United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Research

Report

Number 92

February 2010 

Jessica E. Todd, Constance Newman, and Michele Ver Ploeg

Changing Participation in 

Food Assistance Programs 

Among Low-Income Children 

After Welfare Reform
www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

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

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

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

or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

National Agricultural Library

Cataloging Record:

Cover photo credit: ImageSource. 

 

www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/

FoodNutritionAssistance/

For more ERS research and analysis on food assistance, see: 

Todd, Jessica E.

 Changing participation in food assistance programs among 

low-income children after welfare reform.

 (Economic research report (United States. Dept. of Agriculture. 

Economic Research Service) ; no. 92)

 1. Food relief—United States. 2. Poor children—United States. 

3. Public welfare—United States.

 I. Newman, Constance. II. Ver Ploeg, Michele. III. United 

States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service.

 IV. Title. 

HV696.F6

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Todd, Jessica E., Constance Newman, and Michele Ver Ploeg. Changing 

Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children 

After Welfare Reform, ERR-92, U.S. Dept. of Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., 

Feb. 2010.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

In 1996, the safety net for poor households with children fundamentally changed when 

Federal legislation replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This study investigates participation 

in, and benefits received from, AFDC/TANF and food assistance programs, before and 

after the legislation, for children in low-income households (income below 300 percent 

of the Federal poverty line). The results show that, between 1990 and 2004, the share 

of children receiving food stamp benefits declined, most notably among children in the 

poorest households (income below 50 percent of the Federal poverty line). The share of 

children receiving benefits from the school meals programs and the Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) rose, mainly among children 

in low-income households with income above the Federal poverty line. Overall, the share 

of children in households that received benefits from AFDC/TANF or food assistance 

programs grew from 35 percent to 52 percent. However, the net result of these changes 

is that average total inflation-adjusted household benefits from all programs examined 

declined. The decline was largest among children in the poorest households.

Keywords: Food Stamp Program, SNAP, food assistance, welfare reform, WIC, school 

meals, National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, TANF, AFDC, 

multiple program use, Survey of Income and Program Participation

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Susan Hauan and Laura Chadwick, both of the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, for providing guidance and input during the early stages of this project and for 

reviewing the report. The authors also thank Kenneth Hanson (Economic Research Service), 

Nancy Cole (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.), and Christopher R. Bollinger (University 

of Kentucky) for their insightful comments and suggestions. Participants at the 2009 

Population Association of America Conference and the 49th Annual Workshop of the National 

Association for Welfare Research and Statistics also provided helpful feedback. Linda Hatcher 

provided excellent editorial assistance, and Susan DeGeorge provided design assistance.

Jessica E. Todd, jtodd@ers.usda.gov

Constance Newman, cnewman@ers.usda.gov

Michele Ver Ploeg, sverploeg@ers.usda.gov

Changing Participation in 

Food Assistance Programs 

Among Low-Income Children 

After Welfare Reform

Economic

Research

Report

Number 92

February 2010
ii

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

AFDC/TANF and Food Assistance Programs: Changes and Links . . . 3

AFDC/TANF Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FSP Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

School Meals and WIC Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Links Between AFDC/TANF and Food Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . 6

Multiple Program Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Program Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Underreporting Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Changes in Program Participation and Beneficiary Characteristics . . 11

Program Participation and Average Monthly Benefit Amounts . . . . . . 11

Changes in Beneficiary Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Multiple Program Participation and Average Monthly 

 Benefit Amounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Income From Transfers by Pre-Transfer Household Income . . . . . . . . 19

Turnover Rates by Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Discussion and Directions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
iii

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

The 2008 poverty rate for children (19 percent) exceeded the poverty rates 

for working-age adults (12 percent) and the elderly (10 percent). Many federally funded assistance programs target low-income children with food assistance, cash assistance, tax credits, health insurance, child care, and housing. 

Even after the value of benefits from these programs is counted, about one 

in seven children still lives in poverty. Historically, Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC) formed the base of public assistance to poor 

children, while the benefits from other programs filled in gaps for specific 

needs like food and health insurance. In 1996, the safety net for poor households with children fundamentally changed when the Personal Responsibility 

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) replaced AFDC 

with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF eliminated 

entitlement to welfare and gave States broad flexibility in setting eligibility 

criteria. A particular focus of the reforms was to encourage work.

What Is the Issue?

In the wake of declining cash assistance to families with children, did families rely more heavily on food assistance programs? This study investigated 

participation in, and benefits received from, AFDC/TANF and food assistance before and after PRWORA for children in low-income households 

(income below 300 percent of the Federal poverty line). The food assistance 

programs examined include the Food Stamp Program (FSP), the National 

School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). 

The study also explores how program participation and benefit amounts 

differed depending on the pre-transfer income (that is, income before 

receiving benefits) of the child’s household. This investigation provides a 

comprehensive view of program interaction and an understanding of how 

combined aid from food assistance and AFDC/TANF cash assistance has 

changed over time for low-income children.

What Did the Study Find?

Declining participation in the Food Stamp Program among children in 

poor households. Between 1990 and 2004, participation in the Food Stamp 

Program among children in the poorest households (pre-transfer income 

below 50 percent of the Federal poverty line) fell from 74 percent to 61 

percent. Participation was even lower in 2001, at 54 percent. In contrast, 

participation among children in households with higher income increased.

Increasing participation in school meals and WIC. Participation in the 

school meals program and WIC increased more than 20 percentage points 

between 1990 and 2004 for children in low-income households with pretransfer income of 100-185 percent of the Federal poverty line. Among 

all children in low-income households, participation in the school meals 

program increased from 28 to 43 percent and participation in WIC increased 

from 7 to 15 percent.
iv

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Increasing participation among children in households receiving at least 

one assistance program. Although there was declining participation in 

AFDC/TANF, rising participation in food assistance programs resulted in an 

increase in the share of children in households that received either AFDC/

TANF or any food assistance program from 35 percent to 52 percent between 

1990 and 2004.

Declining average household resources for children in the poorest households. Children in the poorest households—with pre-transfer income below 

50 percent of the poverty line—saw total household resources fall between 

1990 and 2004. For this group, while participation and benefits from school 

meals, WIC, and nonfood assistance programs increased, participation in 

and benefits from both AFDC/TANF and FSP declined so that overall total 

combined inflation-adjusted benefits from AFDC/TANF and food assistance 

programs declined over $250 per month. Increases in earnings and other 

income offset only a small portion of the decline in assistance benefits.

Increasing average household benefits for children in households with 

income above the Federal poverty line. In contrast to children in the poorest 

households, children in low-income households (income above the Federal 

poverty line) saw rising total household benefits from assistance programs. 

This rise was mainly due to increases in food assistance benefits, particularly 

from school meals and WIC. Overall, total household resources for children 

in households with pre-transfer income above the poverty line remained 

unchanged or increased slightly over the period.

Less moving in and out of food assistance programs. Turnover rates for 

food assistance programs declined. Turnover rates show the number of children in households that received benefits from a given program at any time 

during the year divided by the average number of such children in a month. 

The decrease suggests that these programs are used increasingly for longer 

term support. In contrast, the turnover rate for AFDC/TANF cash assistance 

increased. This increase, together with the drop in the number of low-income 

households with children receiving AFDC/TANF cash assistance, indicates 

that TANF is used more often for short periods.

Average monthly household benefits and income 

for children in the poorest households

Source benefits and income 1990 2001 2004

In 2000 dollars

Total assistance 832 540 564

ADFC/TANF 369 111 97

Total food assistance 373 287 320

Other cash assistance programs 90 142 148

Earnings 133 170 150

Other income 67 95 111

Total resources 1,033 805 825

AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families.
v

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

How Was the Study Conducted?

ERS researchers used data from the 1990 and 2001 Survey of Income and 

Program Participation (SIPP) panels, which were collected during two 

periods of similar economic growth and unemployment, to describe changes 

in program participation before and after PRWORA. The analysis was 

supplemented using the most recent data available, the 2004 SIPP panel. The 

sample included all children observed for a full year who lived in households 

with income that ever fell below 300 percent of the Federal poverty line 

during the observation year. Children were grouped into one of six groups 

based on their household’s pre-transfer income relative to the Federal poverty 

line for their household.

1

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

The poverty rate for U.S. children is persistently and significantly higher 

than the poverty rate for working-age and elderly adults. In 2008, the share 

of children in poverty was 19 percent compared with 12 percent for workingage adults and 10 percent for the elderly (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009b). The 

United States targets many federally funded assistance programs toward children who live in poverty or near poverty—providing food assistance, cash 

assistance, tax credits, health insurance, child care, and housing. When the 

value of these in-kind benefits and taxes are considered in measuring poverty, 

child poverty rates drop to around 14-15 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2009a). Even so, about one in seven children still lives in poverty, a rate that 

is considerably higher than the rate for working-age adults.

One of the first assistance programs was Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC), a cash assistance program for low-income single mothers 

and their children. For many families with children who experienced periods 

of very low income, the cash grant of AFDC formed the base of the family 

budget, while the benefits from other programs filled in gaps for specific 

needs like food and health insurance.

The 1990s saw sweeping changes to the safety net. Primary among them was 

the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 

(PRWORA), which replaced AFDC with Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF). Under TANF, States had to follow Federal restrictions 

that, for the first time, included lifetime limits on benefits, work requirements, and sanctions for failure to comply with requirements (see Moffitt, 

2008, for more detail on welfare reform). The number of TANF beneficiaries 

declined from 14.2 million in 1994 to 4.1 million in 2007 (U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 2009).1

The main food assistance programs, which are also important sources of assistance for families with children, did not experience such sweeping changes in 

policy. These programs include the Food Stamp Program (FSP),2 the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and 

the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs (referred to in this 

report as the “school meals programs,” treating them as one program). The FSP 

was the only food assistance program directly modified by the PRWORA—

primarily by the provision that made legal immigrants ineligible for the program. 

Food assistance programs have, however, changed in their own ways and have 

been affected by other factors, such as the economy and population change. 

Trends in the number of food assistance program beneficiaries are quite different 

from those of AFDC/TANF. The school meals and WIC programs have seen 

steadily increasing caseloads, while the FSP caseload has gone through swings 

that at least partially reflect changes in macroeconomic conditions.

Little research has been done on the patterns of multiple program participation or 

on how these patterns have changed during the post-welfare-reform era. The few 

exceptions include Long (1990), Winicki (2001), and Cole and Lee (2004). Long 

analyzed joint participation in AFDC and the FSP during the 1980s; Winicki 

examined multiple program participation among poor families immediately 

following welfare reform; and Cole and Lee studied participation in the FSP and 

WIC, but the study was limited to three States at the start of the 2000s.

1Throughout the remainder of this report, 

we refer to the cash benefit part of the TANF 

program but not to other benefits of the program, such as job search assistance or 

job training.

2In October 2008, the Food Stamp 

Program was renamed the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We 

use the old program name in this report 

because we are referring to periods before 

the program was renamed and the relevant 

literature uses the term FSP.
2

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

In this study, we first investigate changes in the relative importance of 

AFDC/TANF and food assistance programs by examining changes in the 

program participation status of children’s households and the amounts 

received from each program both before and after PRWORA.3 Second, we 

explore how changes in participation status and benefit amounts differed 

according to household pre-transfer income level (that is, income before 

receiving benefits) relative to the poverty line. As Blank (2008) has pointed 

out, PRWORA reforms, which had a primary focus of encouraging work, 

may have left a gap in the safety net for those unable to work. Third, we estimate changes in the turnover rates in each program.

3Other programs targeted to low-income 

households (such as the Earned Income Tax 

Credit (EITC), Medicaid, State Children’s 

Health Insurance Program, and public 

housing assistance) are also important and 

have grown in importance since the 1990s. 

Several conceptual and data limitations, 

however, push this study toward focusing on 

AFDC/TANF and the food assistance 

programs. The health insurance programs 

are conceptually different from TANF and 

food assistance programs. Although the 

health insurance programs can be used for 

preventive measures and in times when 

health care is needed, they cannot be tapped 

as resources in periods of low income when 

there are no health problems. In contrast, 

AFDC/TANF and the food assistance 

programs operate more directly as safety 

nets. Public housing assistance is theoretically a safety net program in that it can be 

used in periods of low income. However, 

there are waiting lists to receive housing 

assistance, meaning that many who are eligible will never receive it. The EITC is now 

a much bigger part of the family of 

assistance programs for low-income working 

families. However, EITC reporting in the 

Survey of Income and Program Participation 

data is quite poor.
3

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

AFDC/TANF and Food Assistance 

Programs: Changes and Links

This section describes the economic and other factors that affect participation 

in the four programs and possible links between them.

AFDC/TANF Participation

The number of AFDC/TANF beneficiaries reached a record high of 14.2 

million in 1994 but dropped drastically in the late 1990s (fig. 1). TANF caseload levels have remained low, even though the economy has cycled through 

periods of growth and recession. Prior to 2000, the size of the AFDC/TANF 

caseload tended to move countercyclically—in sync with the FSP caseload. 

But after 2000, the number of TANF beneficiaries did not increase as the 

economy slowed and unemployment rose, whereas food stamp participation 

did. Instead, the number of TANF beneficiaries continued to drop through 

2007, reaching a low of 4.1 million beneficiaries.

An important study from the pre-reform era examined patterns of participation in the AFDC program—specifically, AFDC spells of recipiency, exit 

from the program, and reasons for exit among women who received AFDC 

for at least 1 year (Bane and Ellwood, 1983). A key finding of this study was 

that AFDC served both as a program for long-term income maintenance and 

as a program for those who were experiencing temporary economic hardship 

and were likely to participate in the program for only a short period.

Figure 1

Number of AFDC/TANF, FSP, School Lunch, School Breakfast,

and WIC participants, 1990-2007

Thousand participants

AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. The 

number of participants in school lunch and school breakfast is only for free or reduced-price 

meals, and does not include the number of children who pay full price for the meals.

Source: ERS estimates based on food stamp, School Lunch and School Breakfast, and WIC

caseload totals from Food and Nutrition Service, USDA administrative data. AFDC/TANF data 

are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administrative data. For each program, 

total individual participation (adults and children) is counted.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Food Stamps

School Lunch

AFDC/TANF

WIC

School Breakfast
4

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

A goal of welfare reform was to encourage beneficiaries to improve their 

employment prospects. This initiative worked better than most analysts 

expected. Most studies of the effects of reform found that many single 

mothers entered the workforce and left welfare. Employment among lowskilled single mothers increased rapidly compared with employment growth 

for other groups (Moffitt, 2008). However, 30-40 percent of welfare leavers 

did not find employment but left welfare programs because they were sanctioned (i.e., removed due to noncompliance) and for other unknown reasons 

(Moffitt, 2008). Little is known about the well-being of these leavers or about 

needy families who decide not to apply for benefits. Several studies found 

that welfare reform had affected household incomes unevenly across income 

and earnings distributions (Bollinger et al., 2007; Bitler et al., 2006).

The steady decline in TANF caseload levels as economic conditions worsened during the early 2000s suggests that the program’s ability to serve as 

a temporary and countercyclical program may be limited by other program 

policies.4 Since welfare reform, program entry has dropped off more rapidly 

than exit (Acs et al., 2003; Grogger et al., 2003; Mueser et al., 2000). There 

is also evidence that time limits have had an effect on the length of time 

families receive cash assistance (Grogger and Michalopoulos, 2003; 

Ribar et al., 2008).

FSP Participation

FSP was designed to be countercyclical, and participation has historically followed the business cycle, with increases in participation following 

increases in unemployment and vice versa. FSP eligibility and benefits were 

limited under PRWORA to help offset other expenses (Primus, 2001) and as 

a result of other changes in the late 1990s.5 Most of the changes were thought 

to contribute to reduced participation, although determining how much of an 

impact the changes in PRWORA policy had on FSP participation has been 

difficult given that the unemployment rate was also declining. However, 

research shows that shorter recertification periods for working households 

explain some of the reduction in participation before 2001 (Kabbani and 

Wilde, 2003; Klerman and Danielson, 2009).

In contrast, changes to FSP rules since 2000 have likely boosted participation. For example, as part of PRWORA, the States were required to use 

Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) to deliver food stamp benefits by the 

end of 2002.6 This transition to EBT was expected to increase participation by reducing stigma because a beneficiary’s status is not as public as 

with the coupon “stamps.” Categorical eligibility was also extended, and 

many States adopted longer certification periods and simplified reporting 

(Kabbani and Wilde, 2003).7 Ribar et al. (2008) find that longer recertification periods for working households increased the length of time in the 

program, while Klerman and Danielson (2009) find that simplified reporting 

increased participation for the component of the FSP caseload that did not 

receive cash assistance (TANF or Supplemental Security Income (SSI)). 

Also during this time, certain vehicles were excluded from the asset test to 

help encourage labor force participation and the standard income deduction 

was adjusted for household size and inflation. Beginning in 2003, eligibility 

was restored to many legal immigrants and participation increased as a result 

(Henderson et al., 2008). Finally, increases in FSP outreach funding from 

5PRWORA removed FSP eligibility for 

legal immigrants, children’s earnings were 

counted when the children reached age 18, 

and married children or children with their 

own children were included in the household 

rather than counted as separate households. 

In addition, many States assigned short 

recertification periods to a larger share of 

their working-participant households in 

order to reduce their error rates (Klerman 

and Danielson, 2009).

6Although many States had implemented 

EBT prior to PRWORA (Maryland as early 

as 1993), the last State to implement it was 

California in June 2004.

7Categorical eligibility was extended 

beyond TANF cash assistance to include 

those receiving other services funded by 

either TANF or State Maintenance of Effort 

provisions. Maintenance of Effort provisions 

required States to maintain certain spending 

levels for their TANF assistance programs 

after welfare reform.

4Data for fiscal year (FY) 2009 are not 

yet available. Data from the last 2 months 

of FY 2008 showed increases in the number 

of recipients—which may reflect the recent 

economic downturn (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2009).
5

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was thought to increase caseloads, although evidence as to whether the increases have done so is mixed 

(Kabbani and Wilde, 2003; Klerman and Danielson, 2009).

School Meals and WIC Participation

The number of beneficiaries in the other large food assistance programs, 

school meals and WIC, has almost monotonically increased since 1990 (fig. 1). 

USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) data on student participation in the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) show a fairly steady rise in student 

participation from the early 1990s to the present.8 The figure does not distinguish between enrollment in free or reduced-price lunch, but administrative 

data show a dip in the percentage of enrolled students who received free 

meals in the late 1990s. This is not surprising given that the economic period 

was unusually good for low-income Americans. We do not, however, see a 

similar dip for reduced-price lunch recipients, whose participation level seems 

to have increased steadily, although more slowly over time.

The growth in school meals participation for this period has not been 

studied, but experts consider a number of policies and administrative practices as possible factors. Three policy changes that may have had an effect 

are the expansion of Provision II and III schools, direct certification, and 

expanded use of electronic payment technology. The Provision II and III 

legal frameworks allow schools to reduce reporting and administrative costs 

by providing universal-free meals if the schools already have a certain high 

percentage of students certified to receive free or reduced-price meals.9 The 

provision of universal-free meals is expected to increase participation among 

students who would not otherwise qualify for a free meal. Direct certification, 

which all schools are now required to use, involves school officials using 

State TANF or FSP records to directly certify TANF and FSP-receiving 

students for free school meals without requiring them to complete certification applications; it has been shown to increase participation marginally 

(Gleason et al., 2003). The expanded use of electronic payment technology 

has been shown to increase participation (Moore et al., 2009), perhaps 

because it reduces either the stigma or waiting times (or both).

Although WIC is still a much smaller program than the food stamp or school 

meals programs, between 1990 and 2007, the program nearly doubled to 8.2 

million beneficiaries, a figure almost twice the level for the TANF program 

for the same year (fig. 1). This doubling occurred during a time when birth 

rates were generally lower than in 1990 (Hamilton et al., 2009), which may 

have reduced the number of infants and children eligible for WIC. We know 

less about the causes of the change in WIC participation than we do about 

FSP participation. However, a few major factors are suggested in the 

literature and by experts, although empirical research has not yet tested 

these hypotheses.

First, an expanded budget made it possible for WIC to cover a larger share 

of eligible children between the ages of 1 and 4. We see that the caseload 

among children in this age group has grown the most since 1990 (Oliveira 

and Frazao, 2009). WIC is not an entitlement program, so when resources for 

the program are scarce, States use a priority system to provide benefits for 

the most nutritionally vulnerable groups. Many observers argue that, when 

the program was fairly new, children ages 1-4, who are considered a lower 

8See Ralston et al. (2008) for information 

on NSLP participation before the 1990s.

9Under Provisions II and III, schools 

may provide free lunches to all students 

for 4 years as long as the school pays the 

difference between the Federal subsidies 

and the cost of providing the lunch. Federal 

subsidies are determined by the percentage 

of paid, free, and reduced-price lunch shares 

consumed in a base year at the school. The 

difference between the provisions concerns 

the way the base year is chosen.
6

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

priority group than pregnant and breastfeeding women and infants, were 

less likely to be covered during funding shortages. Sometime during the late 

1980s and into the mid-1990s, the priority system was apparently used less 

and more eligible children participated.

Another possibility for the change is that increases in immigration may be 

raising the number of individuals eligible for the program since WIC eligibility rules have been less restrictive for immigrants regardless of documentation status than those for TANF and the FSP.10 Since 1992, the share of 

Hispanic participants in WIC has increased from 23 percent to 41 percent, 

indicating that increases in immigration may be an important driver of the 

overall increase in participation (USDA, 2007). The rising share of Hispanic 

children in WIC is concurrent with the increasing size of the Hispanic population in the country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).

Finally, expanded Medicaid eligibility due to increased income eligibility 

limits may have opened up WIC to a larger share of the population. However, 

this policy change is not likely to have caused a large portion of the growth 

in the program over the period. Although participants in Medicaid, AFDC/

TANF, and the FSP are adjunctively eligible for WIC—meaning that participants of these other programs are automatically eligible for the program and 

do not have to document income—they make up a very small portion of all 

WIC beneficiaries.11

Links Between AFDC/TANF 

and Food Assistance Programs

Participation in a food assistance program or in AFDC/TANF can affect 

participation in the other programs in many ways. Links between programs 

are facilitated by categorical and adjunctive eligibility rules for some 

programs. For example, participants of AFDC/TANF and the FSP are 

adjunctively eligible for WIC and AFDC/TANF, and FSP participants can be 

directly certified for school lunch. Outreach efforts to inform program clients 

about other programs for which they are, or may be, eligible also often link 

these programs. Before welfare reform, the FSP and AFDC shared application and certification processes and receiving AFDC was highly correlated 

with receiving FSP benefits (Tschoepe and Hindera, 2001). When TANF 

and FSP administration was separated under PRWORA, FSP participation 

declined along with that of TANF (Moffitt, 2008). The TANF caseload did 

not rise as it was expected to when economic conditions worsened in the 

early 2000s, but the FSP caseload did, which is an indication that the links 

between these two programs are not as strong as they used to be.

Multiple Program Participation

Although data abound on participation in these and other assistance programs, 

publicly available administrative data do not provide the means to study 

multiple program participation. Little research has been done on the patterns 

of multiple program participation or on how these patterns have changed 

during the post-welfare-reform era. Recent work, however, has focused on 

the related question of how total benefits received from multiple programs 

have changed since welfare reform. Scholz et al. (2008) carefully document changes in antipoverty program expenditures over the last 35 years 

and how the changes have affected poverty among different subpopulations. 

10Neither the WIC nor school meals 

programs consider immigrant status in determining eligibility.

11In 2006, only 2 percent of WIC 

beneficiaries who reported their income for 

eligibility determination had income above 

185 percent of the Federal poverty line 

(USDA, 2007). But because those who are 

adjunctively eligible do not need to report 

their income, this figure is probably an 

underestimate of the percentage of the caseload with income above 185 percent of the 

Federal poverty line. Of all WIC beneficiaries, 10 percent do not report their income. 

Thus, the percentage of WIC beneficiaries 

who become eligible for WIC only through 

Medicaid is likely to be somewhere near or 

below 10 percent of the caseload.
7

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

They find that total transfers did less to reduce poverty in 2004 than they 

did in 1993 and that nonelderly families, with and without children, with 

very low or no earnings received less assistance in 2004 than they had in 

1993. More recently, Sherman (2009) finds that public benefits were less 

effective at lifting children out of severe poverty in 2005 than they were in 

1995. Bollinger et al. (2007) estimate the effects of welfare reform on the 

level and composition of incomes of single mothers with dependent children 

and examine differences across these women by skill levels. They find that 

income gains among low-skilled single mothers came mainly from higher 

earnings and that income losses from TANF and other programs were not 

completely offset by increases in Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) benefits.

Long (1990) studied the factors associated with joint AFDC and FSP participation, as well as moves into and out of program combinations (single, joint, 

or no program). She found that changes that are expected to improve a household’s economic situation were correlated with transitions from participation 

in multiple programs to participation in a single program or in no programs. 

She also found that changes that are expected to hurt a household’s economic 

situation predicted movement toward multiple program use. Winicki (2001) 

used Current Population Survey data to examine changes in the prevalence 

of program bundling among poor households with children between 1995 

and 1999. Specifically, he examined household bundling of TANF, FSP, 

WIC, and school lunches. The study’s coverage is limited to households with 

income below the poverty line and the period immediately following welfare 

reform. We expand upon both of these analyses to provide insight into the 

nature of multiple program participation in the current program environment 

to inform policymakers about the role of food assistance in the safety net 

currently available to children.
8

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Data and Methodology

Data

We use data from the 1990, 2001, and 2004 Survey of Income and Program 

Participation (SIPP) panels. The SIPP interviews individuals at 4-month 

intervals (waves). At each interview, individuals and households report their 

earnings from multiple sources, participation in assistance programs, and 

living conditions for each of the 4 previous months. The 1990 panel has a 

total of eight waves, covering 28 calendar months; the 2001 panel has nine 

waves, covering 32 calendar months; and the 2004 panel has 12 waves, 

covering 44 months.

We chose 1990 and 2001 as our main points of observation because both 

years mark the start of a period of higher unemployment rates and decreased 

gross domestic product (GDP) growth, followed by increased GDP growth 

and an eventual decrease in unemployment (fig. 2). This pre- and post-reform 

comparison does limit our ability to draw conclusions about program participation because participation is determined by many factors other than the 

policies of the programs themselves. As a result, our analysis is primarily 

descriptive. However, we believe that 1990 and 2001 are good comparisons 

because economic conditions, which are a primary determinant of program 

use, were similar. In 2004, GDP growth was rising and unemployment was 

falling, making this observation point very different from both 1990 and 

2001 in terms of macroeconomic conditions. Changes in program participation and benefits observed between 2001 and 2004 may be due in part to the 

difference in macroeconomic environment.

Sample

Since we are particularly interested in children’s welfare, our unit of analysis 

throughout is the child. We restrict the sample to children younger than 18 at the 

first interview who are present for the first full calendar year of the survey. 

In the interest of including only potential participants, we further restrict the 

Figure 2

National unemployment and gross domestic product growth, 1980-2007

Percent

Source: ERS estimates based on annual average unemployment rate from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. GDP growth calculated from data reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Unemployment rate

Gross domestic product growth

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006
9

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

sample to children in households with income that falls below 300 percent of 

the Federal poverty line in any month of the first year of the panel. Although 

this income cutoff is much higher than the eligibility cutoff for the FSP (130 

percent of the poverty line) and reduced-price school meals or WIC (185 

percent), we use it here for two main reasons. First, many households experience large variations in their monthly income (Newman, 2006). Second, 

the link between WIC and Medicaid eligibility (which has a higher income 

cutoff than 185 percent in some States) means that some children in households with income over the 185-percent threshold will be eligible for WIC.12

For the rest of this report, we refer to this sample of children as a sample of 

children in “low-income” households for ease of presentation, even though 

the sample includes children in households with slightly higher incomes.

The final sample includes 11,856 children in the 1990 panel, 14,244 in the 

2001 panel, and 17,809 in the 2004 panel. We apply individual calendaryear sampling weights to all estimates reported and use STATA 10.1 survey 

commands to adjust standard errors to account for the complex survey design 

of each panel.

Program Measures

Because our unit of analysis is the child and not the household, our measures of 

program participation merit some explanation. We consider a child to be participating in a program if the child or a member of the child’s household received 

benefits from the program. Because participation information is collected for 

each month that a child remains in the sample, we have monthly measures of 

participation for AFDC/TANF and the three food assistance programs.13

We also examine the total amount of monthly benefits received by the household in which the child lives. The amount of AFDC/TANF program benefits 

is the total of reported cash benefits received by people in the household 

of the child.14 Similarly, the amount of FSP and WIC benefits is the total 

of reported benefits received by the household. The amount of school meal 

benefits is computed from the reported type of meals received (free/reducedprice, breakfast and/or lunch) and the number of children reported to receive 

the meals. We use the maximum reimbursement rate15 for each type of meal 

for the first school year in each panel. For example, in the 2000-2001 school 

year, the maximum reimbursement rate for a free lunch was $2.19. Assuming 

an average of 22 school days per month, we calculate a household with two children who received free school lunches in January 2001 to receive a benefit 

of $96.36 per month. Total household benefits from AFDC/TANF and food 

assistance programs are calculated for each child. All benefit amounts are 

converted to 2000 dollars using the monthly Consumer Price Index.16

Some differences in the benefits issued by these programs should be noted 

when interpreting findings on average benefit levels from these programs. 

Both AFDC/TANF and FSP benefits vary by income of the household or 

family—that is, the amount of monthly benefits decreases as income of the 

household or family increases.17 The value of the WIC food package does 

not vary across income, but it does vary across eligibility category (e.g., 

pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children). Our valuation for 

the school meals programs varies across the free and reduced-price classifications, but not within those categories.

13The FSP uses the household as the unit 

for receiving benefits, but the AFDC/TANF 

unit could be families or individuals, and 

both WIC and the school meals programs 

are targeted to individuals. Thus, our 

measure of household participation may not 

technically mean the child is a participant 

of the program, only that a child lives in the 

household of a program participant.

14It is unclear whether diversion payments or other lump sum payments provided 

through TANF, but not considered TANF 

cash assistance benefits, are captured with 

this measure or by the SIPP at all. 

15FNS provides maximum reimbursement 

rates at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/naps/NAPs00-01.pdf.

16Each program adjusts benefits differently or not at all (in the case of TANF), so 

deflating benefit amounts by the Consumer 

Price Index may not accurately reflect the 

changes in the real value of each program’s 

benefits, but it is the only way to compare 

changes across all programs.

17AFDC/TANF determines benefits for 

the family unit, and one household can have 

multiple families. On the other hand, FSP 

determines benefits for the household.

12We do not attempt to estimate eligibility 

or participation rates. 
10

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Underreporting Error

Data on participation in assistance programs are imperfect because survey 

respondents are known to underreport their participation. Underreporting 

can lead to error in the calculation of participation rates and in the characterization of program participants (Marquis and Moore, 1990; Bollinger and 

David, 1997, 2001; Meyer et al., 2009; Taeuber et al., 2004; Lynch et al., 

2008). Meyer et al. (2009) compared reporting error rates across 5 major 

national surveys and 10 transfer programs and found that SIPP had the lowest 

reporting error for many programs, including food assistance and TANF 

program participation and benefit receipt.18 They also found that reporting 

rates have declined over the years; however, again, the problem was not as 

pronounced in SIPP. In SIPP, the reporting rates for AFDC/TANF went from 

79 percent of the estimated participation level in 1983 to 62 percent in 2004. 

For the FSP, the same rate changed from 81 percent in 1983 to 80 percent 

in 2004—which is not a big decline, especially compared with that found 

in other surveys (Meyer et al., 2009). This decline presents a caveat for our 

findings because we find declines in the number of participants over time for 

AFDC/TANF overall and for the FSP for some groups—the magnitude of the 

declines may be overestimated due to increases in underreporting. However, 

given that the declines in the number of participants have been documented 

by administrative data and that we find increases in the number of those 

receiving WIC and school meals, the issue of underreporting is not likely to 

alter our qualitative findings.

Another important question for our analysis is whether underreporting 

error is compounded by examining combined program participation. This 

compounding might be a particular problem if individuals who participate in 

several programs are also more likely to underreport. Because we have limited 

our sample to low-income children, we do not expect large differences in 

reporting by income level, which might be one way individuals who participate in several programs would underreport. So, we have not attempted to 

correct for underreporting error in this study. As Meyer et al. (2009) point out, 

correcting for underreporting for different subgroups is problematic and at best 

can only be done based on observable characteristics using such techniques 

as propensity score matching (Scholz et al., 2008). These corrections cannot 

account for unobservable factors that contribute to underreporting, which are 

likely to be important in determining the accuracy of respondent reports. We 

are mindful of the potential for bias, and we hope to investigate the particular 

issue of how multiple program participation estimation is affected by underreporting error in future research. Our results are consistent, however, with those 

of studies that have made corrections, such as Scholz et al. (2008).

18In SIPP, they found that approximately 

80 percent of FSP benefit dollars were reported over the years examined, whereas in 

the other surveys (CPS, the Panel of Survey 

and Income Dynamics (PSID), the American 

Community Survey (ACS), and the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE)), almost 60 

percent of FSP benefits were reported. The 

reporting rate for TANF benefits in SIPP 

was also found to be better than in the CPS, 

PSID, or CE, but it was still much lower 

than one would want, at around 60 percent 

in recent years. 
11

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Changes in Program Participation 

and Beneficiary Characteristics

The sample characteristics, as reported for January of the first year of each 

panel, show several important changes across SIPP panels (table 1). First, 

the average age of the children increased slightly from 8.47 in 1990 to 8.83 in 

2004. The share of White children decreased 14 percentage points to 52 percent 

between 1990 and 2004, whereas the share of Hispanic children increased 10 

percentage points to 23 percent. The share of children living in households 

with heads of household who were employed decreased from 80 percent to 71 

percent between 1990 and 2004, with half of the decrease occurring after 2001. 

The education level of household heads increased on average, with a smaller 

share of children living in households with heads who had only a high school 

diploma and a greater share in households with heads who had some college 

education. Children were more likely in 2004 than in 1990 to live in households with heads who were not married. Average monthly household income 

from earnings in the households in which the children lived increased by over 

$200 between 1990 and 2001 but decreased below the 1990 level in 2004. This 

drop in average household earnings is surprising, given falling unemployment 

and rising GDP growth in 2004 compared with falling GDP growth and rising 

unemployment in 2001. Total income from all sources showed a similar pattern.

These changes in characteristics suggest that changes in program participation 

may be partly driven by changes in the racial/ethnic composition of the sample 

population (and their underlying propensity to participate in different programs) 

and in marital and employment status and overall education levels of the household heads. Otherwise, household size, structure, and composition appear to 

be rather stable over time, with about 2 adults and 2.5 children per child’s 

household. In addition, the results do not show much variation in the number of 

working adults or in the age composition of children in children’s households, 

except for the slight increase in average age of the sample noted above.

Program Participation and Average 

Monthly Benefit Amounts

Changes in the share of children in low-income households receiving AFDC/

TANF and each of the three food assistance programs in January of the first 

year of each SIPP panel are consistent with the administrative data in 

figure 1 (table 2). The share of children in households receiving AFDC/

TANF fell from 12 to 6 percent between 1990 and 2001. The share in households receiving FSP benefits between 1990 and 2004 fluctuated from 17 

percent in 1990 to 14 percent in 2001 and to 19 percent in 2004. The share in 

households receiving school meals and WIC continually increased, up to 43 

and 15 percent by 2004, respectively.

Changes in Beneficiary Characteristics

We compare the characteristics of children in low-income households that 

received benefits from each of the four programs between 1990 and 2004 

(table 3). The sample for each program is restricted to children in lowincome households that received benefits from AFDC/TANF, the FSP, the 

school meals programs, or WIC in January of each year. The samples are not 

mutually exclusive because the households could receive benefits from more 

than one program at any given time. We highlight the major changes in the 
12

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1

Characteristics of children in households with income below 300 percent of the Federal poverty line, 

1990, 2001 and 20041

Characteristics

1990 2001 2004

Mean

Standard

error Mean

Standard

error Mean

Standard

error

Age (years) 8.47 0.06 8.84 0.04 8.83 0.04

Male (percent) 51.34 0.55 51.22 0.33 51.33 0.42

White (percent) 65.96 0.86 56.77 1.18 51.92 0.88

Black (percent) 16.76 0.72 17.70 0.13 17.83 0.15

Hispanic (percent) 13.21 0.60 20.44 0.34 23.35 0.55

Asian (percent) 3.42 3.54 1.54 0.35 2.57 0.23

Household size (number of people) 4.62 0.01 4.65 0.01 4.63 0.00

Adults (number) 2.02 0.01 2.04 0.02 2.01 0.00

Working adults (number) 1.39 0.01 1.46 0.01 1.37 0.02

Children younger than 2 (number) 0.29 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.25 0.00

Children ages 2-4 (number) 0.44 0.02 0.40 0.01 0.42 0.01

Children ages 5-12 (number) 1.18 0.01 1.21 0.01 1.19 0.01

Children ages 13-17 (number) 0.60 0.01 0.66 0.02 0.68 0.00

Head employed (percent) 80.17 3,976.06 76.45 0.50 70.82 0.63

Household total monthly income (dollars)2 3,357.26 40.88 3,511.51 19.01 3,285.68 23.81

Household monthly earned income (dollars)2 2,963.64 2.38 3,181.87 18.33 2,930.25 30.34

Monthly income-to-poverty ratio 213.85 1.85 222.50 0.08 207.00 1.45

Annual average income-to-poverty ratio 211.33 0.01 223.18 1.92 211.54 0.82

Household structure is nuclear (percent) 81.90 0.45 79.85 0.31 80.04 0.68

Household structure is vertical (percent) 6.59 0.57 6.41 0.30 7.58 0.33

Household structure is complex (percent) 11.45 0.85 13.72 0.62 12.37 0.36

Head has less than high school (percent) 25.33 0.85 21.81 0.77 21.06 0.21

Head has high school degree (percent) 36.81 0.69 31.40 0.55 25.19 0.33

Head has some college (percent) 21.52 0.44 22.76 0.48 30.50 0.35

Head completed college (percent) 7.21 0.45 19.32 0.08 19.37 0.48

Head completed post-graduate (percent) 7.87 0.65 4.72 0.18 3.88 0.01

Head married (percent) 73.25 0.45 67.23 0.06 64.42 0.60

Children (number) 11,856 NA 14,244 NA 17,809 NA

Nuclear household structure = Household includes only parents (single or not) and children. Vertical household structure = Household includes a 

third generation (either grandparents or grandchildren). Complex household structure = Household includes extended family members or 

nonfamily members. NA = Not applicable.

1Children are included if they are younger than 18 at the first wave, are observed to live in a household with income below 300 percent of 

the Federal poverty line during 1 month in the first year of the panel, and are observed during the entire first calendar year. Weighted means 

reported; first calendar year weights applied; standard errors adjusted for complex survey design.

2Income reported in 2000 dollars.

Source: ERS estimates based on Survey of Income and Program Participation data from the 1990, 2001 and 2004 panels (month of January).
13

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

composition of children in households benefiting from each program, as well 

as how the changes compare across programs.

The average age of children in households receiving AFDC/TANF benefits 

increased more than 1 year, from 7.37 to 8.45. This increase in age is nearly 

three times larger than the increase observed in the full sample of children 

in table 1. The proportion of Hispanic children increased from 19 to 28 

percent, a change of magnitude similar to the full sample, whereas the share 

in all other ethnic/race groups declined. Average household composition also 

shifted. The average number of working adults in each household increased 

(although it still remains below one), perhaps reflecting the increased 

emphasis/requirement of work for TANF participants. The number of schoolaged children (in particular, children older than 12) in each household also 

increased, while the number of children younger than 5 decreased.

AFDC/TANF households reported receiving more earned and total monthly 

income in 2001 than they did in 1990 and, correspondingly, had a higher 

income-to-poverty ratio in January and over the year. This increase in earnings among AFDC/TANF households is fairly substantial—about $200 per 

month, or $2,400 per year. The 2004 figure is higher, at almost $250 greater 

per month than in 1990. Consistent with the averages reported in table 1, 

AFDC/TANF household heads had higher average education levels in 2001 

than in 1990. The same trends in income (through 2001) and education levels 

of household heads are observed for all four programs.

Children in households benefiting from the FSP in January exhibited many 

of the same trends as children in AFDC/TANF households. The average age 

increased, although not as dramatically, from 7.70 to 8.22, and the share of 

Hispanic children increased. The number of working adults in households 

also increased, while the number of children younger than 5 decreased. Total 

household income from earnings also increased for children in households 

receiving FSP benefits in both 2001 and 2004 compared with that of 1990.

Table 2

Household participation in AFDC/TANF and food assistance programs 

for children (younger than 18) in households with income below 300 

percent of the Federal poverty line, 1990, 2001 and 2004

Program from which 

children’s households 

receive benefits

1990 2001 2004

Mean

Standard

error Mean

Standard

error Mean

Standard

error

Percent

AFDC/TANF 11.64 0.65 5.64 0.19 5.88 0.48

FSP 17.00 0.74 13.61 0.26 19.13 0.15

School meals 28.16 0.87 36.89 0.17 42.94 0.88

WIC 6.93 0.47 13.01 0.47 15.44 0.46

Number

Children 11,856 NA 14,244 NA 17,809 NA

AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families. NA = Not applicable.

Note: Weighted means reported; first calendar year weights applied; standard errors 

adjusted for complex survey design.

Source: ERS estimates based on Survey of Income and Program Participation data from the 

1990, 2001, and 2004 panels (month of January)
14

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 3Characteristics of children in households with income below 300 percent of the Federal poverty line, by household program participation status, 1990, 2001, and 2004

AFDC/TANF FSP School meals WIC

1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004

Age (years) 7.37 8.45 8.58 7.70 8.22 8.14 9.07 9.35 9.48 5.22 5.52 5.45

Male (percent) 47.96 49.44 49.80 49.58 52.64 50.95 50.81 52.01 51.96 49.17 50.76 49.96

White (percent) 30.98 28.18 27.47 35.10 30.27 30.93 38.23 33.97 33.54 43.57 34.16 30.67

Black (percent) 43.37 37.45 34.65 39.48 36.99 34.74 33.19 27.10 26.76 32.46 22.93 21.41

Hispanic (percent) 18.75 28.47 30.14 19.98 26.80 26.77 23.43 33.86 33.15 20.70 37.55 41.44

Asian (percent) 5.75 1.74 2.62 4.43 3.37 1.48 4.29 2.55 1.87 1.25 3.13 1.88

Household size (number of people) 5.11 5.21 4.97 5.09 4.99 4.91 5.23 5.11 4.93 5.44 5.39 5.29

Adults (number) 1.78 1.87 1.83 1.82 1.86 1.80 1.93 2.00 1.93 2.02 2.21 2.16

Working adults (number) 0.44 0.74 0.67 0.59 0.87 0.83 1.03 1.27 1.19 0.95 1.30 1.30

Children younger than 2 (number) 0.54 0.41 0.35 0.47 0.33 0.34 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.92 0.76 0.76

Children ages 2-4 (number) 0.65 0.54 0.54 0.61 0.54 0.58 0.47 0.39 0.39 0.91 0.79 0.77

Children ages 5-12 (number) 1.45 1.56 1.29 1.44 1.48 1.41 1.70 1.63 1.53 1.02 1.12 1.09

Children ages 13-17 (number) 0.60 0.75 0.87 0.66 0.69 0.68 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.48 0.41 0.41

Head employed (percent) 23.34 39.52 38.11 35.58 48.38 50.20 62.14 66.48 64.90 58.16 61.12 62.48

Household total monthly income (dollars)1 1,388.15 1,465.84 1,582.32 1,358.07 1,514.82 1,486.09 1,999.67 2,353.14 2,313.13 1,797.74 2,359.18 2,310.78

Household monthly earned income (dollars)1 578.15 773.99 826.17 725.05 1,055.94 1,027.16 1,529.48 1,977.62 1,911.95 1,354.53 2,026.27 1,975.33

Monthly Income-to-poverty ratio 78.26 82.40 88.87 76.61 87.14 86.69 114.49 136.67 137.03 99.44 131.78 128.97

Annual average Income-to-poverty ratio 83.27 90.14 100.71 83.05 94.79 95.64 118.64 143.35 145.49 103.69 137.18 136.71

Household structure is nuclear (percent) 60.41 60.34 60.60 66.51 66.20 69.18 73.63 72.37 75.15 65.88 64.76 67.07

Household structure is vertical (percent) 20.91 13.52 20.78 15.59 10.88 13.92 11.32 8.60 9.71 18.42 12.36 12.94

Household structure is complex (percent) 18.69 26.14 18.62 17.89 22.92 16.90 15.01 19.01 15.14 15.70 22.89 19.97

Head has less than high school (percent) 51.19 50.10 38.77 51.00 47.22 36.46 44.41 37.74 31.92 48.60 40.01 36.88

Head has high school degree (percent) 34.18 30.62 28.64 33.05 29.93 28.88 35.40 32.18 26.91 36.94 32.39 26.84

Head has some college (percent) 13.73 16.55 23.96 14.11 17.70 27.96 14.45 19.66 30.27 12.50 16.41 25.47

Head completed college (percent) 0.41 2.38 6.32 0.37 4.90 5.91 2.73 9.01 9.69 0.90 10.22 9.34

Head has post-graduate (percent) 0.27 0.35 2.30 1.17 0.25 0.80 2.47 1.41 1.21 0.83 0.97 1.47

Head married (percent) 26.77 33.55 28.71 37.93 35.25 33.29 55.24 53.11 51.65 61.69 59.54 60.23

Children (number) 1,581 846 1,064 2,215 2,069 3,731 3,544 5,398 7,917 876 1,933 2,865

AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; FSP = Food Stamp Program; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children. Nuclear household structure = Household includes only parents (single or not) and children. Vertical household structure = Household includes a third generation (either grandparents or grandchildren). Complex household structure = Household includes extended family members or nonfamily members.

Note: Weighted means reported; first calendar year weights applied.1Income reported in 2000 dollars. Source: ERS estimates based on Survey of Income and Program Participation data from the 1990, 2001, and 2004 panels (month of January).
15

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

The average age of children in households receiving school meals or WIC 

increased between 1990 and 2004, consistent with that observed in the full 

sample. The share of Hispanic children in households receiving WIC or 

school meals increased, most notably for WIC. There were fewer young 

children in households that received WIC benefits in 2001 and 2004 than in 

1990. Unlike for the other three programs, changes in household structure 

were apparent among children in WIC households. The share of children in 

WIC-participating vertically structured households (those with a grandparent 

or grandchild present) fell, but the share living in even more complex households (those with extended kin or unrelated family members) rose.

Multiple Program Participation and 

Average Monthly Benefit Amounts

We examine the extent of joint program participation among children and how 

total household benefits from each program changed over time. Each panel in 

table 4 summarizes joint participation for children in households receiving one 

of the four programs examined. The top section of each panel reports the share 

of children in households that participated in each of the other programs. For 

example, panel A shows the share of children in households participating in 

AFDC/TANF that also participated in the FSP, the school meals programs, and 

WIC. Panel B shows the share of children in households participating in the 

FSP that also participated in AFDC/TANF, school meals, and WIC.

The bottom section of each panel of table 4 shows average monthly household 

benefits received from each program and the total from all four programs. For 

a given program, the average household monthly benefit for all households 

that participated is shown by matching the row for that program’s benefits to 

the corresponding column of participants in that program. For example, the 

average benefit received by children in AFDC/TANF households, excluding 

any households that did not participate in AFDC/TANF (and therefore any zero 

amounts), is shown in the AFDC/TANF row. The benefits from other programs 

(in the other rows) include zero amounts if the child’s household did not receive 

that particular program as well. For example, the average food stamp benefits 

received by all AFDC/TANF participants include the zero amounts received by 

children in households that did not receive FSP benefits. This accounting method 

allows us to sum the average monthly household benefits from all four programs.

Panel A shows participation and mean household benefit levels for children in households receiving AFDC/TANF. Most of these households also 

received benefits from at least one other program. The share of children in 

households that received both AFDC/TANF and FSP benefits declined from 

89 percent in 1990 to 83 percent in 2001. In contrast, the share of children in 

households that received both AFDC/TANF and school meals rose from 69 

to 80 percent, and the share in households that received both AFDC/TANF 

and WIC rose from 24 to 37 percent. The decline in the share of children in 

households receiving both AFDC/TANF and FSP benefits is surprising given 

that the households are still categorically eligible for the FSP.

The bottom section of panel A shows that the average monthly household benefits from AFDC/TANF for children in households that received AFDC/TANF 

dropped almost 40 percent from $586 in 1990 to $349 in 2001 and remained low 

($365) in 2004. Not only were there fewer children in households that received 
16

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 4

Cross-program household participation and mean household benefits for children in households with 

income below 300 percent of the Federal poverty line, 1990, 2001, and 2004

Panel A: AFDC recipients

AFDC/TANF

Cross-program participation 

and benefits 1990 2001 2004

Share of children in 

households that receive 

benefits from:

Percent

AFDC/TANF 100 100 100

FSP 89 83 87

School meals 69 80 77

WIC 24 37 35

Mean monthly household 

benefits from:

In 2000 dollars

AFDC/TANF 586 349 365

FSP 292 224 250

School meals 106 146 120

WIC 19 20 20

All four programs 1,002 739 755

Number

Children 1,581 846 1,064

Panel B: FSP recipients

FSP

Cross-program participation 

and benefits 1990 2001 2004

Share of children in 

households that receive 

benefits from:

Percent

AFDC/TANF 61 34 27

FSP 100 100 100

School meals 73 79 77

WIC 24 34 34

Mean monthly household 

benefits from:

In 2000 dollars

AFDC/TANF 360 123 96

FSP 319 258 285

School meals 114 136 122

WIC 19 18 19

All four programs 840 535 522

Number

Children 2,215 2,069 3,731

Panel C: School meals recipients

School meals

Cross-program participation 

and benefits 1990 2001 2004

Share of children in 

households that receive 

benefits from:

Percent

AFDC/TANF 29 12 11

FSP 44 29 34

School meals 100 100 100

WIC 13 20 20

Mean monthly household 

benefits from:

In 2000 dollars

AFDC/TANF 169 43 40

FSP 151 79 104

School meals 136 147 134

WIC 10 10 11

All four programs 482 278 288

Number

Children 3,544 5,398 7,917

Panel D: WIC recipients

WIC

Cross-program participation 

and benefits 1990 2001 2004

Share of children in 

households that receive 

benefits from:

Percent

AFDC/TANF 41 16 13

FSP 60 36 43

School meals 52 56 56

WIC 100 100 100

Mean monthly household 

benefits from:

In 2000 dollars

AFDC/TANF 237 64 48

FSP 213 101 125

School meals 73 82 74

WIC 74 52 55

All four programs 606 298 302

Number

Children 876 1,933 2,865

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children; TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; FSP = Food Stamp Program. WIC = 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

Notes: Amounts in italics are the means among participants only. All other mean benefit amounts include zero values for children whose household does not participate in the other program. Weighted means reported; first calendar year weights applied.

Source: ERS estimates based on Survey of Income and Program Participation data from the 1990, 2001, and 2004 panels.
17

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

AFDC/TANF benefits in 2004, but the average amount that the households 

received was also lower than it was in 1990. Given the increase in earnings 

among AFDC/TANF households and the fact that TANF operates as a block 

grant with no inflation adjustments, this decrease in average monthly benefits 

is not surprising. For children in AFDC/TANF households, the average 

monthly household benefit from the FSP dropped from $292 in 1990 to $224 

in 2001, the benefit from school meals rose from $106 to $146 in 2001 and 

then fell to $120 in 2004, and the benefit from WIC barely changed. Overall, 

total program benefits among children in households that received AFDC/

TANF decreased from $1,002 per month in 1990 to $739 and $755 per 

month in 2001 and 2004, respectively.

The decline in receiving both FSP and AFDC/TANF benefits is also observed 

among children in households that participated in the FSP program (table 4, 

panel B). In contrast, joint receipt of FSP and WIC benefits increased. The 

average monthly household FSP benefit decreased from $319 to $258 between 

1990 and 2001, although it increased to $285 by 2004. In 2001, the average 

monthly household AFDC/TANF benefit received by FSP beneficiaries dropped 

from $360 in 1990 to a third of that in 2001 and dropped even further in 2004. 

WIC benefits for children in FSP households did not change greatly over the 

period, despite the 10-percentage-point increase in joint participation. Between 

1990 and 2001, the increase in monthly household school meals benefits among 

children in FSP households was greater in percentage terms than the increase in 

joint participation, rising nearly 20 percent from $114 to $136 but dropping to 

$122 in 2004, which coincided with a small decline in joint participation. The 

drop from $840 to $535 in total monthly household program benefits for children in FSP households between 1990 and 2001 was even larger than the drop 

in benefits for children in AFDC/TANF households. Total monthly FSP benefits 

dropped even further to $522 by 2004.

Examining joint program participation provides insight into how school 

meals (table 4, panel C) and WIC (table 4, panel D) have expanded since 

1990. Whereas children in households receiving AFDC/TANF and FSP 

benefits were more likely to benefit from school meals or WIC in 2001 and 

2004 compared with those in 1990, the opposite is not true. For children in 

school meals or WIC households, the share that also received AFDC/TANF 

declined by more than 50 percent between 1990 and 2001 and the share that 

also received FSP declined by 30 percent. By 2004, the overall drop from 

1990 in the share of children in school meals or WIC households that also 

received FSP benefits was more than 20 percent. This decline suggests that 

the increase in the share of children in households receiving school meals and 

WIC may have been due partly to a rise in participation among households 

with income in the higher range of eligibility, which would exclude them 

from both the FSP and TANF. To understand these dynamics better, we later 

examine changes over time in the different types of transfers received by 

children in households of different poverty levels.

The share of children in school meals households that also received WIC 

jumped from 13 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 2001 and remained at 20 

percent in 2004. The converse (WIC participants receiving school meals) rose 

only slightly from 52 to 56 percent between 1990 and 2001 and remained at 56 

percent in 2004. These differences in changes in joint participation may simply 

be due to differences in household structure and the specific age groups targeted 
18

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

by each program. Regardless, the increase in joint participation suggests that 

households are tapping into more programs during the post-PRWORA era.

For children in households receiving school meals and WIC, the mean 

monthly household benefit from AFDC/TANF dropped markedly between 

1990 and 2004. The benefit from FSP for this group also fell over the 

period—by more than 50 percent between 1990 and 2001—but rebounded 

somewhat in 2004. For children in households receiving school meals, the 

average monthly WIC benefit barely changed during the period. For children 

in households receiving WIC benefits, the average monthly school meals 

benefit rose between 1990 and 2001 but fell in 2004.

The large declines in total monthly household benefits for children in all four 

programs stem from the relative decline in AFDC/TANF participation and 

the fluctuation in household FSP participation, which may at least partially 

reflect changing economic conditions. The rise in household participation in 

WIC and school meals, both in combination with other programs and as a 

single program, has clearly contributed to lower monthly household benefits. 

Both programs offer lower benefits to households with higher incomes 

than do TANF and FSP. An analysis of participation and benefit levels by 

pre-transfer household income will shed further light on how and why total 

household program benefits have declined.

Changes in Program Bundling

Our tabulations up to now have examined the extent to which a child benefits 

from two programs concurrently. Next, we examine how the four programs 

are combined by looking at program bundles for children in households 

receiving each of the four programs in January 1990, 2001, and 2004. Figure 3 

Figure 3

Participation of low-income children in multiple program bundles, 1990, 2001, and 2004 

Percent of all children

AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children; SCH = school meals; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children; FSP = Food Stamp Program.

Notes: Children are from households with income below 300 percent of the Federal poverty line. AFDC/TANF-only participation is below 

1 percent and is excluded from this figure. Participation rates in all 16 program bundles for each year, including no programs, are presented in

the appendix. Weighted means reported; first calendar year weights applied.

Source: ERS estimates based on Survey of Income and Program Participation data from the 1990, 2001, and 2004 panels (month of January).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004

AFDC/TANF FSP WIC School Lunch

WIC only

School Lunch only

AFDC/TANF and one food 

assistance program

AFDC/TANF and two food 

assistance programs

Two food assistance programs

Three food assistance programs

All four programs

FSP only
19

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

summarizes program bundling; tabulations for each of 15 program bundles 

for each year are reported in the appendix table. Note that summing the bars 

over all programs will result in more than 100 percent because the segments 

representing joint participation in programs appear in each single program 

bar (for example, FSP and AFDC/TANF bundling are represented in both the 

FSP and the AFDC/TANF program bars).

Between 1990 and 2004, the share of children in households that received 

no program benefits fell from 65 percent to 48 percent (appendix table). 

In contrast, the share in households that received benefits from all four 

programs has been fairly constant at roughly 2-3 percent over the period.

Among children in AFDC/TANF households, the most common bundle was 

AFDC/TANF and two food assistance programs (mainly the FSP and school 

meals). Among children in the FSP in 1990, the most common bundle was 

also AFDC/TANF and two food assistance programs (one of which was Food 

Stamps). But in 2001 and 2004, the most common bundle among children in 

the FSP was two food assistance programs (mainly FSP and school meals). The 

share of children in households that received any combination of program benefits 

that included AFDC/TANF dropped (receiving AFDC/TANF benefits alone 

was below 1 percent in each year and is therefore left out of the figure to simplify 

presentation). The biggest declines between 1990 and 2001 were for AFDC/

TANF bundled with one or two food assistance programs (mainly FSP and school 

meals). For children in FSP households, all bundles that included AFDC/TANF 

fell and all other bundles, especially all three food assistance programs, rose.

The patterns among children in WIC and school meals households are much 

different. The share of children in households that received only WIC benefits 

doubled between 1990 and 2001. In addition, the share of children in households 

that received benefits from WIC and one or two other food assistance programs 

rose significantly. The most notable change to bundles with school meals is an 

increase of over 50 percent in the share of children in households that received 

only school meals and the near doubling in the share of children in households 

that bundle with either one or both of the other food assistance programs. In 

2004, these trends essentially continued, except that the share in households 

receiving only WIC benefits leveled off. The share of children in households that 

received benefits from all four programs declined only slightly.

Income From Transfers by Pre-Transfer Household Income

We examine changes in average monthly household benefits and participation in each of the programs by a household’s level of pre-transfer income. 

We grouped children according to household income from earnings and other 

sources (excluding AFDC/TANF, SSI, and other means-tested cash transfers) 

relative to the poverty line for the household.19 The household income groups 

are as follows: less than 50 percent of the Federal poverty line (the poorest 

of the poor), 50-99 percent (poor), 100-129 percent (likely eligible for FSP), 

130-184 percent (likely eligible for school meals and WIC), 185-249 percent 

(likely eligible for WIC through adjunctive eligibility for Medicare), and 

250 percent or more of the Federal poverty line (low income, but not likely 

eligible for food assistance). Figure 4 and table 5 show the average benefit 

amount (in constant 2000 dollars) received per month for each child’s household from different sources of means-tested public assistance for children in 

each of these groups for each SIPP survey year.

19In SIPP, total household income 

includes only amounts received from cash 

assistance programs. FSP, WIC, and school 

meals benefits are considered to be in-kind 

and are not counted. Therefore, we did not 

have to exclude these benefits to determine a 

household’s pre-transfer income.
20

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

For the neediest (children in households with pre-transfer income below 50 

percent of the Federal poverty level), average monthly household benefits 

decreased substantially between 1990 and 2001 and through 2004. The 

greatest fall was in AFDC/TANF benefits, which declined from $369 in 2001 

to $97 in 2004. This group’s average monthly FSP benefit also decreased, 

from $259 in 1990 to $155 in 2001, rebounding to $197 in 2004. Benefits 

from school meals and WIC changed little, but benefits from other cash assistance programs (SSI and other welfare) increased sizably, from $90 in 1990 

to $142 in 2001 and to $148 in 2004.20

Changes in average monthly household benefits for children in other income 

groups did not swing as greatly, and for those in households with incomes 

between 50 and 100 percent of the Federal poverty level, average monthly benefits were about the same. For those in households with incomes between 50 and 

100 percent of the poverty line, a sizable increase in the average monthly household benefit from other cash assistance (mainly SSI) and a small increase in FSP 

benefits made up for decreases in AFDC/TANF benefits. However, total benefits 

for those in households with pre-transfer income above the poverty line generally increased between 1990 and 2004. Increases in average monthly household 

benefits from school meals, FSP, and other cash assistance programs account 

for higher total average benefits. Increases in household WIC benefits were also 

notable, but the levels were much smaller than the benefits from other programs.

The results from table 5 suggest that since PRWORA, children in households with very low earnings and other income may not benefit from safety 

net programs (most notably AFDC/TANF and FSP) to the same degree that 

they did in the early 1990s. Children in the poorest households (pre-transfer 

Figure 4

Household income from assistance programs by household pre-transfer income for children 

in households with income below 300 percent of the Federal poverty line, 1990, 2001, and 2004 

Dollars per month (in 2000 dollars)

FPL = Federal poverty level; AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; 

FSP = Food Stamp Program; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

Note: Weighted means reported; first calendar year weights applied.

Source: ERS estimates based on Survey of Income and Program Participation data from the 1990, 2001, and 2004 panels (month of January).

1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004

<50% FPL

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

FSP

WIC

School meals

Other cash 

assistance

AFDC/TANF

1990 2001 2004 1990 2001 2004

50-99% FPL 100-129% FPL 130-184% FPL 185-249% FPL >=259% FPL

Pre-transfer income relative to poverty line

20SSI is a cash assistance program 

designed to help aged, blind, and disabled 

people with little or no income. The average 

benefit provided by the program is larger 

than benefits from other assistance programs. Although the program is not the main 

focus of this report, we include benefits from 

the program (and any other welfare income) 

in figure 4 and table 5 because children in 

households with very low or no earnings 

may themselves have received SSI or have 

a parent or other household member who is 

disabled and received the benefit.
21

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 5Average monthly household income from various sources by pre-transfer income relative to the Federal poverty line for children in households with income below 300 percent of the Federal poverty line, 1990, 2001, and 2004

Assistance programs Earnings and other income

Pre-transfer income

SIPP panel

(percent of

children)

AFDC/TANF FSP School meals WIC Other assistance

programs1

Total Earnings income Total Total resources

In 2000 dollars

<50% FPL 1990 (14.3) 369 259 100 15 90 832 133 67 200 1,033

2001 (11.3) 111 155 117 14 142 540 170 95 265 8052004 (14.6) 97 197 108 15 148 564 150 111 261 825

50-99% FPL 1990 (10.8) 71 99 92 14 32 308 1,080 271 1,351 1,659

2001 (13.0) 24 74 106 12 53 269 1,041 219 1,260 1,5282004 (13.0) 23 107 99 13 57 299 981 300 1,281 1,581

100-129% FPL 1990 (7.3) 36 38 60 7 19 161 1,633 287 1,920 2,081

2001 (8.9) 18 38 87 11 57 212 1,632 268 1,899 2,112

2004 (9.2) 18 57 87 14 65 241 1,661 268 1,929 2,169

130-184% FPL 1990 (15.0) 18 13 35 3 17 86 2,265 299 2,564 2,650

2001 (16.1) 10 18 57 7 32 125 2,296 248 2,544 2,6682004 (17.1) 8 20 58 9 40 135 2,283 257 2,540 2,675

185 - 249% FPL 1990 (18.4) 9 6 16 2 13 46 3,170 292 3,462 3,508

2001 (17.6) 3 5 32 5 17 62 3,217 267 3,485 3,5462004 (17.3) 4 12 39 6 19 80 3,191 287 3,478 3,558

>=250% FPL 1990 (34.3) 3 2 5 1 7 18 5,211 413 5,624 5,642

2001 (33.2) 1 3 14 2 12 31 5,866 361 6,227 6,2582004 (28.8) 2 4 15 2 8 32 5,851 386 6,237 6,268

SIPP = Survey of Income and Program Participation; AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; FSP = Food Stamp Program; 

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; FPL = Federal poverty level.

Note: Weighted means reported; first calendar year weights applied.1Other Assistance programs include Supplemental Security Income and other welfare.Source: ERS estimates based on SIPP data from the 1990, 2001, and 2004 panels (month of January).
22

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

income below 50 percent of the Federal poverty line) have fewer resources 

in 2001 and 2004 than they did in 1990. Average monthly household benefits 

from AFDC/TANF and FSP declined over the period, while monthly household income from other cash assistance programs increased and monthly 

household benefits from WIC and school meals remained constant. Overall, 

total monthly household program benefits for this group decreased by 33 

percent. Although monthly household earnings and other income increased 

slightly for the poorest group, the amount of increased earnings is only a fifth 

of the decline in total household program benefits. These findings are consistent with those who have cited income declines among households with 

nonworking, nonelderly adults (Blank, 2008; Scholz et al., 2008; Sherman, 

2009). Although the share of children in households with income below 50 

percent of poverty declined as a share of children in the sample in 2001, the 

share rebounded to its 1990 level (14 percent) in 2004.

For children in the other income groups, total monthly household resources 

were unchanged or up slightly. For the groups in households with income 

between 100 and 250 percent of poverty, total monthly household resources 

increased because monthly household benefits from means-tested programs 

were up. For the highest income group, monthly household earnings and 

benefits from means-tested programs both increased. One important caveat is 

that we have not included the value of the household EITC for any children. 

However, for the poorest group who experienced the greatest decline in total 

monthly household transfer benefits, the EITC would be quite small because 

they have very low household earnings.

For the poorest children whose households depend almost entirely on transfer 

income, total monthly household benefits from four assistance programs declined 

by 44 percent between 1990 and 2004. Their monthly household AFDC/TANF 

benefits fell by 74 percent, and their monthly household FSP benefits fell by 

24 percent. Other monthly household cash assistance benefits for this group 

more than doubled, making up for some of the shortfall. Table 6 provides 

mean values for some selected household characteristics for children in each 

income group. We see that part of the decline in monthly household program 

benefits among children in the poorest households can be explained by lower 

levels of household receipt of AFDC/TANF and FSP. This reduction in 

receipt of these two programs is particularly surprising given that household 

pre-transfer income is so low and that the increase in receipt of other cash 

assistance is not nearly as large as the decline.

Turnover Rates by Program

A comparison of the turnover rates over time for each program can highlight 

the extent to which the flow of individuals on and off programs has changed. 

Following Long (1990), we define the turnover rate as the number of children 

in households that received benefits from a given program at any time during 

the year divided by the average number of such children in a month. The higher 

the rate, the greater the number of children whose household benefits from the 

program over the course of a year compared with an average month (table 7).

In 1990, AFDC had the lowest turnover rate (1.24), whereas WIC had the 

highest (1.50). In other words, AFDC participation was more stable over a 

year relative to WIC participation, which may not be surprising given the 

entitlement status of AFDC in 1990 and given WIC’s categorical eligibility 
23

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 6Characteristics of children’s households by household pre-transfer income relative to the Federal poverty line for children in households with income below 300 percent of the Federal poverty line, 1990, 2001, and 2004

Share of children living in a household where someone 

reports receiving benefits from these programs

Pre-transfer Income

SIPP panel

(percent of

children)

AFDC/TANF FSP School meals WIC SSI Household size Working adults in household Age of household head Household head employed

---------------------------------Percent--------------------------------- -------Number------- Years Percent

<50% FPL 1990 (14.3) 60 74 65 20 12 4.65 0.35 34.93 24

2001 (11.3) 31 54 69 27 20 4.70 0.49 35.77 32

2004 (14.6) 25 61 69 27 19 4.66 0.51 36.90 34

50-99% FPL 1990 (10.8) 14 35 60 18 6 5.30 1.12 37.05 72

2001 (13.0) 7 31 65 23 9 4.85 1.05 37.43 65

2004 (13.0) 7 39 67 24 9 4.88 1.01 37.83 62

100-129% FPL 1990 (7.3) 8 13 47 9 5 4.85 1.28 37.24 84

2001 (8.9) 5 16 59 21 9 4.81 1.32 37.66 73

2004 (9.2) 6 22 62 23 8 4.87 1.28 37.53 68

130-184% FPL 1990 (15.0) 3 5 32 4 3 4.67 1.46 37.06 88

2001 (16.1) 4 7 43 14 6 4.70 1.48 37.88 81

2004 (17.1) 2 10 49 18 6 4.67 1.45 37.69 77

185 - 249% FPL 1990 (18.4) 2 3 13 3 3 4.60 1.60 37.43 92

2001 (17.6) 1 2 26 10 2 4.60 1.70 38.59 86

2004 (17.3) 1 5 34 12 3 4.59 1.64 38.82 82

>=250% FPL 1990 (34.3) 1 1 5 1 1 4.32 1.78 38.74 96

2001 (33.2) 0 1 12 3 1 4.50 1.85 39.76 90

2004 (28.8) 1 2 15 4 1 4.42 1.78 39.53 84

SIPP = Survey of Income and Program Participation; AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; FSP = Food Stamp Program; 

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; SSI = Supplemental Security Income; FPL = Federal poverty level.

Note: Weighted means reported; first calendar year weights applied.Source: ERS estimates based on SIPP data from the 1990, 2001, and 2004 panels (month of January).
24

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

restrictions (pregnant women, women who are at most 1 year post-partum, 

and children younger than 5). However, in 2001 and 2004, the TANF turnover rate was the highest among all the programs (1.61 and 1.57, respectively), confirming results from other studies that have examined cycling 

on and off of TANF (Richburg-Hayes and Freedman, 2004). The decline 

in the share of children in households that benefit from AFDC/TANF (as 

observed in January of each year, table 1) masks the increase cycling into 

and out of the program over the course of a year. The turnover rate for FSP 

also increased from 1.29 in 1990 to 1.45 in 2001, but it dropped down to a 

rate similar to that of 1990 by 2004 (1.32). Turnover rates for both WIC and 

school meals dropped steadily from 1990 to 2004.

Table 7

Turnover rates for AFDC/TANF, FSP, WIC and school meals programs, 

1990, 2001, and 20041

Program 1990 2001 2004

AFDC/TANF 1.24 1.61 1.57

Change from 1990 (percent) NA 30.1 26.3

FSP 1.29 1.45 1.32

Change from 1990 (percent) NA 12.0 1.9

School meals 1.33 1.28 1.25

Change from 1990 (percent) NA -4.4 -6.1

WIC 1.50 1.44 1.36

Change from 1990 (percent) NA -4.4 -9.5

AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families; FSP = Food Stamp Program; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children; NA = Not applicable.

Note: Weighted means reported; first calendar year weights applied.

1The turnover rate is calculated as the number of children in households that benefit from 

a given program at least once during the year divided by the average number of children in 

households that receive the program in a month.

Source: ERS estimates based on household participation during the first calendar year 

of each survey among children in households with income below 300 percent of the Federal 

Poverty line in the Survey of Income and Program Participation 1990, 2001, and 2004 panels.
25

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Discussion and Directions for Future Research

None of the four programs examined was designed to be the main safety 

net for the poor in the United States. However, the Food Stamp Program 

is commonly referred to as the “cornerstone” of the Nation’s food assistance programs as it is the largest of the 15 USDA domestic food assistance 

programs (USDA, 2008). Many analysts consider the FSP to be a major 

cornerstone of all domestic antipoverty programs (Zedlewski, 2000), and it is 

one of the only programs that is both an entitlement and available to almost 

all individuals.21

Other research has shown declines in food stamp participation in the early 

2000s. Our research shows that participation is down even for children in the 

poorest families. Although we expected to find a large decline in participation in AFDC/TANF, we also expected to find that participation in the Food 

Stamp Program increased, or at least remained level, given that the FSP is 

still an entitlement program. However, we find an 18-percent decrease in 

food stamp participation between 1990 and 2004 for children in households 

with incomes that are less than half of the Federal poverty line (see table 6). 

This finding highlights a potential gap in the program’s reach to the neediest 

families. Instead, our findings show more children relying on school meals 

and WIC, either as single programs or in combination with each other. 

Administrative data show that food stamp participation levels have increased 

sharply with the recent recession, which started in 2008. When more recent 

survey data become available, we will be able to examine whether participation in the FSP has increased for children in the poorest households.

As a caveat, an increase in underreporting over time, as found by Meyer et al. 

(2009), could have exaggerated the observed decline in participation of AFDC/

TANF and FSP. However, we feel that this factor is not likely to be strong 

given the large increase in participation observed for WIC and school meals.

Much of the increase in participation in WIC and school meals occurred 

among children in the higher end of the low-income distribution, suggesting 

that changes and recent outreach efforts have been successful at making it 

easier for children with working parents to access these programs. With the 

recent economic downturn, these outreach efforts are likely to be increasingly important to help meet the nutritional needs of low income children. 

However, the extent to which food assistance is filling in for declines in 

earned income is limited.

21Able-bodied workers with no dependents 

are excluded under some criteria that can vary 

with regional economic circumstances.
26

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Acs, G., K. Phillips, and S. Nelson. 2003. The Road Not Taken? Changes in 

Welfare Entry During the 1990s, Assessing the New Federalism Discussion 

Paper 03-03, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.

Bane, M.J., and D. Ellwood. 1983. The Dynamics of Dependence: The 

Routes to Self-Sufficiency, Report for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Bitler, Marianne, Jonah Gelbach, and Hilary Hoynes. 2006. “What Mean 

Impacts Miss: Distributional Effects of Welfare Reform Experiments,” 

American Economic Review 96(4):988–1012.

Blank, Rebecca. 2008. “Memo to the President: Decrease Poverty and 

Increase Opportunity,” Memos to the President, No. 3, The Brookings 

Institution, Washington, DC.

Bollinger, Christopher, Luis Gonzalez, and James P. Ziliak. 2007. “Welfare 

Reform and the Level and Composition of Income,” Mimeo, University of 

Kentucky.

Bollinger, Christopher, and Martin David. 2001. “Estimation with Response 

Error and Nonresponse: Food Stamp Participation in the SIPP,” Journal of 

Business and Economic Statistics 19(2):129-41, April.

Bollinger, Christopher, and Martin David. 1997. “Modeling Discrete Choice 

with Response Error: Food Stamp Participation,” Journal of American 

Statistical Association 92(439):827-35, September.

Cole, Nancy, and Ellie Lee. 2004. Feasibility and Accuracy of Record 

Linkage to Estimate Multiple Program Participation, E-FAN-03-008-3, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November.

Gleason, Phillip, Tania Tasse, Kenneth Jackson, and Patricia Nemeth. 

2003. Direct Certification in the National School Lunch Program—Impacts 

on the Program Access and Integrity: Final Report, E-FAN-03-009, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, October.

Grogger, Jeffrey, and Charles Michalopoulos. 2003. “Welfare Dynamics 

under Time Limits,” Journal of Political Economy 111(3):530-54, June.

Grogger, J., S. Haider, and J. Klerman. 2003. “Why Did the Welfare Rolls 

Fall in the 1990s? The Importance of Entry,” American Economic Review

93(2):288–92, May.

Hamilton, B.E., J.A. Martin, and S.J. Ventura. 2009. “Births: Preliminary 

Data for 2007,” National Vital Statistics Reports 57(12):1-23.

Henderson, Everett J., Randy Capps, and Kenneth Finegold. 2008. Impact of 

2002-03 Farm Bill Restorations on Food Stamp Use by Legal Immigrants, 

Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 40, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, April.
27

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Kabbani, Nader S., and Parke E. Wilde. 2003. “Short Recertification Periods 

in the U.S. Food Stamp Program,” The Journal of Human Resources

38(Supplement 2003):1112-38, Special Issue on Income Volatility and 

Implications for Food Assistance Programs.

Klerman, J.A., and C. Danielson. 2009. Determinants of the Food Stamp 

Program Caseload, Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 50, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, January.

Long, Sharon. 1990. Children and Welfare: Patterns of Multiple Program 

Participation, SIPP Working Paper Series, No. 9025, U.S. Census Bureau.

Lynch, Victoria, Dean M. Resnick, Jane Staveley, and Cynthia M. Tauber. 

2008. Differences in Estimates of Public Assistance Recipiency Between 

Surveys and Administrative Records, U.S. Census Bureau and the Jacob 

France Institute, January.

Marquis, K., and J. Moore. 1990. “Measurement Errors in the SIPP Program 

Reports,” Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census Annual Research 

Conference, U.S. Census Bureau.

Moffitt, R. 2008. Welfare Reform: The U.S. Experience, Discussion Paper 

No. 1334-08, Institute for Research on Poverty, February.

Meyer, Bruce D., Wallace K.C. Mok, and James X. Sullivan. 2009. The 

Under-Reporting of Transfers in Household Surveys: Its Nature and 

Consequences, NBER Working Paper No. 15181, National Bureau of 

Economic Research.

Mueser, P., J. Hotchkiss, C. King, P. Rokicki, and D. Stevens. 2000. “The 

Welfare Caseload, Economic Growth and Welfare-to-Work Policies: An 

Analysis of Five Urban Areas,” Mimeo, University of Baltimore, July.

Moore, Quinn, Lara Hulsey, and Michael Ponza. 2009. Factors Associated 

with School Meal Participation and the Relationship Between Different 

Participation Measures, Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 53, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, June.

Newman, Constance. 2006. The Income Volatility See-Saw: Implications 

for School Lunch, Economic Research Report No. 23, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, August.

Oliveira, Victor, and Elizabeth Frazao. 2009. The WIC Program: 

Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2009 Edition, Economic 

Research Report No. 73, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, April.

Primus, Wendell. 2001. “Comment,” in Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins 

(editors), The New World of Welfare, pp.130-36, Washington, DC: Brookings 

Institution Press.
28

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Ralston, Katherine, Constance Newman, Annette Clauson, Joanne Guthrie, 

and Jean Buzby. 2008. The National School Lunch Program: Background, 

Issues, and Trends, Economic Research Report No. 61, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, August.

Ribar, David C., Marilyn Edelhoch, and Qiduan Liu. 2008. “Watching the 

Clocks: The Role of Food Stamp Recertification and TANF Time Limits in 

Caseload Dynamics,” Journal of Human Resources 43(1):208–39.

Richburg-Hayes, L., and S. Freedman. 2004. A Profile of Families Cycling 

On and Off Welfare, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Scholz, John Karl, Robert Moffitt, and Benjamin Cowan. 2008. Trends in 

Income Support, Discussion Paper no. 1350-08, Institute for Research on 

Poverty, September.

Sherman, Arloc. 2009. Safety Net Effective at Fighting Poverty But Has 

Weakened for the Very Poorest, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 

Washington, DC, July 6.

Taeuber, Cynthia, Dean M. Resnick, Susan P. Love, Jane Stavely, Parke 

Wilde, and Richard Larson. 2004. Differences in Estimates of Food Stamp 

Program Participation Between Surveys and Administrative Records, U.S. 

Census, Jacob France Institute, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the 

Maryland Department of Human Resources, June.

Tschoepe, Gary J., and John J. Hindera. 2001. “Explaining State AFDC 

and Food Stamp Caseloads: Has Welfare Reform Discouraged Food Stamp 

Participation?” The Social Science Journal 38:435–43.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. “Alternative Poverty Estimates Based on 

National Academy of Sciences Recommendations, by Selected Demographic 

Characteristics and by Region: 2006,” Poverty Measurement Studies and 

Alternative Measures, Tables of Alternative Poverty Estimates: 2007, http://

www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/tables.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009b. “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance 

Coverage in the United States: 2008,” Press Release, September 10, 2009, 

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_

wealth/014227.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. “U.S. Hispanic Population Surpasses 45 Million, 

Now 15 Percent of Total,” Press Release, May 1, 2008, http://www.census.

gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 2007. WIC 

Participant and Program Characteristics 2006, WIC-06-PC, by Susan 

Bartlett, Ellen Bobronnikov, Michele Mendelson, et al., Project Officer, Fred 

Lesnett, December 2007.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. USDA Awards Food Stamp Program 

Outreach Grants, Press Release No. 0004.08, December 5.
29

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families. 2009. “Combined TANF and SSP-MOE: Fiscal and Calendar 

Year 2007,” Data & Reports, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/datareports/caseload/2007/2007_recipient_tanssp.htm.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation. 2008. TANF “Leavers”, Applicants, and Caseload 

Studies, http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/leavers99/ (accessed 7/11/08).

Winicki, Joshua. 2001. “Low-Income Families Participating in Fewer 

Assistance Programs,” FoodReview 24(2):38-44, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, October.

Zedlewski, Sheila R. 2000. Recent Trends in the Food Stamp Program: 

Testimony before the House Committee on the Budget Task Force on 

Welfare, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
30

Changing Participation in Food Assistance Programs Among Low-Income Children After Welfare Reform / ERR-92

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix

Share of children in households with income below 300 percent of the 

Federal poverty line participating in specific program bundles in 

January, 1990, 2001, and 2004

Program bundles 1990 2001 2004

Percent

No Programs 64.9 55.7 48.1

AFDC/TANF only 0.4 0.2 0.2

FSP only 1.0 1.1 1.6

WIC only 1.8 4.2 4.5

School meals only 14.4 21.6 23.3

AFDC/TANF and FSP 2.2 0.4 0.5

AFDC/TANF and WIC 0.2 0.2 0.0

AFDC/TANF and school meals 0.6 0.5 0.5

FSP and WIC 0.5 1.0 1.5

FSP and school meals 3.9 5.0 7.7

WIC and school meals 0.6 3.9 4.2

FSP, WIC, and school meals 1.1 1.9 3.1

AFDC/TANF, FSP, and WIC 0.8 0.4 0.7

AFDC/TANF, FSP, and school meals 5.7 2.5 2.7

AFDC/TANF, WIC, and school meals 0.1 0.1 0.1

All four 1.7 1.4 1.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families; FSP = Food Stamp Program; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children.

Note: Weighted means reported; first calendar year weights applied.

Source: ERS estimates based on Survey of Income and Program Participation data from the 

1990, 2001, and 2004 panels (month of January).