!

"#	$# #%		#	&#	'

%$# #&'


"#	
%		#%	(

Abstract

	'
  )	#	
		

	#	#! *(+,

#-../-0*#-..." 	# 


#	#)	!	 
&	#	"	# 	#
	)

	,	&	
##	
1+	#	!	#	

	#	! -../-..0

)#	
)#	# ##

-*	#	) 	! 


#&2	3	
,	&	
! 		&		


	##*0	#	!	#	#)#	
)


	#			 2	!		))# 	42	)-15	#	!	&	

	6
++	#	)
	
	#		!),# 			)

#	

 '
  )	!		! 	# ##
#	



 #

Acknowledgments

		"
	)7 	#	&	7			

	%2				3 7	3
77#2

%2	8!	
#		#9#:&			:;%
	;,

	%	2 					 		<	
	)
7 	

<!&2			#7 	<
&
'4

)
		6
	&		

	 	
	
	!		,	&	


			!7	"	!	!	
	 !	=#			
,



#


*555+,/(00 7	*555
 	
 
 



 	

Contents

 

>
# -

#
	'
  *

 #	 *

#	#!'
 #-..0 *

 #3#		#&	?-.05,.0 1

#	# #
  1

 	  /

	&%		# @

'
  #	!		%	#		#	 @

	#		!	 # (

	#	'
  # (

	,	&	"0

$# 	#
	 .

--

%	--

3	
,	&	" -1

#	#	-../,.0-1

!!		#		)		-../,.@
-..@,.0-/

#$=-.0.,.1 -@

# -(

%	!		#	 -.

"	
= *-
	



 	
 


Summary

	'
  		'	
	!
#	 


!	'	
	!		" A-@2)
!
 2		!

-...)&		2		!!A(*		' -../-...	,

 )	#	
		

	#	#"&		#

	 		
*(+		-../
!	-0*		

-...

" 	# 
#	#)	!	 2#2	
	


	#	)		  	
)	&		
#	
	 2	!			2	

#		'
  
	&		
#	
	!

	2			)#			%	2
:

%	##"#!-..@	
B#			&	" 	

#		#	
		2!	 
2	,2
	

)


		
	>	#	
	#)	!		 )	
#	#,

	'
  

		= 		
#)	 #		!

	# 	#
	)	,	&	
! -../-..0!


1+	#	!	#	

	#	)#	
)#	# ##



-*	#	)# 	! &2	
#&2	"

#)#
			4#		!6!	#

#	#2		=	
2		!&2	

		#
	
,	&	
! 		&	

! -../-..0!
*0	#	!	#	#)#	


)
	#			 2	!		)# 	2	)-15	#	!	

&		"	++	#	!	#	)
	
	#		,

!		),# 			)#		'
  


	#		!),# 			)#	2	
		# #

#
 #	2	#2			&
	#	

	 2	!),# 	! 		
	! 	!
 

#2		 	2	! 	#
2	
		)##	
	

!&2	#	# ##
#
2	
		)2	C	
	


	
	
C		! 	!#	
	)	!		! 

$# ##

 #	&	
!!		 #!	
#

 #	!	>!	# ##
		2	!

		#	
	#	#
	2
		&	!!		#	

#! #			2	!	
	#		#


	 )#	#			

Introduction

' -../-...	'
  4'6

	=		#	
	#	
		

	#	#

!
	#	#	! -..@-..0

"&		#		
*(+

		-../-5+	#	!" 	#-

#!	-.0-..0(1	,

#	!" 	#	-0*		

-...@@	#	!" 	#*

" 	# 
#	#)	!	,

 	
&#	?

D' -../-..0	  	
&	

2!	2	
#	 2	!	,

	)		2	#		'


  		#
&	

	
#	
	!	2			),

#		2		!!#2	

 	)			# 1

D		%	2
:

%	##"#!-..@4%
:%"6	


 B#	#)	!	 	

	&		
	
 	 		


 	!	 	#	
	)&	! 	

'	
	 		-..@)

2
	#

	##	E	#	!	'


  	B
	##	E	#	

	#		2!	' !

	 
2	,2
	

)


		
	>B
	##	E	#	

	#		#)	!		 )

 	
#	' #

	
' #&	
!!#

		2	#	22	#	

F&	
		 	
G		# 
 

#	#
	#2&	##	
! 	

##	2	# ##

,

 #	&	
!!		 #!' ,

#	
	!	>#!	#,

 ##
		2	!	


	#		#
	2
		&	

!	#	! #			,

2		#
	 )

#	#			


	
)		! ! 
&		


#	
#	
	=	


' #! -../-..0>2	)

2#
	'
  #

&	&	)!##	#	-.05


	&	)!	 #		#		#	>	

!!	)# 	 	#		

		!!	#!	# #
 !#
	#,

#	!#	# 	#

!	,	&		
!)	
,

	
	&	
	!#)	!	 

#4$"-..(H$"-...H'


	



 	





The Decline in 

Food Stamp Program 

Participation in the 1990’s

1 In this report, program “participation” refers to the number of

participants and program “caseload” refers to the number of cases.

Each administrative case contains one or more persons. Some

authors reserve the word “participation” to mean the ratio of participants to eligible people. 

2 Average monthly participation data for 1999 became available in

early 2000, and are reported here, but other 1999 variables used in

the empirical analyses are not yet available. The main empirical

sections of this report therefore use data through 1998.

3 The number of people who are eligible for the program is lower

when economic conditions are favorable, because low income is a

key criterion for program eligibility. The proportion of eligible

people who participate may be lower when economic conditions

are favorable, because the benefit level falls as the potential participant’s cash income increases. Potential participants with comparatively high income, near the cutoff point for eligibility, may find

that program participation is not worth the pecuniary costs (such

as transportation expenses) and nonpecuniary costs (such as time

and stigma) of joining.
<-...6
	
!'
  

#
-..@4
#	


-...6		#
#	

	
,	&	
! 		

&	46"	

	

 #	#	
 &	


	
	 	!
	# 

)= 	)#!	
	#	

#
	#		
# 	&	

)	# 		)	 ),

# 	

Background on the 

Food Stamp Program

Program Structure

	'
  		'	
	!


#	 
!	'	
	!	,

	:&	A-@.2)
!
 

2		!-..0)&		2		!!

A(-		!-.0		

	 	2			))# 	

2
	E	
		2		!

	! !		#$	##		!

!	4$6 	2		
#	

!

##2	&		;	
	

				 2	
2	'	
	&	 	

!	!&	!	!
	'
 

 
 		
2		##
#	

)'	
		

 &	

	=				
	E2		
	

'	
	&	 	

E!	
)	

2	


 	 2	&	# 		-15	#	

!	!!#&	
				


&	F	G# 	4# 	,




	
#
	
#!#	

	=		
	
#!	!# 	

		
	2	
	
	
#6	

	&		') 		=#	

		
			 !A*555!

 	
A1555!	
)

 	 2	&	@5:)	!	
	

#)
		 2#	,

 2	&	
2&	A/@+5
		
	!'

	2
		 		)	2	!	

'

	&#		'	
		#

&			!
#	 4"-...6

"!:#2	-..0! !!	E	


 # 		A-(01E!!	

'
  

	2		!	&	2	
 

	
)#2	15	#	!#2	

# 	)
!
#		'	
	

&	 	
		 		#			=	
	

	E	
#	2
	!

	!	
	

F!'
G!! !!=  

 	!		
;		
B	


##!	# 	!#		#	


	!!
$2		
)	

# 	!		
	
#		
2&		#	&	

	=  2		!3	
) 		

# 		#	&		=  2		!15	#	

!		# 	4"-...6"!:#2	

-..0	2	! !!)	# 	

)
	#	&	A/-.	#!
 2		!

Characteristics of Food Stamp

Participants in 1998

!
 #&	# 	!2	)

	!!#&	
		>-..02	



! 	'

	&#	I'
 

J210	#	!#

	

# 	2	)+5	#	!

&	
	+1	#	
# 	

2	)		+5
-55	#	!&	'	)	

-5	#	!#	

# 	

2	)		-55
-15	#	!	&	
		

4"-...26


			! #

B	
" 	#&	'!,		,

#	!#	
#
	
#
	

-..0:!			
),
)			,

	! 	-+	#	)			
	
2	


	
@	#	
		

	 2	

&		-(	,		
)#


&		;	!1-		#	&	
	

!
 2		!!A**0	
,#		,


)#
	)&		;	!/@	,

	#	&	
A*(14"-...26

 !
!""#!$%


 



 &'(()
Program Participation in Historical

Perspective: 1980-98

Macroeconomic Conditions


	
	#2!	# ##


	#	' 
	#	)		&	))#

&	
)	# ##
		

	,	&	
	
,	&		!)

	#			# 	

	

 			!	##	! -../

-..0	#
	#2		2	)		'

#
)!			&#	#,

 #&2		  	
&	

'	-# 		#,

!	)	!!#	 ,

 		! -.05-..0	!!#	 ,

 		
	!	
	 2	!	 	


	4)			)6
&
	
2	 ,

2	!			2!#	4)			),

		)6/ )2	#	

-.0-,-.0*
-..5,-..-4	#!)	
2	


!	# #)6)	)	

	  		4!-6

' #
	  	)&	

#	&	 		
H2
#!	
,

		# #)!	

	
	

-.05I
2	
		#	!		

-..5I3)	&		
# 	 	
&		

>		-.05I #)	



	#2	 		  			
>	

	-..5I ##	
	

!*	!			#	
	
	

	 ,

 	
2	!

'	*# 		'
  

#	 2	!		)		2

&2			=		
!	

		)&2				
!#	

2	#	)# 		!	#	!!


 	2+

	



 	



*

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 1

Percent

FSP participants as a proportion of the U.S. population, and the unemployment rate, 1980-98

Official unemployment rate

FSP participants as a proportion 

of the total U.S. population

1980 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98

Source: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

4 The denominators of the two variables are different, so a comparison of their nominal levels is not informative.

5 Some poor people are not eligible for food stamps and some

people who are nearly but not quite poor may be eligible for food

stamps. The poverty variable is used in this simple illustration,

because it is well known and reflects the same general trends

found in more careful estimates of the number of eligibles, such as

by Castner and Cody (1999).
#
&				&	 	

4!*6
#			-.05I


!		

	
	-.05I&2		

		-..5I
!	!	-..14	

#	!&	6-../4	#	!#6

"#	2			!	

#	 #)					

#	&		!	#


#	&	
#)@*	#		

	-.01@5	#		-.0.@.	,

#			-..1
+0	#	-..0

			!&2		#,

 ##
#		2	 2	!	,

2	" 	#
	!	2	)

##	3)	&	&	

		
	

				!!	#!	# ##
,

! 	#&2	
	


Program Changes 

	##		'
  


-.05,.0)		# &	
	4!16>-.0-

	: 2
	%	##"#4:%" 0-6


	'
 
 
2

" 	
 	!-.0-!	! 		
	

# 		2

	


#
	

2	
	 2		
	
#

!2		))		
,

 #	#&	!),

# 	)			' 	#"#!

-.0+	
		 A*555!	
	

	

A1555!	
		



	=	
 	!		:%" 0-#	>-.00

	3		&	"#	
	=  !


  	#	 	! -55	#	

-51	#	!	!'


		&	,

 	#	>-..1	#		




3	%		!"#	&	
	&		2,

#	

	
#	
##	2		,

!#)	
!	! 		

&	-0)&	
)	2#	

	,

	
!
					


	
)#	"
' 	)

		
	
	4"'6
	
#
'	*

# 	' ##)	!	 

#:%" 0- 	
	)	2

	#"'

		
!!#!

) 	



 



 	

Figure 2

Percent of U.S. population

FSP participants, persons in poverty, and AFDC/TANF participants as a proportion of the 

U.S. population, 1980-98

AFDC or TANF (cash programs) participants

FSP participants 

Persons in poverty 

1980 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98

Source: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Bureau of the Census, and U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

0

4

8

12

16
#		!	2		

#!-.0-,.@	)	
		

&	!	=  "'2		!
	#	

>		-.05I
	-..5I	'	
	

&	 	2	)				)

!	 F)&	G! '	
	)	,

!	 	&	)	
	

	=	 	)	)#	# 	 

4)#	#	
	 2	!

	#
	#	&	2		!6)	E	 	

4)#	E	
2	,2
	

!
)

 	#	#	) 6


	=
	
	
	
4)#	2	
)	

			!	2	

# 	6#)&	2	# 	)
		

	

 
,-..5I&	)		&	
!	 	

	!/+	2	!		-..@)	!		! 	,



		
#
 )#&
		#	

2		!!),# 	" 	#)
!	
2

!#		#	! -.0@-..5

		#		=
	
	2!	

) 	!
#
		=	
	 I

#&		! 	))		 #

	2	!	
#
#"'

$ 		
#
	! **.11/

 2	)		-.00
-..1#		!/+	,

#	4K	);-..@6

	-..@)	!		! )4		

%	2
:%	##

"#%
:%"6	!##)	,

!			*5	)
	#



	# #!	'
  

	#	-..@)?

D>	
1,  	 !2		!	&	

1@!2	,2
	

)
		
,

	4""
6)	)#,

&	
),		
 	

*5	)		) 		=#	H

D$ 	
	2!	 

	=#	!;	
#;	 		!		,

		#&	
&			

	
	 		
		)/5

E	!E!	  			


	H

	



 	



+

Figure 3

Percent

FSP participants as a proportion of the U.S. population and program changes, 1980-98

OBRA 1981

Hunger Prevention 

Act of 1988

1980 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98

Source: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Medicaid expansion PRWORA

enactment

PRWORA

implementation

Mickey-Leland Childhood

Hunger Relief Act
D&		#		
)		
#		 ,

	!
 2		!!
		,



	# )		!	2#

#	 H


D%	
#	
	=  !
 2		!! 

-51	#	-55	#	!	!'




>2	E			)	
	

		)		#	 	!
 2	,

	!! 
			
	2,

!		
	
2	

#
 

))			
		
	)	%
:,

%" )	


>
	#	'
  )!!	#	
2

	&!	-..@))#	
	
"'

	
	)2#!
	)	!	,

 
		 		 "#	!

		
' 	4"'6
!
 	!	


	!#!	#)	!		 ! # 	,

)	"' )#
	

 	 
)	E	 	#	


		 "'#		
	#
	
	

		&	
		) 	
&	

! 		"!-..0-@		E	
B2

	##&	2	!		 #!

)	!	2		!
*5	!!		
	,

# , 
&	 		!

! 	 		
4	-..06

		#				
#	'
 

 #)#	 #,

#)	!	  #,

'"'#)	&		#

)	!	 	#	&!
 2		,

!" 	#				&	)
)	&	


	!"'F	&	G	
	

 &	

	#

	!		!!
 	 	
,

	!		=
-*	4
&	

*5556	01+	#	!"'#

	#	&	!
 		!!
 	 	,


	!		=	
! 10++	#	!&	

#
	
		!!
 	-*

		
! 15/+	#	 
	

&	
#	!
 &		#


!
	!!
 	!	"'	=

! *.@-	#			
			
	

	!"'	&			&	)##
	


F$&		#		&	 	

			)
##!	
	#	

'
 
	
#
#G4


&	-16

	#
	
&	#			
!,

!#			'
  %	&	)2

"I'

	&#				


	!	
2	!
 	! 		2	

		>	)K'!
###	

		
&	'	
	)
	

)#	E	 	#	!'
 

 #
)#)		#	


	-..@)	!		! 	)		)B2

#			&	)	
2'

	 	


!!
 
	!&



! 	
##	"'
&	

 	
	!!	#		2!!


 

		
!
 2		! 	,

#)

#		2&	!#

!!
 
	  	,		
#&	,

 !"'4":-...6

Previous Research

Food Stamp Program Participation Before

the Recent Declines

			=	&				
		 !

'
  #4				

-..0!	#		&	)6$#
	#,

	!
#	2		 	

 

&	
	# 	

	
	
 	)#		

2##	 ' 	!	

 	'	
!!4-.006#
		
	


		 !"'#' #


	  				,	E

 
	3	
	
	
#		

'
  	
	
#	

"'
&	)		  	!


	)		 		!!	#!	 ,

 	' #2	&	
	


##	#2	!!	#2	  	


 #


	!
 #2	#		,


		-.05I
	-..5I	&		)

		#	!!
	
	#	"

, 	



 



 	
		!
#	
#		

 	#
2		=	
2	# ##,


4#	-..-6H2	
#

	,E	!	#				=	

	
#
 
	
" 	



! 	&	!># 	
 

#4>6)

	!

	#	
	=	 	
	
#
I

 #-5	#	!	' #	
#		

4K	);-..@6

	&	
		-..5I
&	!	

	#	!	> &	)#&
	

 	2	&	 			&	 	

'
  	
	=2	&

4	-..16
%	4-..@6	


)		!	2!"'
!
 

2		!2	
	
# )		

!##2	
	
	


	4-..06	
> 

	
		 

! 	
	=2	&2	
#,

#				-..5I
!
?

D># 	#		&	 	


!	'
  

D		)2		#	&!
 	=

	 	&	E#H		


 !
 	#	&	

 		#	

D%	,			'
  !		=

# 

D>
&
I 	# ### #	
	


#			 
		 !

)		#	&	!
 

D	#		' #2	)			
,

-.05I
	-..5I)
&	 2

#				!#	

	
I&	!
	,


I	# ##
&	 
		,

 #2	&2	2	&	



2	&	
!#	
			,

 	=		-..5I"!!


 #	2		
	)

			&	,)	!	,	! 	


)#	)2	# &2	

Decline in Cash Welfare 

Program Participation

	&	
	&	&		
	 #!	#	

 #	
#	# ##


#)	!	 #	
		
	,

		!	
!		#'
 

 #

" )
	#	
	! 	#!$# #

"
&	4-..(6	
	,	&	&	# #

&2	
	 !)	!	)&		,

 		 #!		!##	
" !,

)
4#!$# #"
&	-...6

#
			#
	!		
-..1,.@


-..@,.02	#
)			,

2	!*@,1@	#	!	#	

	#	-..1,

.@
!0,-5	#	!	
	#	-..@,.0


	!	)&	)		!
 	 ,

	-..1,.@)	"'##	
!,


!	#	
	
#! -..@-..0

'
<4-...6)
 #	# 	#

 
	
!!	! 	$"I 2	!	#,

!#	!
		!!	#!)	!	)&	

)	
		!!	#!2	#
#

	!	-..1,.@)&		


	

		$" 		 #!		

	$"I!)	4) #	

!	-..@6		)

>	&	$"I#!!

4-...*6	
F"		
			&	

	#	&		
!!		#	)	I



	 !	

 	2	!!	#	
2)	!		! G!!

	 	

	# 	

$"I2
! 		

&	
#	!!	#2		 	
!

) 	)
!!			
#	&	3	!


)&	!!	#	
# ) 	

)			
#	=	#	


		!
)&	&	!	#	
#	,




Decline in Food Stamp 

Program Participation

	!
&		#2#

)	!	 
	'
  !	

	



 	




	-..@)	!		! 	,	&	#	


 
	)2#	
4-...6$=,

&2	#
	
	  			

#		

*	
)		

		)B	)
	)&	#	)		

"'
	
2		 	 		
		

	  		)		#	
)*0//	,

#	!	!
 
	#	! -../-..0

	&2		!	#	 #!)&	"'

)#	
)@	#	!' #	



	#			

!!#	

		&2	F	&	 	,

 		
"' )		E	
!!		


 		=	&	)&	G	2	&	
4

1+6	##
	
	! #!	-..@

)	!		! #
	)		! @	#	

!	'
  #	

	#	


			

		4-...6!!		



	#&	!#	!#,


	 #
-../,.0	


	 	
'
  E#


	)
	 #)	#)

 
	#	#	
2%
:%" 	=		#	
	

			
	#	?#2	

	 		
		!	2(*	#	4##,

!-1	#	!	
	#	6
#,

2 #
		 	

!	

2+.	#	4##!-5	#	!	


	#	6#2 "'L"'

	#	!	21.	#	2#	

	!	'
  I#,

##!@(	#	!	
	#	

#! -../-..0


! 	2>	I-..(

&	!" 	#I' 	<	
	)
	

4-...6!
F6	&	!# 	! 	)	,

!		#		!!
 		

! 	)
2		)	!	26!


 	&	
# 		!	 	2	

!2		!
#6! 	)	!)	!	B	


	),# 	)! 	)&	,

#
)	!#	'
 

 G4-6

	
	4*5556&		
	 	E,

#
		4-...6)&	

 
	!'
  #	
'-../,

.0	# #!#	=/5	#	!	
	#	

4-5	#		!
	#	#	
!

*+	#			E#
	6


	E	 	##!2*	#	!	


	#	
	"' 	 	!#

#	
2		#	
&2	##!*1

	#	!	
	#			 1+	#	!

	
	#		=	
2!		!#

'7#2
!!	4*5556	
&	
!!	,

	# 	
 		

 #!	# #&2	
 #	

-../,.0	
	

! 	-..*	!

>)#! -..*-../	 	

2	&
	! #

		2	& 		
	> 


	
 	
		!!	#!		#	

)	!		! 
!&2		# ##


	 	
#	
--+,	#		
#

#	
)#		##	

	#	

2	&	
! 
 &	#	E#,


:!	#	
#		
#	
2	

 1++	#	#
2	2	
#

#	
	)	!		! 
@/+	#	

)		  		3)	&	#!	

#	
#	
	
#
2	

	=	
2	 		=	
,

2	
				# ##!#

State-Level Analysis

	,	&	&	# ##

#

##	&
	 #	!! 

2#	
#		'
  

'	= 	#			  		
!!	

	
	 	 		
)	!		! 
!,

!		 	

!!		! >#		

	!!	#!	&	# ##



 #	#2	
	
	#,

 	#

	!##	!	,	&	
2		


#	)#))		 ,

 		&	)' #		


!		' #!,

	/B	-5	)		

 2	!#-../
-..0			

##!&	++	#	!#

4		 #	#		


! +5	
	#! 2!	

( 	



 



 	
	-.05,.06" #	&	#	2	)		

	  	
	##	&
	?

	  	!	
	##


	#	
! -../-..04!/6

>2-../
-..0	##

)	&					



#!)	&	)

	 #	# ###	#
#	

	#		
)	#,

		&	)	
	  	

# 	!		##	#2	

2	&2		!)	 ##
	

F!=	
	!!	#G!	#	
B!#

	,	#!###	#	
		,

 			2	)		 #


)	#	4	&			I	6


 	##	
4	&		

	I	6

Econometric Model

			#
				#!#'

	=&2	!	
		!!	#

#	
	&		 		
	#
#	


	

		
F	
G#	


	
,-	&			
!!	#,

 #!	&	2	E		



	# #	
#
 #	

#	
!	&		
&2	

				#!##
		=&2	

	!	#	#	# 4			  	

	6)	!		! 4	)	!	)&	6
	

!#4		#					
2

	!	I&	6

$# 	#
	)	,	&	#	



&	2			
	&	
	!#)	!	,

 #	
4$"-..(H$"-...H'


<-...6		#			#
!,

!			#!#C#

 #C!		

 
	3		)		 ;		
	#!#

!)	 	!&!
 #
	

&	'
<4-...6"	!

		#
	&		# #!

	#	

	#		!!#	 )	

 		#		!)	
		

#	!
	##			#

	



 	



-

Figure 4

Percent

FSP participants as a proportion of the State population, and the unemployment rate, 

in selected States, 1984 and 1998

Source: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

23456789

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18 LA

TX

GA

OH MI

NY

PA FL CA IL

1994

1998

Unemployment rate
	#!# 	
 #	#!#
,

#			 ##	E	#	!
#

	
#	
&2	
	# 		
 ,

#	#!#@

	!4#6	#!#	=		


)		! 	!	#!
 

#	
	 
	 		 ,

 		. 		!	  	)

	#/ )	!		! 
#	E

	!#!	F	)
	"')&,

	,-..@)	!		! G	!!	#( ' 	

!	=  "'L"'!
 

2		!!! !		 &	#!&,

2		!	#	## 	!	

'/ 	)		
	#		!	I,

)&	
! )	E	 	!	 	


2	,2
	

)
		
	'& 


#	E	!#!	

			I	#		#	&	
2		!&	

$	##		!!	4$6 g 

&	#!		!!	#d  	,&	,

	#!#
	&! 	&	#0l 

	,	#!#	

e 
 		 

		#
	#!##
		#	
	,


,-

	=&2		


	#!##
	!	
&2	!#	,


!	
&2	!	  	


!	
&2	!	  	)'

 	
		
		'


		
<4*5556

)&2		
	#	'
 

 )!	
#	#
	

&2		!	#)		 	 		
$

 	$  			
#		,

 #	
)!
 			&	

	!
!2		!	&		
	

		!2		!
 &		
2!2	,

	!	#	$  		!		!

 #	
	#	#,

3)	&		=	# 2

' 		
$ #	##	

2	)		!

!

	


2		!

 		
2	# !,

2	)		#	!


	#
	&2			#		!

	I)&	
! 	""


	E	 		)	&	!""


 &		!
 #	
2	#	2	,

2
	

2	# 		2				#,

 ##
		#	2!!#	

#
!""
)&	H 		2		

 #	!	)&	"#	,

E	#		 	
	!!	#!""
)&	

	!	#2	#
		# ##



			
	!""
,)&		

'		!			#
		,

!#	
#	#	


)#	
&
&2	4		

)&	L"'&2	6!&2	4	

 #	# #&2	6>	#
	!

&2	12

	!#	
#	!

	 ! -../-..02	2	


&2	?

)		a 	 		#	
)12

'	

	#
	#!#)		

		
	&,

2		#
		&		


!!	##	
!	2	E		
'

	#!#!&2	=B	!

#	
#	!	 ! -../-..0

 2	2	
&2	?

3 	



 



 	

6 Numerous other variations in these specifications have been suggested. We cannot present all of them here, but an appendix with

results for many of these variations is available from the authors

upon request. For example, the following variations were also

estimated: three specifications without State-specific time trends;

four specifications with alternate lag structures for the dependent

variables; three specifications with the natural log of population

included as a dependent variable; and others. The general conclusions of this report are robust to these other specifications.

7 We use the same coding as in CEA (1999) for the welfare waiver

variables.

	 1 1 1 ! ! 2 2 2   4 6 4 6 L 4 6 =- - a .0 ./ .0 ./

	 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 !!

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2  

4 6 44 6 4 6

4 6  4 66L6 6

= -+ -

+ - ++ - -

a ra

ra r a

.0 ./ .( .1

*

.@ .*

-5

0+ 0- .0 ./

!  . / ' '/

 '& 

     

     

=+ + + + + +

+ +++ +

ma i b q h

jx g d l e 
)		r 	 		#	
)	
#	,


'!	
	#!#	

#
			

		
	

		
	

&2	'&2	12

	!#	,


#	!	 ! -../-..02	

2	
&2	?

)		r 	 		#	
)	!

	
#	

!		)

	E				#			,


	# 	 	&			

	 	
	# !	#
	

Data

')		
! +5	


	#! 2!!#	-.05-..0

-.05	'
  
#	

	E	 	)#&	!!	#	
#

		!
 #	
$

 		
""
)&		! 	

	 	!"#	H"'	! 		

! 		 	!3	
3 

	&#	4336H2	,##			! 

		!2#
		

	H
	##
! 	

" 	#!	 ##"#4""6	

&	"#
		

J	" #

Results

	!	#!#	

		
	


		
	&2	42	-# -6'

	#!#	#	!!#			  		

#!#
	&	

#	###&	 	!	#!
 

#	
0 "#		!-	#			

	  			
/*,	#	#		

!
 #	
			E> 	 	

)	!	)&	"'#	
)!,

#	 	
	!!	##	
> 	 		

$  #	
)+0,	#	
	#	

#	
	!!	# 2	2

		=	#	
	!!	#!&2				

!,	""
)&		2	)		

&		""
)&	4#
&

)&	6#&	B-(	#	!		

#""
)&	#	
)

//	#		#	
4 		!*+./@

 	5-(6	&	 			!	#	

 #!	# ##
#		

)		 #!	)&		!

>2			&	#2!	#!#

	#	

	#	! -../-..0	!	#,

!#I
	# 		# #!#,

		2	!-*	#	!	
	#		


#!	)
	)&	"'	,

2	!+	#	
#&2			,

2	!(	#			 
		=	
2

		&2	

		#
	#!##
	#	
	
2

-	

	=&2	42	-

# *6. >!
#!,

#	2	)			"'$

""
&2	
!
 #	
	

	 #!	)&	L"'&2	

	
#	
)		&	-	!	
#	


#
	
#	)'
<

4-...6)
-..@!
)	,

!	)&	
	)		=	,,

	
!!		#	"'#	
#	#!

#	

2	,##	
 #)			


		#
	#!#
	!
!#

 #!#	# #&2	
#&,

2	#	


	



 	





	 1 1 1 1 1

11 11 11

11 11

11 11

11 1

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2

2 2

4 6 44 6 4 6

4 64 64 6

4 64 6

4 6 4 6 

4 64

= -+ -+

-+ -+ -+

-+ -+

- + -+

+ -+

a ra

ra ra ra

ra r a

ra ra

ra ra

.0 ./ - .( .1

* .@ .* 1 .+ .- / ./ .5

-

*

.@ .* *

*

.+ .-

1

*

./ .5 /

*

.1 0.

-

@

.- 0( *

@

2 2

2 2 2 2  

1

1 1 1 1 !!

.5 0@

1

@

0. 0+ /

@

00 0/ .0 ./

- +

-+ - -

6

ra ra 4 6 4 66 L 4 6

9 In dynamic panel data models, there is a correlation between the

lagged dependent variable and the fixed effect, the magnitude of

which diminishes as the time series gets large. With 19 years of

data, this correlation is likely to be small; however, in results not

reported, we instrumented the lagged dependent variable in specification (1) using lags of the economic, welfare, and political variables as instruments with very little change in the estimated coeffi8 cients. Table 1 reports parameters as statistically significant using a

two-tailed t-test with a = 05.
"##
	
	# !		#
	#!,

#	# #!#		2	!+@	#	

!	#	

	#	! -../-..0	,


#!	)
	)&	"'	,

2	!!	
	#	
#&2		

	2	!.	#			 
	

	=	
2		&2	

	
	#!# 		#
	#!,

#)	

!  2	!

	
#	
	  	
	  	

)&2	42	-# 16"		#


	#!#	
	#!#!


#!#	2	)			

"'$""
&2	
!
 

#	
" #!#	

2	)			#	# #L#&2	


#	
	 

'	
	#!#1+	#	!	#	


	
#! -../-..0
	#	# #

#
4	
	#	  	
#	,

	  	,)	6)	 

!#22		)&	L"'&2	

	,	&	#!###!2-+	,

#	!	#	

	#	

>		
			 
	#	#	



		
	
		&,

2		
	#	=-5 			


 	!	##		 	 	!#,

 	#	
2	)	!		! &,

2		
	#				# ##
,

	#	
2		,	&	#	#,

 #&2		
	
	!#

 	



 



 	

Table 1—Static and dynamic estimates of the impact of welfare reform and the macroeconomy 

on food stamp caseloads

Model

(1) (2) (3) 

Per capita caseloads (t-1) 79.427 (1.691)* 112.986 (3.954)* 

Per capita caseloads (t-2) -38.010 (5.382)* 

Per capita caseloads (t-3) -1.080 (4.467) 

Per capita caseloads (t-4) -6.303 (2.932)* 

Unemployment rate (t) 4.186 (0.399)* 2.552 (0.218)* 1.258 (0.325)* 

Unemployment rate (t-1) 0.475 (0.371) 

Unemployment rate (t-2) 0.254 (0.349) 

Unemployment rate (t-3) -0.259 (0.326) 

Unemployment rate (t-4) 1.152 (0.259)* 

Growth employment/capita (t) 19.552(10.742) -8.640 (7.272) -18.773 (11.893) 

Growth employment/capita (t-1) -10.974 (11.641) 

Growth employment/capita (t-2) -5.400 (12.491) 

Growth employment/capita (t-3) 31.102 (7.731)* 

Growth employment/capita (t-4) -3.616 (5.206) 

AFDC waiver implementation -2.224 (1.940) 0.676 (0.963) 0.621 (0.757) 

EBT implementation -5.845 (2.851)* -0.252 (1.434) 0.445 (1.150) 

ABAWD waiver 25.946 (6.038)* 1.113 (3.047) 2.882 (2.382) 

Log max AFDC/FSP benefit -9.405 (5.906) 1.786 (3.001) 11.680 (7.992) 

State House & Senate Democratic -0.712 (1.337) 1.098 (0.680) 0.174 (0.613) 

State House & Senate Republican -4.412 (1.644)* -1.427 (0.823) -2.376 (0.732)* 

Governor Democratic 7.646 (0.900)* 1.759 (0.484)* 1.150 (0.461)* 

Log ADA score 0.038 (1.149) 1.406 (0.591)* -0.086 (0.493) 

Notes: All coefficients are multiplied by 100. Standard errors are in parentheses. Asterisks denote statistical significance, using a two-tailed ttest with a = .05. All regressions, based on data from fiscal years 1980-98 for all 50 States and the District of Columbia, are weighted by State

population, control for State-specific fixed effects and trends, and control for year-fixed effects.

10 The unexplained portion of these models is not unique to this

time period. The unexplained portion of the static and AR(1)

models for the caseload increase from 1989 to 1993 is actually

higher.
Household-Level Analysis

Participation Decline, 1994-98

3	
,	&	&	
	 #
	!


	 ## 2	,2
,

	

)		2	
#!!	#	
2

' &!	-..@)	!		! )		


	 
#		 ,

2	!		))# 	! #	

	!		))# 	)#

#	!#		 ,

#	' #	&			


		&	46

	 	
		
!&	
	 #

?4-6
&
	,	! 	)

#
	4*6
&
),	! 	)

#
	416
&
&	4/6
&


 	,
	
)#
	
4+6

#;	-- $#!	
&
	
)

# 	2	
)				
	

# 	2&	2	)-15	#	!	

&		)#	# 	#!!!!


 	2!	
		),

	
		
F),# 	G
F 

	L,

# 	G	&		#!!	
		!2	)

 	
# 			
		
,

	
	

	2	! 	,

2			2	#		# 				

	!	## 	)		#,

&	)# 	!B!		


2	#		

		##!	

	 !!
 	2"  2,

!#	!	 	)

	L# 	

#		 
# 	! ,

	)# 	2&	-15	#	!&	

		&				2	!!
  	,

!		

>		2	) #!	#


	 # 	
4))		

 #	
		#
	 ,

#6
			&	#,


	#	#2	2	
		2	

	 	?4-6#		 2	!),# 	

	
4*6#		!),

# 		
#	
416#	

	!	
 L,# 		


#	

	
)
	#	#

! *1.-../-@+-..0

42	*6-* 
	#	!(11-	,

#	!	-../	&	-1 		#
	#	

###	
 #;	C/*(

	#	! -../-..0	#	#;	I

	!!
 ##	
!= 	-*

	#	!	#
	#	4!+6-/

	



 	



*

11 The first four categories are defined to include only citizens, so

these five categories are mutually exclusive.

12 The Current Population Survey under-reports the food stamp

caseload by about 17 percent. However, our estimate of the

decline in food stamp caseloads is similar to that reflected in FSP

administrative data. This suggests that the degree of under-reporting has remained constant, and does not contribute to the estimated

decline in caseloads found in the CPS.

13 The food stamp caseload decline of 7.3 million is even more

dramatic considering the U.S. population grew 3.6 percent from

1994 to 1998. Moreover, single-parent families with children —

the demographic group with the highest rate of food stamp participation—grew faster than the national average. Population growth

and changes in population shares among the five demographic

groups would have resulted in a food stamp caseload increase of

0.9 million, if participation within each demographic group had

remained constant. (See appendix for further details on the CPS

data and the interaction of population growth and the food stamp

caseload decline.)

14 Caseload declines, in figure 5, are adjusted for population

growth in each demographic category.

Figure 5

Decomposition of the decline in FSP participation 

by demographic group, 1994-98

Two-parent 

 families 27.1%

Noncitizens 12.2%

Single-parent

families 45.1%

Multiple adults

 without children 6.6%

Individuals living

 alone 9%

Source: Calculated by ERS from the March Current Population

Survey, 1995 and 1999.
" ),	! 	#
	#	
2

/50	#	" 	,	! 	#,


	#	
2*+0	#	42	*6	#	! ,

	)#
	# 			#		!!


 	#		##	
!(*	#	!	

#
	#	

'),# 		,	! 	#

##)	!	 !	! /05

	#	-../15.	#	-..0

		B!"'L"'	#,

	2		#	&	
!
 )	#

 	!"'L"'	#	

2		#	&	
!
 	!#

)	!	### 	
2		


	#	'
  #

' -../-..0		)	&	 	!

	
!	),# 	 
	

 

	L,# 	 		#		!

	
)# 		-15	#	

!	&		
	#		
! *5@	#	

-../-(0	#	-..04!@6	

!		),# 		
##,

) 	



 



 	

Table 2—Monthly participation in the Food Stamp Program, 1994 and 1998

Monthly participants Decline

1994 1998 1994-98 1994-98

— Million — Percent

All Food Stamp Program participants 23.87 16.54 7.33 30.7

Demographic category:

Single-parent families with children 12.44 9.24 3.21 25.8

Two-parent families with children 5.47 3.24 2.23 40.8

Individuals living alone 2.13 1.61 0.52 24.4

Multiple adults without children 1.68 1.22 0.46 27.4

Noncitizens 2.14 1.23 0.92 42.7

Note: Changes in the number of participants are not adjusted for population growth.

Source: Calculated by ERS from the Current Population Survey, March 1995 and March 1999.

Figure 6

Percent

Proportion of all individuals who have income below 130 percent of the poverty line, 1994 and 1998

Source: Calculated by ERS from the March Current Population Survey, 1995 and 1999.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

All U.S.

households

Single-parent

families

Two-parent

families

Individuals

living alone

Multiple adults

without children

Noncitizens

1994

1998
		'
  
	#		
! 1(

	#	-../*0	#	-..04!(6	

!

	L,# 		
,

#	
	#		
! *5	#	-../-/	,

#	-..0

		#	2		=		
)	,

 #	#
	#	! 

-../-..0'
	 ## 2	


*@	#	!	-../,.0#
	#	)


	
	#			!	
))

# 	++	#	)
	
	#		
	!!


  ),# 		

-.	#	

)
	
	#		
	!!
  	
,

 L,# 		
4!06

Differences Between 1994-96 and 1996-98

"		#	&	
)	!	)&	2	!	

-..@	 	 	!		# 		&	

"'
		#!
 	,

2
	%
:%" 

##-..(

 	" @+	#	!	-../,.0#,


	#	##	
2	)		-..@
-..0

>2-../,.@
-..@,.0			!	

#
	#	2	
)	#,

 		)# 	2	)-15

	#	!&	4!.6-+ 	#		
	!!


  ),# 		
##	
!

@-	#	!	-../,.@
	#				-+

 ),# 				#		
	 

),# 		
##	
!++	#	!

	-..@,.0
	#		*@		

		 2	!),# 			)		

	2	!	!	#


	#	-../,.@4*0*	#	6-..@,.0

4*1(	#	6	#		
	!!
  

 

	L,# 		
	
			

			
				
##,

!---	#	!	-../,.@
	#	
*--

	#	!		-..@,.0
	#	

	
	##		'
  	

-..@)	!	)	
		##;	


	



 	



+

Figure 7

Percent

Proportion of all individuals with income below 130 percent of poverty who participate in

the Food Stamp Program, 1994 and 1998

Source: Calculated by ERS from the March Current Population Survey, 1995 and 1999.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

All U.S.

households

Single-parent

families

Two-parent

families

Individuals

living alone

Multiple adults

without children

Noncitizens

1994

1998

15 The food stamp caseload of multiple-adult households actually

increased slightly from 1994 to 1996. Due to the small magnitude

of the change, the results of the decomposition analysis are not

meaningful for this time period.

&
)#
		#		
	!!


 2),# 		
 		
	 ,

###!		!	-..@,

.0
	#	!	-../,.@
	#	

Participation Expansion, 1989-93

		
!' 	=-.0.,.1	!!

					#	##' -.0.

-..1##		
2 +5	#	

		'
  
	# ,

	!	#!		
	
)		

 # 	
	#	
)	-..@

)	!		! 	# !	#		! 

-.0.-..1)*0	#	)
	

#			 2	!	
))

# 	/5	#	#		
	!!
 

 ),# 		

1*	#	

#		
	!!
  	
 L,

# 		
4!-56

, 	



 



 	

Figure 8

Decomposition of the decline in FSP participation

by cause, 1994-98

Decreased use of

 food stamps by

 individuals in low-income

 households 55%

Decreased use of

 food stamps by individuals 

 in medium/high-income

 households 19%

Fewer individuals

 in low-income

 households 26%

Source: Calculated by ERS from the March Current Population

Survey, 1995 and 1999.

Figure 9

Percent of total change in participation

Decomposition of the decline in FSP participation, 1994-96 and 1996-98

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

U.S.

population

Single-parent

families

Two-parent

families

Individuals

living alone

Multiple-adult

households1

Noncitizens2

94-96 96-98 94-96 96-98 94-96 96-98 94-96 96-98 94-96 96-98 94-96 96-98

1No change in participation for 1994-96.

2Use of food stamps by medium/high-income households increased in 1996-98.

Source: Calculated by ERS from the March Current Population Survey, 1995, 1997, and 1999.

Decreased use of food stamps by medium/high income households

Decreased use of food stamps by low-income households

Fewer low-income households
" ),	! 	
	,
	,


)#
			&		!	## ,

		#	=) 

		
	#	4!--63)	&	!	,,

	! 	)#
	

&
&	

	#			!!
  ),

# 		
	
#
	2		

	-../,.0
	#		-.0.,.1	=

Conclusions 

" 	# 	2	!#!	


!
 #! -../-..0:!	

	&
		,	&	
#	


4-...6!
		  	&2	

	=	
*0//	#	!	#	

	#	

	
	4*5556!
#	# #

&2		=	
/5	#	!	#	

	#	

>		,	&		# 	#			
		

	!#	#!#		
	# #

	



 	





Figure 10

Decomposition of the expansion in FSP

participation, 1989-93

Increased use of food stamps 

 by individuals in low-income

 households 40%

Increased use of

 food stamps by 

 individuals in

 medium/high-income 

 households 32%

More individuals

 in low-income

 households 28%

Source: Calculated by ERS from the March Current Population

Survey, 1995 and 1999.

Figure 11

Percent of total change in participation

Comparison of the decomposition of the expansion and decline in FSP participation, 

by demographic category

Source: Calculated by ERS from the March Current Population Survey, 1995, 1997, and 1999.

Single-parent

families

Two-parent

families

Individuals

living alone

Multiple adults, 

no children

0

20

40

60

80

100

Expansion Decline Expansion Decline Expansion Decline Expansion Decline

Increased (decreased) use of food stamps by medium/high income households

Increased (decreased) use of food stamps by low-income households

More (fewer) low-income households
&2		=	
-+	#	!	#


	#	)			!		

 #	#!#,

		
		&2		=	
1+	#	!	,

#
	#			 	

	,	&	
2	= 	1+	#	!

	#
	#	-../,.0#	#,

 #&2	

		 	
	!	!
 	

!	
	#	#	
)		!!	#!	#!#

)	!	)&	"'#			


	 	 			!	!!	#!)	,

!		! 2					 			,

 	
#	#	
4-...6!
	

)&	L"'&2		=	
@	#	!	

#	

	#	-../,.0	

	
	! #!)	!		! 2	

 #		
	4*5556!


)	E	 		=	
*	#	!	#	



	#	
		#!#!		!%
:%"

# 	 
	2		!!	#3)	&	

!*1	#	!	#	

	#			


2	##	
)	
#!

	)	!		! ))2	#	
)

	!		#!##	

>#	#!#	)&	L"'&2	

	=	
/	#	
#&2		=	
@

	#	!	#
	#			,

!		

 #	#!#!
	

)&	L"'&2		=	
	2	

	
	#!#	=	
-*	#	!

	#
	#			
	

)	!		! &2	#	=
,

		!	#
	#	! -../

-..0:	##	!!	#2#,

#	 &			!!	#

	&			
	#!
	

	!	#
	#	#2		=	


2		 #	&2		# #&,

2	

3	
,	&	
	&		
	# #!	

)	!		! )!	 
2	,2
,

	

)
		
	4""
6		

4-...6!
		)	=		#	
	

			#
	#	:	
,	&	

!
#;	#	=	,

	#	
		#
	#	C!/*(	,

#	2	)		-../
-..0#,

#
	
*@	#	!	#
	#	

)#	
)	&	 	!		! 

),# 	

	,,# 	#,


	!),# 			

)#	##	
!++	#	!	


	#	

		,	&	
	
,	&		

		
	## 2	2		

		 			!		
	,	&	

!
#	# #&2	

	=	
1+	#	!	' 
	#			,


,	&	!
&	 	!		

!	),# 	#		=	
*@	#	!

	
	#		!		! 			 ,

 		 2	!		2	#

	#	!2##	)2	

!)
		!			

	 #!		# #

		,	&	#		
)

 ##
	#	
2	2	
,

 #	$&		# 	#	

#	
		!	
	#	)

#		&2	)	!		! &2	

		&2		 	!	#

				

!#	!#		#)	!		 


	
		
&	#!#&2	

#		
#	 	
!!			&	

#	
	
##	
	

&	2	
	!	#
	#	

##	

:	
,	&	)++	#	!

	' #	! -../-..0
	
	#	

#2	
)# 	


	-15	#	!	&		"

# 				E&	'


  	2	#2	

		&
	#		 2	!		 	,

2	! 		
	! 	!
 

	#!		 	2	! ,

	#
2	
		)##	
	!&2	

 #	# ##
),# 	)

! 	)#)	!	2		!&	)


# &	)	!' #

##
2	
		)2	

	
	
	
	
		! 	!#	
	

)	!		! 

( 	



 



 	
>		#	# 	2	),

# 	)! 		
2#,

#	

#	
#		#

! 	&	2			#!#		
	#

	!!
		" '
 >&	

#	
7-...&	#
		)

	)	 !# 	,	

	E	 	!)! 	2#	
#

# 	
	)!	#


# ,	&		#	!!

References

%	2	##
#%	F
	 	

	"
' 	)		
	
	
'


 MG45
#655
&1-4-6)	

-..@+(,0.

	#%"#	






5
"#7




%	2 	
		 	

!"#	'

	&#	 2
	

"?"2"#	7-..1

	
#
&
	



8	59
--


?	 ##%		#>#

-...

#!$# #"
&	1

/#
:--*--,?	##%	


?$=	#&	:!!#	!		
	!	

	
	-..(

#!$# #"
&	&
8&

###/#
"1

/#
!8?

$=	#&	:!!#	!		
	!		
	

-...

%2
&	&


.&	


8

 ;#<
5
?

	 ##%		#>#*555

'
7<F
	!	%	! 		

#	
		#	"'	
G

!/#
#
	
;		


-(,/08 ;>?B>	-...

'&

		
7 	<F	

$!!	#!	#	# 
	!	%	! 

'
 	
G
45
#
55


&0*416*555'# 

'

	&#	F"2'C>
#G

?LL)))!
&L!L 	L2L2 

-...

	



 	



-

Ongoing Investigations Sponsored by

the Economic Research Service

	$# #%		#	&#	#&	

		#	
 &	
	
!	

#	!#	
#	 #
	

!		#		#

! 	 	

#	
#	
	>#
		#,

	#!	)! 2	 	 	!

 #		
	#

'	= 		,#		&	#	

&	!># 	
 #
	

&	!  #)				#

	 #!)	!		! '
  

E#
! 	'



	&#	&
	
		
! 2

#		
$%,!
	
		#

	!!)	 			!!	#!& 


	# #!# #

	# 	#
	 	&	2			


	&)	,	&	


$E $%#	#	)! 

2 ##		#	&	$%)

"2"#	>#)	= 	)
	#,

#		'
  &	2		!!	#	


2#	## 		&#	#)	!	

!!#		2			
 #	


))	!		! 	
)!#

#	 2	,2
	

)


		
	#
,#	
	
	=

	 "#	!		
' 	" 		


B	#)	%#	!		>	!&	 	

		&	!	)K)&		#

#	 
	&	&	

#2	
	
	#	' #	


!#	##		),

	2	)		!
 
#)	!	


 &		 
	#	# 	=!

	 '	 
%2	!!F	$!!	#!'


 2?" &			#
	G

45
#59 1+4-6?*+,+@'	2-.00

		"##:!!#	F'
  ?9

'#3&		
	##G

":L%$,..,-0+7-...

		7	F
	&	'
  M

""!	
	! -../-..0G

				
	#!		#	!	

"#!	!	%		#
#"

-...

			#

7#E	

"
	&###/#
#


!

##
5


?	 ##%		#>#

*5554!# 6

			##	
%2	!!&

"#	



"--3

%	2 	
		 	!"#	

'

	&#	#	7?	 #

#%		#>#-..0

7#27
	!!	&!=5#

!#
	


8

75
#
.
5%	2 	


		 	!"#	$# #%		#

	&#	?	 ##%		#

>#*5554!# 6

8		"&			7	

	
	#,


#







/#
#
87



#	#	
#


	 	!3	
3 	&#	

"
 !
	
' 	"-..0

#			&7
	





';-(---38 


!
%	2 	
		 	!

"#	'

	&#	

?	 ##%		#>#-..-

!!%2	F	$!!	#!	,%
:%" 
&	

"'	

'	 	$># 	


2'#		&G#	7		!

&	%		#-...

	 	!"#	'

	&#	

F"2'?>
#G

?LL)))!
&L!L 	L2L2 

-...

	 	!"#	'

	&#	

!

#	
658	>


--( 4"
&#	%	67-...2


#	
%F
	 	

)M$=%	#		2#"#	

	
G!/#
#


	
;		
/.,+58 ;>?

B>	-...

K	);"F
%	#		
#
%	! 		

	
$=	'
  MG


	(+@	 	!$# #

"		"?"-..@

<	
	)	%
	F	#	'


 
	!	#?>			#MG

#	..,-1?2

>	-...

<7'$&


F"##!		#	"'	
?	!	

%	! 	$# MG45
#655


1+4*5556

 3 	



 



 	
Appendix

Methods for Using the Current Population Survey To Analyze Food Stamp

and AFDC/TANF Participation

Data Source

	
	! 		&	#"	 #	 	!-..5-../-..+


-...># 	
 #	!		#	
	)		
# 


		 	
!	&	)		

Units of Analysis

	 ##	# 	!
 	#	
"'L"'	#	)		
		 	
	F# 

G	&	
	
	#		>#		# 
	#		&	)

	
3)	&			
2! 			

&
	&	)	
)				
	,

	%		
2! 	)				
!	 ! 	!		#	
&
I		

#	# 		#	)#!
 	23)	&	)	)	

#
		 	)				
2! 		#	&	
!
 		!		#	# 2			


2! !	!!
 	#	>
#!
)		!			# 

	
		
	#	&	)	


	
!	&
	# 	
&		
!	## ;	
		,

 	
	
&
	&	

Determination of Food Stamp Program Participation and AFDC/TANF Recipiency

'
  ;	)		##	
! 	, !	#	)		
2	 		

)	"	#	!!
  	 	
		
	!	
!		
2	,

&	)	
	 2	!!!
 	#	
	!	
		&	)	
	&		

	
 2	!)		&	)	
	#	&	
!
  	
,

			

	!"'L"'	#	
 2	!!	#		
&
	&	


	2	
				 2	!!"'L"'	#	!		

'),		#	!2!
 
"'L"')	 	
	#	!2

##	
	 	&	)=  "&		#!	#2)

##	
4	, 6L-*	&		#	)	##	
4&		

#6L426

Adjustment for Population Growth

#
	#		!&	
	 #2	*	2	
	 2	!#2	&	


3)	&		#!	
	#	 
	 #!	+
(	2	
	
	#	

' #
B	
!)	#
	 #	##		!	#!

	
	#	!
 ;2	#	##!	!#)!!		


	#		 2	!#


B 		#	#	)	 		#
	 ##		,

)	)		! 	
	# 	)	
B!)	#!	
	 ,

##		)	!

	#	!@*@#42	"-6

	



 	



 
Mathematical Description of the Decomposition

	!)	E		##!	
	# !	
	#		&		!


 #	! -../-..0?

)		 
			# 	#		
 	!		## 	 	!

 	E"-				!!				 			&	
	#		&	,

	#		#		 2	!),# 		
	#
		 !	

#				)# 	#	
	#			!	)

)# 		#		#			!	)	
 L# 	

	)# 	!		#
 	E"-					#


	 		

	&	
	#		&		#		!# 	44.0- N./-6L*4'

#%	.0- O'#%	./-6	#		&		!
 #

	!			
	),# 	 4'#%	.0- O'#%	./-6

)		
2	&			!		),# 	 4.0- N./-6L*		#
# ,

	##	
	 	)	#		&		!
 #	!		

	
		
 L,# 	 )		
2		!			
 L,

# 	 

 	



 



 	

Table A1—Decline in the number of FSP participants, as registered by the CPS, 1994-98 

Measure Value 

Monthly FSP participation, 1994 (millions) 23.87 

Monthly FSP participation, 1998 (millions) 16.54 

Participation decline, 1994-98 (millions) -7.33 

Participation decline, 1994-98 (% of 1994) -30.7 

Monthly participation, 1994, adj. for total population growth 1994-98 (millions) 24.73 

Monthly participation, 1998 (millions) 16.54 

Participation decline, adjusted for total population growth (millions) -8.19 

Participation decline, adjusted for total population growth (% of adjusted 1994) -33.1 

Monthly participation, 1994, adjusted for population growth 1994-98

in each of the five household categories (millions) 24.78 

Monthly participation, 1998 (millions) 16.54 

Participation decline, adjusted for population growth in each household category (millions) -8.24 

Participation decline, adj. for population growth in each household category (% of adj. 1994) -33.3 

Source: Calculated by ERS using Current Population Survey, March 1995 and March 1999.

	
 
  	
 
 

 

 

	
 
  	
 
 

	
 
  	
 
 

 



 

 



 

.0 ./

.0 ./

-

*

.0 ./

.0 ./

-

*

.0 ./

*

*

- =

æ

è

ç ö

ø

÷ -

+ æ -

è

ç ö

ø

÷

-

-

=

=

å

å

 

 

 

 

4 6

4 6

4"-6