived eligibility, was the “missing link” in the 

chain of food stamp participation decisions. Adding in this piece would ensure that all aspects of 

participation were covered, so that all possible effects of local office policies and practices could be 

detected. These pieces were: 

• Perceived eligibility 

• Contacting the office, conditional on perceived eligibility

• Completing the application process (and being approved for benefits), conditional on 

contacting the office 

• Surviving an interim month 

• Surviving a recertification month 

• Likelihood of entering an interim versus a recertification month 

This “missing link” differs qualitatively from the other links, however, in that the types of policies 

and practices that could affect it are unbounded. It was argued in Chapters 7 and 8 that perceived 

eligibility was affected by office outreach; application completion, primarily by the requirements of 

the application process; interim survival, by interim participation requirements; and recertification 

survival, primarily by the requirements of the recertification process. The decision to contact the 

office, in contrast, represents the outcome of a cost-benefit calculus which includes all aspects of FSP 

application and participation. A household could fail to contact the office because it was deterred by

the time burden of application, by the intrusiveness of application requirements (e.g. fingerprinting, 

third party verification), by the costs of ongoing participation (e.g. monthly reporting, E&T 

D-15 
activities), by the frequency with which the certification process would have to be repeated, and so 

on. Sorting out these myriad possible influences, lacking detailed household information on values, 

attitudes, preferences, and knowledge, is a Herculean task. 

An additional problem was due to the structure of the sample. The sample was designed to explore 

particular aspects of FSP participation. While it was possible to construct a representation of the 

entire eligible population from the various pieces of the sample, the quality of the data was far from

uniform. A weak link in the construction was households that contacted the office but did not file an 

application (“near applicants”, identified roughly in the RDD survey of eligible nonparticipants). 

There were only 66 near applicants found in the 109 offices, so that many offices had no such 

households. In these offices it would misleadingly appear that no nonparticipant, non-applicant 

households that perceived themselves eligible ever contacted the food stamp office. 

 

As suggested above, nonparticipant households could be influenced by virtually any aspect of the 

certification process and continuing requirements in deciding whether to contact the food stamp 

office. For practical purposes, the list of policies included in the model was limited to the most

striking in each category.

Two versions of the model are presented below (table D.5), which differ in that they respectively 

include and exclude three problematic policy measures: outreach by community groups, a quarterly

reporting requirement, and expected certification length. Both versions exclude superfluous variables 

(those whose estimated coefficients were less than 0.75 times their standard errors). 2

It would be expected that outreach to households by community groups would increase the likelihood 

that those households would contact the local FSP office, but the model shows it to have a 

discouraging effect (p < 0.01). Conversely, quarterly reporting should discourage households, but has 

a marginally significant positive effect (p < 0.10). Finally, one would expect that households would 

be more likely to be interested in the Food Stamp Program if they could be certified for longer 

periods of time. The significant reverse finding (p < 0.01) suggests that longer certification periods 

may be associated with other policies that make participation less attractive. But even when 

certification period length is the only policy variable allowed in the model, it has a strongly negative 

coefficient (p < 0.01). 

Omitting these three puzzling variables from the model leaves the rest of the inferences unchanged. 

Overall, 15.7 percent of households that thought they might be eligible contacted the local office. 

Two policies are seen to have effects on bringing households into contact with the FSP: 

• positive supervisor attitudes (p<0.01) and 

• time limits for ABAWDS (p < 0.05).

In addition, households were significantly more likely to contact the food stamp office if the 

unemployment rate in their county was high. Households with male heads, TANF recipients, and 

 2

 The policy measures that were dropped varied between the two versions of the model, because forcing 

some variables out brought other variables in. Every policy variable considered appeared in one or the other 

version, with the sole exception of job search requirements at application (specific to household type, and

applied only to former food stamp recipients, as other potential applicants would be less likely to be aware 

of this feature). 

D-16 
households with income less than the federal poverty line were significantly more likely to contact the 

office; former FSP recipients, households with elderly heads, ABAWD-type households, and those 

with assets were less likely to do so. 

Because of the three counterintuitive findings, this model is substantially less plausible than the two 

models presented in Chapter 8 and the other models presented in Appendix D. While some of the 

results are suggestive, we believe that the limitations imposed by the sample design are too great to be 

overcome. A design which directly sampled participants and nonparticipants and collected 

comparable data on each, including knowledge and attitudes, would be ideal for supporting this sort 

of analysis. 

D-17 
Table D.5—Logistic model of contacting the food stamp office

Model A: Coefficient

(Standard Error) 

Model B: Coefficient 

(Standard Error) 

Policy variables 

Household is targeted for outreach 0.283 

(0.366) 

Number of personal communication 

modes (scaled 0–1) × household is 

targeted for outreacha

–0.828 

(0.611) 

Community group outreach –0.763*** 

(0.239)

Public transportation goes near office ×

previous recipient 

0.250 

(0.305) 

Office open for eligibility interviews only 

Monday to Friday, 8 to 5 

–0.155

(0.250) 

Positive supervisor attitudes 2.836 

(0.722) 

2.013*** 

(0.630) 

Fingerprint applicants of household 

type (TANF versus non-TANF)

–0.273 

(0.322) 

Third party verification: required forms 

(TANF versus non-TANF) 

–0.357 

(0.359) 

Third party verification: required 

contacts (TANF versus non-TANF) 

0.472 

(0.353) 

Monthly reporting for household type –0.852 

(0.357) 

Quarterly reporting for household 

type 

0.473* 

(0.287) 

Required to participate in E&T

activities, by household type 

0.179 

(0.233) 

E&T services available to nonABAWDS –0.312 

(0.269) 

ABAWDs subject to time limits –1.797*** 

(0.543) 

–1.749*** 

(0.540) 

Expected certification length for 

household profile

–0.186*** 

(0.028) 

Contextual variables

County unemployment rate in 1999 0.127* 

(0.068) 

0.100* 

(0.060) 

Office located in urban area –0.646** 

(0.294) 

–0.725*** 

(0.256) 

Office located in Northern State 0.075 

(0.359) 

–0.022 

(0.338) 

—Continued 

D-18 
Table D.5—Logistic model of contacting the food stamp office—Continued

Model A: Coefficient

(Standard Error) 

Model B: Coefficient 

(Standard Error) 

Office located in Midwestern State –0.391 

(0.254) 

–0.412 

(0.252) 

Office located in Western State –0.263 

(0.323) 

–0.130 

(0.271) 

Household Characteristics 

Male head of household 0.579** 

(0.261) 

0.580** 

(0.258) 

Black head of household –0.027 

(0.243) 

0.008 

(0.219) 

Hispanic head of household 0.370 

(0.319) 

0.294 

(0.359) 

Head of household never married 0.175 

(0.342) 

0.181 

(0.304) 

Receiving TANF 2.044*** 

(0.561) 

2.063*** 

(0.596) 

Prior food stamp receipt –0.307 

(0.251) 

–0.241 

(0.226) 

Household has children under 5 –0.219 

(0.281) 

–0.171 

(0.260) 

Household has children under 18 –0.096 

(0.309) 

0.082 

(0.321) 

Head of household is elderly (≥ 60) –2.127*** 

(0.331) 

–2.586*** 

(0.358) 

Household has earnings –0.312 

(0.259) 

0.066 

(0.229) 

Household has some assets –0.405* 

(0.231) 

–0.475** 

(0.213) 

Household's income is below

poverty level

1.920*** 

(0.219) 

1.784*** 

(0.201) 

ABAWD-like household –1.072*** 

(0.403) 

–0.785** 

(0.386) 

Intercept 0.579

(0.803) 

–0.556 

(0.729) 

Mean of dependent variable 0.157 0.157 

Sample size 1516 1516 

a “Personal” communication modes for outreach are: presentations to community groups, direct mailings, and telephone 

calls to former recipients. 

Policy measures and their effects shown in italics; variables with statistically significant effects (p < 0.10) shown in bold. 

*** Statistically significant at the 1 percent level. 

** Statistically significant at the 5 percent level. 

* Statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

D-19 
Appendix E

Data Collection Instruments Used in the Study
SURVEY OF FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

PROCESSES

 SUPERVISOR SURVEY

Prepared for:

Economic Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 

Prepared by:

Health Systems Research, Inc.

Washington, DC

Under Subcontract with Abt Associates

January 9, 2000
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for participating in this survey of Food Stamp Program processes. 

My name is and I am with Health Systems Research in Washington, D.C. We are

conducting this survey with local offices in 40 States around the country to find out about how

people learn about the Food Stamp Program, the different ways they become food stamp

participants, and what happens once they begin to participate in the program. This survey is

being conducted as part of a larger study on the Food Stamp Program for the U.S. Department of

Agriculture. We obtained a list of supervisors from the director of your office and selected you

to be interviewed because of the types of workers you supervise and because of your experience. 

Your answers during this interview will be kept confidential. Your name and office will not be

identified with any answers you give. Your answers to the questions will be grouped with other

offices around the country and no information will be published on responses that could identify

particular individuals or particular offices.

The Office of Management and Budget Control number for this information collection is 0536-

0053. 

INTERVIEWER PROVIDE A DIFFERENT LENGTH OF INTERVIEW ESTIMATE IF YOU

EXPECT IT TO BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS YOU

NEED TO ASK.

The interview should take approximately one hour. Do you have any questions before we begin?
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 2

RESPONDENT INFORMATION SHEET

OFFICE LOCATION (CITY, STATE) : 

AGENCY NAME: 

OFFICE CODE NUMBER: 

RESPONDENT NAME: 

TELEPHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: 

RESPONDENT CODE NUMBER: 

DATE OF INTERVIEW: |___|___| |___|___| 20|___|___|

MONTH DAY YEAR

TIME INTERVIEW BEGAN: |___|___|:|___|___| AM...01

PM....02

IMPORTANT NOTE TO INTERVIEWERS: INSTRUCTIONS AND RESPONSES IN ALL

CAPS ARE NOT READ TO THE RESPONDENT.
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 3

A. SUPERVISOR EXPERIENCE AND WORKER RESPONSIBILITIES

INTERVIEWER: A1 AND A2 WILL NEED TO HAVE BEEN FILLED OUT BEFORE YOU BEGIN

AN INTERVIEW. (EXCEPT WHERE NOTED, MORE THAN ONE CHOICE CAN BE CHECKED).

I would like to begin by confirming information we obtained from your office director.

A1. Our information indicates that you supervise workers who serve the following types of clients:

[READ CHECKED RESPONSES-- MORE THAN ONE CAN BE CHECKED]

9 TANF food stamp cases 9 Non-TANF food stamp cases

9 Elderly food stamp cases 9 Food stamp cases for disabled individuals

9 Food stamp cases for Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents or ABAWDs

9 Your workers serve all types of food stamp clients

9 Workers who are the initial point of contact for TANF applicants regarding lump sum

payments or vouchers [and] Applicant job search [IF ONLY THIS BOX IS

CHECKED ASK A1a, IF THE ANSWER IS YES GO TO SECTION G]

A1a. Is this correct?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO A2] 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00 

 

A1b. What kind of food stamp clients do the workers you supervise serve?

9 TANF food stamp cases 9 Non-TANF food stamp cases

9 Elderly food stamp cases 9 Food stamp cases for disabled individuals

9 Food stamp cases for able-bodied Adults Without Dependents or ABAWDs

9 Your workers serve all types of food stamp clients
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 4

A2. Our information also indicates that your workers are responsible for the following parts of the

food stamp process. [READ CHECKED RESPONSES- RESPONSES SHOULD BE CHECKED

FOR ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR OPTIONS BELOW]

1. Application or eligibility and ongoing or recertification for all the types of food

stamp cases I just listed;

2. Only application and eligibility for all the types of food stamp cases I’ve just

listed;

3. Only ongoing or recertification for all the types of food stamp cases I’ve just

listed; or

4. Application and Eligibility for TANF food stamp cases, Non-TANF food

stamp cases, Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) food

stamp cases, Elderly food stamp cases, Food stamp cases for disabled

individuals

(And) Ongoing or recertification for TANF food stamp cases,

 Non-TANF food stamp cases, Able-bodied Adults Without 

 Dependents or ABAWDs food stamp cases, Elderly food stamp cases, 

 Food stamp cases for disabled individuals

A2a. Is this correct?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

[IF RESPONSE TO A1a and A2a=YES, GO TO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION

INTRODUCTION BELOW A3; IF RESPONSE TO A1a=NO, GO TO A3]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

A2b. What part of the Food Stamp Program process are your workers responsible for and for

which types of clients?

1. Application or eligibility and ongoing or recertification for all the types of food

stamp cases I just listed;

2. Only application and eligibility for all the types of food stamp cases I’ve just

listed;

3. Only ongoing or recertification for all the types of food stamp cases I’ve just

listed; or

4. Application and Eligibility for TANF food stamp cases, Non-TANF food

stamp cases, Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) food

stamp cases, Elderly food stamp cases, Food stamp cases for disabled

individuals

(And) Ongoing or recertification for TANF food stamp cases,

 Non-TANF food stamp cases, Able-bodied Adults Without 

 Dependents or ABAWDs food stamp cases, Elderly food stamp cases, 

 Food stamp cases for disabled individuals
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 5

A3. INTERVIEWER: IF THE SUPERVISOR HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR MORE TYPES OF

CASES OR PARTS OF CASES THAN CHECKED IN A1 AND A2, PROCEED TO

SUBSTANTIVE Q INTRODUCTION AND CONTINUE THE INTERVIEW. IF THE

WORKER INDICATES THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TYPES OF CASES

CHECKED THEN YOU WILL NEED TO READ THE STATEMENT BELOW.

We appear to have recorded incorrect information regarding your responsibilities. I apologize,

but I will need to obtain the correct information and determine whether you are the person who

should have been selected for this interview. I will either call you back and reschedule or make

sure that you are informed that we will need to select another supervisor. When would be a good

time to call you back?

 

END SURVEY HERE FOR RESPONDENTS TO A3

SUBSTANTIVE Q INTRODUCTION. Now, I am going to ask you about a variety of policies and

practices in your office. There are no right or wrong answers on this survey. We want to learn about how

the Food Stamp Program and related programs operate at the local office you work in. We are also

interested in this office’s practices as they are usually carried out by your workers, not what happens

under every circumstance. 

If you do not know the answer to any question, please feel free to say so.
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 6

B. OFFICE HOURS

The next set of questions asks about your office hours and how services are provided to clients. For this

section, I will need you to turn to the “Office Hours” section of the Supervisor Survey Response Aid that

was sent to you in advance. Please tell me when you are ready to begin.

B1. Can you tell me the normal hours your office is open to clients during the week and whether that

varies by day. Please be sure to tell me if the office is usually closed at any time on any day for

lunch, staff meetings, or other reasons.

What hours is your office open to clients for any food stamp related services on Mondays? 

(REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH WEEK DAY)

WEEKDAY HOURS

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

B2. Is your office open during any weekend hours?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO B4]

B3. What are those hours? (FILL IN FOR BOTH DAYS AND WRITE “NOT OPEN” IF NOT OPEN

ON ONE DAY) 

WEEKEND HOURS

SATURDAY SUNDAY
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 7

B4. The next set of questions asks about the hours that specific food stamp services are available

during the time your office is open. The services are listed in Part II of the “Office Hours”

section of your form. Please inform me of the specific times these services are available. If they

are available during all the hours your office is open to clients you may tell me that. However, if

they are unavailable at any time during the week because of lunch hours, training sessions,

paperwork activities, or other reasons please inform me of this. For example, your office may be

open beginning at 7:30 a.m. for clients to wait on line, but not be able to accept application forms

for filing or for interviews until later in the morning; or you may not hold interviews during the

lunch hour

Okay, let’s begin. Of the weekday days and hours that your office is open to clients, when are

each of the following services available or able to be conducted?:

INTERVIEWER: IF THE ANSWER IS “ALL OPEN HOURS”, PLEASE WRITE THIS CLEARLY

ACROSS THE ROW THAT IT APPLIES TO. PLEASE WRITE “SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE” FOR

ANY DAY THE SERVICE IS NOT OFFERED. WRITE “NA” IF A SERVICE IS NOT OFFERED AT

ALL AT THE OFFICE WHERE THE SUPERVISOR WORKS.

SERVICE MON TUES WED THURS FRI

a. Accepting food stamp

application forms for

filing (just signing and

dating before an

eligibility interview is

conducted)?

b. Initial food stamp

eligibility interviews?

c. Food stamp

recertification

appointments?

d. Telephone inquiries

regarding how to

apply for food stamps?

INTERVIEWER: IF THERE ARE NO WEEKEND HOURS LISTED IN THE OFFICE HOURS TABLE

(B3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [GO TO B6]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 8

B5. Of the weekend days and hours that your office is open to clients. When are each of the following

services available?:

INTERVIEWER: IF THE ANSWER IS “ALL OPEN HOURS,” PLEASE WRITE THIS CLEARLY

ACROSS THE ROW THAT IT APPLIES TO. 

PLEASE WRITE “SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE” IF THE OFFICE IS OPEN BUT THE SERVICE IS

NOT OFFERED. WRITE “NA” IF A SERVICE IS NOT OFFERED AT ALL AT THE OFFICE

WHERE THE SUPERVISOR WORKS.

SERVICE SAT SUN

a. For accepting food stamp applications for filing (just signing

and dating before an eligibility interview is conducted)?

b. For initial food stamp eligibility interviews?

c. For food stamp recertification appointments?

d. For telephone inquiries regarding how to apply for food

stamps?

B6. Do you have a secure after hours drop-box that people can use to deposit their completed food

stamp applications or other information necessary to complete a food stamp application or

recertification?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

 

 DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 

B7. Which of the following are requests or inquiries that can be made by telephone? 

YES NO DK

a. Can a client schedule an eligibility interview for initial application? 01 00 98

b. Can a client ask questions about how to apply for food stamps? 01 00 98

c. Can a client ask questions about what information they will need to

 bring with them when they come in to apply for food stamps? 01 00 98

d. Can a client change a previously scheduled interview? 01 00 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 9

B8. Do your workers have individual voice mail boxes or answering machines in which clients can

leave messages?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 10

C. THE FOOD STAMP APPLICATION (FORMS AND AVAILABILITY)

I am now going to ask you some questions about food stamp applications.

C1. Can someone interested in applying for food stamps call to request that a food stamp application

be mailed to them?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO C3]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO C3]

C2. Can anyone do this or just people who staff determine are unable to come to the office?

ANYONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

JUST PEOPLE UNABLE TO COME TO THE OFFICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

C3. Are food stamp applications available at other locations in your community in addition to food

stamp offices?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO C5]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO C5]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 11

C4. At which of the following types of locations are food stamp applications available?

YES NO DK

a. Food pantries? 01 00 98

b. Senior centers? 01 00 98

c. Community Action Agencies? 01 00 98

d. Schools ? 01 00 98

e. The public housing authority? 01 00 98

f. Hospitals? 01 00 98

g. Community health clinics? 01 00 98

h. Social security offices? 01 00 98

i. Agencies serving immigrants or refugees? 01 00 98

j. Agencies serving the homeless? 01 00 98

k. Job centers? 01 00 98

l. Unemployment offices? 01 00 98

m. Any other locations? [SPECIFY] 01 00 98

 

C5 Do you have large print food stamp forms available for individuals with limited vision?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

C6. At your office is the

Application form for food stamps provided to 

clients in the front waiting area, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

Do they have to wait to get the form later when they meet with an 

eligibility worker or other caseworker? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 12

D. SERVICES AND PROCEDURES FOR PARTICULAR GROUPS OF CLIENTS

I’m now going to ask you some questions about the procedures in your office regarding particular groups

of clients. First, I have some questions about the children of clients.

D1. Are clients asked to leave their children at home or with a sitter when they come to your office

for an appointment?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

D2. Is there on-site child care available for clients utilizing the services at your office?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

D3. Now I would like to ask you some questions about legal immigrants. 

In a typical month do you normally have people come to your office seeking services who are 

immigrants?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO D10]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

D4. Do your workers give clients written information describing food stamp eligibility rules for legal

immigrants and their families?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO D6]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO D6] 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 13

D5. Are these materials available in a language other than English?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

D6. Do your workers give clients written information assuring them that accepting food stamps

cannot affect an immigrant’s ability to become a citizen?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO D8]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO D8]

D7 Are these written materials available in a language other than English?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

D8. Are there any public information or outreach efforts in the community to inform legal immigrants

that they or some of their family members may be eligible for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

D9. Have you used any of the following special methods to ensure your workers understand the

current eligibility rules in the Food Stamp Program for immigrants? Have you

YES NO DK

Held special training sessions for caseworkers 01 00 98

Developed simplified written guides for workers 01 00 98

Anything else? [SPECIFY] 01 00 98

 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 14

D10. The next set of questions asks about individuals seeking services at your office who may speak a

language other than English.

In a typical month, are there usually people who speak no or limited English who come in to your

office to apply for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION E]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

D11. Are there caseworkers in your office who can provide services in the language of your nonEnglish speaking clientele?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

D12. Are translators available either in the office or by telephone when there are no staff who can

speak the client’s language?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO SECTION E]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION E]

D13. How often are translators available in the office or by telephone?

During all office hours, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

at least 3/4 of the time the office is open, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

less than 3/4, but at least 1⁄2 of the time the office is open, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

less than half of the time the office is open? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 15

E. FOOD STAMP OUTREACH/PUBLIC INFORMATION EFFORTS 

The next set of questions are about food stamp outreach or public information efforts that may or may not

be occurring in your community. For this section you will need to turn to the page of the Supervisor

Survey Response Aid which is titled “Outreach.”

E1. Is your agency conducting any type of outreach campaign designed to inform potentially eligible

individuals about the Food Stamp Program?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

E2. Is any other agency or organization conducting an outreach campaign designed to inform

potentially eligible individuals in your locality about the Food Stamp Program?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

INTERVIEWER: IF BOTH E1 AND E2 = 00 OR DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [GO TO E6]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 16

E3. To which populations are these campaigns targeted? You may want to review the groups listed in

Part I of the outreach section of the Supervisor Survey Response Aid when answering this

question. [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

WORKING FAMILIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

ELDERLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

RURAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

FORMER TANF RECIPIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

HOMELESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

IMMIGRANT/REFUGEE POPULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06

ABAWDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07

DISABLED INDIVIDUALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08

NO SPECIFIC GROUP IS TARGETED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

E4. I am now going to ask about the possible methods of communication used in outreach activities

using the list in Part II of the outreach section of the supervisor survey response aid. Which of

the following methods of communication are being used to provide the public with information

on the Food Stamp Program?

YES NO DK 

a. Articles in newspapers? 01 00 98

b. Public service announcements (PSAs) 

on radio or TV? 01 00 98

c. Flyers, posters or brochures? 01 00 98

d. Billboards or advertisements on buses, taxis, or trains? 01 00 98

e. Presentations to community groups? 01 00 98

f. Toll free telephone number or hotline? 01 00 98

g. Direct mailing? 01 00 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 17

YES NO DK 

h. Telephone calls or home visits to clients who 

have left the program? 01 00 98

h. The internet? 01 00 98

i. Any others? [SPECIFY] 01 00 98

 

 

E5. Is some of this outreach being conducted in coordination with outreach for Medicaid or one of the

new State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP) or [STATE’S NAME FOR SCHIP]?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 18

E6. What changes could be made to your office procedures and policies that would increase the

number of eligible individuals who come in to initially apply for food stamps? [CIRCLE ALL

THAT APPLY]

PROBE: Anything else?

EARLIER WEEKDAY OPENING TIMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

LATER WEEKDAY CLOSING TIMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

ADD WEEKEND HOURS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

MORE STAFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

MORE OFFICE LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

OUTSTATION STAFF IN OTHER AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 

MORE CONVENIENT OFFICE LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 

MORE/BETTER OUTREACH EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08 

BETTER RECEPTION AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09 

BETTER COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 19

F. THE APPLICATION PROCESS

The next questions address the application and eligibility process for food stamps.

F1. Prior to the food stamp eligibility interview is someone applying for both TANF and food stamps

usually required to participate in any orientation sessions, job counseling sessions, job search

workshops, meetings with workers, or any similar activities?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO F8]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO F8]

F2. How many separate meetings or sessions are they required to attend?

 NUMBER OF MEETINGS OR SESSIONS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

F3. What are the purposes of the meetings or sessions? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

EMPLOYMENT ASSESSMENT/REFERRALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

CHILD SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

PROGRAM ORIENTATION/DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . 03

DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES AVAILABLE AS AN

ALTERNATIVE TO TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DISCUSSION OF CASH OR VOUCHERS AVAILABLE AS AN

ALTERNATIVE TO TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

OVERVIEW OF APPLICANT JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06

DESCRIPTION OF AVAILABLE SUPPORT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07

EBT TRAINING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 20

F3a. How many of these meetings or sessions are usually held in another building?

 NUMBER OF MEETINGS OR SESSIONS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

F4. Do individuals sign and date their food stamp application

Before these sessions or meetings, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

During a session or meeting, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

After completing the sessions or meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F5. Were any of these meetings or sessions required before 1996 or whenever your office

implemented welfare reform if that was done before 1996?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO F8]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO F8]

F6. How many of these meetings or sessions were required prior to 1996 or welfare reform

implementation?

 NUMBER OF MEETINGS OR SESSIONS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 21

F7. What were the purposes of the meetings or sessions required prior to 1996 or welfare reform

implementation? 

[CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

EMPLOYMENT ASSESSMENT/REFERRALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

CHILD SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

PROGRAM ORIENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES AVAILABLE AS AN

ALTERNATIVE TO TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

DISCUSSION OF CASH OR VOUCHERS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TANF . . . . . . . . . . 06

OVERVIEW OF APPLICANT JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07

DESCRIPTION OF AVAILABLE SUPPORT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F8. Compared to before welfare reform, today does a person applying for TANF and food stamps

usually have to make more visits now, less visits now, or the same number of office visits before

all the required steps in the food stamp application process are completed?

MORE VISITS NOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

LESS VISITS NOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

THE SAME NUMBER OF VISITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F9. The next set of questions address the food stamp application and eligibility process for nonTANF clients. Prior to the food stamp eligibility interview is a non-TANF food stamp applicant

usually required to participate in any orientation sessions, job counseling sessions, job search

workshops, meetings with workers, or any similar activities?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO F16]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO F16]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 22

F10. How many separate meetings or sessions are they required to attend?

 NUMBER OF MEETINGS OR SESSIONS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

F11. What are the purposes of the meetings or sessions?

 [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

EMPLOYMENT ASSESSMENT/REFERRALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

CHILD SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

PROGRAM ORIENTATION/DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . 03

OVERVIEW OF APPLICANT JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DESCRIPTION OF AVAILABLE SUPPORT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

EBT TRAINING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F11a. How many of these meetings or sessions are usually held in another building?

 NUMBER OF MEETINGS OR SESSIONS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

F12. Do individuals sign and date their food stamp application

Before these sessions or meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

During a session or meeting, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

After completing the sessions or meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 23

F13. Were any of these meetings or sessions required prior to 1996 or whenever your office

implemented welfare reform if that was done before 1996?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO F16]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO F16]

F14. How many meetings or sessions were required prior to 1996 or welfare reform implementation?

 NUMBER OF MEETINGS OR SESSIONS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

F15. What was the purpose of the meetings or sessions required prior to 1996 or welfare reform

implementation?

EMPLOYMENT ASSESSMENT/REFERRALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

CHILD SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

PROGRAM ORIENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

OVERVIEW OF APPLICANT JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

DESCRIPTION OF AVAILABLE SUPPORT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F16. Compared to before welfare reform, today does a non-TANF food stamp applicant usually have

to make more, less or the same number of office visits before all the required steps in the food

stamp application process are completed?

MORE VISITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

LESS VISITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

THE SAME NUMBER OF VISITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 24

G. TANF APPLICANTS

The next set of questions concerns individuals who may be eligible for or interested in applying for

TANF and food stamp benefits.

G1. Does your office require that any individuals interested in applying for TANF explore alternative

resources such as help from community agencies or other assistance programs before they are

able to apply for TANF?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO G5]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO G5]

G2. When does your staff usually encourage TANF applicants to seek alternative resources rather

than apply for cash assistance? 

Before a client signs and dates the food stamp application, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

During the interview in which a client signs and dates their food stamp application, or . . . . 02 

After a client has signed and dated the food stamp application? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

G3. When the workers encourage or require clients coming in for TANF to seek alternative resources,

are they instructed to tell clients that they can apply for food stamps regardless of what other

resources they are going to access?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 25

G4. Among all clients who come in interested in applying for TANF, what proportion are required to

explore alternative resources before applying for the program? Would you say:

All, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

At least three-quarters, but not all, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Less than one-quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

G5. Is there a policy to offer lump sum cash payments or expense vouchers to all or some TANF

applicants as an alternative to applying for TANF?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO TEXT ABOVE G10]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO TEXT ABOVE G10]

G5a. Are all or only some TANF applicants offered these cash payments or expense vouchers?

ALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

SOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 

G6. Can clients be required to accept the payments or vouchers instead of becoming a TANF recipient

or do they choose whether to accept the payment?

CLIENTS CAN BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE PAYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

CLIENTS CHOOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 26

G7. When does your staff usually inform TANF applicants about the lump sum payment or vouchers

as an alternative to getting on the cash welfare program? 

Before a client signs and dates the food stamp application, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

After a client has signed and dated the food stamp application, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

During an interview in which a client signs and dates the food stamp application? . . . . . . . . 03 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

G8. When the workers offer a lump sum payment or expense vouchers, are they instructed to tell the

client that they can apply for food stamps even if they receive a cash payment or voucher?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

G9. In a typical month, what proportion of clients who come in and are interested in applying for

TANF and would likely be income eligible receive the lump sum cash payments or expense

vouchers instead of becoming TANF recipients? Would you say

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 27

IF OFFICE DOES NOT REQUIRE TANF APPLICANTS TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE

RESOURCES AND DOES NOT OFFER A DIVERSION PAYMENT OR VOUCHER 

[IF G1 AND G5=NO] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [GO TO G11]

G10. What changes could be made regarding how TANF applicants are told about [lump sum

payments] [and] [about the requirement to explore alternative resources] that would result in more

eligible clients receiving food stamp benefits?

PROBE: Anything else?

RESPONDENT IDENTIFIES CHANGES [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

G11. Does your office require any TANF applicants to conduct a job search or engage in job search

activities such as job clubs or job search workshops before their TANF application can be

approved?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION H]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION H]

G12. In a typical month, what proportion of TANF applicants are required to conduct job search or

engage in job search activities before their TANF application can be approved?

All, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

At least three-quarters, but not all, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Less than one-quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 28

G13. When does your staff inform TANF applicants about this up-front job search requirement?

Before a client signs and dates the food stamp application, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

After a client has signed and dated the food stamp application, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

During an interview in which a client signs and dates their food stamp application? . . . . . . . . 03

 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

G14. When the workers discuss the requirement with TANF applicants, are they instructed to inform

them that they are not required to complete up-front job search to receive food stamps benefits?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

SOME [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

G15. Are TANF applicants subject to up-front job search required

To make a minimum number of contacts with

potential employers, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Complete a certain number of hours of job search 

activities over a specific time period, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO G17]

Both make a minimum number of contacts and complete a certain

number of hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS REGARDING CONTACTS

OR NUMBER OF HOURS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO G18]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 29

G16. What is the minimum number of contacts TANF applicants must make with potential employers? 

PROBE: In what period of time?

|___|___| CONTACTS IN |___|___| DAYS

 |___|___| CONTACTS IN |___|___| WEEKS

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

IF G15 = 01 (MINIMUM OF HOURS IS NOT REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [GO TO G18]

G17. What is the minimum number of hours they must participate in up-front job search activities? 

PROBE: In what period of time?

|___|___| HOURS OF SEARCH ACTIVITIES PER WEEK

 |___|___| HOURS OF SEARCH ACTIVITIES PER MONTH

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

G18. To complete their job search requirement for TANF, does a TANF applicant have to meet with an

employment counselor or specialist at another location other than your office, such as a

department of labor, a workforce development office or a contractor’s office.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 30

G19. When TANF applicants fail to complete their required up-front job search requirement and are

notified that they cannot receive TANF, are they formally notified by your office that they still

may be eligible for food stamps? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 31

H. NON-TANF FOOD STAMP APPLICANT JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENTS

The next set of questions concerns application requirements for non-TANF clients.

H1. Are any non-TANF food stamp applicants required to conduct a job search or attend job search

workshops before they can be eligible for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO H8]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO H8]

H2. Which non-TANF food stamp applicants are required to engage in job search or attend

workshops before their eligibility for food stamps is determined? 

YES NO DK

All mandatory work registrants 01 00 98

Able-bodied adults without dependents between ages 

18 and 50 (ABAWDS) 01 00 98

Another group of mandatory work registrants [SPECIFY] 01 00 98

 

H3. What proportion of non-elderly and non-disabled non-TANF applicants are required to conduct

job search or engage in job search activities before their food stamp application can be approved?

All, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

At least three-quarters, but not all, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Less than one-quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 32

H4. For non-TANF food stamp applicants required to conduct job search or attend workshops as a

condition of food stamp eligibility are they required

To make a minimum number of contacts with

potential employers, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Complete a certain number of hours of job search activities

over a specific time period, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO H6]

Both make a certain number of contacts and complete a certain number

of hours of job search activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS REGARDING CONTACTS

OR NUMBER OF HOURS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

H5. What is the requirement for the minimum number of contacts with potential employers?

PROBE: In what period of time?

|___|___| CONTACTS IN |___|___| DAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

 |___|___| CONTACTS IN |___|___| WEEKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

IF H4=01 (MINIMUM NUMBER OF HOURS IS NOT REQUIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [GO TO H7]

H6. What is the requirement for the minimum number of hours the non-TANF applicants must spend

on job search activities?

PROBE: In what period of time?

|___|___| HOURS OF SEARCH IN |___|___| DAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 |___|___| HOURS OF SEARCH IN |___|___| WEEKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 33

H7. To complete their job search requirement, does a non-TANF applicant have to meet with an

employment counselor or specialist at another location other than your office, such as a

department of labor, a workforce development office or a contractor’s office.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

H8. Thinking about the overall process of applying for food stamps for all the types of cases your

workers handle, what changes could be made to your office procedures and policies that would

increase the number of eligible households who complete the food stamp application process?

PROBE: Anything else?

RESPONDENT PROVIDES AN ANSWER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 34

I. HOME VISITS FOR FRONT-END FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS

The next questions ask about fraud prevention activities.

I1. Before determining eligibility for food stamps, does your office or a contractor ever conduct

front-end fraud investigations using unscheduled home visits to the applicant’s residence?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO I4]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO I4] 

I2. Do any of the following factors make it more likely that a household will receive a home visit as

part of a front-end fraud investigation. Is it more likely if...

YES NO DK 

a. A household has earned income? 01 00 98

b. There is currently no earned income, but there

is a history of work? 01 00 98

c. There are non-citizens in the household? 01 00 98

d. Are there other factors make it more likely an

investigation will be conducted? 01 00 98 [NO OR DK 

 GO TO I3]

e. What are the other factors?

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

I3. What is your best estimate for the proportion of front-end fraud investigations conducted among

all food stamp applications submitted? Would you say these unscheduled home visits are

conducted for:

All, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

At least one-half, but not all, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

At least one-quarter but less than one-half of all applications, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

At least 5 percent, but less than one-quarter of all applications, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

Less than 5 percent of all applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 35

I4. Does your office fingerprint or finger image any food stamp applicants?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION J]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

I5. For which group of clients do you fingerprint or finger image?

Only those also applying for TANF, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

All food stamp applicants, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Up to individual staff discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

OTHER GROUP [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 36

J. MEDICAL EXPENSE DEDUCTION FOR THE ELDERLY OR DISABLED

J1. Does your office usually provide assistance to elderly or disabled clients in documenting out-ofpocket medical expenses that they may be eligible to deduct?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO J3]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

J2. What type of assistance does your office provide? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

SPECIAL WRITTEN INFORMATION PROVIDED AT THE OFFICE 

WHEN ELDERLY OR DISABLED PERSONS APPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

CASEWORKERS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

REFERRALS TO OUTSIDE AGENCIES THAT HELP ELDERLY AND 

DISABLED COMPILE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

CASEWORKERS INSTRUCTED TO HELP THEM BY CONTACTING PROVIDERS

AND/OR PHARMACIES TO GET INFORMATION ON MEDICAL EXPENSES . . . . . . 04 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

J3. Have you used any of the following special methods to ensure your workers understand how to

utilize the medical expense deduction? Have you: 

YES NO DK

Held any special training sessions for caseworkers within

the last 3 years 01 00 98

Developed simplified written guides for workers 01 00 98

Anything else? [SPECIFY] 01 00 98

 

 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 37

K. SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING TANF RULES

The next set of questions is about food stamp benefit penalties that may be imposed on individuals

participating in both the TANF and Food Stamp Programs. In these questions I will refer to these

penalties as sanctions.

K1. Does your office ever impose sanctions on food stamp benefits for violations of TANF work

rules?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO K4]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K4]

K2. If a head of household violates a TANF work requirement what is the maximum food stamp

sanction that your office imposes? By maximum we mean the penalty you impose after repeated

violations. Do you:

Reduce food stamp benefits by a certain percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO K3]

Disqualify the noncompliant individual household member from 

receiving food stamps, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Disqualify the whole household from receiving food stamps? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO K2b]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

_______________________________________________________________________

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K3]

K2a. How long is the head of household removed from the food stamp unit?

FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO K3]

UNTIL SHE COMPLIES WITH THE TANF REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO K3]

UNTIL SHE COMPLIES WITH THE TANF REQUIREMENT OR FORMALLY

WITHDRAWS FROM TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO K3]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 [GO TO K3]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K3]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 38

K2b. Is the whole household disqualified

For the first violation of a TANF work requirement, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

For the second violation of a TANF work requirement, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

For a third or subsequent violation, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

Under some other circumstance? [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

 

K3. Does your office ever impose a food stamp sanction (disqualification or reduction of benefits) for

a violation of TANF work requirements if the household includes a child under age 6?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

K4. Does your office impose sanctions on food stamp benefits for violations of TANF requirements

other than TANF work requirements? 

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER IF THE RESPONDENT SAYS THE ONLY REASON THEY

LOSE BENEFITS IS IF THEY DON’T COME IN FOR RECERTIFICATION OR

REAPPLICATION THE ANSWER SHOULD BE CODED AS NO]

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO K7]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K7]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 39

K5. For which TANF rules? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

FAILURE TO COOPERATE WITH CHILD SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

MINOR CHILD’S SCHOOL ATTENDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

TEEN PARENT’S SCHOOL ATTENDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

CHILD IMMUNIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL CONFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

K6. What is the maximum penalty imposed on households that have their food stamp benefits

sanctioned due to noncompliance by head of household with TANF rules other than work

requirements? By maximum we mean the penalty you impose after repeated violations. Do you:

Reduce food stamp benefits by a certain percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO K7]

Disqualify the noncompliant individual household member from

receiving food stamps, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Disqualify the whole household from receiving food stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO K6b]

 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 [GO TO K7]

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K7]

K6a. How long is the individual removed from the food stamp unit?

FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO K7]

UNTIL SHE COMPLIES WITH THE TANF REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO K7]

UNTIL SHE COMPLIES WITH THE TANF REQUIREMENT OR FORMALLY

WITHDRAWS FROM TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO K7]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 [GO TO K7]

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K7]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 40

K6b. Is the whole household disqualified

For the first occurrence of noncompliance, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

For the second occurrence of noncompliance, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

For a third or subsequent occurrence of noncompliance, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

Under some other circumstance? [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

 

K7. The next set of questions asks about TANF cases where the cash assistance case is discontinued 

for violating TANF rules, but there is no comparable food stamp sanction. 

Does your office ever close the TANF case for households not complying with TANF work

requirements or other rules, not including periodic certification requirements?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION L]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION L]

K8. When a food stamp eligible household’s TANF case is closed due to a sanction and it is during

their food stamp certification period, which of following is office policy:

The household continues receiving food stamp benefits, adjusted if 

necessary, until their certification period ends, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

The household’s certification period is shortened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO K10]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K11]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 41

K9. Does someone in the household

Have to come to the office to have their benefits recalculated or, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Can the benefit levels usually be adjusted with information 

received by mail or over the phone, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Is no contact with the household usually necessary to recalculate 

the household’s food stamp benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

K10. Are there any special rules or procedures I have not covered that apply to the food stamp cases of

households that have their TANF case closed for failure to comply with TANF rules?

PROBE: Anything else?

YES [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 42

L. TANF LEAVERS

L1. The next set of questions asks what happens to food stamp cases when a household leaves TANF

because an adult has gotten a job and your office is aware the client has become employed. 

If this household leaves TANF within its food stamp certification period which of the following

usually occurs:

Their food stamp case is kept open and you do not change the length 

of their food stamp certification period, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

Their food stamp case is kept open, and you shorten their certification period to 

the one used for non-TANF households with earned income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO L4]

Their food stamp case is shortened to the end of the next month, or . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO L4]

Their food stamp case is automatically closed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 [GO TO L4]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

L2. If no new information is in the case file on the household’s changed income, does someone in the

household usually

Have to come to the office to have their benefits recalculated or, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Can the benefit levels usually be adjusted with information 

received by mail or over the phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

L3. If your office has information in the case file on the income being received as a result of the job

Do they still have to come in, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO L5]

Can you usually use the available information to redetermine their benefits . . . 02 [GO TO L5]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO L5]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 43

L4. When these clients leave TANF, do you routinely notify them that they may still be eligible for

food stamps and need to either recertify or reapply for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

L5. The next set of questions is about your office policies for processing the food stamp case of a

household who voluntarily leaves TANF not due to employment. 

If this household leaves TANF within its food stamp certification period which of the following

usually occurs: 

Their food stamp case is kept open and you do not change the length 

of their food stamp certification period, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Their food stamp certification period is shortened to the one for non-TANF

households, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Their food stamp certification period is shortened to the end of the 

next month, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO L7]

Their food stamp case is automatically closed, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 [GO TO L7]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

L6. Does someone in the household usually

Have to come to the office to have their benefits 

recalculated, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO L8]

Can the benefit levels usually be adjusted with information 

received by mail or over the phone, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO L8]

Is no contact with the household usually necessary to recalculate 

the household’s food stamp benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO L8]

 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 [GO TO L8]

 

 

 DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO L8]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 44

L7. When these clients leave TANF, do you routinely notify them that they may still be eligible for

food stamps and need to either recertify or reapply for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

L8. The next set of questions is about your office policies for processing the food stamp case of a

household who leaves TANF because of a State TANF time limit. If this household leaves TANF

within its food stamp certification period which of the following usually occurs: 

They continue receiving food stamp benefits until the food stamp 

certification period ends, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Their food stamp certification period is shortened to the one for 

non-TANF households, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO L10]

Their food stamp certification period is shortened to the end of the

next month, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO L10]

Their food stamp case is closed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 [GO TO L10]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

L9. Does someone in the household

Have to come to the office to have their benefits recalculated, . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO L11]

Can the benefit levels usually be adjusted with information 

received by mail or over the phone, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO L11]

Is no contact with the household usually necessary to recalculate 

the household’s food stamp benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO L11]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 [GO TO L11]

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO L11]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 45

L10. When these clients leave TANF, do you routinely notify them that they may still be eligible for

food stamps and need to either recertify or reapply for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

L11. What changes could be made to your office’s procedures that would increase the number of food

stamp eligible individuals who continue to receive food stamps after leaving the TANF Program?

[CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

PROBE: Anything else?

NEED TO CHANGE COMPUTER SYSTEM SO FOOD STAMP CASE DOES NOT

AUTOMATICALLY CLOSE WHEN CLIENT LEAVES TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

FOLLOW-UP FOR TANF LEAVERS TO INFORM THEM ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES IN

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN TANF AND FOOD STAMPS . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

PROVIDE BETTER INFORMATION AT APPLICATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES

IN THE TWO PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

ENCOURAGE CLIENTS TO FIND OUT IF THEY CAN STILL GET FOOD STAMPS

IF THEY GET A JOB OR DECIDE THEY DON’T WANT TANF ANYMORE . . . . . . . . . . 04

CHANGE COMPUTER SYSTEM SO THAT IT IS EASY TO MAINTAIN THE

HOUSEHOLD ON THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

OTHER CHANGES [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 46

M. NON-TANF PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS

The next set of questions asks about food stamp employment & training requirements that apply to clients

who utilize your office.

M1. Is there a Food Stamp Employment and Training Program available for your clients?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO M7]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO M7]

M2. Does this program serve

Only able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) ages 18-50 . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO M5] 

Only non-ABAWDs, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Both ABAWDs and non-ABAWDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO M5]

M3. Are any non-ABAWDs required to participate in an E&T component as a condition of eligibility?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO M5]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

M4. Does the E&T requirement for non-ABAWDs involve activities other than job search or job

search training?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

M5. Where are the staff located who are responsible for placing your food stamp E&T clients in a

particular component? Are they in the same building as you or at another location? 

SAME BUILDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

ANOTHER LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

M6. If the individual who is the head of a non-TANF household fails to comply with food stamp E&T

requirements do you disqualify 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 47

The individual, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

The whole household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

M7. Are non-TANF food stamp households ever sanctioned for failure to cooperate with the child

support agency?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION N]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION N]

M8. Which type of non-TANF parents are sanctioned for failure to cooperate with child support. Is it:

Custodial parents in food stamp households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Non-custodial parents in food stamp households, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Both? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 48

N. PERIODIC REPORTING

The next questions are about client requirements for periodic reporting.

N1. Does your office require any food stamp households to submit monthly or quarterly reports

within their food stamp certification period to document their income and other household

circumstances?

INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF THE RESPONDENT SAYS CLIENTS ARE ONLY REQUIRED

TO REPORT CHANGES WHEN THEY OCCUR CODE THE ANSWER AS 00 AND

FOLLOW THE SKIP.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION O]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION O]

N2. Which groups of participants are required to submit these periodic reports? 

YES NO DK

N2a. TANF clients with earnings? 01 00 98 [IF NO OR DK GO TO N2b]

N2aa. How often are these participants required to submit periodic reports?

Monthly or, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

Quarterly? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

 

YES NO DK

N2b. TANF clients without earnings? 01 00 98 [IF NO OR DK GO TO N2c]

N2bb. How often are these participants required to submit periodic reports?

Monthly, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

Quarterly? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

YES NO DK

N2c. Non-TANF clients with earnings? 01 00 98 [IF NO OR DK GO TO N2d]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 49

N2cc. How often are these participants required to submit periodic reports?

Monthly, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

Quarterly? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

YES NO DK

N2d. Any other households at 

 caseworker’s discretion? [SPECIFY] 01 00 98 [IF NO OR DK GO TO N3]

 

N2dd. How often are these participants required to submit periodic reports?

Monthly, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

Quarterly? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

N3. If a participant fails to submit a periodic report at the required deadline, is he or she

Sent a notice to submit report within set number of days, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

given an extended deadline without notice, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

is the case automatically closed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 50

N4. If a participant sends in the periodic report by the required deadline, but it is incomplete, is he or

she

Sent a notice to submit report within set number of days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

given an extended deadline without notice, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

is the case automatically closed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

N5. In a typical month, what percentage of your worker’s clients who are required to submit periodic

reports have their food stamp case closed because they fail to meet the reporting requirements? 

At least three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

At least one-half, but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-quarter, but less than one-half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least 5 percent, but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one, but less than 5 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 51

O. RECERTIFICATIONS

The next series of questions asks about the food stamp certification periods and processes at your office

for different groups of clients.

O1. How long is the usual food stamp certification period for households with only elderly and

disabled adult recipients?

 NUMBER OF MONTHS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O2. For these households, are in-person interviews at the office (individual or group) required for

every food stamp recertification?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO O3]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO O3] 

O2a. How often is an in-person recertification interview at the office required?

EVERY MONTHS

O2b. When an in-person interview is not required, do these clients only have to mail in forms

or do they mail in forms and then have a follow-up telephone interview?

MAIL IN FORMS ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

MAIL IN FORMS THEN A FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O3. How long is the usual food stamp certification period for households that include an able-bodied

adult without dependents, or ABAWD, subject to the time limit?

 NUMBER OF MONTHS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O4. Are in-person interviews (individual or group) at the office required for every food stamp

recertification for ABAWDs subject to the time limit?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO O5]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO O5]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 52

O4a. How often is an in-person recertification interview at the office required?

EVERY MONTHS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O4b. When an in-person interview is not required, do these clients only have to mail in forms

or do they mail in forms and then have a follow-up telephone interview?

MAIL IN FORMS ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

MAIL IN FORMS THEN A FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O5. Now let’s turn to non-TANF households with earned income. How long is the usual food stamp

certification period for non-TANF households with earned income?

 NUMBER OF MONTHS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O6. Are in-person interviews (individual or group) at the office required for every food stamp

recertification for non-TANF households with earned income?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO O7]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO O7]

O6a. How often is an in-person recertification interview at the office required?

EVERY MONTHS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O6b. When an in-person interview is not required, do these clients only have to mail in forms

or do they mail in forms and then have a follow-up telephone interview?

MAIL IN FORMS ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

MAIL IN FORMS THEN A FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 53

O7. How long is the usual food stamp certification period for TANF households without earned

income?

 NUMBER OF MONTHS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O8. Are in-person interviews (individual or group) at the office required for every food stamp

recertification for TANF households without earned income?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO O9]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO O9]

O8a. How often is an in-person recertification interview at the office required?

EVERY MONTHS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O8b. When an in-person interview is not required, do these clients only have to mail in forms

or do they mail in forms and then have a follow-up telephone interview?

MAIL IN FORMS ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

MAIL IN FORMS THEN A FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . 02

O9. How long is the usual food stamp certification period for households receiving TANF who do

have earned income?

 NUMBER OF MONTHS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O10. Are in-person interviews (individual or group) at the office required for every food stamp

recertification for TANF households with earned income?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO O11]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO O11]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 54

O10a. How often is an in-person recertification interview at the office required?

EVERY MONTHS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O10b. When an in-person interview is not required, do these clients only have to mail in forms

or do they mail in forms and then have a follow-up telephone interview?

MAIL IN FORMS ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

MAIL IN FORMS THEN A FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O11. When households are usually required to have an in-person recertification interview, do your staff

routinely offer telephone interviews or home interviews to persons with hardships? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO O12]]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO O12]

O11a. For which groups are telephone interviews or in-home interviews routinely offered? [CIRCLE

ALL THAT APPLY]

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONLY ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONLY DISABLED INDIVIDUALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

TANF HOUSEHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

HOUSEHOLDS LACKING ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

HOUSEHOLDS WITH EARNINGS OR OTHER WORK RELATED

COMMITMENTS THAT POSE A BARRIER TO COMING INTO THE OFFICE . . . . . . . . . 05

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 55

O12. How many days or weeks before a recertification period requiring an in-person interview is over

are clients notified in writing that they must complete a recertification?

 NUMBER OF DAYS

 NUMBER OF WEEKS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O13. For TANF clients, are TANF redeterminations and food stamp recertifications usually completed

during the same interview?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 56

P. ACCESS PERCEPTION QUESTIONS

The next set of questions asks for your opinions on a variety of issues.

I am going to read a series of statements, please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or

strongly disagree with each one.

P1. Being on food stamps encourages dependency.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P2. The size of the caseloads for my workers are very large, making it difficult for them to help

people as much as they should.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P3. People who leave the TANF rolls often leave the Food Stamp Program without us knowing

whether they are still eligible for food stamps.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 57

P4. People who leave TANF and are potentially eligible for food stamps should be actively

encouraged to apply for food stamps.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P5. The food stamp eligibility rules for legal immigrants are difficult for my staff to implement.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P6. Immigrants should not get food stamps until they become citizens.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P7. The set-up of our computer generated notices sometimes results in people losing food stamp

benefits they are eligible for.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 58

P8. Our office actively discourages clients from becoming TANF recipients.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P9. It is hard for clients who work to do what needs to be done to apply for food stamps.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P10. It is hard for working food stamp clients to do what is required to stay on the Food Stamp

Program.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P11. In the past few years it has become more difficult for eligible people to get on the Food Stamp

Program.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO P14]

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 [GO TO P14]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO P14]
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 59

P12. For which groups of people do you think it has become more difficult to get food stamps in recent

years? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

ALL GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

THE WORKING POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

THE ELDERLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

ADULTS WITHOUT CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

OTHER [SPECIFY] ........................................................ 96 

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P13. What do you think are the most important reasons that it has become more difficult for people to

get food stamps in recent years?

 

 

 

 

P14. Is there any policy or procedure that your office has implemented, that we have not already

covered in our survey, to improve access to the Food Stamp Program for any specific groups or

for the eligible population in general?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [ GO TO SECTION Q]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

P15. Please briefly describe this policy and its purpose.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Q. RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
Food Stamp Access Supervisor Survey Page 60

Finally I have a few questions about you. These questions will just be used to group your responses with

people with similar characteristics.

Q1. [RECORD WITHOUT ASKING] RESPONDENT IS

FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Q2. How old are you? YEARS

Q3. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

GED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

SOME COLLEGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

BACHELOR’S DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

GRADUATE DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 

VOCATIONAL SCHOOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 

Q4. What year did you begin working in this office as a caseworker or supervisor responsible 

for food stamp cases? .................................................. 

Q5. Have you worked in another office as a caseworker or supervisor responsible for food stamp

cases?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO CLOSING] 

Q6. What year did you first work as a caseworker or supervisor responsible for food stamp

 cases? .............................................................. 

CLOSING

Thank you for participating in the survey. We appreciate that you took time out from your schedule to

answer our questions.

TIME INTERVIEW COMPLETED:

|___|___|:|___|___| AM...01

 PM....02
SURVEY OF FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

PROCESSES 

CASEWORKER SURVEY

Prepared for:

Economic Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 

Prepared by:

Health Systems Research, Inc.

Washington, DC

Under Subcontract with Abt Associates

January 9, 2000
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to participate in this survey of Food Stamp

Program processes. 

My name is and I am with Health Systems Research in Washington, D.C. We are

conducting this survey with local offices in 40 States around the country to find out about how

people learn about the Food Stamp Program, the different ways they become food stamp

participants, and what happens once they begin to participate in the program. The results of this

survey will be included in a study for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with Abt Associates

as the lead research organization. 

We received your name and general job description from a list provided by your office director.

You were randomly selected from this list based on your responsibilities for particular types of

food stamp cases. We are interested in how you do your job and what you think. 

Your responses to this survey will be kept completely confidential. Your name and office will

not be identified with any answers you give. Your answers to the questions will be grouped with

other offices around the country and no information will be published on responses that could

identify particular individuals or particular offices.

The Office of Management and Budget control number for this is information collection is

0536-0053.

INTERVIEWER PROVIDE A DIFFERENT LENGTH OF INTERVIEW ESTIMATE IF YOU

EXPECT IT TO BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS YOU

NEED TO ASK.

This survey will take about 45 minutes to complete. Do you have any questions before we

begin?
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 2

RESPONDENT INFORMATION SHEET

OFFICE LOCATION (CITY, STATE) : 

AGENCY NAME: 

OFFICE CODE NUMBER: 

RESPONDENT NAME: 

TELEPHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: 

RESPONDENT CODE NUMBER: 

DATE OF INTERVIEW: |___|___| |___|___| 20|___|___|

MONTH DAY YEAR

TIME INTERVIEW BEGAN: |___|___|:|___|___| AM...01

PM....02

NOTE TO INTERVIEWERS: INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS AND RESPONSES IN ALL

CAPS ARE NOT READ TO THE RESPONDENT.
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 3

A. CASEWORKER RESPONSIBILITIES

INTERVIEWER: A1 AND A2 WILL NEED TO HAVE BEEN FILLED OUT BEFORE YOU BEGIN

AN INTERVIEW. (EXCEPT WHERE NOTED, MORE THAN ONE CHOICE CAN BE CHECKED).

I would like to begin by confirming information we obtained from your office director.

A1. Our information indicates that you serve the following types of clients: [READ CHECKED

RESPONSES]

9 TANF food stamp cases 9 Non-TANF food stamp cases

9 Elderly food stamp cases 9 Food stamp cases for disabled individuals

9 Food stamp cases for Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents or ABAWDs

9 You are responsible for all types of food stamp clients

A1a. Is this correct?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO A2]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

 

A1b. What kind of food stamp clients do you serve?

9 TANF food stamp cases 9 Non-TANF food stamp cases

9 Elderly food stamp cases 9 Food stamp cases for disabled individuals

9 Food stamp cases for able-bodied Adults Without Dependents or ABAWDs

9 I serve all types of food stamp clients
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 4

A2. Our information also indicates that you are responsible for the following parts of the food stamp

process. [READ CHECKED RESPONSES- RESPONSES SHOULD BE CHECKED FOR

ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR OPTIONS BELOW] 

1. Application and eligibility, and ongoing and recertification for all the types of

cases I just listed

2. Only application and eligibility for the types of cases I’ve just listed

3. Only ongoing and recertification for the types of cases I’ve just listed

4. Application and eligibility for TANF food stamp cases, Non-TANF food

stamp cases, Food stamp cases for able-bodied adults without dependents

(ABAWDs), Elderly food stamp cases, ___Disabled food stamp cases

(And) Ongoing and recertification for TANF food stamp cases,

 Non-TANF food stamp cases, Food stamp cases for able-bodied

adults without dependents (ABAWDs), Elderly food stamp cases,

___Disabled food stamp cases 

A2a. Is this correct?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

[IF RESPONSE TO A1a and A2a=YES, GO TO A4, IF A1a=NO, GO TO A3 AND 

FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

A2b. What part of the Food Stamp Program process are you responsible for and for which

types of clients?

1. Application or eligibility and ongoing or recertification for all the types of food

stamp cases I just listed;

2. Only application and eligibility for all the types of food stamp cases I’ve just

listed;

3. Only ongoing or recertification for all the types of food stamp cases I’ve just

listed; or

4. Application and Eligibility for TANF food stamp cases, Non-TANF food

stamp cases, Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) food

stamp cases, Elderly food stamp cases, Food stamp cases for disabled

individuals

(And) Ongoing or recertification for TANF food stamp cases,

 Non-TANF food stamp cases, Able-bodied Adults Without 

 Dependents or ABAWDs food stamp cases, Elderly food stamp cases, 

 Food stamp cases for disabled individuals
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 5

A3. INTERVIEWER: IF THE INFORMATION ON RESPONSIBILITIES WAS RECORDED

CORRECTLY OR IF THE CASEWORKER HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR MORE TYPES OF

CASES OR PARTS OF CASES THAN CHECKED IN A1 AND A2 PROCEED TO A4 AND

CONTINUE THE INTERVIEW. 

IF THE WORKER INDICATES THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TYPES OF

CASES CHECKED THAN YOU WILL NEED TO READ THE STATEMENT BELOW.

We appear to have recorded incorrect information regarding your responsibilities. I apologize,

but I will need to obtain the correct information and determine whether you are the person who

should have been selected for this interview. I will either call you back and reschedule or make

sure that you are informed that we will need to select another caseworker. When would be a

good time to call you back?

 

END SURVEY HERE FOR RESPONDENTS TO A3

A4. What other programs, in addition to food stamps, do you personally provide services for?

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

MEDICAID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

CHILD CARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

GENERAL ASSISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

ASSISTANCE FOR REFUGEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06

STATE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

Now, I am going to ask you about a variety of policies and practices in your office. There are no right or

wrong answers on this survey. We want to know how you do your job. When I ask the questions, I am

trying to find out what you usually do, in most cases, not what you do with all clients.

If you do not know the answer to any question, please fell free to say so.
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 6

B. THE APPLICATION PROCESS

The next set of questions concerns the application process and eligibility determination. 

B1. Is the form used for food stamp applications a combined application form for people who are

applying for multiple programs?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO B3]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO B3]

B2. Which other programs use the same form? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

MEDICAID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

GENERAL ASSISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

B3. Does an applicant for TANF and food stamps usually receive the food stamp application to sign

and date before they see you for an eligibility interview or sign and date it during the interview

with you?

BEFORE THEY HAVE THE ELIGIBILITY INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

DURING THE ELIGIBILITY INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 7

B4. On the first day that they come into your office to apply, do applicants for both food stamps and

TANF usually complete all the required steps for food stamps and have the food stamp eligibility

interview that day?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO B6]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

B5. How many visits does a person applying for TANF and food stamps usually make to the office

before they complete all the steps in the food stamp eligibility process, not including any visits

they make just to drop off verification paperwork?

 NUMBER OF VISITS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

 

B6. Does a client coming in asking for food stamps and not TANF usually receive the food stamp

application to sign and date before they see you for an eligibility interview or sign and date it

during the interview with you?

BEFORE THEY HAVE THE ELIGIBILITY INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

DURING THE ELIGIBILITY INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

 

B7. On the first day that they come into your office to apply, do applicants for food stamps, who are

not also applying for TANF, usually complete all the required steps for food stamps and have the

food stamp eligibility interview that day?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO B9]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

B8. How many visits does a non-TANF food stamp applicant usually make to the office before they

complete all the steps in the food stamp eligibility process, not including any visits they make just

to drop off verification paperwork?

_____ NUMBER OF VISITS

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 8

B9. When a person has a food stamp eligibility interview (whether in person or otherwise), is this

same interview also used for determining eligibility for other programs or for food stamps only?

USED FOR DETERMINING ELIG. FOR OTHER PROGRAMS . . . 01 

 

USED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION 

ONLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO SECTION C]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION C]

B10. Which other programs? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

MEDICAID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

GENERAL ASSISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 9

C. IN-PERSON, TELEPHONE AND AT HOME INTERVIEWS

The next series of questions asks about the scheduling of eligibility interviews for food stamp applicants

and about alternatives to in-person interviews.

C1. Do applicants usually:

Have appointments scheduled in advance for in person 

eligibility interviews, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Do they need to come into the office and line up for an appointment . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO C4]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

C2. What do you usually do when an applicant has an appointment with you for an eligibility

interview scheduled in advance and does not come in for that first appointment. Do you usually:

Automatically reschedule them for another interview appointment another day, . . . . . . . . . 01 

Notify them that they must schedule another interview, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Keep their case pending for a specific number of days to give them time to contact 

the office to reschedule an interview, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

Automatically deny the application? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

C3. If someone comes in at least 30 minutes late for their food stamp appointment with you, do you

usually 

Rescheduled their appointment for that same day, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Reschedule the appointment for another day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Automatically deny the application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 10

C4. Do you routinely offer telephone interviews or home interviews for persons with hardships?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO C6]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

C5. For which groups are telephone interviews or in-home interviews routinely offered? [CIRCLE

ALL THAT APPLY]

PROBE: ANYONE ELSE?

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONLY ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONLY DISABLED INDIVIDUALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

TANF HOUSEHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

HOUSEHOLDS LACKING ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

HOUSEHOLDS WITH EARNINGS OR OTHER WORK RELATED

COMMITMENTS THAT POSE A BARRIER TO COMING INTO THE OFFICE . . . . . . . . . 05

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 11

C6. What changes could be made to your office procedures and policies that would increase the

number of eligible individuals who come in to initially apply for food stamps? [CIRCLE ALL

THAT APPLY]

PROBE: Anything Else? 

EARLIER WEEKDAY OPENING TIMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

LATER WEEKDAY CLOSING TIMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

ADD WEEKEND HOURS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

MORE STAFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

MORE OFFICE LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

OUTSTATION STAFF IN OTHER AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 

MORE CONVENIENT OFFICE LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 

MORE/BETTER OUTREACH EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08 

BETTER RECEPTION AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09 

BETTER COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 12

D. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

This next set of questions are about the availability of public transportation to your office and the distance

that clients have to travel.

D1. What would you say is the furthest any of your clients have to travel from their homes to your

office?

Less than one mile, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

At least one, but less than five miles, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least five, but less than ten miles, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least ten, but less than twenty miles, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

more than twenty miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

D2. Is there public transportation available within 1⁄2 mile of your office?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO D4]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 

D3. What would you estimate is the proportion of your clients who live in neighborhoods served by

public transit routes that reach your office? 

All, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

At least three-fourths but not all, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

 At least one-half but less than three-fourths, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-fourth but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Less than one-fourth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 13

D4. Does your agency offer transportation assistance to help individuals come to your office for

applications or recertifications?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION E]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION E]

D5. For which clients is transportation assistance offered? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

THE ELDERLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

THE DISABLED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

HOMELESS CLIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

CLIENTS IN RURAL OR OUTLYING AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

TANF PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

ANYONE WHO REQUESTS IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

D6. What type of transportation assistance is available?

CASH, VOUCHERS, OR TOKENS FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

FREE CAB RIDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

VAN SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 14

E. SERVICES AND PROCEDURES FOR PARTICULAR GROUPS OF CLIENTS

Now I would like to ask you some questions about immigrant households who come in to apply for food

stamps.

E1. In a typical month do you normally see individuals seeking food stamp services who are

immigrants?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO E6]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

E2. Would you say that food stamp eligibility rules for immigrants are

Very difficult to apply, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

Somewhat difficult to apply, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

Not at all difficult to apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

E3. Have you received any special training on how to conduct the food stamp eligibility

determination for households where one or more of the applicants is not a U.S. citizen?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

E4. Is it routine for you to tell adult immigrant clients who apply for food stamps and are not eligible

that they may be able to receive food stamps for their children?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 15

E5. If a legal immigrant appears ineligible because of when they entered the country do you 

Tell them to complete an application, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Tell them not to bother applying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

E6. Now I want to ask you a few questions about Non-English speaking people who come to your

office. In a typical month, do people who speak no or limited English come in to apply for food

stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION F]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

E7. Are translators or bilingual caseworkers available in person or by telephone— to help such clients

complete the application process?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 16

F. TANF APPLICANTS

The next set of questions concerns food stamp applicants who may also be eligible for or interested in

applying for TANF benefits.

F1. Do you tell any individuals interested in applying for TANF that they must explore alternative

resources such as help from community agencies or other assistance programs before they apply

for TANF?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO F5]

 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

F2. Among all clients you see who come in interested in applying for TANF what portion are

required to explore alternative resources before applying for the program? Would you say:

All, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

At least than three-quarters but less than all of them, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Less than one-quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

F3. When you talk to them about exploring alternative resources before applying for TANF, do you

usually encourage them to apply for food stamps that day, discourage them from applying for

food stamps, or not mention food stamps at all?

ENCOURAGE FOOD STAMP APPLICATION THAT DAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

DISCOURAGE FOOD STAMP APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

NOT MENTION FOOD STAMPS AT ALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 17

F4. What proportion of your clients who came in interested in applying for TANF and did not apply

for TANF at that time because they were required to explore alternative resources, completed the

food stamp application process and had their food stamp eligibility determined? Would you say:

More than three-quarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

At least 5 percent, but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

Less than 5 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F5. Do you offer lump sum cash payments, expense vouchers, or other payments to certain clients in

return for them agreeing not to become TANF recipients? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [IF APPLICANT MUST EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES 

(F1 EQ 01) GO TO F9, ELSE GO TO F10] 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . 98 [IF APPLICANT MUST EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES 

(F1 EQ 01) GO TO F9, ELSE GO TO F10] 

F6. When you tell them about the rules for these available payments, do you usually encourage them

to apply for food stamps, discourage them from applying for food stamps, or not mention food

stamps at all?

ENCOURAGE FOOD STAMP APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

DISCOURAGE FOOD STAMP APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

NOT MENTION FOOD STAMPS AT ALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 18

F7. In a typical month, what proportion of your clients who are interested in applying and would

likely be income eligible for TANF, receive these payments instead of becoming TANF

recipients?

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one client, but less than one-quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO F9]

F8. Among your clients who accept this payment, what proportion would you estimate complete the

food stamp application process and have their food stamp eligibility determined? 

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

At least one-quarter, but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

At least 5 percent but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

Less than 5 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F9. What changes could be made regarding how TANF applicants are told about [lump sum

payments] [and] [about the requirement to explore alternative resources] that would result in more

eligible clients receiving food stamp benefits?

PROBE: Anything Else? 

RESPONDENTS SUGGESTS CHANGES [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 19

F10. Now I would like to ask you about job search requirements for TANF applicants. Do you

require any TANF applicants to conduct a job search before their TANF application is approved?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION G]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION G]

 F11. When you explain the job search requirement to them, do you encourage them to complete their

food stamp application, discourage them from applying for food stamps, or not mention food

stamps at all?

ENCOURAGE THEM TO COMPLETE THEIR FOOD STAMP APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . 01

DISCOURAGE FOOD STAMP APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

NOT MENTION FOOD STAMPS AT ALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F12. In a typical month, what proportion of TANF applicants are required to conduct job search before

their TANF application can be approved?

All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

At least three-quarters, but not all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

At least one-half, but less than three-quarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

At least one-quarter, but less than one-half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

Less than one-quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 20

F13. For your clients who are required to conduct a job search do you routinely verify their job

contacts by getting in touch with the employers they say they contacted?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

F14. What proportion of those who you require to conduct an applicant job search for TANF would

you estimate complete the food stamp application process and have their food stamp eligibility

determined? 

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least 5 percent, but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Less than 5 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 21

G. NON-TANF FOOD STAMP JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENTS

The next set of questions is about requirements for non-TANF food stamp clients.

G1. Do you and your office require any non-TANF food stamp applicants to conduct a job search or

attend job search classes or workshops before their eligibility for food stamps can be determined?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO G4]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO G4]

G2. For clients required to conduct job search, do you usually verify their job contacts by getting in

touch with the employers they say they contacted?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

G3. Among your cases required to conduct job search activities before being approved for food

stamps what proportion would you say come back, complete the food stamp application process

and have their food stamp eligibility determined?

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 22

G4. Thinking about the overall process of applying for food stamps, for all the types of cases you

handle, what changes could be made to your office procedures and policies that would increase

the number of eligible households who complete the food stamp application process?

PROBE: Anything Else? 

RESPONDENT PROVIDED AN ANSWER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

 

 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 23

H. VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

H1. The next set of questions concerns verification requirements for information provided during the

food stamp application process for your food stamp applicants who are also applying for TANF. 

In order to verify household income, do you usually require food stamp applicants to have a

special form completed by their employer or past employer?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H2. As a routine practice, do you usually directly contact a food stamp applicant’s employer to verify

earned income?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H3. In order to verify household circumstances, such as an address or the number of people in the

household, do you usually require food stamp applicants to have a special form completed by a

third party ?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H4. As a routine practice, do you usually directly contact a third party to verify an applicant’s

household circumstances?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H5. To verify shelter costs, do you usually require food stamp applicants to have a special form

completed by their landlord and/or another third party?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 24

H6. As a routine practice, do you usually directly contact a food stamp applicant’s landlord or another

third party to verify their shelter costs?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H7. Do your non-TANF food stamp applicants have the same verification requirements as those just

described for TANF food stamp applicants or are they different?

THE SAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO H14]

DIFFERENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

H8. The next set of questions concerns verification requirements for information provided during the

food stamp application process for your non-TANF food stamp applicants. 

In order to verify household income, do you usually require food stamp applicants to have a

special form completed by their employer or past employer?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H9. As a routine practice, do you usually directly contact a food stamp applicant’s employer to verify

earned income?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H10. In order to verify household circumstances, such as an address or the number of people in the

household, do you usually require food stamp applicants to have a special form completed by a

third party ?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 25

H11. As a routine practice, do you usually directly contact a third party to verify an applicant’s

household circumstances?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H12. To verify shelter costs, do you usually require food stamp applicants to have a special form

completed by their landlord and/or another third party?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H13. As a routine practice, do you usually directly contact a food stamp applicant’s landlord or another

third party to verify their shelter costs?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H14. Are there items in addition to those required for food stamps that a TANF applicant has to verify

through third-party contacts before TANF eligibility can be determined?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO H16]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO H16]

H15. What items are these? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

COMPLIANCE WITH CHILD SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

CHILD IMMUNIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

CHILD’S SCHOOL ATTENDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

OWN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IF A TEEN PARENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 26

H16. Do you routinely provide applicants with written instructions about the verification

documentation they need?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

H17. If one of your applicants has provided some of the needed documentation for determining food

stamp eligibility but is still missing some items by the end of the 30 day processing period are

they:

Notified that items are missing before their application is denied, or . . . . . . . 01 

Is their application denied without notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 27

H18. What changes could be made to your office’s requirements and practices for verification

requirements for the Food Stamp Program that would result in more eligible food stamp clients

completing the application process? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY] 

PROBE: Anything Else? 

VERIFY FEWER ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

PROVIDE MORE ASSISTANCE TO CLIENTS 

IN OBTAINING VERIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

PROVIDE CLEARER INFORMATION ON WHAT IS 

REQUIRED OF CLIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

PROVIDE ACCESS TO A COPIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

ACCEPT A WIDER RANGE OF DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL FOR 

VERIFICATION PURPOSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 28

I. MEDICAL EXPENSE DEDUCTION FOR THE ELDERLY OR DISABLED

I1. Do you provide elderly clients with written information or detailed verbal instructions describing

what they need to do to claim the medical expense deduction for food stamps? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

I2. Do you routinely provide any special additional assistance to elderly or disabled clients to help

them compile the documentation needed to claim a medical expense deduction they may be

eligible for?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO I3]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO I3]

I2a. What type of assistance do you provide? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

REFERRALS TO OUTSIDE AGENCIES THAT HELP ELDERLY AND 

DISABLED COMPILE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

REVIEW MEDICAL RECEIPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

CALL MEDICAL PROVIDERS/PHARMACISTS DIRECTLY TO GET 

INFORMATION ON EXPENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 

 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 29

I3. Among all elderly or disabled applicants you see in a typical month, what percentage would you

estimate claim the excess medical expense deduction? 

More than 90 percent, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least 50 percent but less than 90 percent, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least 10 percent but less than 50 percent, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Less than 10 percent, but at least some, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 

 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 30

J. SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING TANF RULES

The next set of questions asks about cases where there might be food stamp penalties or “sanctions” for

individuals participating in both the TANF and Food Stamp Programs.

J1. Do you ever impose any sanctions on food stamp benefits for violations of TANF work

requirements? Here we do not mean freezing the food stamp benefit level, but rather additional

cuts or disqualifications applied to the food stamp benefits.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

J2. Do you ever impose sanctions on food stamp benefits for violations of TANF requirements other

than TANF work requirements? [NOTE TO INTERVIEWER IF THE RESPONDENT SAYS

THE ONLY REASON THEY LOSE FOOD STAMPS BENEFITS IS IF THEY DON’T COME

IN FOR RECERTIFICATION OR REAPPLICATION THE ANSWER SHOULD BE CODED

AS NO]

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [IF J1 EQ YES (01) GO TO J4 ELSE GO TO J5]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [IF J1 EQ YES (01) GO TO J4 ELSE GO TO J5]

J3. For which TANF rules?

FAILURE TO COOPERATE WITH CHILD SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

MINOR CHILD’S SCHOOL ATTENDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

TEEN PARENT’S SCHOOL ATTENDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

CHILD IMMUNIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL CONFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 31

J4. In a typical month, what proportion of your TANF clients have their food stamps sanctioned for

violations of TANF work or other behavioral rules, excluding periodic recertification

requirements? 

Less than 10 percent, but at least one client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

At least 10 percent, but less than 50 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

At least 50 percent, but less than 90 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

More than 90 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

J5. The next set of questions asks about TANF cases where the cash assistance case is closed for

violating TANF rules.

Have you ever closed a TANF case for not complying with TANF work requirements or other

rules, not including periodic recertification requirements.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION K]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

J6. When a food stamp eligible household’s TANF case is closed because of a sanction during their

food stamp certification period. Do you usually:

Continue the household on food stamps until their certification 

period ends, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Shorten the household’s food stamp certification period to the one 

used for non-TANF households, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Shorten the households’s food stamp certification period to the end

of next month, or do you . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO J9]

Close the food stamp case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 [GO TO J8]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 32

J7. Does someone in the household usually

Have to come to the office to have their benefits recalculated, or . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO J9]

Can the benefit levels be adjusted with information received by mail or over the

phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO J9]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO J9]

J8. When a client’s food stamp case is closed due to a TANF sanction, do you usually notify them

that they may still be eligible for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

J9. Among the households you serve whose case is closed due to a sanction, what proportion would

you estimate continue to receive food stamp benefits? 

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Less than one-quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

J10. Are there any special procedures, that I have not already mentioned, that you apply to the food

stamp cases of households that have their TANF case closed for failure to comply with TANF

rules?

YES [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 33

K. TANF LEAVERS

The next set of questions asks what happens to food stamp cases when a household leaves TANF because

an adult has gotten a job and your office is aware the client has become employed.

K1. If this household leaves TANF within its food stamp certification period, do you usually:

Keep the food stamp case open and not change the length of the 

certification period, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

Shorten the household’s certification period to the one used for non-TANF

households with earned income, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Shorten the certification period to the end of next month, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO K4]

Close the food stamp case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 [GO TO K4]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

K2. If no new information is in the case file on the household’s changed income, does someone in the

household usually

Have to come to the office to have their benefits recalculated or, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

Can the benefit levels usually be adjusted with information 

received by mail or over the phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

K3. If your office has information in the case file on the income being received as a result of the job

Do they still have to come in, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO K5]

Can you usually use the available information to redetermine their benefits . . . 02 [GO TO K5]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K5]
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 34

K4. When these clients leave TANF, do you routinely notify them that they may still be eligible for

food stamps and need to either recertify or reapply for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

 

K5. What proportion of your clients who have left TANF because they have found employment

would you estimate continue to receive food stamps? 

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one but less than one-quarter, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

The next set of questions is about how you process the food stamp case of a household who voluntarily

leaves TANF not due to employment.

K6. Which of the following actions do you usually take when a household voluntarily leaves TANF? 

Do you... 

Keep the food stamp case open and not change the length of the food 

stamp certification period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

Keep the food stamp case open and shorten the certification period

to the one used for non-TANF households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Keep the food stamp case open and shorten the certification period

to the end of the next month, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO K8]

Close the food stamp case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 [GO TO K8]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 35

K7. Does someone in the household usually

Have to come to the office to have their benefits recalculated, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO K9]

Can you adjust the benefits with information received by mail or over 

the phone, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO K9]

 

Is no contact with the household usually necessary to recalculate the 

household’s food stamp benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO K9]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K9]

K8. When these clients leave TANF, do you routinely notify them that they may still be eligible for

food stamps and need to either recertify or reapply for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO K9]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO K9]

K9. What proportion of your clients who have left TANF voluntarily would you estimate continue to

receive food stamps? 

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 36

K10. The next set of questions is about how you process the food stamp case of a household whose

cash assistance case is closed because of a State TANF time limit. When a case is closed because

of a TANF time limit do you

Continue the household as eligible for food stamps, until the food 

stamp certification period ends, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

Shorten its food stamp certification period to the one for non-TANF

households, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

Shorten its food stamp certification period to the end of the next month, or . . . 03 [GO TO K12]

Close the food stamp case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 [GO TO K12]

WORKER HAS NEVER CLOSED A CASE BECAUSE OF THE TIME

LIMIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO K14]

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

K11. Does someone in the household

Have to come to the office to have their benefits recalculated, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO K13]

Can you adjust the benefits with information received by mail or over 

the phone, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO K13]

 

Is no contact with the household usually necessary to recalculate the 

household’s food stamp benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO K13]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

K12. When these clients leave TANF, do you usually notify them that they may still be eligible for

food stamps if they reapply?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 37

K13. What proportion of your clients who have hit the TANF time limit would you estimate continued

to receive food stamps after their TANF case was closed because of the time limit?

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

K14. What changes could be made to your office’s procedures that would increase the number of food

stamp eligible individuals who continue to receive food stamps after leaving the TANF Program,

either due to a job, voluntarily or after hitting the time limit? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

PROBE: Anything Else? 

NEED TO CHANGE COMPUTER SYSTEM SO FOOD STAMP CASE DOES NOT

AUTOMATICALLY CLOSE WHEN CLIENT LEAVES TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

FOLLOW-UP FOR TANF LEAVERS TO INFORM THEM ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES IN

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN TANF AND FOOD STAMPS . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

PROVIDE BETTER INFORMATION AT APPLICATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES

IN THE TWO PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

ENCOURAGE CLIENTS TO FIND OUT IF THEY CAN STILL GET FOOD STAMPS

IF THEY GET A JOB OR DECIDE THEY DON’T WANT TANF ANYMORE . . . . . . . . . . 04

 

OTHER CHANGES [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 38

L. NON-TANF PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS

The next set of questions is about sanctions for non-TANF food stamp households. 

L1. Do you sanction the food stamp benefits of non-TANF single-parent food stamp households for

failure to cooperate with the child support agency?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO L3]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO L3]

L2. Of your non-TANF households who have this requirement to cooperate with child support as a

condition of their food stamp eligibility, for what proportion have you imposed a food stamp

sanction for failing to cooperate with child support?

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

L3. The next question asks about food stamp employment & training requirements that apply to

clients who utilize your office. Is there a Food Stamp Employment and Training Program

available for clients who utilize your office?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO SECTION M]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION M]
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 39

L4. In a typical month what proportion of your non-TANF clients who are required to participate in

the Food Stamp E&T Program have their food stamp benefits sanctioned due to noncompliance

with the food stamp E&T requirements? 

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

OTHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 40

M. ABAWDs

The next set of questions asks about able-bodied adults without dependents who may be subject to a food

stamp time limit.

M1. Do you usually follow-up with ABAWDs who have lost food stamp benefits due to the time limit

to inform them of how to regain food stamp eligibility?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO M3]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO M3]

M2. How do you follow-up with these ABAWDs? [ CIRCLE ALL THATAPPLY]

A WRITTEN NOTICE IS SENT THEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

TELEPHONE CONTACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

M3. Thinking of those ABAWDs you have had in your caseload who have left the program due to the

time limit, what proportion would you estimate have come back and regained eligibility through

employment or participation in a qualifying E&T activity? 

More than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

At least one-half but less than three-quarters, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

At least one-quarter but less than one-half, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

At least one but less than one-quarter, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 41

N. RECERTIFICATIONS

The next few questions are about the length of the certification period and the recertification process for

food stamps.

N1. Do you have any discretion in the length of the food stamp certification period or is the length of

the certification period set by office policy for each type of food stamp client you serve?

HAVE DISCRETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

SET BY OFFICE POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO N3]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

N2. For what types of clients do you set a shorter certification period than the standard at your office?

CLIENTS WITH FLUCTUATING INCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

CLIENTS I ASSUME TO BE ERROR PRONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

OTHER CRITERIA [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

N3. Are clients

Assigned a time and date for recertification, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

Can they schedule an appointment, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

Are they assigned a time and date but can reschedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

 

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 42

N4. If one of your clients misses their recertification appointment do you

Automatically schedule a 2nd appointment, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

Notify them that they must reschedule, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

Notify them that their food stamp benefits are being discontinued and they

will have to reapply if they want to get food stamps again, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

Close the case when the certification period ends without any 

additional notice to the client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

N5. If a client comes in at least 30 minutes late for their recertification appointment do you usually

Reschedule their appointment for that same day, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

Have them come back to have their appointment another day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

N6. If your client does not respond to a recertification notice do you normally contact them by

telephone to inform them of their need to recertify?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

N7. When households are usually required to have an in-person recertification interview, do you

routinely offer telephone interviews or home interviews to persons with hardships? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 [GO TO N9]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO N9]
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 43

N8. For which groups do you routinely offer telephone interviews or in-home interviews? [CIRCLE

ALL THAT APPLY]

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONLY ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONLY DISABLED INDIVIDUALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

TANF HOUSEHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

HOUSEHOLDS LACKING ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

HOUSEHOLDS WITH EARNINGS OR OTHER WORK RELATED

COMMITMENTS THAT POSE A BARRIER TO COMING INTO THE OFFICE . . . . . . . . . 05

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

N9. What changes could be made to your office’s recertification procedures that would decrease the

number of food stamp eligible individuals who drop out of the Food Stamp Program because they

do not complete recertification? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY] 

LENGTHEN CERTIFICATION PERIODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

REQUIRE CLIENTS TO COME INTO THE OFFICE FOR

RECERTIFICATION LESS OFTEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

OTHER [SPECIFY] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

NONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 44

O. ACCESS PERCEPTION QUESTIONS

The next set of questions asks for your opinions on a variety of issues.

I am going to read a series of statements, please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or

strongly disagree with each one.

O1. Being on food stamps encourages dependency.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O2. The size of my caseload makes it difficult for me to help people as much as I would like to.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O3. People who stop receiving TANF often also leave the Food Stamp Program without us knowing

whether they are still eligible for food stamps.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 45

O4. People who leave TANF and are potentially eligible for food stamps should be actively

encouraged to apply for food stamps.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O5. Immigrants should not get food stamps until they become citizens.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O6. The set-up of our computer generated notices sometimes results in people losing food stamp

benefits they are eligible for.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O7. Our office actively discourages clients from becoming TANF recipients.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 46

O8. It is hard for clients who work to do what needs to be done to apply for food stamps.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O9. It is hard for eligible working clients to do what is required to stay on the Food Stamp Program

once they are participating.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O10. In the past few years it has become more difficult for eligible people to get on the Food Stamp

Program.

STRONGLY AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

AGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 [GO TO O13]

STRONGLY DISAGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 [GO TO 013]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO 013]
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 47

O11. For which groups of people do you think it has become more difficult to get food stamps in recent

years? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]

ALL GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01

THE WORKING POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02

FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

THE ELDERLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

SINGLE ADULTS WITHOUT CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

OTHER [SPECIFY] .......................................................... 96

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O12. What do you think are the most important reasons that it has become more difficult for people to

get food stamps in recent years?

 

 

 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

O13. Is there any policy or procedure that your office has implemented, that we have not already

covered in our survey, to improve access to the Food Stamp Program for any specific groups or

for the eligible population in general?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 [GO TO SECTION P]

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 [GO TO SECTION P]

O14. Please briefly describe this policy and its purpose.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Food Stamp Access Caseworker Survey Page 48

P. RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

Finally I have a few questions about you. These questions will just be used to group your responses with

people with similar characteristics.

P1. [RECORD WITHOUT ASKING] RESPONDENT IS

FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

P2. How old are you? YEARS

P3. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

GED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 

SOME COLLEGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 

ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 

BACHELOR’S DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 

GRADUATE DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 

VOCATIONAL SCHOOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 

P4. What year did you begin working in this office as a caseworker responsible for

food stamp cases? ..................................................... 

P5. Was this your first job in an office that handles food stamp cases?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 [GO TO CLOSING]

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

P6. What year did you first work as a casework responsible for food stamp cases? ..... 

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

CLOSING

Thank you for participating in the survey. We appreciate that you took time out from your schedule to

answer our questions.

TIME INTERVIEW COMPLETED:

|___|___|:|___|___| AM...01

 PM....02
Food Stamp Office Observation Record 1 August 8, 2000

Food Stamp Office Observation Record

A. Office Location and Accessibility

A1. Are there street signs on all the intersections surrounding the building? 

q Yes, on all intersections

q Yes, on some intersections

q No, not on anyintersections

A2a. Does the building have a sign outside indicating the name of the office?

q Yes

q No

A2b. Is the street number on the outside of the building?

q Yes

q No

A3. What type of neighborhood is the building located in?

q Business district or mainly business/retail

q Combination business/residential (some business, some residential)

q Mainly residential

q Not sure

A4. Is there a parking lot for applicants who drive to the office?

q Yes

q No

A5. Is the parking free?

q Yes

q No

A6. Is handicapped parking available?

q Yes

q No

A7. Is the building accessible for wheelchairs (ramp, elevators, etc.)?

q Yes

q No
Food Stamp Office Observation Record 2 August 8, 2000

A8. Additional notable comments about the building location and accessibility:

B. Reception Area for Food Stamp Applicants

B1. Is there one reception area in the building where applicants for all programs go?

q Yes (Go to B1a)

q No (Go to B2)

B1a. Are there signs at the entrance to the building directing applicants to the 

reception area?

q Yes (Go to B5)

q No (Go to B5)

B2. Which programs share a reception area?

Put a “1” in all boxes for programs that share the first reception area. Put a “2” in all 

boxes for programs that share a second reception area, etc.

Food stamps

TANF (insert name of state program)

Medicaid

SCHIP (insert name of state program)

General Assistance (insert name of state program)

SSI

Child support enforcement

Other (Specify:) _____________________________

Other (Specify:) _____________________________

Other (Specify:) _____________________________

B3. Are the different reception areas in the same building?

q Yes 

q No (Go to B4)
Food Stamp Office Observation Record 3 August 8, 2000

B3a. Are they on the same floor?

q Yes 

q No

B4. Are there signs at the entrance to the building directing applicants to the different 

reception areas?

q Yes

q No (Go to B5)

B4a. Do the signs indicate which area different types of applicants should go to?

q Yes 

q No 

B5. Is general information about the Food Stamp Program available in the reception area 

(posters, pamphlets, videotapes, etc.)? (Check yes or no in matrix below)

B5a. Are these items available in other languages?

Material(s) Available In Reception Area?

Available in Other 

Languages?

Posters o Yes o No o Yes o No

Pamphlets/brochures o Yes o No o Yes o No

Videotapes o Yes o No o Yes o No

Other (Specify:)

_______________________

_______________________

o Yes o No o Yes o No

B6. Is there information (posters, pamphlets, etc.) in the food stamp office reception area or 

in other parts of the building which indicates that households that do not receive TANF 

may still qualify for food stamps? (Check yes or no in matrix below)

B6a. Are these materials (posters, pamphlets, etc.) displayed/available in languages 

other than English?

Material(s)

In Reception 

Area?

Other Parts of 

Building?

In languages other 

than English?

Posters o Yes o No o Yes o No o Yes o No

Pamphlets/brochures o Yes o No o Yes o No o Yes o No

Other (Specify:)

_________________

_________________

o Yes o No o Yes o No o Yes o No
Food Stamp Office Observation Record 4 August 8, 2000

B7. Is there information (posters, pamphlets, etc.) in the food stamp office reception area 

describing the food stamp eligibility rules for legal immigrants? (Check yes or no in the 

matrix below.)

B7a. Are these materials available in languages other than English?

B7b. Is there information describing the food stamp eligibility rules for children of 

immigrants whose parents are not eligible for food stamps?

B7c. Are these materials available in languages other than English?

Legal Immigrants Children of Ineligible Immigrants

Material(s)

B7. In Reception 

Area?

B7a. In languages 

other than 

English?

B7b. In Reception 

Area?

B7c. In languages 

other than 

English?

Posters o Yes o No o Yes o No o Yes o No o Yes o No

Pamphlets/brochures o Yes o No o Yes o No o Yes o No o Yes o No

Other (Specify:)

_________________

_________________

o Yes o No o Yes o No o Yes o No o Yes o No

B8. Are there toys or materials for children to play with?

q Yes

q Yes, but not enough or not in good condition

q Yes, but only books/magazines (no toys)

q No

B9. Is there a space for children to play?

q Yes, dedicated play area within the reception area

q Yes, but floor space only

q Space for children to play is quite limited

B10. Are restrooms handicapped accessible?

q Yes

q No

B11. Do restrooms have a diaper changing area?

q Yes

q No
Food Stamp Office Observation Record 5 August 8, 2000

C. Reception Area Waiting Times

Complete for three separate observation periods in each reception area.

Observation Period #1: 

Date: ______ / ______ /20_____ Time: ____:____ am / pm to ____:____ am / pm

C1. How many Food Stamp office workers manage the reception area responsibilities?

q There is only one worker and a relief worker to cove r breaks.

q There are generally _____ (number of workers) managing the reception area.

q There is one main worker and an assistant for busy periods

q Other (Specify):

C2. Is there a waiting line at the food stamp reception area?

q Yes, always

q Yes, at certain times: 

q No lines (Skip to C4)

C3. About how long does a person wait to speak to a receptionist? Time ten people and 

calculate average.

______ (Minutes)

C4. Are there a sufficient number of seats in the reception area?

q Yes, seats always available

q No, there are always some people standing

q It varies. People standing at:

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

Observation Period #2: 

Date: ______ / ______ /20_____ Time: ____:____ am / pm to ____:____ am / pm

C1. How many Food Stamp office workers manage the reception area responsibilities?

q There is only one worker and a relief worker to cover breaks.

q There are generally _____ (number of workers) managing the reception area.

q There is one main worker and an assistant for busy periods

q Other (Specify):

C2. Is there a waiting line at the food stamp reception area?)

q Yes, always

q Yes, at certain times: 

q No lines (Skip to C4)
Food Stamp Office Observation Record 6 August 8, 2000

C3. About how long does a person wait to speak to a receptionist? Time ten people and 

calculate average.

______ (Minutes)

C4. Are there a sufficient number of seats in the reception area?

q Yes, seats always available

q No, there are always some people standing

q It varies. People standing at:

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

Observation Period #3: 

Date: ______ / ______ /20_____ Time: ____:____ am / pm to ____:____ am / pm

C1. How many Food Stamp office workers manage the reception area responsibilities?

q There is only one worker and a relief worker to cover breaks.

q There are generally _____ (number of workers) managing the reception area.

q There is one main worker and an assistant for busy periods

q Other (Specify):

C2. Is there a waiting line at the food stamp reception area? 

q Yes, always

q Yes, at certain times: 

q No lines (Skip to C4)

C3. About how long does a person wait to speak to a receptionist? Time ten people and 

calculate average.

______ (Minutes)

C4. Are there a sufficient number of seats in the reception area?

q Yes, seats always available

q No, there are always some people standing

q It varies. People standing at:

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm

_________ : _________ am / pm to _________ : _________ am / pm
Food Stamp Office Observation Record 7 August 8, 2000

D. Reception Area Activities 

D1. Are applications for food stamps and TANF (insert name of state program) available in 

the reception area?

Combined Food 

Stamp and TANF 

application

Food Stamp-only 

Application

TANF-only 

Application

Yes, passed out by receptionist o o o

Yes, applicants may pick up from 

counter/walls

o o o

No, not available in reception area o o o

Other (Specify: _____________________

_________________________________)

o o o

D2. Are the people completing applications provided with a writing surface (clipboard, table, 

etc.)?

q Yes

q No

D3. Are pens available for people completing their application? 

q Yes

q No
Case Record Review Form 1 January 4, 2001 1

Study of Program Access and Declining Food Stamp Participation

Case Record Review Form

Abt ID: Site ID:

Food Stamp Case Number: Date of Record Abstraction:

Case Sampled as: Applicant Approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Applicant Denied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Recertification Approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Closed Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

TANF Diverted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Status Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

SECTION A: SCREENING INFORMATION

A1. Is the case number the same as the applicant's Social Security number?

Yes (SKIP TO A2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A1a. Social Security number: ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ ___

A2. Head of household's name:

Last First Middle Initial

A3. Is the case under the jurisdiction of this office?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (REJECT CASE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A4a. Is there an initial certification in the case file for June 2000?

Yes, approved application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Yes, denied application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Don't know ........................... 8
Case Record Review Form 2 January 4, 2001 2

A4b. Did client's certification period end in June 2000?

Yes, approved recertification ................................. 1

Yes, denied recertification, did not complete recertification process . . 2

Yes, denied for eligibility-related reason ........................ 3

Yes, voluntarily withdrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Yes, other denial (SPECIFY:________________________________) 5

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Don't know ............................................... 8

A4c. Is there a case closure in June 2000 in the middle of a certification period (i.e., certification period

did not end in June)?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

A5. Case type:

Initial certification, approved ................................. 1

Initial certification, denied ................................... 2

Recertification, approved .................................... 3

Recertification, denied, did not complete process ................. 4

Recertification, other denial .................................. 5

Closed case ............................................... 6

Other (REJECT CASE) 7
Case Record Review Form 3 January 4, 2001 3

SECTION B: CONTACT INFORMATION

(RECORD ONLY FOR INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS AND RECERTIFICATIONS DENIED FOR NOT COMPLETING

PROCESS: A5 = 1, 2, OR 4)

B1. Address:

Street

City State Zip 

B1a. Mailing address (if different):

Street

City State Zip 

B2. Telephone numbers:

Home: (_________) ____________ - _________________

 (Area Code)

Work: (_________) ____________ - _________________

 (Area Code)

B3. Is there an authorized representative?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B3a. Name of authorized representative: 

B3b. Address of authorized representative:

Street

City State Zip 
Case Record Review Form 4 January 4, 2001 4

B3c. Telephone numbers of authorized representative:

Home: (_________) ____________ - _________________

 (Area Code)

Work: (_________) ____________ - _________________

 (Area Code)

B4. Other contact person?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (GO TO SECTION C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B4a. Name of other contact person: 

B4b. Address of other contact person:

Street

City State Zip 

B4c. Telephone numbers of other contact person:

Home: (_________) ____________ - _________________

 (Area Code)

Work: (_________) ____________ - _________________

 (Area Code)
Case Record Review Form 5 January 4, 2001 5

SECTION C: HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

ITEMS C1-C4:

INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS: INFORMATION FROM JUNE 2000 FSP APPLICATION.

RECERTIFICATIONS AND CLOSED CASES: INFORMATION FROM INITIAL OR RECERTIFICATION APPLICATION

FILED PRIOR TO JUNE 2000 (I.E., APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION THAT ENDED OR CLOSED IN JUNE

2000.)

C1. Sex:

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

C2a. Is Head Hispanic or Latino?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

C2b. Race (CODE ALL THAT APPLY)

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Black or African-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

American Indian or Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . 4

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . 5

Don't know ........................... 8

C3. Marital status:

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Divorced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Don't know ........................... 8

C4. Employment status:

Employed (SKIP TO C5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Not employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO C5) ............... 8
Case Record Review Form 6 January 4, 2001 6

C4a. Reason not employed:

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

C5. Has case been on food stamps before current application (INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS) or

current, uninterrupted spell (RECERTIFICATIONS AND CLOSED CASES)?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO C6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO C6) ............... 8

C5a. End date of most recent spell (INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS) or most recent prior spell

(RECERTIFICATIONS AND CLOSED CASES)?

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

C6. Receiving TANF benefits at time of food stamp application (INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS) or

some time during the certification period ending or closed June 2000 (RECERTIFICATIONS

AND CLOSED CASES)?

Yes (SKIP TO C6b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

C6a. Previous receipt of TANF or AFDC?

Yes (SKIP TO C6c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO C7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO C7) ............... 8

C6b. Number of children living in household who were not counted in the TANF grant as of June

2000:

___ ___

All children included in TANF grant . . . . . . . 0

Don't know ........................... 8

Not applicable, local agency does not 

 have family size cap policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

C6c. End date of (current/most recent) TANF/AFDC spell:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

C6d. TANF case ID (current/most recent spell): ______________________

C7. Receiving Medicaid benefits at time of food stamp application (INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS) or

some time during the certification period ending or closed June 2000 (RECERTIFICATIONS

AND CLOSED CASES)?
Case Record Review Form 7 January 4, 2001 7

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

C7a. Previous receipt of Medicaid benefits?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

ITEMS C8 AND C9:

RECERTIFICATIONS: INFORMATION FROM JUNE RECERTIFICATION APPLICATION.

INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS AND CLOSED CASES: SKIP TO SECTION D.

C8. Marital status:

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Divorced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

No June recertification application ......... 7

Don't know ........................... 8

C9. Employment status:

Employed (SKIP TO SECTION D) . . . . . . . . 1

Not employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

No June recertification application ......... 7

Don't know (SKIP TO SECTION D) ....... 8

C9a. Reason not employed:

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8
Case Record Review Form 8 January 8, 2001 8

SECTION D: DWELLING UNIT COMPOSITIONITEMS D1-D7:

INITIAL 

CERTIFICATIONS: INFORMATION FROM JUNE 2000 FSP

APPLICATION.

RECERTIFICATIONS AND 

CLOSED 

CASES: INFORMATION FROM INITIAL OR 

RECERTIFICATION 

APPLICATION FILED PRIOR TO JUNE 2000 (I.E., APPLICATION FOR 

CERTIFICATION THAT 

ENDED OR 

CLOSED IN JUNE 2000.)

Dwelling Unit Members

D1a. Relationship to head: spouse, child, grandchild, parent, other

relative, non-relative

D1b.

Included in

Food Stamp

household?

D1c.

Date of Birth

D1d.

Disabled?

D1e.

U.S. Citizen?

D1f.

ABAWD?

Yes No Month Day Year Yes No Yes No Yes No

HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212A. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212B. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212C. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212D. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212E. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212F. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212

D2a. Number in dwelling unit: ______ D2b. Number included in food stamp household: ______D3. IF SOME HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS NOT INCLUDED IN FOOD STAMP HOUSEHOLD (D1b = NO): Why is member not included?

D3a.

Member

Number

D3b.

Reason Code

D3c.

Date Member Removed

D3d.

If sanctioned: End Date

Reason Code: Month Day Year Month Day Year

1 = Food Stamp sanction only2 = TANF and Food Stamp sanction3 = Alien status4 = Prepares food separately7 = Other (SPECIFY:) [D3e]
Case Record Review Form 9 January 8, 2001
Case Record Review Form 10 January 8, 2001

D4. Type of household:

Single parent with child(ren) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Grandparent with grandchild(ren) ......... 2

Married couple/parents with child(ren) ..... 3

Grandparents with grandchild(ren) ......... 4

Married couple without children ........... 5

Single person, no children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Multiple adults, with child(ren) ........... 7

Multiple adults, without children .......... 8

Child-only household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Other (SPECIFY: _______________) . . . . . 10

D5. Anyone in food stamp household a destitute migrant or seasonal farmworker?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

D6. Homeless household?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

D7. Language spoken by household head:

English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Portugese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Arabic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Italian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Vietnamese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Laotian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Cambodian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Hmong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Other (SPECIFY:_____________) . . . . . . . . 12
Case Record Review Form 11 January 8, 2001

ITEMS D8-D11:

INITIAL 

CERTIFICATIONS AND CLOSED CASES: SKIP TO SECTION E.

RECERTIFICATIONS: INFORMATION FROM JUNE RECERTIFICATION APPLICATION.

D8. Status of June recertifications and dwelling unit composition:

No June recertification application (SKIP TO SECTION E) .....................................................................1June recertification application, all dwelling unit composition same as D1 to D7 (SKIP TO SECTION E) .................................2June recertification application, some dwelling unit composition changed from prior application ........................................3

Dwelling Unit Members

D9a. Relationship to head: spouse, child, grandchild, parent, other

relative, non-relative

D9b.

Included in

Food Stamp

household?

D9c.

Date of Birth

D9d.

Disabled?

D9e.

U.S. Citizen?

D9f.

ABAWD?

Yes No Month Day Year Yes No Yes No Yes No

HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212A. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212B. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212C. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212D. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212E. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212F. 1 2 ______ ______ ______ 121212

D10a. Number in dwelling unit: ______ D10b. Number included in food stamp household: ______D11. IF SOME HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS NOT INCLUDED IN FOOD STAMP HOUSEHOLD (D9b = NO): Why is member not included?

D11a.

Member

Number

D11b.

Reason Code

D11c.

Date Member Removed

D11d.

If sanctioned: End Date

Reason Code: Month Day Year Month Day Year

1 = Food Stamp sanction only2 = TANF and Food Stamp sanction3 = Alien status4 = Prepares food separately7 = Other (SPECIFY:) [D3e]
Case Record Review Form 12 January 8, 2001

D12. Type of household:

Single parent with child(ren) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Grandparent with grandchild(ren) ......... 2

Married couple/parents with child(ren) ..... 3

Grandparents with grandchild(ren) ......... 4

Married couple without children ........... 5

Single person, no children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Multiple adults, with child(ren) ........... 7

Multiple adults, without children .......... 8

Child-only household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Other (SPECIFY: _______________) . . . . . 10

D13. Anyone in food stamp household a destitute migrant or seasonal farmworker?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

D14. Homeless household?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8
Case Record Review Form 13 January 8, 2001

SECTION E: COUNTABLE INCOME, ASSETS, AND EXPENSES FOR HOUSEHOLD

ITEMS E1-E5:

INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS: INFORMATION FROM JUNE 2000 FSP APPLICATION.

RECERTIFICATIONS AND CLOSED CASES: INFORMATION FROM INITIAL OR RECERTIFICATION APPLICATION

FILED PRIOR TO JUNE 2000 (I.E., APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION THAT ENDED OR CLOSED IN JUNE

2000.)

E1. Monthly Income [IF NONE, ENTER 0.]

E1a. Earnings $

E1b. TANF

E1c. General Assistance

E1d. Social Security

E1e. SSI

E1f. Unemployment Compensation

E1g. Other (SPECIFY)

E1h. Other (SPECIFY)

E1i. Other (SPECIFY)

E1j. Other (SPECIFY)

E1k. TOTAL MONTHLY GROSS INCOME: $

E2. Assets

E2a. Cash $

E2b. Bank accounts (checking and savings)

E2c. Other liquid resources

E2d. Vehicle (countable portion)

E2e. Other non-liquid resources

E2f. TOTAL ASSETS $

E3. Shelter expenses:

E3a. Rent/mortgage (including shelter insurance): $___________
Case Record Review Form 14 January 8, 2001

E3b. Are any or all utility expense amounts for this case standard allowances?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO E3e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO E3e) .............. 8

E3c. Is there one standard allowance that includes all utility components?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO E3e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO E3e) .............. 8

E3d. Total utilities: standard allowance: $___________ (SKIP TO E4)

Item Amount

Standard

Allowance?

Ye

s No DK

E3e. Telephone $ 1 2 8

E3f. Gas/fuel $ 1 2 8

E3g. Electric $ 1 2 8

E3h. Water/sewer $ 1 2 8

E3i. Other (garbage and trash, installation fee,

etc.)

$ 128

E3j: Total utilities — actual $

E3k. Total utilities — Standard allowance: $

E3l. Total monthly expenses $

E3m. Shelter expense deduction $

E4. Other expenses and deductions:

Type of Expense

E4a.

Total Expenses

E4b.

Deduction

Medical expenses $ $

Child care expenses $ $

Child support payments $ $

Earned income $ $

E5. Total monthly net income: $________________
Case Record Review Form 15 January 8, 2001

ITEMS E6-E11:

INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS AND CLOSED CASES: SKIP TO SECTION F.

RECERTIFICATIONS: INFORMATION FROM JUNE RECERTIFICATION APPLICATION.

E6. Status June recertification application:

No June recertification application (SKIP TO SECTION F) ...... 1

June recertification application on file ....................... 2

E7. Monthly Income

E7a. Earnings $

E7b. TANF

E7c. General Assistance

E7d. Social Security

E7e. SSI

E7f. Unemployment Compensation

E7g. Other (SPECIFY)

E7h. Other (SPECIFY)

E7i. Other (SPECIFY)

E7j. Other (SPECIFY)

E7k. TOTAL MONTHLY GROSS INCOME: $

E8. Assets

E8a. Cash $

E8b. Bank accounts (checking and savings)

E8c. Other liquid resources

E8d. Vehicle (countable portion)

E8e. Other non-liquid resources

E8f. TOTAL ASSETS $

E9. Shelter expenses:

E9a. Rent/mortgage (including shelter insurance): $___________

E9b. Are any or all utility expense amounts for this case standard allowances?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO E9e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO E9e) .............. 8
Case Record Review Form 16 January 8, 2001

E9c. Is there one standard allowance that includes all utility components?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO E9e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO E9e) .............. 8

E9d. Total utilities: standard allowance: $___________ (SKIP TO E10)

Item Amount

Standard

Allowance?

Ye

s No DK

E9e. Telephone $ 1 2 8

E9f. Gas/fuel $ 1 2 8

E9g. Electric $ 1 2 8

E9h. Water/sewer $ 1 2 8

E9i. Other (garbage and trash, installation fee,

etc.)

$ 128

E9j: Total utilities — actual $

E9k. Total utilities — Standard allowance: $

E9l. Total monthly expenses $

E9m. Shelter expense deduction $

E10. Other expenses and deductions:

Type of Expense

E4a.

Total Expenses

E4b.

Deduction

Medical expenses $ $

Child care expenses $ $

Child support payments $ $

Earned income $ $

E11. Total monthly net income: $________________
Case Record Review Form 17 January 8, 2001

SECTION F: FOOD STAMP APPLICATION PROCESS FOR INITIAL CERTIFICATION

CASES

F1. Application date:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

F2. Certification interview date:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

No certification interview (SKIP TO F10) . . . 1

F3. Expedited service status (after certification interview):

Expedited services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Regular (SKIP TO F5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

F4. Expedited services criteria:

Yes No DK

F4a. Monthly income/assets below guidelines 1 2 8

F4b. Destitute migrant/seasonal worker 1 2 8
Case Record Review Form 18 January 8, 2001

Verification Items

Supplied at

Interviewa

Required after

Interviewb Date Supplied

Yes No DK Yes No DK Month/Day/Year DK

F5. Personal

F5a. Identity 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F5b. Household composition 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F5c. Residence 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F5d. Alien status 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F5e. SSN card/number 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F6. Financial

F6a. Income (earned) 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F6b. Income (unearned) 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F6c. Vehicle 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F6d. Bank statement 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F6e. Other resources/assets 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F7. Expenses

F7a. Rent/mortgage 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F7b. Shelter insurance/taxes 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F7c. Gas/fuel 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F7d. Electric 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F7e. Water/sewage 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F7f. Telephone 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F7g. Dependent care 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F7h. Medical 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F7i. Child support 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F8. Other Requirements

F8a. Job termination 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F8b. Citizenship statement 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F8c. Work registration 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F9. Other 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F9a. Specify: ______________ 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

F9b. Specify: ______________ 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

a

 If more than one piece of documentation needed to verify an item, record “yes” only if all supplied. b

 If more than one piece of documentation needed to verify an item, record date last documentation supplied.
Case Record Review Form 19 January 8, 2001

F10. Date of case disposition:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

F11. Disposition of case:

Approved (SKIP TO F12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Denied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

F11a. Reason for denial:

Circumstantially ineligible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Did not complete all application procedures (SKIP TO F11c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Voluntary withdrawal (SKIP TO SECTION G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (SPECIFY: ____________________) (SKIP TO SECTION G) ....... 4

Don't know (SKIP TO SECTION G) ................................. 8

F11b. Reason for ineligibility:

Excess gross income .............................................. 1

Excess net income ................................................ 2

Excess assets .................................................... 3

Immigrant status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Not available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

SKIP TO SECTION G.

F11c. Application procedures not completed:

No certification interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Incomplete verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Did not complete some other part of application process (SPECIFY:

 ________________________________________________________) ..... 3

Not available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

SKIP TO SECTION G.

F12. Initial certification period:

From: ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

To: ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

F13. Monthly allotment amount: $_______________.
Case Record Review Form 20 January 8, 2001

F14. Were initial month's benefits issued with postponed verification?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

F15. Was any out-of-state verification required?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

F16. Verification complete?

Yes (ASK F16a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

F16a. Date verification completed:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

F17. Case received second month's benefits?

Yes (includes cases that received combined first and second month's payments) 1

No, verification not complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

No, had one month certification period and did not reapply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

No, verification complete and determined ineligible; should not have

 received first month's benefits ..................................... 4

No, verification complete and determined ineligible in second month due to

 changes in circumstances since first month ........................... 5

F18. Method of benefit delivery (after initial issuance):

EBT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Coupons mailed .............................. 2

Coupons picked up (with or without ATP card) ..... 3

Don't know .................................. 8
Case Record Review Form 21 January 8, 2001

SECTION G: APPLICATIONS FOR OTHER ASSISTANCE FOR INITIAL

CERTIFICATION OR RECERTIFICATION CASES

QUESTIONS G1-G7: ASK ONLY FOR CASES NOT RECEIVING TANF AT

APPLICATION/RECERTIFICATION: QC6 = NO): 

G1. Did case receive a TANF lump sum payment?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO G2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO G2) ..................... 8

G1a. Amount of lump sum payment: $______________

G1b. Date payment made:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

G1c. How long was household precluded from applying for or receiving additional TANF benefits?

___ ___ MONTHS or ___ ___ YEARS

DON' T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

G2. Was household required to do job search before applying for TANF or before receiving TANF

benefits or as a condition of receiving a lump sum payment??

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO G4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO G4) ..................... 8

G2a. Date requirement put in place:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year
Case Record Review Form 22 January 8, 2001

G2b. Job search requirements:

Requirement

Required? Number

of times

required

Completed?

Yes No DK Yes No DK

a. Visit employment office 1 2 8 ______ 1 2 8

b. Make phone calls to potential employers 1 2 8 ______ 1 2 8

c. Attend job interviews 1 2 8 ______ 1 2 8

d. Attend job readiness classes 1 2 8 ______ 1 2 8

e. Accept placement in public sector job

(workfare)

1 2 8 ______ 1 2 8

f. Other (SPECIFY:

 __________________________)

1 2 8 ______ 1 2 8

G3. Date all requirements completed:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

NEVER COMPLETED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ]

G4. Case referred to other sources of assistance?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO G5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO G5) ..................... 8

G4a. Type of assistance referred to:

G4a. Type of Assistance

G4b. Source of assistance

Community

Organization

Religious

Organization

Government

or Other

Public Source

Other Private

Non-profit

Organization

Food 1 2 3 4

Shelter 1 2 3 4

Money 1 2 3 4

Child care or help paying ` for child care 1 2 3 4

Transportation or help paying for transportation1234

Helping paying utilities, like electricity, gas, or water 1234

Help paying phone bill or enabling to use a phone 1234

Help paying rent 1 2 3 4

Legal aid or help paying for legal aid 1 2 3 4

Any other kind of help (SPECIFY:____________) 1234
Case Record Review Form 23 January 8, 2001

G4c. Household precluded from applying for TANF?

Yes (SKIP TO G4e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Yes, in certain situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

No (SKIP TO G5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Don't know (SKIP TO G5) ..................... 8

G4d. In what situations?

________________________________________________________________________

G4e. How long was household precluded from applying for TANF?

___ ___ MONTHS OR ___ ___ YEARS

DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

G5. Applied for TANF in June 2000?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO G8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

G5a. Application date:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

G5b. TANF case number: ______________________

G5c. Application disposition date:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

G6a. Disposition of TANF application:

Approved (SKIP TO G7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Denied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

G6b. Reason for denial

Over income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Other circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Did not provide all documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Did not complete all other application requirements . . 4

GO TO G8.

G7. TANF monthly benefit: $_____________
Case Record Review Form 24 January 8, 2001

G7a. TANF benefit period:

From ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

To ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

QUESTIONS G8-G10: ASK ONLY FOR CASES NOT RECEIVING MEDICAID AT TIME OF

APPLICATION/RECERTIFICATION: C7 = NO): 

G8. Applied for Medicaid in June 2000?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO SECTION H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

G8a. Application date:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

G9. Disposition of Medicaid application:

Approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Denied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

G9a. Reason for denial:

Over income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Other circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Did not complete all application process ........... 3
Case Record Review Form 25 January 8, 2001

SECTION H: FOOD STAMP RECERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR RECERTIFICATION

CASES

H1. Date notice sent regarding recertification:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

H2. Recertification application date:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

No recertification application ................... 1

H3. Recertification interview date:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

Interview not required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Interview required but did not occur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

.
Case Record Review Form 26 January 8, 2001

Verification Items

Supplied at

Interviewa

Required after

Interviewb Date Supplied

Yes No DK Yes No DK Month/Day/Year DK

H4. Personal

H4a. Household composition 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H4b. Residence 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H4c. Alien status 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H4d. SSN card/number 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H5. Financial

H5a. Income (earned) 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H5b. Income (unearned) 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H5c. Vehicle 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H5d. Bank statement 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H5e. Other resources/assets 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H6. Expenses

H6a. Rent/mortgage 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H6b. Shelter insurance/taxes

H6c. Gas/fuel 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H6d. Electric 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H6e. Water/sewage 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H6f. Telephone 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H6g. Dependent care 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H6h. Medical 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H6i. Child support 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H7. Other Requirements

H7a. Job termination 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H7b. Citizenship statement 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H7c. Work registration 1 2 8 1 2 8 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H8. Other 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H8a. Specify: ______________ 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

H8b. Specify: ______________ 128128 ____ / ____ / ______ 8

a

 If more than one piece of documentation needed to verify an item, record “yes” only if all supplied. b

 If more than one piece of documentation needed to verify an item, record date last documentation supplied.
Case Record Review Form 27 January 8, 2001

H9. Date of case disposition:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

H10. Disposition of case:

Approved (SKIP TO H11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Denied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO SECTION I) ........... 8

H10a. Reason for denial:

Circumstantially ineligible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Did not complete all recertification procedures (SKIP TO H10c) ..... 2

Sanctioned (SKIP TO H10d) ................................. 3

Voluntary withdrawal (SKIP TO SECTION I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Other (SPECIFY: _____________) (SKIP TO SECTION I) ........ 5

Don't know (SKIP TO SECTION I) ........................... 8

H10b. Reason for ineligibility:

Excess gross income ....................................... 1

Excess net income ......................................... 2

Excess assets ............................................. 3

Immigrant status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Not available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

SKIP TO SECTION I.

H10c. Recertification procedures not completed:

No recertification application ................................. 1

No recertification interview .................................. 2

Incomplete verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Did not complete some other part of recertification process ......... 4

Not available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

SKIP TO SECTION I.

H10d. Sanctioned:

Food stamps only .......................................... 1

TANF and food stamps ..................................... 2

Not available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

SKIP TO SECTION I.
Case Record Review Form 28 January 8, 2001

H11. Certification period:

From: ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

To: ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

H12. Monthly allotment amount: $________________
Case Record Review Form 29 January 8, 2001

SECTION I: FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RECERTIFICATION

AND CLOSED CASES

I1. Start date for certification period (ending June 2000/that closed June 2000):

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

I2. Monthly benefit amount at start of certification period (ending June 2000/that closed June 2000):

$_________________

I3. Method of benefit delivery in (June 2000/most recent month received benefits):

EBT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Coupons mailed .............................. 2

Coupons picked up (with or without ATP card) ..... 3

Don't know .................................. 8

I4. Food stamp participation reporting requirements status in (June 2000/most recent month received

benefits):

Item

I4a.

Required?

I4b.

Frequency

I4c.

Fulfilled

requirement

for most recent

month

received

benefits?

Yes No DK Monthly Quarterly

If

change

in status Other DK Yes No DK

Income reporting 1 2 8 1 2 3 4 8 1 2 8

Employment Verification 1 2 8 1 2 3 4 8 1 2 8

Other, specify: __________ 1 2 8 1 2 3 4 8128

I5. IF DID NOT FULFILL SOME REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN I4: Is the food stamp case...

Closed (SKIP TO I9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sanctioned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

No change (SKIP TO I10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (SPECIFY: _____________________) (SKIP TO I10) ....... 7

Don't know (SKIP TO I10) .................................. 8

I5b. Date of most recent sanction:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year
Case Record Review Form 30 January 8, 2001

I6. Household members sanctioned:

Entire food stamp household ............. 1

Head of household only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Other adult members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (SPECIFY:) _______________ ...... 7

Don't know ........................... 8

I7. Amount of sanction: 

Entire food stamp benefit ................ 1

Other amount (SPECIFY: ___________) .... 2

I8. End date of sanction:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

End date not specified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I9. Recoupment requirements?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO I10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO I10) ............... 8

I9a. Recoupment amount: $_______________

I10. Employment and training requirement: Status in (June 2000/most recent month received

benefits):

Registrant (SKIP TO I13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO I13) ............... 8

I11. Reason for exemption:

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Disability ............................. 2

Pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Age (<16 or >59) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Care of child/spouse .................... 5

Complying with work registration requirements 

 in another program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Less than 30 days in FSP ................ 7

Other (SPECIFY: _________________) .... 8

Don't know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Case Record Review Form 31 January 8, 2001

I12. End date of exemption:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

EXEMPTION HAS NO END DATE . . . . . . [ ]

SKIP TO SECTION J

I13. Employment and training activities in which engaged:

Job search ............................ 1

Job search training ..................... 2

Workfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Work experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Other (SPECIFY: ________________________)7

I14. Complied with food stamp employment and training requirements for most recent month received

benefits?

Yes (SKIP TO SECTION J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

I15. Food stamp case is:

Closed (SKIP TO SECTION J) . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sanctioned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know ........................... 8

I15a. Date sanctioned for noncompliance with food stamp employment and training requirements:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

I16. Household members sanctioned:

Entire food stamp household ............. 1

Head of household only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Other adult members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (SPECIFY: ____________) ......... 7

Don't know ........................... 8

Amount of sanction:

Entire food stamp benefit ................ 1

Other amount (SPECIFY: $_________) ..... 2
Case Record Review Form 32 January 8, 2001

I18. End date of sanction:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

End date not specified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I19. Recoupment requirements?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO SECTION J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO SECTION J) ........ 3

I19a. Recoupment amount: $______________
Case Record Review Form 33 January 8, 2001

SECTION J: TANF PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RECERTIFICATION OR

CLOSED CASES 

ASK SECTION J ONLY FOR CASES THAT RECEIVED TANF SOMETIME DURING

CERTIFICATION PERIOD ENDING IN/CLOSED JUNE 2000 (Q.C6 = YES)

J1. TANF monthly benefit amount during food stamp certification period (ending/closed) June 2000:

$_______________

J2. Reached TANF time limit during food stamp certification period (ending/closed) June 2000?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO J3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO J3) ...................... 8

J2a. Date reached TANF time limit:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

J3. TANF participation requirements:

Requirement

J3a.

Required?

J3b.

Complied?

J3c.

Sanctioned?

J3d.

Date Sanctioned

Y N DK Y N DK Y N DK Month Day Year DK

Job search 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 8

Work/training 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 8

Child immunizations 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 8

Child school attendance 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 8

Child support enforcement 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 8

Personal responsibility

statement

1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 8

Finger imaging 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 8

Other (SPECIFY:__________) 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 8

Other (SPECIFY:__________) 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 8
Case Record Review Form 34 January 8, 2001

J4. IF SANCTIONED FOR ANY REQUIREMENTS IN J3: 

J4a. Household members sanctioned:

Entire TANF household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

TANF household head only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Other (SPECIFY: _____________) ............... 7

Don't know .................................. 8

J4c. Amount of sanction:

Entire TANF monthly benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

[J4d] Other amount (SPECIFY: $___________) ..... 2

J4e. End date of sanction:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

End date not specified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

J4f. Recoupment or repayment requirements?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (SKIP TO J5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (SKIP TO J5) ...................... 8

J4g. Recoupment or repayment amount: $_____________

J5. IF SANCTIONED FOR ANY REQUIREMENTS IN J3: Food stamp sanction imposed?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (GO TO END) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (GO TO END) ..................... 8

J5a. Date of food stamp sanction:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

J5b. Food stamp household members sanctioned:

Entire food stamp household .................... 1

Head of food stamp household only .............. 2

Other adult members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

[J5c] Other (SPECIFY: __________) ............. 7

Don't know .................................. 8
Case Record Review Form 35 January 8, 2001

J5d. Amount of sanction:

Entire food stamp benefit ....................... 1

Other amount (SPECIFY: $____________) ........ 2

J5f. End date of food stamp sanction:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

End date not specified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

J5g. Recoupment requirements?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No (GO TO END) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know (GO TO END) ..................... 8

J5h. Recoupment amount: $___________________
Case Record Review Form 36 January 8, 2001

SECTION K: REASONS FOR CASE CLOSURE FOR CLOSED CASES

K1. Date case closed:

___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

K2. Reason case closed:

Ineligible (over income or assets) .................................... 1

Noncompliance with income reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Noncompliance with food stamp employment and training requirements ..... 3

Noncompliance with TANF employment and training requirements . . . . . . . . . 4

Did not appear for food stamp redetermination after TANF time limit ....... 5

Intentional program violation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Voluntary termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Household moved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Other (SPECIFY: _______________) ................................ 9

Don't know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

K3. Notices sent prior to closure?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Don't know .................................. 8

K4. Date(s) notice(s) sent:

K4a. ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

K4b. ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year

K4c. ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___

 Month Day Year
Abt Associates Inc. 1 October 17, 2000

A Study of Program Access and Declining Food Stamp Participation

Applicant Survey

Introduction:

Hello, my name is ______________. May I speak with RESPONDENT?

I’m calling from Abt Associates in Amherst, Massachusetts. We were hired by the United States

Department of Agriculture in Washington, DC to conduct a study of the Food Stamp Program and the

experiences of people who apply for food stamps. We got your name from the food stamp office where

you went to apply for assistance in June. 

The officials at the USDA are interested in knowing what happens when people apply for food stamps

and what their experiences are as they go through the application process, as well as their circumstances

for needing assistance. They are particularly interested in why some people contact the office, or submit

an application, but then decide not to complete the application process. 

I would like to talk with you about your experiences with the food stamp office you went to for

assistance. Your answers will be kept confidential and your name will not be identified with any answers

you give. Also, your interview with me cannot affect your status with any agency now or in the future. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person

is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. 

The valid OMB control number for this information collection is ____-____. The time required to

complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 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.

A. Household Composition/Characteristics

My first few questions are about the characteristics of your household. Your answers to these questions

will tell me which questions I need to ask. Remember, all the information you tell me is for research

purposes only and will remain confidential. Please tell me about your household situation in June, when

you visited the food stamp office.

A1. How many people live in your household? By household I mean yourself and the people who

live with you and share food with you. PROBE: Include any persons who live with you more

than half of the time.

___________ PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD (IF ONE-PERSON

HOUSEHOLD, SKIP TO A3)

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Abt Associates Inc. 2 October 17, 2000

A2. How many household members are. . . (MAKE SURE TOTAL MATCHES A1)

Under 5 years old? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

Five to 17 years old? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

18-59 years of age? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

60 years of age or older? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

A3. Is English the primary language spoken in your household?

YES (SKIP TO Q. A5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A4. What language do you and your family most often speak at home?

SPANISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHINESE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PORTUGUESE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FRENCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ARABIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ITALIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

VIETNAMESE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

LAOTIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CAMBODIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

HMONG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

OTHER (SPECIFY) ____________ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A5. What is your date of birth?

________ / ________ / ________

MONTH DAY YEAR
Abt Associates Inc. 3 October 17, 2000

B. Circumstances and events potentially triggering an application

B1. Thinking back to June, when you or inquired about food stamps or other assistance at the welfare

office or began the application process for food stamps, what happened in your life that made you

decide to ask about the Food Stamp Program or other assistance? I'm going to read a list of some

things that might have happened in your life around that time. For each one, please tell me

whether this happened to you.

B1a. A household member, or some other person, who had been contributing income or paying

bills died.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1b. A household member who had been contributing income or paying bills moved out of the

household or is no longer part of your household.

YES (ASK B1b1) .................................... 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1b1. Was this due to a marital breakup?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1c. The number of household members increased.

YES (ASK B1c1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO B1d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1c1. Was it a: 

New baby (GO TO B1d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Not a new baby, but another child, or (GO TO B1d) . . . . . . . . 2

Adult (ASK B1c2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B1c2. Does the new adult member contribute income or help pay bills?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1d. You or another household member started earning less. 

YES (ASK B1d1) .................................... 1

NO (GO TO B1e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1d1. Was it because: (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

Someone stopped working? ............................ 1

Someone is working fewer hours? ...................... 2

Someone’s pay rate was reduced? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Abt Associates Inc. 4 October 17, 2000

B1e. Your household lost some other type of income, such as TANF (INSERT NAME OF

STATE PROGRAM), unemployment compensation, SSI, or child support.

YES (ASK B1e1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO B1f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1e1. Was it: (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE PROGRAM) . . . . . . . . . 1

Unemployment compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

SSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Child support ....................................... 4

OTHER (SPECIFY) ______________ ................... 5

B1f. You or another household member had recently become sick or disabled.

YES (ASK B1f1-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO B1g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1f1. Was it:

You, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Another household member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1f2. (Were you/Was this person) working at the time (you/he/she) became ill or

disabled?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1g. You moved.

YES (ASK B1g1-2) .................................. 1

NO (GO TO B1h) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1g1. Did you move from another state or county?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1g2. Did everyone in your household move or just some of you?

EVERYONE (GO TO B1h) ............................ 1

SOME (ASK B1g3) .................................. 2

B1g3. Had the people who stayed behind been contributing income or paying bills?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Abt Associates Inc. 5 October 17, 2000

B1h. Your rent, mortgage, or utilities payments went up.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1i. Financial help from a relative or friend stopped coming in.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO/NOT APPLICABLE .............................. 2

B1j. You were released from an institution, such as jail, a hospital, or a treatment center.

YES (ASK B1j1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO B1k) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1j1. Which one?

Jail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Treatment center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

OTHER (SPECIFY) ____________ ..................... 4

B1k. It was getting harder and harder to make ends meet.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1l. You just found out about the Food Stamp Program

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B1m. Were there any other reasons? (PROGRAMMER: THERE MUST BE AT LEAST ONE)

YES (SPECIFY:) _______________________ ............ 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B2. IF MORE THAN ONE “YES” IN QUESTION B1, ASK B2. OTHERWISE SKIP TO B3. 

 Of all the reasons you mentioned, (READ FROM B1 IF NECESSARY), what was the most

important reason that you applied or inquired about food stamps or other assistance?

RECORD LETTER FROM B1: _____
Abt Associates Inc. 6 October 17, 2000

B3. How long had you been affected by (this event/these events) or situation(s) before you checked

about getting food stamps or other assistance?

# _______ days

OR

# _______ weeks

OR

# _______ months

OR

# _______ years

B4. When you contacted the welfare office in June, did you know which specific programs you were

interested in?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO B5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

SOME IDEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED (SKIP TO B5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO B5) ......................... 8

B4a. Which programs were you interested in?

PROGRAM: YES NO RF DK

Food Stamps 1278

TANF (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8

Medicaid 1 2 7 8

SCHIP (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8

SSI 1 2 7 8

General Assistance (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8

OTHER (SPECIFY: __________________________________) 1278

B5. In June, did you apply for [PROGRAM name from grid]? (IF YES, ASK B5a.)

B5a. Were you approved for [PROGRAM name from grid] when you applied in June?

PROGRAM

B5. APPLIED? B5a. APPROVED?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

Food Stamps 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE PROGRAM) 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

Medicaid 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

SCHIP (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8
PROGRAM

B5. APPLIED? B5a. APPROVED?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

Abt Associates Inc. 7 October 17, 2000

SSI 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

General Assistance (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

OTHER (SPECIFY)

__________________

12781278

B6. After hearing about your situation, did the caseworker or other office worker arrange for you to

be provided with a single “lump sum” payment because it was determined that your needs were

short-term?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B7. Did the worker suggest that you pursue community agencies for assistance instead of applying for

assistance at the welfare office?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B8. Did the worker assign you job search activities, to be conducted before you could receive

benefits?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

IF B6 OR B7 OR B8 = “YES” THEN ASK B9. OTHERWISE SKIP TO B10.

B9. Did the caseworker ...

Suggest you apply for food stamps ...................... 1

Tell you that you weren't eligible for food stamps .......... 2

Suggest you not apply for food stamp at this time ........... 3

Not mention the food stamp program .................... 4

INTERVIEWER: SEE THE GRID IN B5. IF RESPONDENT WAS APPROVED FOR FOOD

STAMPS (“YES” TO B5a), SKIP TO SECTION C. OTHERWISE,

CONTINUE.

B10. Did you pick up or did they mail you a food stamp application?

YES (SKIP TO B12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B11. What was the main reason you were not provided with a food stamp application? Was it

because... (READ LIST. CIRCLE ONE.)
Abt Associates Inc. 8 October 17, 2000

You did not want to apply (SKIP TO B15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

You did not ask for an application (SKIP TO B15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

No one suggested that you complete one, so you didn’t think you'd 

be eligible (SKIP TO B15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

You could not wait for an application (SKIP TO B15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The caseworker said you probably wouldn’t be eligible (SKIP TO B15) ............ 5

DON’T KNOW ......................................................... 8

B12. Did you file an application, that is, did you sign and return an application to the office either in

person or through the mail?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO B15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B13. Did you have a full food stamp interview where the caseworker asked for the details of your

situation or circumstances?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO B15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B14. Did you provide all the documents or proof of your statements the caseworker requested?

YES (SKIP TO B16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B15. Did you decide at this point not to apply or not to complete the food stamps application process?

YES (SKIP TO B17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B16. Did you get a letter from the food stamp office saying you were not eligible because you have too

much income or resources?

YES (GO TO SECTION C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO B17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B17. Please tell us the main reason why you did not get food stamps or did not complete the

application process for food stamps? RECORD VERBATIM

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

B18. I’m going to read a list of some general issues other people have given for not completing the

application process for food stamps. As I read the list, please indicate whether any of these were

general issues you had with the application process.
Abt Associates Inc. 9 October 17, 2000

YES NO

a. Situation changed - no longer needed food stamps 1 2

b. Thought you weren't eligible 1 2

c. Difficulty with application form 1 2

d. Inconvenience or cost associated with applying 1 2

e. Confusion about what to do 1 2

f. Too much hassle or not worth the effort 1 2

g. The process took too long 1 2

h. Difficulty providing required documentation 1 2

i. Concerns about privacy 1 2

j. Too many rules to comply with 1 2

k. Citizenship issues 1 2

l. Embarrassment 1 2

m. A personal situation prevented you from completing the application 1 2
Abt Associates Inc. 10 October 17, 2000

FOR ANY GENERAL ISSUE R INDICATED AS Y (YES), READ THE FOLLOWING: 

B19. For each general issue you indicated as having with the food stamp application process, I am now

going to read some more specific reasons other people have provided for deciding not to complete

the application process for food stamps. Please listen to each statement, and tell me whether:

B19a. This happened. IF YES, ASK B19b.

B19b. If it happened, was it a reason you decided not to apply or not to complete the

application for food stamps?

STATEMENT

B19a.

HAPPENED?

B19b.

REASON?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18a, CONFIRM QUESTION 1:

1. Your situation changed and you no longer

needed food stamps.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18b, READ QUESTIONS 2-6:

2. Staff at the food stamp office told you or at

least made you think you would not be eligible.

12781278

3. Once you heard the eligibility requirements,

you knew or thought you would not be eligible.

12781278

3a. Was this because... (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

You work and earn too much money to be eligible for food stamps .................... 1

You get other government benefits and are not eligible for food stamps ................. 2

You have too much in savings or assets to be eligible for food stamps .................. 3

Your car is worth too much to be eligible for food stamps ........................... 4

4. You didn’t think you’d be eligible since you

received a lump sum payment.

12781278

5. You didn't think you'd be eligible since you did

not complete the job search or assessment

activities.

12781278

6. You didn't think you were eligible because you

were referred to other sources of assistance.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18c, READ QUESTIONS 7-8:

7. The application form was too difficult for you

to complete.

12781278

8. The application form was not in your native

language so was hard to understand

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18d, READ QUESTIONS 9-12:
STATEMENT

B19a.

HAPPENED?

B19b.

REASON?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

Abt Associates Inc. 11 October 17, 2000

9. You had no way or it was too hard to get to the

food stamp office.

12781278

10. It cost too much to go to the food stamp office. 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

11. You would have to take time off work to apply

and receritfy so you could get there during the

hours the office is open.

12781278

12. You would have to pay for child or elder care

while you go to apply.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18e, READ QUESTIONS 13-14:

13. You never heard from the food stamp office to

tell you what to do.

12781278

14. You were confused about what you were

supposed to do to apply.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18f, READ QUESTIONS 15-16:

15. Since you weren’t eligible for cash assistance,

the food stamp benefit alone wouldn’t be worth

the effort and cost of applying.

12781278

16. The amount of benefits you would have

received was a very small amount.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18g, READ QUESTIONS 17-18:

17. You found out it would take a long time before

you could receive any food stamps.

12781278

18. You had to wait too long when you visited the

food stamp office

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18h READ QUESTIONS 19-22:

19. They asked you to provide a number of

documents and you were not able to provide all

of them.

12781278

20. They asked you to provide a number of

documents and you were not willing to provide

all of them.

12781278

21. They asked you to give them a social security

number for everyone in your household and

you were not able to do that

12781278
STATEMENT

B19a.

HAPPENED?

B19b.

REASON?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

Abt Associates Inc. 12 October 17, 2000

22. They asked you to give them a social security

number for everyone in your household and

you were not willing to do that.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18i READ QUESTIONS 23-27:

23. The application form asked too many personal

questions.

12781278

24. You did not want to be fingerprinted.. 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

25. You did not want the welfare office to contact

your employer

12781278

26. You did not want the welfare office to contact

your landlord

12781278

27. You did not want a caseworker to visit your

home

12781278

READ Q.28 ONLY IF CHILDREN IN

HOUSEHOLD (ANY HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

UNDER AGE 18 FROM A2)

28. You did not want the welfare office to contact

your child(ren)’s schools.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18j READ QUESTIONS 29-35:

29. You did not want to complete a form reporting

on your circumstances every month and mail it

to the office.

12781278

30. You would have to recertify too frequently. 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

31. IF R IS ELDERLY (A5: YEAR LESS THAN

OR EQUAL TO 1940), SKIP TO ITEM 32.

You would be required to work or at least

actively search for a job to be eligible and have

to search to remain eligible.

12781278

32. You did not want to sign a form saying you

could be fined or arrested if any of the

information on the form was not correct.

12781278

33. You did not want to sign a personal

responsibility contract.

12781278
STATEMENT

B19a.

HAPPENED?

B19b.

REASON?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

Abt Associates Inc. 13 October 17, 2000

READ Q.34-35 ONLY IF CHILDREN IN

HOUSEHOLD (ANY HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

UNDER AGE 18 FROM A2)

34. You did not want to do child support

enforcement.

12781278

35. You did not want to have your children

immunized.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18k READ QUESTIONS 36-37:

36. You didn’t think you’d be eligible because of

your alien status.

12781278

37. You were afraid it would have a negative

impact on your citizenship application.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18l READ QUESTIONS 38-39:

38. You did not want to be seen going into the

food stamp office.

12781278

39. You did not want to be seen using food stamps

at the grocery store.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO B18m CONFIRM QUESTION 40:

40. A family emergency occurred that prevented

you from completing the application process.

12781278
Abt Associates Inc. 14 October 17, 2000

C. Knowledge of FSP and Expected Benefits/Requirements

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about your previous experiences with food stamps, cash

assistance, or other benefit programs before you inquired about assistance in June.

C1. Before June, had you or anyone in your household ever received (BENEFIT) before?

IF YES TO C1, ASK C1a AND C1b:

C1a. How long ago did you last receive (BENEFIT)?

C1b. How much do or did you receive each month from (BENEFIT)?

IF NO TO C1 ASK C1c.

C1c. Did you or anyone in your household ever apply for (BENEFIT) before?

BENEFIT

C1. RECEIVED?

C1a.

LAST RECEIPT

C1b.

AMOUNT

RECEIVED

C1C. APPLIED?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

Food stamps 1278 Still receiving ....... 1

Within the last year . . 2

1-4 years ago . . . . . . . 3

More than 4 years ago 4

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

$__________

DK . . . . . . . . . 8

1278

Welfare or cash

assistance

1278 Still receiving ....... 1

Within the last year . . 2

1-4 years ago . . . . . . . 3

More than 4 years ago 4

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

$__________

DK . . . . . . . . . 8

1278

Medical Assistance 1 2 7 8 Still receiving ....... 1

Within the last year . . 2

1-4 years ago . . . . . . . 3

More than 4 years ago 4

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

$__________

DK . . . . . . . . . 8

1278

WIC 1 2 7 8 Still receiving ....... 1

Within the last year . . 2

1-4 years ago . . . . . . . 3

More than 4 years ago 4

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

$__________

DK . . . . . . . . . 8

1278

IF C1 OR C1c = “YES” FOR FOOD STAMPS, SKIP TO C3.

C2. Before June, had you heard of food stamps or the Food Stamp Program?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO C5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO C5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO C5) ......................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 15 October 17, 2000

C3. As far as you know, did your family ever receive food stamp benefits when you were a child?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

C4. As far as you know, were any of your relatives, friends, neighbors, or co-workers receiving food

stamp benefits in June when you went to inquire about assistance?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

C5. In June, when you were first thinking about applying for assistance, did you know where you had

to go to apply for food stamps or other assistance?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

C6. In June, before you went to apply for food stamp benefits, had you seen or heard about the Food

Stamp Program in any of the following places? Had you...

YES NO

Read any articles about the Program in the newspaper? ................... 1 2

Heard any announcements or advertisements on the radio or TV? ........... 1 2

Seen any posters, flyers, or brochures? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

Seen any billboards or advertisements on buses, taxis, or trains? ........... 1 2

Heard any presentations by community groups? ........................ 1 2

Received any mail or telephone calls about food stamps? ................. 1 2

Any thing else (SPECIFY:___________)? ............................. 1 2

C7. In June, before you contacted the food stamp or welfare office, did you think that you would be

eligible for food stamp benefits?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO C8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

WASN'T SURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED (SKIP TO C8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO C8) .................. 8

C7a. How much per monoth did you think you would be eligible to receive in benefits? 

PROBE: Your best guess is fine.

$10 or less .................................. 1

Between $11 and $25 .......................... 2

Between $26 and $50 .......................... 3

Between $51 and $100 ......................... 4
Abt Associates Inc. 16 October 17, 2000

Between $101 and $150 ........................ 5

Between $151 and $200 ........................ 6

Between $201 and $300 ........................ 7

Over $300 .................................. 8

DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

C8. In June, before you went to apply for assistance, how much did you know about what you would

have to do in order to get food stamp benefits? Would you say you ...

Were well informed about the process .................... 1

Had some idea about the process ........................ 2

Did not have any idea what was involved ................. 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

C9. Was there anything about the food stamp application process that almost prevented you from

applying?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO SECTION D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO SECTION D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO SECTION D) ................. 8

C9a. What was it that almost prevented you from applying? CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY

Filling out the application form ......................... 1

Providing all required documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The time it would take to complete the application process . . . 3

Work or job search requirements ........................ 4

OTHER (SPECIFY:_________) ........................ 6

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 17 October 17, 2000

D. Time/Cost of Application

My next several questions are about how much time and how much cost was associated with your visits to

the food stamp office to find out about or apply for food stamps. When I refer to the food stamp office, I

mean the office you visited to apply for food stamp benefits.

D1. Starting in June, when you first went to apply for or to see about assistance, how many trips did

you make to the Food Stamps office in all to apply for food stamps?

# ______ trips

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

IF ZERO TRIPS, SKIP TO SECTION E.

D2. Did you make any additional trips to this office in order to apply for TANF (INSERT NAME OF

STATE PROGRAM) or Medicaid benefits?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO D3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO D3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO D3) ......................... 8

D2a. How many additional trips did you make to apply for TANF (INSERT NAME OF

STATE PROGRAM) or Medicaid?

# ______ trips

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

D3. How many trips did you think you’d have to make to the food stamp office before you received

food stamps or were denied benefits? 

# ______ trips

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 18 October 17, 2000

D4. How did you usually get to the food stamp office? (READ ITEM IF NECESSARY.)

Drive your own car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Take a bus or other public transportation (SKIP TO D5) . . . . . 2

Take a taxicab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Have someone drive you . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Borrow a car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Walk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

OTHER (SPECIFY) __________________ ............... 7

D4a. Is public transportation available to the food stamp office?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

D5. Approximately how many miles is it from your house to the food stamp office? IF LESS THAN

1/2 MILE, ENTER 0. IF 1/2 TO 1, ENTER 1.

_____ MILES

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

D6. IF D4 IS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OR TAXICAB, ASK: What was the cost of a one-way

trip to the food stamp office? 

$ ______

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

D7. IF D4 IS HAVING SOMEONE DRIVE YOU, BORROW A CAR, DRIVE OWN CAR, ASK: 

What was the average cost of a one-way trip, including tolls, parking while at the food stamp

office, and money you may have paid a driver?

$ ______

None/Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

N/A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

D8. How much time on average did it take for you to get to the food stamp office, for a one-way trip?

_______ total hours

OR

_______ total minutes

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 19 October 17, 2000

D9. Counting all the visits you made to the food stamp office to apply for or see about food stamps or

other assistance, how much time did you spend at the office, including waiting, filling out

paperwork, meeting with program staff, etc.?

_______ total hours

OR

_______ total minutes

D10. How many total trips did you or a family member make to other offices such as utility companies

or employers to collect the required documentation for the food stamp application?

# ______ trips

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

D11. Did you have to miss any work in order to apply for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO D12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO D12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO D12) ......................... 8

D11a. How much in wages did you lose applying for food stamp benefits?

$ ________

NO LOST WAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

D12. Did you need to pay for child care or elder care at any time when you went to apply for food

stamps or when you went to collect documentation for the application? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO D13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO D13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO D13) ......................... 8

D12a. How much money in total did you pay for child or elder care?

$ ________

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

D13. IF R APPLIED FOR TANF OR MEDICAID (SEE B5), ASK D13. OTHERWISE SKIP TO

SECTION E.

Did you have to go to a different office to apply for TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE

PROGRAM) or Medicaid benefits?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO SECTION E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Abt Associates Inc. 20 October 17, 2000

D13a. How many trips did you make in all to apply for TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE

PROGRAM) or Medicaid benefits?

________ # OF TRIPS

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 21 October 17, 2000

E. Convenience of Hours and Location/Other Factors in the Participation Decision

My next set of questions are about your experiences at the Food Stamp or TANF (INSERT NAME OF

STATE PROGRAM) offices when you first went to find out about or apply for food stamps in June.

E1. How convenient is the office location for you? Do you consider the location ...

Very convenient (SKIP TO E3) ......................... 1

Somewhat convenient (SKIP TO E3) .................... 2

Somewhat inconvenient ............................... 3

Very inconvenient ................................... 4

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

E2. What, if anything, is wrong with the location of the office? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

It is too far from home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

It is in a congested area with lots of traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

It was difficult to find the building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

It is difficult to find parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

It is in an unsafe neighborhood ......................... 5

It is not easily accessible by public transportation ........... 6

It costs too much to get there . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The building is depressing ............................. 8

OTHER (SPECIFY) ___________ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

E3. How convenient for you were the hours the office was open? Would you say they were ... 

Very convenient (SKIP TO E5) ......................... 1

Somewhat convenient (SKIP TO E5) .................... 2

Somewhat inconvenient ............................... 3

Very inconvenient ................................... 4

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

E4. What was the problem with the office hours at the Food Stamp Office? (CIRCLE ALL THAT

APPLY

It is open only during normal business hours ........................... 1

You would have to take time off from work to get there . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

It is difficult to schedule meetings with a caseworker at convenient times ..... 3

It is not open evenings or weekends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

There are few workers available at lunchtime when I could get there . . . . . . . . . 5

Other problems (SPECIFY) ___________________________ ............. 6

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW .................................................. 8
Abt Associates Inc. 22 October 17, 2000

E5. Do you have a disability that makes it hard for you to visit the Food Stamp Office?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

E6. In June when you first visited the food stamp office, was there a receptionist or someone like that

available to greet you and help you know what to do next?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO E8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO E8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO E8) ......................... 8

E7. How satisfied were you with the services provided by this person? Would you say ...

Very satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Somewhat satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Somewhat dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Very dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

E8. Did you speak with a caseworker on that visit?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO E9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO E9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO E9) .......................... 8

E8a. How long did you wait to speak with a welfare caseworker or food stamp caseworker

about your case?

# ________ minutes

E9. Were you informed about the requirements for applying and participating in the Food Stamp

Program? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO E10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO E10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO E10) ........................ 8
Abt Associates Inc. 23 October 17, 2000

E9A. How were you informed? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. READ LIST IF

NECESSARY.)

CASEWORKER TOLD YOU ABOUT THEM ................................ 1

CASEWORKER OR OTHER OFFICE STAFF GAVE YOU WRITTEN 

 MATERIALS LIKE PAMPHLETS OR BROCHURES ........................ 2

PICKED UP WRITTEN MATERIALS YOURSELF ........................... 3

RECEIVED MATERIALS IN THE MAIL AFTER YOUR VISIT ................. 4

ATTENDED A GROUP MEETING WHERE BENEFITS AND GUIDELINES WERE

 EXPLAINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

WATCHED A VIDEO ON BENEFITS AND GUIDELINES ..................... 6

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ......................................................... 8

E10. Were you informed about the requirements for the TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE

PROGRAM)?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO E11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO E11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO E11) ........................ 8

E10a. How were you informed? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. READ LIST IF

NECESSARY.)

CASEWORKER TOLD YOU ABOUT THEM ................................ 1

CASEWORKER OR OTHER OFFICE STAFF GAVE YOU WRITTEN 

 MATERIALS LIKE PAMPHLETS OR BROCHURES ........................ 2

PICKED UP WRITTEN MATERIALS YOURSELF ........................... 3

RECEIVED MATERIALS IN THE MAIL AFTER YOUR VISIT ................. 4

ATTENDED A GROUP MEETING WHERE BENEFITS AND GUIDELINES WERE

 EXPLAINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

WATCHED A VIDEO ON BENEFITS AND GUIDELINES ..................... 6

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ......................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 24 October 17, 2000

E11. In June, did you receive any assistance... (READ TASK)? IF YES, ASK E11a.

E11a. Who provided the assistance?

TASK

E11. RECEIVED

ASSISTANCE? E11a. ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY:

YES NO RF DK

FOOD STAMP

STAFF VOLUNTEERS

STAFF AT

ANOTHER

ORGANIZATION

Completing the

application form

1278 1 2 3

Obtaining necessary

documents

1278 1 2 3

IF ANSWERED NO TO A3 ASK QUESTIONS E12-E15. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO E16.

E12. Do you feel comfortable speaking and reading English

YES (SKIP TO E16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

E13. When you went to the Food Stamp office, did you take someone with you to translate?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

E14. Was there someone in the office who spoke (LANGUAGE IN A4)

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

E15. Were you given any written materials about food stamps in (LANGUAGE IN A4)?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

E16. After meeting with the food stamp worker, did you feel that you really understood what you’d

need to do to get food stamps, were you somewhat unsure, or had you no idea at all of what was

required of you?

Really understood ................................... 1

Somewhat unsure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

No idea at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

E17. In general, do you feel that the Food Stamp Program requirements are reasonable or

unreasonable?
Abt Associates Inc. 25 October 17, 2000

REASONABLE ..................................... 1

UNREASONABLE .................................. 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

E18. Overall, how successful was your visit to the office? Did you...

Accomplish everything you expected to during that visit, or 

 did you (GO TO E19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Accomplish some, but not all that you expected to accomplish ............. 2

Or did you not accomplish anything .................................. 3

REFUSED (GO TO E19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO E19) ....................................... 8

E18a. Can you tell me what you were not able to do during this visit? (CODE ALL THAT

APPLY)

FIND OUT IF ELIGIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

FIND OUT AMOUNT OF BENEFIT .................... 2

GET LIST OF ALL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

COMPLETE AN APPLICATION ...................... 4

OTHER (SPECIFY) _________________ ................ 5

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

E19. Did you feel embarrassed having to apply for food stamps or other assistance? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

IF R APPROVED FOR FOOD STAMPS (“YES” TO B5a) OR R RECEIVED FOOD STAMPS IN

PAST (“YES” TO C1), THEN ASK E20. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO E26.

E20. My next questions are about how people feel about using food stamps. Have you ever done

anything to hide that you got food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E21. Have you ever avoided telling people you got food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E22. Did you ever go out of your way to shop at a store where no one knows you?
Abt Associates Inc. 26 October 17, 2000

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E23. Have you ever been treated disrespectfully when using food stamp in a store?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E24. Were you ever treated disrespectfully when you told people that you received food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E25. Have you ever given your food stamps to someone else because you were embarrassed to use

them?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

SKIP TO E30.

E26. The next questions are about how you might feel if you received food stamp benefits. Please

answer yes or no. “If I got food stamps, I might go out of my way so people would not find out.”

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E27. “I might not shop in certain stores because I don't want people there to know I use food stamps.”

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E28. “People in stores would treat me disrespectfully when I use food stamps.”

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 27 October 17, 2000

E29. “People would treat me disrespectfully if they found out that I got food stamps.”

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E30. Now, please tell me your opinions about the caseworker assigned to you at the food stamp office. 

As I read each statement, please tell me if you agree or disagree. FOR EACH ANSWER TO

E30, ASK E30a.

E30a. Do you strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?

E30.

AGREE/DISAGREE

E30a.

STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT

YES NO RF DK STRONGLY SOMEWHAT RF DK

a. The kinds of services I received

were suitable because of my needs

1278 1 2 78

b. I agreed with my caseworker's

decisions.

1278 1 2 78

c. Overall, my caseworker kept me

well informed.

1278 1 2 78

d. I felt that my caseworker was doing

his or her part to help solve my

problems.

1278 1 2 78

e. My caseworker was knowledgeable

about food stamp benefits and

procedures.

1278 1 2 78

f. My caseworker treats clients

respectfully.

1278 1 2 78

E31. Compared to other public offices with which you have contact, how would you rate the treatment

you received at the food stamp office? Would you say you were treated better, the same, or

worse than you were treated at other places such as the Division of Motor Vehicles, voter

registration, WIC, the post office, or the unemployment office?

BETTER .......................................... 1

THE SAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

WORSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E32. Overall, how satisfied are you with the food stamp application process? Are you...

Satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Somewhat satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Abt Associates Inc. 28 October 17, 2000

Somewhat dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 29 October 17, 2000

F. Housing/Community

My next questions are about your housing situation as it was in June when you went to the food stamp

office to ask about food stamps or other assistance. 

F1. What best describes your living arrangement in June when you inquired about assistance at the

food stamp office?... Did you:

Own or were you buying your own home (SKIP TO F4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Rent your home or apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Live with family or friends and not pay rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Live with family or friends and pay part of the rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Live in a group shelter (SKIP TO F6) ........................................ 5

Live in a homeless shelter or shelter for domestic violence (SKIP TO F6) ........... 6

Live on the street, or (SKIP TO F6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Live in some other arrangement? (SPECIFY) _____________________ ............ 8

F2. Did you live in public housing?

YES (SKIP TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE F4) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

F3. Did you pay less rent because the government paid for part of it through a Section 8 housing

subsidy?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

IF R APPROVED FOR FOOD STAMP BENEFITS (“YES” TO B5a), SKIP TO F7. OTHERWISE,

CONTINUE.

F4. For the month of June, what did your household spend on housing? (Please include rent or

mortgage, and if applicable, home insurance, property taxes and water usage).

PROMPT: Your best estimate is fine.

$ ___________.00

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F5. Did that amount (in June) include any utilities, such as gas, heat or air conditioning, electricity,

and water?

YES (GO TO F7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SOME, BUT NOT ALL (ASK F5A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

NO (ASK F5A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED (GO TO F7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO F7) ........................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 30 October 17, 2000

F5a. How much did your household pay for utilities in June? Please include all utilities such

as gas, heat or air conditioning, electricity, and water that are not included in your

housing costs. (PROMPT: Your best estimate is fine.)

$ _______ Total utilities (GO TO F7)

REFUSED (GO TO F7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO F7) .......................... 8

F6. In June, how long had you been living in a group home, a shelter or on the street?

_______ days

_______ weeks

_______ months

_______ years

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F6a. Are you still living in a group home, a shelter, or on the street?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

F7. In the past 12 months, since (CURRENT MONTH, 1999), have you (or your children) received

any of the following types of help from community organizations, neighborhood centers or

religious organizations, other than friends or family? 

YES NO REF DK

Shelter from an emergency shelter 1 2 7 8

Clothing or clothing vouchers 1278

Money 1 2 7 8

Child care or help paying for child care 1 2 7 8

Transportation or help paying for transportation 1 2 7 8

Free medical services 1 2 7 8

Help paying your utilities, like electricity, gas or water 1278

Help paying your phone bill or enabling you to use a telephone 1278

Help paying for your rent 1 2 7 8

Legal aid or help paying for legal aid 1 2 7 8

Any other kind of help? (SPECIFY) _______________ 1278
Abt Associates Inc. 31 October 17, 2000

F8. In the past 12 months, since (CURRENT MONTH, 1999), did you (or any other adults in your

household) ever get emergency food from a ...

YES NO RF DK

Church 1 2 7 8

Food pantry 1 2 7 8

Food bank 1 2 7 8

IF “YES” TO ANY IN F8, ASK F9. OTHERWISE SKIP TO F10.

F9. How often did this happen - almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1

or 2 months?

Almost every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Some months but not every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Only 1 or 2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

F10. In the past 12 months, since (CURRENT MONTH, 1999), did you (or other members of your

household) ever eat any meals at a soup kitchen?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 32 October 17, 2000

G. Employment Status 

Many working families still qualify for food stamp benefits. My next several questions ask about your

job status in June when you applied for or inquired about food stamps or other assistance. Again, I would

like to remind you that your answers will remain strictly confidential.

G1. In June, when you contacted the welfare office for assistance, were you earning money from a

job? Include any self-employment.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO G5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

G2. As of June, how long had you been working for this employer or organization or had been selfemployed?

# _____ months (if less than one year)

OR

# _____ years

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

G3. Back in June, how many hours did you usually work per week on this job?

______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

IF R APPROVED FOR FOOD STAMP BENEFITS (“YES” TO B5a), SKIP TO G5.

G4. Thinking back to June, about how much money did you earn per hour, week or month from your

job(s) before taxes and any other deductions?

$ ______ per hour

OR

$ ______ per week

OR

$ ______ per month

IF ONE PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD, SKIP TO SECTION H.

G5. Thinking back to June, did anyone else in your household work at a job for pay, not including

schoolchildren aged 17 or under?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO SECTION H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO SECTION H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO SECTION H) ................ 8
Abt Associates Inc. 33 October 17, 2000

G6. IF YES: How many people in your household, besides yourself, worked at a job for pay in June?

_____ NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WORKED

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

G7a. ASK G7a FOLLOWED BY G7b FOR EACH OTHER WORKING HOUSEHOLD MEMBER: 

Back in June, how many hours per week did each person usually work?

PERSON 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4

_______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . 98

_______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . 98

_______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . 98

_______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . 98

IF R APPROVED FOR FOOD STAMP BENEFITS (“YES” TO B5a), SKIP TO SECTION H.

G7b. In June, about how much money did this person earn per hour, week or month from their job(s)

before taxes and any other deductions? PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

PERSON 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . 98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . 98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . 98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . 98
Abt Associates Inc. 34 October 17, 2000

H. Income/Sources of Income

IF R APPROVED FOR FS BENEFITS (SEE B5a), SKIP TO H8.

Now I’m going to ask you some questions about your household income during the month of June when

you applied or inquired about food stamps or other assistance. I want to assure you that none of the

answers you give me will be discussed with anyone.

Thinking back to June, did you or anyone else in your household, including children, receive (INCOME

SOURCE)? FOR EACH INCOME SOURCE RECEIVED, ASK a.

a. How much money did you and other household members receive in June from (INCOME

SOURCE)?

INCOME SOURCE

RECEIVED IN 

JUNE? a. AMOUNT

RECEIVED IN

YES NO RF DK JUNE

H1. Cash from a cash assistance program like

TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE

PROGRAM) or General Assistance (INSERT

NAME OF STATE PROGRAM)?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H2. Income from child support either directly

from your child’s other parent or through a

government agency?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H3. Disability income through Supplemental

Security Income—that is, SSI social security,

aid for the disabled, or from some other

source?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H4. Regular income from friends or relatives

outside the household?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H5. Social Security checks from the government

or Veteran’s benefits?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H6. Any other retirement or pension, public or

private?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H7. Money from any other source? This might

include unemployment insurance, worker’s

compensation, alimony, foster child

payments, rent from tenant or boarder, and so

on.

1 2 7 8 $_________________
Abt Associates Inc. 35 October 17, 2000

H8. In June, did you or anyone in your household receive WIC, Women, Infants and Children

Program, benefits such as food packages or vouchers for purchasing food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

H9. SEE A2. IF CHILD/REN OF AGES 5-17 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK: In June (OR MAY IF

SCHOOL YEAR ENDED IN MAY), did any school-aged child in your household receive free or

reduced-price breakfasts or lunches at school?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 36 October 17, 2000

I. Assets

IF R APPROVED FOR FS BENEFITS (SEE B5A), SKIP TO SECTION J.

My next several questions ask about your household assets at the time you first went to the food stamp

office to ask about assistance in June. Please remember that these questions are for research purposes

only and will not be shared with anyone. Your responses to these questions will not affect your eligibility

for benefits now or in the future. 

I1. In June, did you (or did anyone in your household) own a motor vehicle such as a car, truck, van

or motorcycle? Please include any vehicles that you may be making payments on.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO I4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO I4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO I4) .......................... 4

I1a. If yes, how many vehicles? 

____ VEHICLES

I2. What is the year, make, and model of each vehicle?

MAKE MODEL YEAR

VEHICLE 1 ___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

VEHICLE 2 ___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

VEHICLE 3 ___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

IF MAKE OR MODEL UNKNOWN, ASK I3a. IF YEAR UNKNOWN, ASK I3b. OTHERWISE SKIP

TO I4.

PROGRAMMER: ASK I3a AND I3b AFTER MAKE AND MODEL AND YEAR FOR A VEHICLE

BEFORE GOING TO NEXT VEHICLE.

I3a. What is the approximate value of this vehicle?

Vehicle 1 $_____

Vehicle 2 $_____

Vehicle 3 $_____
Abt Associates Inc. 37 October 17, 2000

I3b. (Is the vehicle/Are any of the vehicles) less than five years old?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

I4. In June, did you have a checking account?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO I6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO I6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO I6) ........................... 8

I5. As of June, how much money on average do you estimate was in your checking account? 

BALANCE MAY BE NEGATIVE.

$ ______ 

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

I6 In June, did you have a savings account?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO I8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO I8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO I8) ........................... 8

I7. As of June, how much money did you have in savings accounts?

$ ______ 

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

I8. In June, did you have any other bank accounts or financial investments?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO SECTION J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO SECTION J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO SECTION J) ................... 8

I9. As of June, what was the approximate value in total of these other bank account and financial

investments? Please include amounts in individual retirement accounts (IRAs), stocks, mutual

funds, certificates of deposit (CDs), money market accounts, 401k accounts and elsewhere.

$ ______ 

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 38 October 17, 2000

J. Food Security

My next set of questions are about the food eaten in your household. Over the past several years, USDA

has been developing a set of questions to tell us about the food needs of adults and children. 

J1. Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the last 12 months:

(I/We) have enough to eat and the kinds of food (I/we) want .............. 1

(I/We) have enough to eat but not always the kinds of food (I/we) want ...... 2

Sometimes (I/we) don’t have enough to eat, or .......................... 3

Often (I/we) don’t have enough to eat ................................. 4

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW .................................................. 8

Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food situation. For these

statements, please tell me whether the statement was OFTEN, SOMETIMES, or NEVER true for (you/

your household) in the last 12 months.

J2. The first statement is, “(I/We) worried whether (my/our) food would run out before (I/we) got

money to buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the

last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J3. “The food that (I/we) bought just didn’t last, and (I/we) didn’t have money to get more.” Was

that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J4. “(I/we) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/

your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN THE HOUSEHOLD (SEE A2), ASK QUESTIONS J5 -J7. IF NO

CHILDREN SKIP TO J8 :
Abt Associates Inc. 39 October 17, 2000

J5. (I/we) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (my/our) child(ren) because (I was/we

were) running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/

your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J6. “(I/We) couldn’t feed (my/our) child(ren) a balanced meal, because (I/we) couldn’t afford that.” 

Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J7. My/Our child was/The children were not eating enough because (I/we) just couldn’t afford

enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12

months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

IF J2, J3 AND J4 EQUAL “NEVER” (3), AND J5 AND J6 EQUAL “NEVER” (3) OR BLANK, THEN

SKIP TO SECTION K. OTHERWISE CONTINUE.

J8. In the last 12 months, did you (you/you or other adults in your household) ever cut the size of

your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? 

YES (ASK J8a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO J9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO J9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO J9) ......................... 8

J8a. How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or

in only 1 or 2 months?

Almost every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Some months but not every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Only 1 or 2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 40 October 17, 2000

J9. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough

money to buy food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J10. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because you couldn’t afford enough

food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J11. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because you didn’t have enough money for food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J12. In the last 12 months, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever not eat for a whole

day because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES (ASK J12a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J12a. How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or

in only 1 or 2 months?

Almost every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Some months but not every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Only 1 or 2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD (SEE A2), ASK J13-16, OTHERWISE SKIP TO

SECTION K.

The next questions are about the children living in the household who are under 18 years old. You may

find some of the following questions sensitive. I want to remind you that all of the information you give

will remain confidential and in answering these questions you will help the food stamp program better

understand the needs of families and children it seeks to serve.
Abt Associates Inc. 41 October 17, 2000

J13. In the last 12 months did you ever cut the size of (your child’s/any of your children’s) meals

because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J14. In the last 12 months did (your child/any of your children) ever skip a meal because there wasn’t

enough money for food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO J15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO J15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO J15) .......................... 8

J14a. How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or

in only 1 or 2 months?

Almost every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Some months but not every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Only 1 or 2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J15. In the last 12 months, (was your child/were the children) ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford

more food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J16. In the last 12 months, did (your child/any of the children) ever not eat for a whole day because

there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 42 October 17, 2000

K. Demographics

My last few questions are about the characteristics of your household. Remember, all information will

remain confidential. Please tell me about your household situation in June, when you visited the food

stamp office.

K1. In June, were you ...

Married and living with your (husband/wife) (GO TO K3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Separated or living apart from your (husband/wife)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Divorced, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Widowed, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Never married? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW .................................................. 8

K2. IF NOT LIVING WITH SPOUSE: Were you living with a partner in June?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

K3. CODE GENDER WITHOUT ASKING. IF UNCLEAR, ASK: Are you male or female?

MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

K4. What was the last grade or year of school you completed? 

SOME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (GRADES 1-8) ...................... 1

COMPLETED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ............................. 2

SOME HIGH SCHOOL ............................................ 3

COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR RECEIVED GED ................... 4

TECHNICAL OR VOCATIONAL SCHOOL .......................... 5

SOME COLLEGE ................................................ 6

ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

BACHELOR'S DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

ADVANCED DEGREE ........................................... 9

NO FORMAL SCHOOLING ....................................... 0

OTHER (SPECIFY:_______________________) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

K5. Which of the following do you consider yourself to be? (READ LIST AND CODE ONE)

Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Abt Associates Inc. 43 October 17, 2000

K6. Which of the following do you consider yourself to be? You may choose more than one. (READ

LIST AND CODE ALL RESPONSES)

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

American Indian or Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

K7. Were you born in the United States?

YES (SKIP TO K8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

K7a. Are you a United States citizen? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

K8. SEE A2. IF THERE ARE CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK: Were all the

children in your household born in the United States? 

YES (SKIP TO K9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

K8a. Are the children in your household ... (READ LIST)

All US citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Are some, but not all US citizens, or are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

None of the children in the household US citizens . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

K9. Is anyone in your household disabled? By disabled, I mean unable to work or limited in the

amount of work a person is able to do because of a mental or physical condition.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

These are all the questions I had for you. Thank you for your participation in this survey.
Abt Associates Inc. 1 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

A Study of Program Access and Declining Food Stamp Participation

Incomplete Recertification Household Survey

Introduction:

Hello, my name is ______________. May I speak with RESPONDENT?

I’m calling from Abt Associates in Amherst, Massachusetts. We were hired by the United States

Department of Agriculture in Washington, DC to conduct a study of the Food Stamp Program and the

experiences of people who participate in the Program. We got your name from the food stamp office

where you received benefits last June. 

The officials at the USDA are interested in knowing why some people who are participating in the

Program do not complete the required recertification process. They are particularly interested in people's

experiences with the Food Stamp Program and the reasons they no longer receive benefits, as well as

changes in their circumstances.

I would like to talk with you about your experiences with the food stamp office where you received

assistance. Your answers will be kept confidential and your name will not be identified with any answers

you give. Also, your interview with me cannot affect your status with any agency now or in the future. 

Help Screen:

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0536-

0053. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30

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.

A. Household Composition/Characteristics

My first few questions are about the characteristics of your household. Your answers to these questions

will tell me which questions I need to ask. Remember, all the information you tell me is for research

purposes only and will remain confidential. Please tell me about your household situation in June, when

you received food stamp benefits.

A1. How many people live in your household? By household I mean yourself and the people who

live with you and share food with you. PROBE: Include any persons who live with you more

than half of the time.

___________ PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD (IF ONE-PERSON

HOUSEHOLD, SKIP TO A3)

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Abt Associates Inc. 2 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

A2. How many household members are. . . (MAKE SURE TOTAL MATCHES A1)

Under 5 years old? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

Five to 17 years old? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

18-59 years of age? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

60 years of age or older? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______

A3. Is English the primary language spoken in your household?

YES (SKIP TO Q. A5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A4. What language do you and your family most often speak at home?

SPANISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHINESE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PORTUGUESE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FRENCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ARABIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ITALIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

VIETNAMESE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

LAOTIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CAMBODIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

HMONG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

OTHER (SPECIFY) ____________ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A5. What is your date of birth?

________ / ________ / ________

MONTH DAY YEAR
Abt Associates Inc. 3 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

L. Reasons for not completing the recertification process

According to the food stamp office where you received benefits in June 2000, your certification period

ended in June and you needed to reapply or recertify to continue receiving food stamp benefits. My next

set of questions concern your experiences with the recertification process.

L1. Did you get a letter from the food stamp office saying you had to recertify or reapply for food

stamps some time in June?

YES (SKIP TO L4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

L2. Were you aware that you needed to reapply in order to continue receiving food stamp benefits?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

L3. Thinking back to June, had you moved since your last contact with the food stamp office or since

you last received coupons or an ATP card in the mail?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO L4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO L4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO L4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

L3a. In what month and year did you move?

______ / ______

MONTH YEAR

L4. Did you complete a recertification application and return it to the office either in person or

through the mail?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO L7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

L5. Did you have an interview where the caseworker updated the details of your current situation or

circumstances?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO L7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

L6. Did you provide all the documents or proof of your statements the caseworker requested?
Abt Associates Inc. 4 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

YES (SKIP TO L8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

L7. Did you decide at this point not to complete the reapplication process for food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

L8. Please tell us the main reason why you did not get complete the recertification process for food

stamps. RECORD VERBATIM

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

L9. I’m going to read a list of some general reasons other people have given for not completing the

recertification or reapplication process for food stamps. As I read the list, please indicate whether

any of these were reasons that affected you.

YES NO

a. Situation changed - no longer needed or wanted food stamps 1 2

b. Thought you weren't eligible 1 2

c. Confusion about what to do 1 2

d. Recertification process would take too much time, or be too difficult, or be too costly. 1 2

e. Too many rules to comply with or too difficult to participate 1 2

f. Embarrassment about participating in the Food Stamp Program 1 2
Abt Associates Inc. 5 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

FOR ANY GENERAL ISSUE R INDICATED AS Y (YES), READ THE FOLLOWING: 

L10. For each general issue you indicated as having with the food stamp recertification or reapplication

process, I am now going to read some more specific reasons other people have provided for

deciding not to complete the process. Please listen to each statement, and tell me whether:

L10a. This happened. IF YES, ASK L10b.

L10b. If it happened, was it a reason you decided not to complete the recertification

reapplication for food stamps?

STATEMENT

L10a.

HAPPENED?

L10b.

REASON?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

IF ANSWERED YES TO L9, READ QUESTIONS 1-2:

1. Your TANF [INSERT NAME OF STATE

PROGRAM] benefit was decreased or

discontinued and it was no longer worth

participating in the Food Stamp Program.

12781278

2. Your situation improved and you no longer

needed food stamps.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO L9b, READ QUESTIONS 3-11:

3. You thought you were no longer eligible

because you (or someone else in your

household) now earns too much money from a

job.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO L10a, ASK 3a:

3a. Did you household's earnings increase because (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY):

You (or someone in your household) got a new job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The hours you (or someone in your household) worked increased .............. 2

Your hourly pay (or the pay of someone in your household) increased .......... 3

4. You thought you weren't eligible because the

number of adults in your household increased

and the new member(s) (is/are) contributing

income.

12781278

5. You thought you weren't eligible because your

household's income increased for some other

reason. (SPECIFY REASON: ____________

_____________________________________

12781278

6. You thought you weren't eligible because the

number of members in your household

decreased.

12781278
STATEMENT

L10a.

HAPPENED?

L10b.

REASON?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

Abt Associates Inc. 6 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

7. You thought you weren't eligible because you

no longer receive TANF [INSERT NAME OF

STATE PROGRAM] benefits.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO L10a, ASK L7a:

7a. You no longer receive TANF [INSERT NAME OF STATE PROGRAM] benefits because

you...

Reached the time limit ................................ 1

Were sanctioned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Some other reason (SPECIFY: _______________) ......... 3

8. You thought you weren't eligible because you

started to receive TANF [INSERT NAME OF

STATE PROGRAM] benefits.

12781278

9. You didn’t think you’d be eligible since you

received a lump sum payment.

12781278

10. You didn't think you'd be eligible since you

did not complete the job search or assessment

activities.

12781278

11. You didn't think you were eligible because you

were referred to other sources of assistance.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO L9c, READ QUESTIONS 12-13:

12. You never heard from the food stamp office to

tell you to recertify or reapply.

12781278

13. You were confused about what you were

supposed to do to recertify or reapply.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO L9d, READ QUESTIONS 14-21:

14. You had no way or it was too hard to get to the

food stamp office.

12781278

15. It cost too much to go to the food stamp office. 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

16. You would have to take time off work to

recertify so you could get there during the

hours the office is open.

12781278

17. You would have to pay for child or elder care

while you go to the office.

12781278
STATEMENT

L10a.

HAPPENED?

L10b.

REASON?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

Abt Associates Inc. 7 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

18. They asked you to provide a number of

documents and you were not able to provide

all of them.

12781278

19. It required too much time to complete the

recertification or reapplication process.

12781278

20. You would have to answer too many personal

questions.

12781278

21. You were not treated well by food stamp

office staff.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO L9e, READ QUESTIONS 22-30:

22. You had to recertify too frequently. 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

23. You did not want to complete a form reporting

on your circumstances every month and mail it

to the office.

12781278

24. IF R IS ELDERLY (A5: YEAR LESS THAN

OR EQUAL TO 1940), SKIP TO ITEM 25.

The job search or work requirements were too

difficult to comply with.

12781278

READ Q.25 ONLY IF CHILDREN IN

HOUSEHOLD (ANY HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

UNDER AGE 18 FROM A2)

25. You did not want the welfare office to contact

your child(ren)’s schools.

12781278

26. You did not want to do child support

enforcement.

12781278

27. You did not want to have your children

immunized.

12781278

28. It was too difficult to pick up your food stamp

benefits.

12781278

29. It was too difficult to find a store that accepted

food stamp benefits.

12781278

30. You did not like to shop at the stores that

accepted food stamp benefits.

12781278

IF ANSWERED YES TO L9f READ QUESTIONS 31-33:

31. You did not want to be seen going into the

food stamp office.

12781278
STATEMENT

L10a.

HAPPENED?

L10b.

REASON?

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

Abt Associates Inc. 8 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

32. You did not want to be seen using food stamps

at the grocery store.

12781278

33. You do not like to rely on government

assistance.

12781278
Abt Associates Inc. 9 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

E. Convenience of Hours and Location, Stigma, and Satisfaction

My next set of questions are about the convenience of the Food Stamp office where you received benefits

in June.

E1. How convenient is the office location for you? Do you consider the location ...

Very convenient (SKIP TO E3) ......................... 1

Somewhat convenient (SKIP TO E3) .................... 2

Somewhat inconvenient ............................... 3

Very inconvenient ................................... 4

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

E2. What, if anything, is wrong with the location of the office? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

It is too far from home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

It is in a congested area with lots of traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

It was difficult to find the building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

It is difficult to find parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

It is in an unsafe neighborhood ......................... 5

It is not easily accessible by public transportation ........... 6

It costs too much to get there . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The building is depressing ............................. 8

OTHER (SPECIFY) ___________ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

E3. How convenient for you were the hours the office was open? Would you say they were ... 

Very convenient (SKIP TO E20) ........................ 1

Somewhat convenient (SKIP TO E20) ................... 2

Somewhat inconvenient ............................... 3

Very inconvenient ................................... 4

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

E4. What was the problem with the office hours at the Food Stamp Office? (CIRCLE ALL THAT

APPLY

It is open only during normal business hours ............................... 1

You would have to take time off from work to get there . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

It is difficult to schedule meetings with a caseworker at convenient times ........ 3

It is not open evenings or weekends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

There are few workers available at lunchtime when I could get there . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Other problems (SPECIFY) ___________________________ ................ 6

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................................... 8

E20. My next questions are about how people feel about using food stamps. Have you ever done

anything to hide that you got food stamps?
Abt Associates Inc. 10 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E21. Have you ever avoided telling people you got food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E22. Did you ever go out of your way to shop at a store where no one knows you?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E23. Have you ever been treated disrespectfully when using food stamp in a store?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E24. Were you ever treated disrespectfully when you told people that you received food stamps?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E25. Have you ever given your food stamps to someone else because you were embarrassed to use them?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 11 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

E30. Now, please tell me your opinions about the caseworker assigned to you at the food stamp office. 

As I read each statement, please tell me if you agree or disagree. FOR EACH ANSWER TO E30,

ASK E30a.

E30a. Do you strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?

E30.

AGREE/DISAGREE

E30a.

STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT

AGREE

DISAGREE RF DK STRONGLY SOMEWHAT RF DK

a. The kinds of services I received

were suitable because of my needs

1278 1 2 78

b. I agreed with my caseworker's

decisions.

1278 1 2 78

c. Overall, my caseworker kept me

well informed.

1278 1 2 78

d. I felt that my caseworker was doing

his or her part to help solve my

problems.

1278 1 2 78

e. My caseworker was knowledgeable

about food stamp benefits and

procedures.

1278 1 2 78

f. My caseworker treats clients

respectfully.

1278 1 2 78

E31. Compared to other public offices with which you have contact, how would you rate the treatment

you received at the food stamp office? Would you say you were treated better, the same, or

worse than you were treated at other places such as the Division of Motor Vehicles, voter

registration, WIC, the post office, or the unemployment office?

BETTER .......................................... 1

THE SAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

WORSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

E32. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Food Stamp Program? Are you...

Satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Somewhat satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Somewhat dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 12 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

F. Housing/Community

My next questions are about your housing situation as it was in June when you received food stamp

benefits. 

F1. What best describes your living arrangement in June? Did you:

Own or were you buying your own home (SKIP TO F4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Rent your home or apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Live with family or friends and not pay rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Live with family or friends and pay part of the rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Live in a group shelter (SKIP TO F6) ........................................ 5

Live in a homeless shelter or shelter for domestic violence (SKIP TO F6) ........... 6

Live on the street, or (SKIP TO F6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Live in some other arrangement? (SPECIFY) _____________________ ............ 8

F2. Did you live in public housing?

YES (SKIP TO F4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

F3. Did you pay less rent because the government paid for part of it through a Section 8 housing

subsidy?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

F4. For the month of June, what did your household spend on housing? (Please include rent or

mortgage, and if applicable, home insurance, property taxes and water usage).

PROMPT: Your best estimate is fine.

$ ___________.00

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F5. Did that amount (in June) include any utilities, such as gas, heat or air conditioning, electricity,

and water?

YES (GO TO F6b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SOME, BUT NOT ALL (ASK F5A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

NO (ASK F5A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED (GO TO F6b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO F6b) .......................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 13 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

F5a. How much did your household pay for utilities in June? Please include all utilities such

as gas, heat or air conditioning, electricity, and water that are not included in your

housing costs. (PROMPT: Your best estimate is fine.)

$ _______ Total utilities (GO TO F6b)

REFUSED (GO TO F6b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO F6b) ......................... 8

F6. In June, how long had you been living in a group home, a shelter or on the street?

_______ days

_______ weeks

_______ months

_______ years

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F6a. Are you still living in a group home, a shelter, or on the street?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

F6b. Had anything about your living arrangements changed during the time between your

most recent food stamp application or recertification and June 2000?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO F7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO F7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO F7) ......................... 8

F6c. What best describes your living arrangement at the time of your food stamp application

or recertification prior to June 2000?... Did you:

Own or were you buying your own home (SKIP TO F7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Rent your home or apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Live with family or friends and not pay rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Live with family or friends and pay part of the rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Live in a group shelter (SKIP TO F7) ........................................ 5

Live in a homeless shelter or shelter for domestic violence (SKIP TO F7) ........... 6

Live on the street, or (SKIP TO F7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Live in some other arrangement? (SPECIFY) _____________________ ............ 8

F6d. Did you live in public housing?

YES (SKIP TO F7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 14 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

F6e. Did you pay less rent because the government paid for part of it through a Section 8

housing subsidy?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

F7. In the past 12 months, since (CURRENT MONTH, 2000), have you (or your children) received

any of the following types of help from community organizations, neighborhood centers or

religious organizations, other than friends or family? 

YES NO REF DK

Shelter from an emergency shelter 1 2 7 8

Clothing or clothing vouchers 1278

Money 1 2 7 8

Child care or help paying for child care 1 2 7 8

Transportation or help paying for transportation 1 2 7 8

Free medical services 1 2 7 8

Help paying your utilities, like electricity, gas or water 1278

Help paying your phone bill or enabling you to use a telephone 1278

Help paying for your rent 1 2 7 8

Legal aid or help paying for legal aid 1 2 7 8

Any other kind of help? (SPECIFY) _______________ 1278

F8. In the past 12 months, since (CURRENT MONTH, 2000), did you (or any other adults in your

household) ever get emergency food from a ...

YES NO RF DK

Church 1 2 7 8

Food pantry 1 2 7 8

Food bank 1 2 7 8

IF “YES” TO ANY IN F8, ASK F9. OTHERWISE SKIP TO F10.
Abt Associates Inc. 15 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

F9. How often did this happen - almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1

or 2 months?

Almost every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Some months but not every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Only 1 or 2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

F10. In the past 12 months, since (CURRENT MONTH, 2000), did you (or other members of your

household) ever eat any meals at a soup kitchen?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 16 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

G. Employment Status 

My next several questions ask about your job status in June when you received food stamp benefits. 

Again, I would like to remind you that your answers will remain strictly confidential.

G1. In June, were you earning money from a job? Include any self-employment.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO G5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

G2. As of June, how long had you been working for this employer or organization or had been selfemployed?

# _____ months (if less than one year)

OR

# _____ years

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

G3. Back in June, how many hours did you usually work per week on this job?

______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

G4. Thinking back to June, about how much money did you earn per hour, week or month from your

job(s) before taxes and any other deductions?

$ ______ per hour

OR

$ ______ per week

OR

$ ______ per month

IF ONE PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD, SKIP TO SECTION H.

G5. Thinking back to June, did anyone else in your household work at a job for pay, not including

schoolchildren aged 17 or under?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO SECTION H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO SECTION H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO SECTION H) ................ 8
Abt Associates Inc. 17 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

G6. IF YES: How many people in your household, besides yourself, worked at a job for pay in June?

_____ NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WORKED

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

G7a. ASK G7a FOLLOWED BY G7b FOR EACH OTHER WORKING HOUSEHOLD MEMBER: 

Back in June, how many hours per week did each person usually work?

PERSON 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4

_______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . 98

_______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . 98

_______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . 98

_______ HOURS

REFUSED . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . 98

G7b. In June, about how much money did this person earn per hour, week or month from their job(s)

before taxes and any other deductions? PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

PERSON 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . 98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . 98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . 98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . . . 98
Abt Associates Inc. 18 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

H. Income/Sources of Income

Now I’m going to ask you some questions about your household income during the month of June when

you received food stamp benefits. I want to assure you that none of the answers you give me will be

discussed with anyone.

Thinking back to June, did you or anyone else in your household, including children, receive (INCOME

SOURCE)? FOR EACH INCOME SOURCE RECEIVED, ASK a.

a. How much money did you and other household members receive in June from (INCOME

SOURCE)?

INCOME SOURCE

RECEIVED IN 

JUNE? a. AMOUNT

RECEIVED IN

YES NO RF DK JUNE

H1. Cash from a cash assistance program like

TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE

PROGRAM) or General Assistance (INSERT

NAME OF STATE PROGRAM)?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H2. Income from child support either directly

from your child’s other parent or through a

government agency?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H3. Disability income through Supplemental

Security Income—that is, SSI social security,

aid for the disabled, or from some other

source?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H4. Regular income from friends or relatives

outside the household?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H5. Social Security checks from the government

or Veteran’s benefits?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H6. Any other retirement or pension, public or

private?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

H7. Money from any other source? This might

include unemployment insurance, worker’s

compensation, alimony, foster child

payments, rent from tenant or boarder, and so

on.

1 2 7 8 $_________________
Abt Associates Inc. 19 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

H8. In June, did you or anyone in your household receive WIC, Women, Infants and Children

Program, benefits such as food packages or vouchers for purchasing food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

H9. SEE A2. IF CHILD/REN OF AGES 5-17 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK: In June (OR MAY IF

SCHOOL YEAR ENDED IN MAY), did any school-aged child in your household receive free or

reduced-price breakfasts or lunches at school?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 20 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

I. Assets

My next several questions ask about your household assets in June 2000, when you received food stamp

benefits. Please remember that these questions are for research purposes only and will not be shared with

anyone. Your responses to these questions will not affect your eligibility for benefits in the future. 

I1. In June, did you (or did anyone in your household) own a motor vehicle such as a car, truck, van

or motorcycle? Please include any vehicles that you were making payments on.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO I4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO I4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO I4) .......................... 4

I1a. If yes, how many vehicles? 

____ VEHICLES

I2. What is the year, make, and model of each vehicle?

MAKE MODEL YEAR

VEHICLE 1 ___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

VEHICLE 2 ___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

VEHICLE 3 ___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

___________________

REFUSED . . . . . . . 97

DON’T KNOW . . . 98

IF MAKE OR MODEL UNKNOWN, ASK I3a. IF YEAR UNKNOWN, ASK I3b. OTHERWISE SKIP

TO I4.

PROGRAMMER: ASK I3a AND I3b AFTER MAKE AND MODEL AND YEAR FOR A VEHICLE

BEFORE GOING TO NEXT VEHICLE.

I3a. What is the approximate value of this vehicle?

Vehicle 1 $_____

Vehicle 2 $_____

Vehicle 3 $_____
Abt Associates Inc. 21 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

I3b. (Is the vehicle/Are any of the vehicles) less than five years old?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

I4. In June, did you have a checking account?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO I6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO I6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO I6) ........................... 8

I5. As of June, how much money on average do you estimate was in your checking account? 

BALANCE MAY BE NEGATIVE.

$ ______ 

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

I6 In June, did you have a savings account?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO I8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO I8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO I8) ........................... 8

I7. As of June, how much money did you have in savings accounts?

$ ______ 

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

I8. In June, did you have any other bank accounts or financial investments?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO SECTION J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO SECTION J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO SECTION J) ................... 8

I9. As of June, what was the approximate value in total of these other bank account and financial

investments? Please include amounts in individual retirement accounts (IRAs), stocks, mutual

funds, certificates of deposit (CDs), money market accounts, 401k accounts and elsewhere.

$ ______ 

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 22 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

J. Food Security

My next set of questions are about the food eaten in your household. Over the past several years, USDA

has been developing a set of questions to tell us about the food needs of adults and children. 

J1. Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the last 12 months:

(I/We) have enough to eat and the kinds of food (I/we) want .............. 1

(I/We) have enough to eat but not always the kinds of food (I/we) want ...... 2

Sometimes (I/we) don’t have enough to eat, or .......................... 3

Often (I/we) don’t have enough to eat ................................. 4

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW .................................................. 8

Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food situation. For these

statements, please tell me whether the statement was OFTEN, SOMETIMES, or NEVER true for (you/

your household) in the last 12 months.

J2. The first statement is, “(I/We) worried whether (my/our) food would run out before (I/we) got

money to buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the

last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J3. “The food that (I/we) bought just didn’t last, and (I/we) didn’t have money to get more.” Was

that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J4. “(I/we) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/

your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN THE HOUSEHOLD (SEE A2), ASK QUESTIONS J5 -J7. IF NO

CHILDREN SKIP TO J8 :
Abt Associates Inc. 23 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

J5. (I/we) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (my/our) child(ren) because (I was/we

were) running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/

your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J6. “(I/We) couldn’t feed (my/our) child(ren) a balanced meal, because (I/we) couldn’t afford that.” 

Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J7. My/Our child was/The children were not eating enough because (I/we) just couldn’t afford

enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12

months?

Often true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sometimes true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Never true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

IF J2, J3 AND J4 EQUAL “NEVER” (3), AND J5 AND J6 EQUAL “NEVER” (3) OR BLANK, THEN

SKIP TO SECTION K. OTHERWISE CONTINUE.

J8. In the last 12 months, did you (you/you or other adults in your household) ever cut the size of

your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? 

YES (ASK J8a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (SKIP TO J9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO J9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO J9) ......................... 8

J8a. How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or

in only 1 or 2 months?

Almost every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Some months but not every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Only 1 or 2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 24 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

J9. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough

money to buy food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J10. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because you couldn’t afford enough

food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J11. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because you didn’t have enough money for food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J12. In the last 12 months, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever not eat for a whole

day because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES (ASK J12a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J12a. How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or

in only 1 or 2 months?

Almost every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Some months but not every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Only 1 or 2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 25 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD (SEE A2), ASK J13-16, OTHERWISE SKIP TO

SECTION K.

The next questions are about the children living in the household who are under 18 years old. You may

find some of the following questions sensitive. I want to remind you that all of the information you give

will remain confidential and in answering these questions you will help the food stamp program better

understand the needs of families and children it seeks to serve.

J13. In the last 12 months did you ever cut the size of (your child’s/any of your children’s) meals

because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J14. In the last 12 months did (your child/any of your children) ever skip a meal because there wasn’t

enough money for food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO (GO TO J15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED (GO TO J15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO J15) .......................... 8

J14a. How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or

in only 1 or 2 months?

Almost every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Some months but not every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Only 1 or 2 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J15. In the last 12 months, (was your child/were the children) ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford

more food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

J16. In the last 12 months, did (your child/any of the children) ever not eat for a whole day because

there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 26 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

K. Demographics

My last few questions are about the characteristics of your household. Remember, all information will

remain confidential. Please tell me about your household situation in June, when you received food

stamps.

K1. In June, were you ...

Married and living with your (husband/wife) (GO TO K3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Separated or living apart from your (husband/wife)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Divorced, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Widowed, or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Never married? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW .................................................. 8

K2. IF NOT LIVING WITH SPOUSE: Were you living with a partner in June?

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

K3. CODE GENDER WITHOUT ASKING. IF UNCLEAR, ASK: Are you male or female?

MALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

FEMALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

K4. What was the last grade or year of school you completed? 

SOME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (GRADES 1-8) ...................... 1

COMPLETED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ............................. 2

SOME HIGH SCHOOL ............................................ 3

COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR RECEIVED GED ................... 4

TECHNICAL OR VOCATIONAL SCHOOL .......................... 5

SOME COLLEGE ................................................ 6

ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

BACHELOR'S DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

ADVANCED DEGREE ........................................... 9

NO FORMAL SCHOOLING ....................................... 0

OTHER (SPECIFY:_______________________) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

DON'T KNOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Abt Associates Inc. 27 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

K5. Which of the following do you consider yourself to be? (READ LIST AND CODE ONE)

Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

K6. Which of the following do you consider yourself to be? You may choose more than one. (READ

LIST AND CODE ALL RESPONSES)

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

American Indian or Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

K7. Were you born in the United States?

YES (SKIP TO K8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8

K7a. Are you a United States citizen? 

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

K8. SEE A2. IF THERE ARE CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK: Were all the

children in your household born in the United States? 

YES (SKIP TO K9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

K8a. Are the children in your household ... (READ LIST)

All US citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Are some, but not all US citizens, or are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

None of the children in the household US citizens . . . . . . . . . . 3

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 28 Incomplete Recertification - January 11, 2000

K9. Is anyone in your household disabled? By disabled, I mean unable to work or limited in the

amount of work a person is able to do because of a mental or physical condition.

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................... 8

These are all the questions I had for you. Thank you for your participation in this survey.
Abt Associates Inc. 1 RDD April 9, 2001

A Study of Program Access and Declining Food Stamp Participation

Eligible Non-Participant Survey (RDD)

Table of Contents

Introduction and Screener...............................................................................................................2

A. Knowledge of Food Stamp Program and Reasons for Non-Participation................................7

B. Household Composition Characteristics.....................................................................................12

C. OMITTED 

D. Time / Cost of Application ............................................................................................................13

E. Stigma ..............................................................................................................................................17

F. Prior Experience / Satisfaction with Food Stamp Office............................................................19

G. Housing and Community...............................................................................................................24

H. Employment Status.........................................................................................................................27

I. Income / Source of Income ............................................................................................................29

J. Assets...............................................................................................................................................31

K. Food Security ..................................................................................................................................32

L. Demographics..................................................................................................................................36
Abt Associates Inc. 2 RDD April 9, 2001

I. SCREENING INTERVIEW

Introduction

Hello, my name is ___________ and I am calling from Abt Associates in Amherst, Massachusetts on behalf 

of the United States Department of Agriculture. We are conducting a nationwide study about people’s 

knowledge of the Food Stamp Program, and we are interested in talking with you even if you do not receive 

food stamps. May I please speak with a member of this household who is at least 18 years old?

The purpose of the study is to learn about people’s knowledge of the Food Stamp Program and any 

experiences they may have had with it. Also, why some people do not participate, even though they might be 

eligible for food stamp benefits. Your telephone number was randomly selected by a computer program so 

that I might ask you a few questions to determine if you qualify for our study. My questions should only take 

a couple of minutes of your time right now. Depending on your situation, I might ask you to complete a 

longer interview.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The 

valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0536-0053. The time required to complete this 

information collection is estimated to average 5 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.

S1. Did you or anyone in your household receive food stamps or food stamp benefits last month?

YES (END INTERVIEW)......................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED (END INTERVIEW)................................................ 7

DON’T KNOW (END INTERVIEW) ........................................ 8

S2. Did you or anyone in your household file a signed food stamp application last month?

YES (END INTERVIEW)......................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED (END INTERVIEW)................................................ 7

DON’T KNOW (END INTERVIEW) ........................................ 8

S3. Last month, did everyone in your household receive TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE 

PROGRAM), SSI, or General Assistance (INSERT NAME OF STATE PROGRAM) benefits or had 

you been approved to receive benefits?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 3 RDD April 9, 2001

S4. How many people live in your household? By household I mean yourself and the people who live with 

you and share food with you. PROBE: Include any persons who live with you more than half of the 

time, even if they are not related to you.

________ NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD

LIVE ALONE.......................................................................... 1

REFUSED (TERMINATE) ....................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (TERMINATE) ................................................ 8

S5. Do you live in a group home, such as a dormitory or nursing home?

YES (END INTERVIEW)......................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED (TERMINATE) ....................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (TERMINATE)................................................ 8

S6. Are you (or anyone else in your household) 60 years of age or older?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED (TERMINATE) ....................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (TERMINATE)................................................ 8

S7. Last month, was your total household income before taxes more or less than$X,XXX per month?

(CATI: FILL IN $ AMOUNT HERE BASED ON # OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS FROM S4). 

PROBE: Income from all sources. Your best estimate is fine.

MORE THAN $X,XXX PER MONTH (END INTERVIEW) ........ 1

LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO $X,XXX PER MONTH................. 2

REFUSED (END INTERVIEW)................................................ 7

DON’T KNOW (END INTERVIEW) ........................................ 8

People in Household Income

1 $ 905.00

2 1,219.00

3 1,533.00

4 1,848.00

5 2,162.00

6 2,476.00

7 2,790.00

8 3,104.00

Each additional person: + $ 315.00

S8. Do you (or anyone in your household) own a motor vehicle such as a car, truck, van or motorcycle? 

 Please include any vehicles that you may be making payments on.

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO S10)................................................................. 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO S10)....................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO S10)................................................ 8
Abt Associates Inc. 4 RDD April 9, 2001

S8a. If yes, how many vehicles? ______ VEHICLES

S9. What is the year, make, and model of each vehicle?

Please tell me for each vehicle whether the vehicle is used primarily for either business or to transport 

a disabled person.

YEAR MAKE MODEL

BUSINESS OR 

DISABLED 

TRANSPORT

VEHICLE 1

REFUSED.................97

DON’T KNOW .......98

REFUSED.................97

DON’T KNOW........98

REFUSED.................97

DON’T KNOW........98

YES.......................... 1

NO........................... 2

REFUSED ............... 7

DON'T KNOW....... 8

VEHICLE 2

REFUSED.................97

DON’T KNOW .......98

REFUSED.................97

DON’T KNOW........98

REFUSED.................97

DON’T KNOW........98

YES.......................... 1

NO........................... 2

REFUSED ............... 7

DON'T KNOW....... 8

VEHICLE 3

REFUSED ..........97

DON’T KNOW...98

REFUSED.......... 97

DON’T KNOW .. 98

REFUSED.......... 97

DON’T KNOW... 98

YES .................. 1

NO.................... 2

REFUSED.......... 7

DON'T KNOW... 8

IF MAKE OR MODEL UNKNOWN, ASK S9a. IF YEAR UNKNOWN, ASK S9b. OTHERWISE SKIP TO 

S10.

ASK S9a FOR A VEHICLE BEFORE GOING ON TO THE NEXT VEHICLE.

S9a. What is the approximate value of each vehicle owned?

Vehicle 1 $_____

Vehicle 2 $_____

Vehicle 3 $_____

ASK S9b FOR A VEHICLE BEFORE GOING ON TO THE NEXT VEHICLE.

S9b. (Is the vehicle/Are any of the vehicles) less than five years old? PROBE: That would be 

model year 1995 or earlier.

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

IF NO HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ARE AGED, 60+ (SEE S6) READ S10. IF HOUSEHOLD INCLUDES 

ONE OR MORE MEMBERS AGED 60+ READ S11 INSTEAD.
Abt Associates Inc. 5 RDD April 9, 2001

S10. Last month, did your household assets exceed $2000? This would include any cash on hand and 

money in checking and savings accounts, savings certificates, stocks and bonds, individual 

retirement accounts (IRAs) and Keogh accounts.

YES (END INTERVIEW)......................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED (TERMINATE) ....................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (TERMINATE)................................................ 8

S11. Last month, did your household assets exceed $3000? This would include any cash on hand and 

money in checking and savings accounts, savings certificates, stocks and bonds, individual 

retirement accounts (IRAs) and Keogh accounts.

YES (END INTERVIEW)......................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED (TERMINATE) ....................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (TERMINATE)................................................ 8

END INTERVIEW FOR THOSE NOT ELIGIBLE: (IF ELIGIBLE, CONTINUE WITH S12).

That is all the questions I have for you. On behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture, I want to 

thank you for participating in this interview.

CONTINUE IF RESPONDENT IS ELIGIBLE:

S12. If someone from your household were to apply for food stamp benefits, who would be the most 

likely person to go to the office and complete the application? PROBE: would it be you or someone 

else? NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SAYS MIGHT EQUALLY BE HIM/HER OR SOMEONE ELSE, 

CODE AS RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT....................................................................... 1

SOMEONE ELSE (SKIP TO S14)............................................. 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

S13. I would like to continue with the second portion of this interview. Your participation in the second 

portion of the interview is very important. It will help the Food Stamp Program officials understand 

how to better serve eligible families. Anything you tell us will be used for research purposes only and 

will be kept completely confidential. Your participation will not affect any benefits you are receiving 

now or at any time in the future. None of the information you provide will be given to the local food 

stamp office. The interview will take approximately 30 minutes. 

CONTINUE (SKIP TO SECTION II).................................................... 1

SCHEDULE CALLBACK ..................................................................... 2

REFUSED (TERMINATE) ................................................................... 7

S14. Can I speak to that person?

YES - ANSWERS PHONE (GO TO S15)............................................... 1

NOT AVAILABLE............................................................................... 2

REFUSED (TERMINATE) ................................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (SCHEDULE CALLBACK) ............................................ 8
Abt Associates Inc. 6 RDD April 9, 2001

S14a. I would like to complete the interview with this person. When is a good time to call back 

and who should I ask for? (SCHEDULE CALLBACK)

S15. Hello, my name is ___________ and I am calling from Abt Associates in Amherst, Massachusetts on 

behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture. We are conducting a nationwide study about 

Food Stamp Program participation. The purpose of the study is to learn about people’s knowledge of 

the Food Stamp Program and any experiences they may have had with it. Also, why some eligible 

people do not participate. Your participation in the study is very important, even though you do not 

get food stamps.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control 

number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is ____-____. The time 

required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 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.
Abt Associates Inc. 7 RDD April 9, 2001

II. INTERVIEW FOR ELIGIBLE NON-PARTICIPANTS

A. Knowledge of Food Stamp Program and Reasons for Nonparticipation

First, I'd like to ask you some questions about your experiences with food stamps, cash assistance, or other 

benefit programs.

A1. Have you or anyone in your household ever received (BENEFIT)?

IF YES TO A1, ASK A1a AND A1b:

A1a. How long ago did you last receive (BENEFIT)?

A1b. How much did you receive each month from (BENEFIT)?

IF NO TO A1, ASK A1c.

A1c. Have you or anyone in your household ever applied for (BENEFIT)?

A1. RECEIVED? A1c. APPLIED?

BENEFIT

YE

S

NO RF DK

A1a.

LAST RECEIPT

A1b.

AMOUNT 

RECEIVED YE

S

NO RF DK

Food stamps 1 2 7 8 Still receiving............... 1

Within the last year..... 2

1-4 years ago ............... 3

More than 4 years ago 4

DK .............................. 8

$__________

DK ..................8

1 2 7 8

Welfare or cash 

assistance

1 2 7 8 Still receiving............... 1

Within the last year..... 2

1-4 years ago ............... 3

More than 4 years ago 4

DK .............................. 8

$__________

DK ..................8

1 2 7 8

Medical Assistance 1 2 7 8 Still receiving............... 1

Within the last year..... 2

1-4 years ago ............... 3

More than 4 years ago 4

DK .............................. 8

$__________

DK ..................8

1 2 7 8

WIC 1 2 7 8 Still receiving............... 1

Within the last year..... 2

1-4 years ago ............... 3

More than 4 years ago 4

DK .............................. 8

$__________

DK ..................8

1 2 7 8
Abt Associates Inc. 8 RDD April 9, 2001

A1d. IF APPLIED FOR FOOD STAMPS AND WAS NOT APPROVED: When was the last time 

you applied for food stamps?

______ (SKIP TO A3)

YEAR

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

A1e. Was it more than 4 years ago?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

IF A1 = YES OR A1c = YES FOR FOOD STAMPS, SKIP TO A3.

A2. Had you heard of food stamps or the Food Stamp Program before today's interview?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO SECTION B) ..................................................... 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO A5)......................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO A5)................................................. 8

A3. As far as you know, did your family ever receive food stamp benefits when you were a child?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

A4. As far as you know, do any of your relatives, friends, neighbors, or co-workers currently receive 

food stamp benefits?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

A5. Do you know where you would have to go to apply for food stamps or other assistance?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 9 RDD April 9, 2001

A6. Did you or someone else in your household contact the local welfare office to inquire about food 

stamps or welfare benefits within the last six months, that is, any time since (MONTH)?

YES (SKIP TO A6a)................................................................ 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

A6y. Did you or someone else in your household contact the local welfare office in the last twelve months, 

that is, any time since (MONTH)?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO A7)................................................................... 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO A7)......................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO A7).................................................. 8

A6a. Did you apply for food stamp benefits at the time you contacted the welfare office?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (DEFINED AS NEAR APPLICANT)................................... 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

A7. Do you think you may be eligible to receive food stamp benefits?

YES (SKIP TO A9) ................................................................. 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO A9)......................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

A8. Why do you think you (may not be eligible/are unsure if you are eligible) for food stamps? Is it 

because?

YES NO REF DK

a. You have a job and think you are not eligible. 1 2 7 8

b. You earn too much money to be eligible. 1 2 7 8

c. You get other government benefits and are not eligible. 1 2 7 8

d. You have too much in savings to be eligible. 1 2 7 8

e. Your car is worth too much to be eligible. 1 2 7 8

f. You received a lump sum payment and think you are not eligible. 1 2 7 8

g. You reached the time limit on cash assistance. 1 2 7 8

h. You think you are not eligible because of your citizenship status. 1 2 7 8

i. A worker at the food stamp office told you that you were probably 

not eligible.

1 2 7 8
Abt Associates Inc. 10 RDD April 9, 2001

YES NO REF DK

j. Someone else told you that you were not eligible. 1 2 7 8

k. You applied previously and were told you were not eligible. 1 2 7 8

l. Is there some other reason? (SPECIFY: ______________) 1 2 7 8

IF “YES” TO ITEM i OR j, ASK A8a.
Abt Associates Inc. 11 RDD April 9, 2001

A8a. You said a worker or someone else told you that you were not eligible for food stamp. Was this 

within the...

Last month ............................................................................. 1

Last six months....................................................................... 2

Last year ................................................................................ 3

More than one year ago............................................................ 4

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

A9. If you found out you were eligible for food stamp benefits, would you apply?

YES (SKIP TO SECTION B).................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO A10)................................................................. 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO A10)...................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO A10)............................................... 8

A10. If you were to apply for food stamps, how much per month do you think you are eligible to receive 

in benefits? PROBE: Your best guess is fine.

$10 or less.............................................................................. 1

Between $11 and $25............................................................... 2

Between $26 and $50............................................................... 3

Between $51 and $100 ............................................................. 4

Between $101 and $150 ........................................................... 5

Between $151 and $200 ........................................................... 6

Between $201 and $300 ........................................................... 7

Over $300 .............................................................................. 8

DON'T KNOW ..................................................................... 98

A11. Why (haven't you applied/wouldn't you apply) for food stamp benefits? I am going to read you a list 

of reasons people have provided for deciding not to apply for food stamps. Please listen to each 

statement and tell me whether it is a reason you (decided not to/would not) apply for food stamp 

benefits.

YES NO RF DK

a. You do not know how to apply. 1 2 7 8

b. The benefits are too small. 1 2 7 8

c. You are not eligible for cash assistance so it is not worth the effort. 1 2 7 8

d. You can get by on your own without food stamp benefits. 1 2 7 8

e. You do not like to rely on government assistance. 1 2 7 8

f. You do not want to be seen shopping with food stamps. 1 2 7 8

g. You do not want people to know you need financial assistance. 1 2 7 8

h. You do not want to go to the welfare office. 1 2 7 8

i. You would have to answer questions that are too personal. 1 2 7 8
Abt Associates Inc. 12 RDD April 9, 2001

YES NO RF DK

j. The application process requires too much paperwork. 1 2 7 8

k. It would require too much time away from work. 1 2 7 8

l. It would require too much time away from home and child care or 

elder care responsibilities.

1 2 7 8

m. It is too difficult to get to the food stamp office. 1 2 7 8

n. You had a previous bad experience with the Food Stamp Program 1 2 7 8

o. You had a previous bad experience with another government program 1 2 7 8

p. The work requirements are too difficult. 1 2 7 8

q. The requirements to participate in the program are too difficult. 1 2 7 8

A12. ASK ONLY IF R IS NEAR APPLICANT (A6a = 2):

YES NO RF DK

a. Your situation changed and you no longer needed food stamps. 1 2 7 8

b. A family emergency occurred which prevented you from completing 

the application process.

1 2 7 8

c. The application form was too difficult for you to complete. 1 2 7 8

d. You never heard from the food stamp office to tell you what to do. 1 2 7 8

e. You found out it would take a long time before you could receive any 

food stamps.

1 2 7 8

f. You had to wait too long when you visited the food stamp office 1 2 7 8

g. The other adults in your household would not cooperate with the 

application process.

1 2 7 8

h. You did not want the welfare office to contact your landlord or 

employer.

1 2 7 8

A13. Do you think there is a limit on the amount of time eligible households can receive food stamp 

benefits?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO A14)................................................................ 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO A14)....................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO A14)............................................... 8

A13a. How many years do you think eligible households can receive food stamp benefits?

_______ YEARS
Abt Associates Inc. 13 RDD April 9, 2001

AS LONG AS THEY NEED THEM......................................... 96

REFUSED ............................................................................ 97

DON'T KNOW ..................................................................... 98

A14. What about TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE PROGRAM) or welfare benefits? Do you think 

there is a limit on the amount of time eligible households can receive benefits?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO A15)................................................................ 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO A15)....................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO A15)............................................... 8

A14a. How many years do you think eligible households can receive benefits?

_______ YEARS

AS LONG AS THEY NEED THEM......................................... 96

REFUSED ............................................................................ 97

DON'T KNOW ..................................................................... 98

A15. Have you seen or heard about the Food Stamp Program in any of the following places? Have you...

YES NO REF DK

Read any articles about the Program in the newspaper? ............. 1 2 7 8

Hear any announcements or advertisements on the radio or TV? . 1 2 7 8

Seen any posters, flyers, or brochures? ................................... 1 2 7 8

Seen any billboards or advertisements on buses, taxis, or trains?. 1 2 7 8

Heard any presentations by community groups?........................ 1 2 7 8

Received any mail or telephone calls about food stamps? ........... 1 2 7 8

Any thing else (SPECIFY:___________)? ................................ 1 2 7 8

A16. How much do you know about what you would have to do in order to get food stamp benefits? 

Would you say you ...

Are well informed about the process.......................................... 1

Have some idea about the process ............................................. 2

Do not have any idea what is involved........................................ 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 14 RDD April 9, 2001

B. Household Composition/Characteristics

My next several questions are about the characteristics of your household. Your answers to these questions 

will tell me which questions I need to ask. Remember, all the information you tell me is for research purposes 

only and will remain confidential. Please tell me about your household situation.

B1. How many household members are. . . (MAKE SURE TOTAL MATCHES S4)

Under five years old? ................................................... ______

Five to 17 years old?....................................................... ______

18-59 years of age? ........................................................ ______

60 years of age or older?................................................. ______

TOTAL ......................................................................... ______

B2. Is English the primary language spoken in your household?

YES (SKIP TO Q. B4)............................................................. 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

B3. What language do you and your family most often speak at home?

SPANISH............................................................................... 1

CHINESE............................................................................... 2

PORTUGUESE....................................................................... 3

FRENCH ............................................................................... 4

ARABIC................................................................................. 5

ITALIAN................................................................................ 6

VIETNAMESE........................................................................ 7

LAOTIAN .............................................................................. 8

CAMBODIAN......................................................................... 9

HMONG............................................................................... 10

OTHER (SPECIFY) ____________......................................... 11

B4. What is your date of birth?

________ / ________ / ________

MONTH DAY YEAR

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

NO SECTION C.
Abt Associates Inc. 15 RDD April 9, 2001

D. Time/Cost of Application

My next several questions are about how much time it would take you and how much it would cost you to go 

to the food stamp office to find out about or apply for food stamps.

IF DON'T KNOW WHERE FOOD STAMP OFFICE IS LOCATED (A5 = NO), THEN SKIP TO D5.

D1. Approximately how many miles is it from your house to the food stamp office?

_____ MILES

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

D1a. Approximately how much time would it take you to get to the food stamp office?

______ TOTAL HOURS

OR

______ TOTAL MINUTES

REFUSED ............................................................................ 97

DON'T KNOW ..................................................................... 98

D2. If you were going to the food stamp office, how would you get there? (READ ITEM IF 

NECESSARY)

Drive your own car ................................................................. 1

Take a bus or other public transportation (SKIP TO D3).............. 2

Take a taxicab......................................................................... 3

Have someone drive you........................................................... 4

Borrow a car........................................................................... 5

Walk ...................................................................................... 6

OTHER (SPECIFY) __________________ ................................ 7

D2a. Is public transportation available to the food stamp office?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

D3. How convenient is the office location for you? Do you consider the location ...

Very convenient (SKIP TO D5) ................................................ 1

Somewhat convenient (SKIP TO D5)........................................ 2

Somewhat inconvenient............................................................ 3

Very inconvenient.................................................................... 4

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 16 RDD April 9, 2001

D4. What, if anything, is wrong with the location of the office? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

It is too far from home............................................................. 1

It is in a congested area with lots of traffic ................................. 2

It is difficult to find parking ..................................................... 3

It is in an unsafe neighborhood.................................................. 4

It is not easily accessible by public transportation........................ 5

It costs too much to get there................................................... 6

The building is depressing......................................................... 7

OTHER (SPECIFY) ___________........................................... 96

REFUSED ............................................................................ 97

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 98

D5. How many trips do you think you'd have to make to the food stamp office before you received food 

stamps or other assistance or were denied benefits?

_________ NUMBER OF TRIPS

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

D6. Counting all the visits you think you would have to make to the food stamp office to apply for or see 

about food stamps or other assistance, how much time do you think you would have to spend? 

Count time traveling there and back as well as time spent waiting, filling out paperwork, meeting with

program staff, etc.

_______ total hours

OR

_______ total minutes

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

D7. Would you have to miss any work to apply for food stamps or other assistance?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

D8. Would you need child care or elder care when you went to apply for food stamps or other 

assistance?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (GO TO SECTION E) ....................................................... 2

REFUSED (GO TO SECTION E) ............................................. 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO SECTION E)...................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 17 RDD April 9, 2001

D8a. How easy would it be for you to arrange for child care or elder care?

Very easy ............................................................................... 1

Somewhat easy....................................................................... 2

Somewhat difficult .................................................................. 3

Very difficult........................................................................... 4

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

D8b. Would you need to pay for the care?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 18 RDD April 9, 2001

E. Stigma

IF R HAS RECEIVED FOOD STAMPS (A1 = YES), ASK QUESTIONS E1 THROUGH E6. OTHERWISE 

ASK QUESTIONS E7 THROUGH E10.

E1. My next questions are about how people feel about using food stamps. Have you ever done anything 

to hide that you got food stamps?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

E2. Have you ever avoided telling people you got food stamps?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

E3. Did you ever go out of your way to shop at a store where no one knew you?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

E4. Have you ever been treated disrespectfully when using food stamps in a store?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO E5)................................................................... 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

E5. Were you ever treated disrespectfully when you told people that you received food stamps?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

E6. Have you ever given your food stamps to someone else because you were embarrassed to use them?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

SKIP TO SECTION F.

E7. The next questions are about how you might feel if you received food stamp benefits. Please answer 

“yes” or “no”. If I got food stamps, I might go out of my way so people would not find out.”
Abt Associates Inc. 19 RDD April 9, 2001

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

E8. “I might not shop in certain stores because I don't want people there to know I use food stamps.”

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

E9. “People in stores would treat me disrespectfully when I use food stamps.”

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

E10. “People would treat me disrespectfully if they found out that I got food stamps.”

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 20 RDD April 9, 2001

F. Prior Experience and Satisfaction with Food Stamp Office

IF R IS NEAR APPLICANT, A6 = 1 AND A6a = 2: My next set of questions are about your experiences at 

the Food Stamp or welfare office the last time you contacted the office to inquire about benefits. GO TO F1.

IF R RECEIVED FOOD STAMPS WITHIN THE LAST FOUR YEARS (A1 = YES AND A1a = 2 OR 3), OR 

R APPLIED FOR FOOD STAMPS WITHIN THE LAST 4 YEARS, A1d = 1996 OR AFTER, OR A1e = 2: 

My next set of questions are about your experiences at the Food Stamp or welfare office the last time you 

contacted the food stamp office. (SKIP TO F13.)

IF R NEVER APPLIED FOR FOOD STAMPS (A1c = NO) OR APPLIED MORE THAN 4 YEARS AGO 

(A1d LT 9/96 OR A1e = A, 7, OR 8), SKIP TO SECTION G.

F1. When you last contacted the food stamp or welfare office, did you know which specific programs 

you were interested in?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO F2)................................................................... 2

SOME IDEA........................................................................... 3

REFUSED (SKIP TO F2)......................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO F2)................................................. 8

F1a. Which programs were you interested in?

PROGRAM: YES NO RF DK

Food Stamps 1 2 7 8

TANF (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8

Medicaid 1 2 7 8

SCHIP (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8

SSI 1 2 7 8

General Assistance (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8

OTHER (SPECIFY: __________________________________) 1 2 7 8
Abt Associates Inc. 21 RDD April 9, 2001

F2. When you last contacted the food stamp or welfare office, did you apply for (PROGRAM NAME 

FROM GRID)? (IF YES, ASK F2a.)

F2a. Were you approved for (PROGRAM NAME FROM GRID) when you last applied?

F2. APPLIED? F2a. APPROVED?

PROGRAM

YES NO RF DK YES NO RF DK

TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE PROGRAM) 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

Medicaid 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

SCHIP (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

SSI 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

General Assistance (INSERT STATE NAME) 1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

OTHER (SPECIFY)

__________________

1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

F3. Did you pick up or did they mail you a food stamp application?

YES (SKIP TO F5).................................................................. 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

F4. What was the main reason you were not provided with a food stamp application? Was it because... 

(READ LIST. CIRCLE ONE.)

You did not want to apply................................................................................. 1

You did not ask for an application...................................................................... 2

No one suggested that you complete one, so you didn’t think you’d be eligible ....... 3

You could not wait for an appointment............................................................... 4

The caseworker said you probably wouldn’t be eligible ........................................ 5

DON’T KNOW 8

F5. How convenient for you were the hours the office was open? Would you say they were ... 

Very convenient (SKIP TO F7)................................................. 1

Somewhat convenient (SKIP TO F7)......................................... 2

Somewhat inconvenient............................................................ 3

Very inconvenient.................................................................... 4

REFUSED (SKIP TO F7)......................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO F7) ................................................. 8
Abt Associates Inc. 22 RDD April 9, 2001

F6. What was the problem with the office hours at the Food Stamp Office? (CIRCLE ALL THAT 

APPLY)

It is open only during normal business hours ...................................................... 1

You would have to take time off from work to get there...................................... 2

It is difficult to schedule meetings with a caseworker at convenient times.............. 3

It is not open evenings or weekends .................................................................. 4

There are few workers available at lunchtime when I could get there..................... 5

Other problems (SPECIFY) ___________________________............................. 6

REFUSED ........ ............................................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW 8

F7. When you last contacted the food stamp office, how satisfied were you with the services provided 

by the receptionist or telephone operator in letting you know about what to do next? Would you 

say...

Very satisfied ......................................................................... 1

Somewhat satisfied.................................................................. 2

Somewhat dissatisfied.............................................................. 3

Very dissatisfied ...................................................................... 4

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

F8. Did you speak with a caseworker?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (GO TO F9) ..................................................................... 2

REFUSED (GO TO F9) ........................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO F9).................................................... 8

F8a. How long did you wait to speak with a welfare caseworker or food stamp caseworker about 

your case?

# ________ minutes

F9. Were you informed about the requirements for applying and participating in the Food Stamp 

Program?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO F10)................................................................. 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO F10)....................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (SKIP TO F10)............................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 23 RDD April 9, 2001

F9a. How were you informed? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. READ LIST IF NECESSARY.)

CASEWORKER TOLD ME ABOUT THEM ....................................................... 1

CASEWORKER OR OTHER OFFICE STAFF GAVE YOU WRITTEN

 MATERIALS LIKE PAMPHLETS OR BROCHURES ....................................... 2

PICKED UP WRITTEN MATERIALS YOURSELF............................................. 3

RECEIVED MATERIALS IN THE MAIL AFTER YOUR VISIT........................... 4

ATTENDED A GROUP MEETING WHERE BENEFITS AND 

 GUIDELINES WERE EXPLAINED................................................................ 5

WATCHED A VIDEO ON BENEFITS AND GUIDELINES ................................. 6

TOLD TO COME IN TO OFFICE.................................................................... 7

REFUSED ........ ........................................................................................... 97

DON’T KNOW 98

F10. After meeting or talking with the worker, did you feel that you really understood what you’d need to 

do to get food stamps, were you somewhat unsure, or had you no idea at all of what was required of 

you?

Really understood .................................................................... 1

Somewhat unsure.................................................................... 2

No idea at all........................................................................... 3

F11. In general, do you feel that the Food Stamp Program requirements are reasonable or unreasonable?

REASONABLE........................................................................ 1

UNREASONABLE................................................................... 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

F12. Overall, how successful was your contact with the office? Did you...

Accomplish everything you expected to during that visit or 

 telephone call, or did you (GO TO F13).......................................................... 1

Accomplish some, but not all things that you expected to accomplish? .................. 2

Or did you not accomplish anything................................................................... 3

REFUSED (GO TO F13).................................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO F13).......................................................................... 8

F12a. Can you tell me what you were not able to do during this contact? (CODE ALL THAT 

APPLY)

FIND OUT IF ELIGIBLE......................................................... 1

FIND OUT AMOUNT OF BENEFIT......................................... 2

GET LIST OF ALL REQUIREMENTS...................................... 3

COMPLETE AN APPLICATION.............................................. 4

OTHER (SPECIFY) _________________ .................................. 5

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 24 RDD April 9, 2001

F13. Now, please tell me your opinions about the caseworker assigned to you at the food stamp office. 

As I read each statement, please tell me if you agree or disagree. FOR EACH ANSWER TO F13, 

ASK F13a.

F13a. Do you strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?

F13.

AGREE/DISAGREE

F13a.

STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT

YES NO RF DK STRONGLY SOMEWHAT RF DK

a. The kinds of services I received were 

suitable because of my needs

1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

b. I agreed with my caseworker's 

decisions.

1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

c. Overall, my caseworker kept me well 

informed.

1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

d. I felt that my caseworker was doing 

his or her part to help solve my 

problems.

1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

e. My caseworker was knowledgeable 

about food stamp benefits and 

procedures.

1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

f. My caseworker treats clients 

respectfully.

1 2 7 8 1 2 7 8

F14. Compared to other public offices with which you have had contact, how would you rate the 

treatment you received at the food stamp office? Would you say you were treated better, the same, 

or worse than you were treated at other places such as the Division of Motor Vehicles, voter 

registration, WIC, the post office, or the unemployment office?

BETTER................................................................................. 1

THE SAME............................................................................. 2

WORSE................................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 25 RDD April 9, 2001

G. Housing/Community

My next questions are about your housing situation.

G1. What best describes your living arrangement? Do you:

Own or are you buying your own home (SKIP TO G4)................................................... 1

Rent your home or apartment........................................................................................ 2

Live with family or friends and not pay rent ................................................................... 3

Live with family or friends and pay part of the rent ......................................................... 4

Live in a homeless shelter or shelter for domestic violence (SKIP TO G6) ......................... 5

Live on the street, or (SKIP TO G6).............................................................................. 6

Live in some other arrangement? (SPECIFY) _____________________ ............................ 7

G2. Do you live in public housing?

YES (SKIP TO G4)................................................................. 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

G3. Do you pay less rent because the government pays for part of it through a Section 8 housing 

subsidy?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

G4. Last month, what did your household spend on housing? (Please include rent or mortgage, and if 

applicable, home insurance, property taxes and water usage).

PROMPT: Your best estimate is fine.

$ ___________.00

REFUSED ............................................................................ 97

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 98

G5. Did that amount include any utilities, such as gas, heat or air conditioning, electricity, and water?

YES (GO TO G7).................................................................... 1

SOME, BUT NOT ALL (ASK G5A) .......................................... 2

NO (ASK G5A)....................................................................... 3

REFUSED (GO TO G7)........................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO G7) ................................................... 8

G5a. How much did your household pay for utilities last month? Please include all utilities such as 

gas, heat or air conditioning, electricity, and water that are not included in your housing 

costs. (PROMPT: Your best estimate is fine.)

$ _______ Total utilities (GO TO G7)

REFUSED (GO TO G7)........................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO G7) .................................................. 8
Abt Associates Inc. 26 RDD April 9, 2001

G6. What length of time have you been living in a shelter or on the street?

_______ days

_______ weeks

_______ months

_______ years

REFUSED ............................................................................ 97

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 98

G7. In the past 12 months, since (CURRENT MONTH, 1999), have you (or your children) received any 

of the following types of help from community organizations, neighborhood centers or religious 

organizations, other than friends or family? 

YES NO RF DK

Shelter from an emergency shelter 1 2 7 8

Clothing or clothing vouchers 1 2 7 8

Money 1 2 7 8

Child care or help paying for child care 1 2 7 8

Transportation or help paying for transportation 1 2 7 8

Free medical services 1 2 7 8

Help paying your utilities, like electricity, gas or water 1 2 7 8

Help paying your phone bill or enabling you to use a telephone 1 2 7 8

Help paying for your rent 1 2 7 8

Legal aid or help paying for legal aid 1 2 7 8

Any other kind of help? (SPECIFY) _______________ 1 2 7 8
Abt Associates Inc. 27 RDD April 9, 2001

G8. In the past 12 months, since (CURRENT MONTH, 1999), did you or any other adults in your 

household ever get emergency food from a...

YES NO RF DK

Church 1 2 7 8

Food pantry 1 2 7 8

Food bank 1 2 7 8

IF “YES” TO ANY IN G8, ASK G9. OTHERWISE SKIP TO G10.

G9. How often did this happen — almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 

2 months?

Almost every month................................................................. 1

Some months but not every month ............................................ 2

Only 1 or 2 months.................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

G10. In the past 12 months, since (CURRENT MONTH, 1999), did you or other members of your 

household ever eat any meals at a soup kitchen?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 28 RDD April 9, 2001

H. Employment Status 

Many working families still qualify for food stamp benefits. My next several questions are about your job 

status last month. Again, I would like to remind you that your answers will remain strictly confidential.

H1. Last month, were you earning money from a job? Include any self-employment.

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO H5)................................................................... 2

H2. Last month, how many hours did you usually work per week? Include all jobs.

______ HOURS

REFUSED ............................................................................ 97

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 98

H3. OMITTED

H4. How much money did you earn per hour, week or month from your job(s) before taxes and any 

other deductions?

$ ______ per hour

OR

$ ______ per week

OR

$ ______ per month

IF ONE PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD, SKIP TO SECTION I.

H5. Last month, did anyone else in your household work at a job for pay, not including schoolchildren 

aged 17 or under?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (SKIP TO SECTION I)..................................................... 2

REFUSED (SKIP TO SECTION I)........................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO SECTION I)................................... 8

H6. IF YES: How many people in your household, besides yourself, worked at a job for pay last month?

_____ NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WORKED

REFUSED (SKIP TO SECTION I).......................................... 97

DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO SECTION I).................................. 98

ASK H7a FOLLOWED BY H7b FOR EACH OTHER WORKING HOUSEHOLD MEMBER.

H7a. Last month, how many hours per week did each person usually work?
Abt Associates Inc. 29 RDD April 9, 2001

H7b. Last month, about how much money did this person earn per hour, week or month from their job(s) before 

taxes and any other deductions?

PERSON 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4

_______ HOURS

REFUSED..............97

DON’T KNOW ......98

_______ HOURS

REFUSED............. 97

DON’T KNOW...... 98

_______ HOURS

REFUSED ............. 97

DON’T KNOW...... 98

_______ HOURS

REFUSED..............97

DON’T KNOW......98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED ..................... 97

DON’T KNOW............ 98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED ..................... 97

DON’T KNOW............ 98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED ..................... 97

DON’T KNOW............ 98

$ ______ PER HOUR

$ ______ PER WEEK

$ ______ PER MONTH

REFUSED ..................... 97

DON’T KNOW............ 98
Abt Associates Inc. 30 RDD April 9, 2001

I. Income/Sources of Income

Now I’m going to ask you some questions about your household income last month. I want to assure you 

that none of the answers you give me will be discussed with anyone.

Last month, did you or anyone else in your household, including children, receive (INCOME SOURCE)? 

FOR EACH INCOME SOURCE RECEIVED, ASK a.

a. How much money did you and other household members receive last month from (INCOME 

SOURCE)?

INCOME SOURCE RECEIVED?

YES NO RF DK

a. AMOUNT 

RECEIVED

I1. Cash from a cash assistance program like 

TANF (INSERT NAME OF STATE 

PROGRAM) or General Assistance (INSERT 

NAME OF STATE PROGRAM)?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

I2. Income from child support either directly from 

your child’s other parent or through a 

government agency?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

I3. Disability income through Supplemental 

Security Income--that is, SSI--or from some 

other source?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

I4. Regular income from friends or relatives outside 

the household?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

I5. Social Security checks from the government or 

Veteran’s benefits?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

I6. Any other retirement or pension, public or 

private?

1 2 7 8 $_________________

I7. Money from any other source? This might 

include unemployment insurance, worker's 

compensation, alimony, foster child payments, 

rent from tenant or boarder and so on.

1 2 7 8 $_________________

I8. Last month, did you or anyone in your household receive WIC, Women, Infants and Children 

Program, benefits such as food packages or vouchers for purchasing food?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 3

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 4
Abt Associates Inc. 31 RDD April 9, 2001

I9. SEE B1. IF CHILD/REN OF AGES 5-17 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK: Last month, did any school-aged 

child in your household receive free or reduced-price breakfasts or lunches at school?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 32 RDD April 9, 2001

J. Assets

My next several questions ask about your household assets. Please remember that these questions are for 

research purposes only and will not be shared with anyone. Your responses to these questions will not affect 

your eligibility for benefits now or in the future. 

J1. Do you have a checking account?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (GO TO J3)...................................................................... 2

REFUSED (GO TO J3)............................................................ 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO J3) .................................................... 8

J2. How much money, on average, do you estimate is in your checking account?

$ ______ 

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

J3. Do you have a savings account?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (GO TO J5)...................................................................... 2

REFUSED (GO TO J5)............................................................ 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO J5) .................................................... 8

J4. How much money do you have in savings accounts?

$ ______ 

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

J5. Do you have any other bank accounts or financial investments?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (GO TO SECTION K) ....................................................... 2

REFUSED (GO TO SECTION K) ............................................. 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO SECTION K)...................................... 8

J6. What is the approximate value in total of these other bank account and financial investments? Please 

include amounts in individual retirement accounts (IRAs), stocks, mutual funds, certificates of 

deposit (CDs), money market accounts, 401k accounts and elsewhere.

$ ______ 

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 33 RDD April 9, 2001

K. Food Security

My next set of questions are about the food eaten in your household. Over the past several years, USDA has 

been developing a set of questions to tell us about the food needs of adults and children. You may find some

of these questions sensitive.

K1. Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the last 12 months:

(I/We) have enough to eat and the kinds of food (I/we) want .............................. 1

(I/We) have enough to eat but not always the kinds of food (I/we) want ............... 2

Sometimes (I/we) don’t have enough to eat, or................................................... 3

Often (I/we) don’t have enough to eat ............................................................... 4

REFUSED ........ ............................................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW 8

Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food situation. For these 

statements, please tell me whether the statement was often true, sometimes true, or never true for 

(you/your household) in the last 12 months.

K2. The first statement is, “(I/We) worried whether (my/our) food would run out before (I/we) got 

money to buy more.” Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true for (you/your household) in 

the last 12 months?

Often true............................................................................... 1

Sometimes true ....................................................................... 2

Never true .............................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K3. “The food that (I/we) bought just didn’t last, and (I/we) didn’t have money to get more.” Was that

often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true............................................................................... 1

Sometimes true ....................................................................... 2

Never true .............................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K4. “(I/we) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for 

(you/your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true............................................................................... 1

Sometimes true ....................................................................... 2

Never true .............................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN THE HOUSEHOLD (SEE B1), ASK QUESTIONS K5 -K7. IF NO 

CHILDREN SKIP TO K8 :
Abt Associates Inc. 34 RDD April 9, 2001

K5. (I/we) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (my/our) child(ren) because (I was/we 

were) running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your 

household) in the last 12 months?

Often true............................................................................... 1

Sometimes true ....................................................................... 2

Never true .............................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K6. “(I/We) couldn’t feed (my/our) child(ren) a balanced meal, because (I/we) couldn’t afford that.” 

Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true............................................................................... 1

Sometimes true ....................................................................... 2

Never true .............................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

IF K2, K3 AND K4 EQUAL “NEVER” (3), AND K5 AND K6 EQUAL “NEVER” (3) OR BLANK, THEN 

SKIP TO SECTION L. OTHERWISE CONTINUE.

K7. My/Our child was/The children were not eating enough because (I/we) just couldn’t afford enough 

food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?

Often true............................................................................... 1

Sometimes true ....................................................................... 2

Never true .............................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K8. In the last 12 months, did you (you/you or other adults in your household) ever cut the size of your 

meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? 

YES (ASK K8a)..................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW ...................................................................... 8

K8a. How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in 

only 1 or 2 months?

Almost every month................................................................. 1

Some months but not every month ............................................ 2

Only 1 or 2 months.................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 35 RDD April 9, 2001

K9. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough 

money to buy food?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K10. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because you couldn’t afford enough 

food?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K11. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because you didn’t have enough money for food?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

IF NO TO K7, K8, K9, K10, AND K11, SKIP TO SECTION L.

K12. In the last 12 months, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever not eat for a whole day 

because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES (ASK K12a)..................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K12a. How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in 

only 1 or 2 months?

Almost every month................................................................. 1

Some months but not every month ............................................ 2

Only 1 or 2 months.................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD (SEE B1), ASK K13-16, OTHERWISE SKIP TO SECTION 

L.

The next questions are about the children living in the household who are under 18 years old. You may find 

some of the following questions sensitive. I want to remind you that all of the information you give will 

remain confidential and in answering these questions you will help the food stamp program better understand 

the needs of families and children it seeks to serve.
Abt Associates Inc. 36 RDD April 9, 2001

K13. In the last 12 months, since (NAME OF CURRENT MONTH) last year, did you ever cut the size of 

(your child’s/any of your children’s) meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K14. In the last 12 months did (your child/any of your children) ever skip a meal because there wasn’t 

enough money for food?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (GO TO K15) ................................................................... 2

REFUSED (GO TO K15) ......................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO K15).................................................. 8

K14a. How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in 

only 1 or 2 months?

Almost every month................................................................. 1

Some months but not every month ............................................ 2

Only 1 or 2 months.................................................................. 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K15. In the last 12 months, (was your child/were the children) ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford 

more food?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

K16. In the last 12 months, did (your child/any of the children) ever not eat for a whole day because there 

wasn’t enough money for food?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 37 RDD April 9, 2001

L. Demographics

My last few questions are about the characteristics of your household. Remember, all information will remain 

confidential. Please tell me about your household situation.

L1. Are you...

Married and living with your (husband/wife) (GO TO L3)............ 1

Separated or living apart from your (husband/wife)?.................... 2

Divorced, ............................................................................... 3

Widowed, or........................................................................... 4

Never married?........................................................................ 5

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

L2. IF NOT LIVING WITH SPOUSE: Are you living with a partner?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

L3. CODE GENDER WITHOUT ASKING. IF UNCLEAR, ASK: Are you male or female?

MALE.................................................................................... 1

FEMALE................................................................................ 2

L4. What was the last grade or year of school you completed? 

SOME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (GRADES 1-8)....................... 1

COMPLETED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL................................... 2

SOME HIGH SCHOOL............................................................ 3

COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR RECEIVED GED.................. 4

TECHNICAL OR VOCATIONAL SCHOOL............................... 5

SOME COLLEGE.................................................................... 6

ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE.......................................................... 7

BACHELOR'S DEGREE........................................................... 8

ADVANCED DEGREE............................................................. 9

NO FORMAL SCHOOLING..................................................... 0

OTHER (SPECIFY:_______________________)...................... 96

REFUSED ............................................................................ 97

DON'T KNOW ..................................................................... 98

L5. Which of the following do you consider yourself to be? (READ LIST AND CODE ONE)

Hispanic or Latino.................................................................... 1

Not Hispanic or Latino ............................................................. 2
Abt Associates Inc. 38 RDD April 9, 2001

L6. Which of the following do you consider yourself to be? You may choose more than one. (READ 

LIST AND CODE ALL RESPONSES)

White ..................................................................................... 1

Black or African American........................................................ 2

Asian...................................................................................... 3

American Indian or Alaska Native.............................................. 4

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander............................................ 5

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

L7. Were you born in the United States?

YES (SKIP TO L8).................................................................. 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

L7a. Are you a United States citizen? 

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

L8. SEE B1. IF THERE ARE CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK: Were all the children in 

your household born in the United States?

YES (SKIP TO L9).................................................................. 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

L8a. Are the children in your household ... (READ LIST)

All US citizens......................................................................... 1

Are some, but not all US citizens, or are .................................... 2

None of the children in the household US citizens........................ 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8

L9. Is anyone in your household disabled? By disabled, I mean unable to work or limited in the amount 

or type of work because of a mental or physical condition.

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW....................................................................... 8
Abt Associates Inc. 39 RDD April 9, 2001

L10. The next questions are about the telephone numbers in your household. Do you have any other home 

phone numbers in addition to [FILL VAR: AREA CODE/TELEPHONE NUMBER FROM SAMPLE 

TELEPHONE NUMBER]? Don't count any cell phone or pager numbers.

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (GO TO L13).................................................................... 2

REFUSED (GO TO L13).......................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO L13).................................................. 8

L11. Is this second number for home use only, for business use only, or for both home and business use?

HOME ONLY......................................................................... 1

BUSINESS ONLY (GO TO L13) .............................................. 2

BOTH HOME AND BUSINESS ................................................ 3

REFUSED (GO TO L13).......................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (GO TO L13).................................................. 8

L11a. Is this second number used only for computer or fax communication?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED (GO TO L13).......................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (GO TO L13)................................................... 8

L12. Do you have a third home phone number in addition to the two you have already told me about?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (GO TO L13).................................................................... 2

REFUSED (GO TO L13).......................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW (GO TO L13).................................................. 8

L12a. Is this third number for home use only, for business use only, or for both home and business use?

HOME ONLY......................................................................... 1

BUSINESS ONLY (GO TO L13) .............................................. 2

BOTH HOME AND BUSINESS ................................................ 3

REFUSED (GO TO L13).......................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (GO TO L13).................................................. 8

L12b. Is this third number used only for computer or fax communication?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

DON'T KNOW ....................................................................... 8

L13. During the past 12 months, has your household been without telephone service for 1 week or more?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO (GOT TO CLOSE) ............................................................ 2

REFUSED (GO TO CLOSE) .................................................... 7

DON'T KNOW (GO TO CLOSE) ............................................. 8
Abt Associates Inc. 40 RDD April 9, 2001

L13a. For how long was your household without telephone service in the past 12 months?

_______ NUMBER

(IF ONE WEEK OR LESS, ENTER 0 FOR THE NUMBER)

ENTER PERIOD: _______________

DAY(S).................................................................................. 1

WEEK(S) ............................................................................... 2

MONTH(S) ............................................................................ 3

REFUSED .............................................................................. 7

These are all the questions I have for you. Thank you for your participation in this survey.