Page 1 

Introduction 

The Food Stamp Program serves as the 

foundation of America’s national nutrition safety 

net, the first line of the Nation’s defense against 

hunger, and a powerful tool to improve nutrition 

among millions of low-income families and 

individuals. Because the program has such a 

central role in the national nutrition safety net, 

there is keen interest in tracking its performance 

over time and across areas. While there are 

many aspects to the program’s success, one key 

performance outcome is the extent to which it 

reaches the people it is intended to serve. 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and other 

researchers have used a variety of approaches to 

calculate food stamp participation rates. While 

different approaches can look similar in concept, 

the results – for particular States or for the 

Nation as a whole – can often look quite 

different. These differences can be confusing 

for users who seek to describe the success of the 

Food Stamp Program without becoming experts 

in statistics and data analysis. This paper 

provides an overview and comparison of two 

sets of estimates produced by FNS as indicators 

of Food Stamp Program performance. 

Measures of Food Stamp Participation 

FNS reports the total number of individuals, 

households, and benefits issued each month, 

based on reports from every State. These data, 

measured frequently and reliably through 

administrative processes, are an important tool 

for FNS and its State partners in managing 

program funding and accounting for costs. They 

are also closely watched by other stakeholders, 

both within and outside the program, as one 

indicator of the program’s reach. Participation 

levels are most informative as a way to assess 

whether monthly caseloads are rising or falling 

in ways consistent with current economic 

conditions and program policies. 

Participation levels, however, provide only a 

limited measure of the program’s success. A 

better measure of program performance is one 

that expresses the number of participants as a 

fraction of those eligible to receive benefits or 

otherwise in need – a participation rate. Such 

measures have three key advantages over 

participation levels. First, rates link the number 

of people served to the number of people the 

program is designed to serve, providing a solid 

indicator of the program’s success in reaching its 

target population. Second, because the number 

of eligible people varies with economic 

conditions and changes in program policy, a 

participation rate that controls for these factors 

allows for stronger comparisons of program 

performance over time. Third, rates standardize 

information so that meaningful comparisons can 

be made across different groups of participants 

or geographic areas, independent of differences 

in size. 

An ideal food stamp participation rate would 

compare participation levels with a precise count 

of the number of people eligible to participate at 

a given time. But eligibility for food stamps 

cannot be precisely observed without extensive 

information on a household’s composition, 

income, assets, and expenses, analyzed by 

someone trained in the details of program rules 

and standards. Therefore, producing an exact 

count of all eligibles is not feasible, and even 

producing an estimate presents significant 

challenges. The rules governing food stamp 

eligibility are detailed, complex, and variable to 

some extent from State to State. While relevant 

household information can be – and sometimes 

is – collected through surveys, it is costly and 

time-consuming, prone to misreporting, often 

based on small samples in each State, and rarely 

yields a precise replication of caseworker 

determinations. 

In practice, researchers take different approaches 

to estimate participation rates. In general, more 

detailed and precise estimates take longer to 

A USER’S GUIDE TO MEASURES OF FOOD STAMP 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATES

Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation November 2005 
Page 2 

produce and are more costly than simpler but 

less-accurate, indicators. 

This paper examines two sets of estimates 

produced regularly by FNS.1

 One set provides 

annual estimates of the participation rate among 

people eligible for food stamp benefits for the 

Nation, for each State, and for selected 

demographic groups. The second set provides 

an annual program access index for each State 

and is used to award high-performance bonuses.2 

Participation Rates Among Eligibles 

The most precise way to reflect differences 

across areas, among groups, or over time in the 

level of need (as defined by program statute and 

regulations), and thus the best way to measure 

program performance, is to use an estimate of 

the number of people eligible for benefits. 

Because there is no perfectly accurate count of 

the number of eligibles, researchers have to use 

estimates. The most rigorous of these estimates 

use national survey data to replicate, as closely 

as possible, current program rules. 

While most appealing analytically, the 

calculation of participation rates among eligibles 

is challenging. Few surveys have all of the 

information needed to determine eligibility, and 

information is not always reported correctly to 

the survey takers. To address these gaps, 

analysts may impute information from other 

sources, make a number of simplifying 

assumptions, or ignore certain elements of food 

stamp eligibility altogether. While these choices 

are made carefully to minimize impact on the 

accuracy of the estimate, they nonetheless 

potentially introduce errors. 

Because of the need to compile data and ensure 

its accuracy, there is usually a substantial lag 

between the reference period for which survey 

 

1

 Other researchers have taken approaches that fall 

between the two described here. See, for example, 

FRAC (2005) and Fellowes and Berube (2005). 

2

 This indicator was known as the Participant Access 

Rate (PAR) until 2005. The change in name was 

motivated by a desire to reduce some confusion 

caused by prior terminology. 

data are collected and the time they are released 

to the public.3

 The complexity of the estimation 

process also means there is usually a substantial 

additional lag between the time survey data are 

made available and final estimates of 

participation rates are published. These lag 

times make it difficult to generate real-time 

measures of program performance. 

FNS publishes participation rates among 

eligibles in a series of reports for the Nation as a 

whole, for particular demographic groups, and 

for individual States.4

 FNS estimates, for 

example, that the program served about 20.6 

million participants among the 37.0 million 

eligible in fiscal year 2003, a participation rate 

of 55.6 percent. This participation rate is the 

ratio of the average monthly number of 

participants to an estimate of the number of 

individuals eligible for food stamps.

5

Counts of food stamp participants come directly 

from monthly administrative reports that States 

provide to FNS. We use administrative counts 

in place of the survey reports of program 

participation because of known problems with 

under-reporting of participation in household 

surveys. We use the average monthly number of 

participants over the 12 months of the Federal 

fiscal year (October through September) to 

eliminate the effect of seasonality within the 

year. We exclude participants in Guam and the 

 

3

 As an example, consider the timeline for developing 

estimates from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 

one of the large, national household surveys 

administered by the Bureau of the Census. The 

Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the CPS 

collects detailed information on household 

composition in March of each year and on household 

income during the previous calendar year. In recent 

years, these data have been released to users in late 

August, 9 months after the end of the reference 

period. 

4

 See, for example, Cunnyngham (2005) and Castner 

and Schirm (2005a, 2005b). 

5

 FNS also estimates that the program served 49.9 

percent of the eligible households and issued 65.4 

percent of the benefits that all eligibles could receive 

in 2003. The discussion in this paper focuses only on 

the participation rate among individuals for the sake 

of clarity. 
Page 3 

Virgin Islands—because they are not included in 

the sample used to estimate eligibles—and 

persons receiving disaster assistance. We also 

adjust the count of participants to exclude the 

estimated number of ineligible people receiving 

benefits, based on food stamp quality control 

reviews, because the goal is to estimate the 

percentage of eligible people who receive food 

stamp benefits. Finally, we exclude some 

participants who receive food stamps by virtue 

of receiving non-cash public assistance (because 

we are unable to model their eligibility 

accurately). As a result of these adjustments, the 

number of participants used in the calculation of 

the participation rates differs from the total 

number of reported participants in other FNS 

publications. 

The estimates of eligible individuals are derived 

from a computer model that uses data from the 

Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey 

(CPS) to simulate program eligibility and benefit 

rules. In the simulation procedure, food stamp 

eligibility rules that were in effect each year are 

applied to the data reported by each household 

in the CPS sample. While one of the best 

sources available for this purpose, the CPS does 

not include all of the information necessary to 

determine food stamp eligibility. We take 

several steps to address these limitations. 

• We simulate the food stamp household – 

based on individuals who purchase and 

prepare food together – within the CPS 

dwelling unit – based on shared living 

quarters. Ineligible non-citizens, ablebodied adults without dependents who do 

not meet the work requirement, SSI 

recipients in California, students, and 

individuals living in group quarters are 

excluded from the food stamp household. 

• We account for the categorical eligibility of 

households in which all members receive 

cash payments from SSI, TANF, or, in some 

places, General Assistance (GA). 

• We transform reported annual income into 

estimated monthly income based on patterns 

of income receipt seen in the Survey of 

Income and Program Participation, a 

national survey that tracks household 

circumstances over time. We model net 

income after deductible expenses based on 

the characteristics of the household. We 

then use the gross and net income limits that 

apply each year. 

• We impute the probability that an incomeeligible household passes the asset screen. 

Estimates of participation rates in each State are 

derived using a statistical approach (shrinkage) 

that draws on data from the same national 

survey used to estimate the overall participation 

rate, as well as data from the decennial census 

and administrative records. The shrinkage 

estimator averages direct sample estimates of 

participation rates in each State with predictions 

from a regression model. The direct sample 

estimates are obtained by simulating the 

application of food stamp eligibility rules as 

described above to households in the CPS. The 

regression predictions of participation rates are 

based on observed indicators of socioeconomic 

conditions, such as the percentage of the total 

State population receiving food stamp benefits. 

Shrinkage estimates are substantially more 

precise than direct sample estimates from the 

CPS. 

Program Access Index 

To address the need for a more timely, if less 

precise, proxy indicator of program 

performance, FNS developed the Program 

Access Index (PAI). The PAI – formerly known 

as the Participant Access Rate (PAR) – is one of 

the measures FNS uses to reward States for high 

performance in the administration of the Food 

Stamp Program. The Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002 (also known as the Farm 

Bill) authorized payment of $48 million each 

year, shared among States with high or 

improved performance for actions taken to 

correct errors, reduce the rates of error, improve 

eligibility determinations, or other activities that 

demonstrate effective administration. 

In consultation with State agencies and other 

program stakeholders, FNS determined that it 

was important that the set of performance 
Page 4 

awards include a measure of program access. A 

portion of the $48 million available each year is 

distributed to the four States with the highest 

PAI and the four States with the largest 

improvement in the PAI from the previous year. 

The PAI is the ratio of the average number of 

food stamp participants to the number of people 

with income below poverty in each State.

6

 It 

offers one indication of the degree to which lowincome people have access to food stamp 

benefits. 

Counts of food stamp participants come directly 

from monthly administrative reports that States 

provide to FNS. We compute average monthly 

participation over a calendar year – rather than 

the Federal fiscal year – to better align the 

participation count with the annual poverty 

measure and eliminate the effects of seasonality. 

We make two adjustments to the participant 

counts to better reflect State performance in the 

administration of the program. First, we add 

participants in the Food Distribution Program on 

Indian Reservations (FDPIR). In general, these 

participants would qualify for food stamps, but 

have opted to take the FDPIR commodity 

package instead. This adjustment ensures that 

States with relatively large numbers of FDPIR 

participants are not disadvantaged in the 

competition for performance bonuses. In 

addition, we subtract estimates of the number of 

people who received food stamp disaster 

 

6

 This description is based on the guidelines 

governing award of the 2003 and 2004 performance 

bonuses. FNS issued a final rule on February 7, 

2005, to codify the procedures for calculating and 

awarding performance bonuses. The final rule 

renames and modifies the calculation of the PAI/PAR 

for fiscal year 2005 and beyond. There are two main 

differences between the calculations in the final rule 

and those described here. First, the denominator in 

the final rule is defined by the number of persons 

with income less than 125 percent of the poverty line 

instead of 100 percent. This change improves the 

correlation of State rankings between this index and 

participation rates among people eligible for benefits. 

Second, the adjustment for participants in FDPIR is 

made by subtracting the count from the denominator 

instead of the numerator. This provides for greater 

consistency in the treatment of FDPIR participants 

and SSI recipients in California. 

assistance to better reflect State performance in 

the administration of the program. Disaster 

assistance is approved in limited circumstances 

and operates under special rules that differ from 

those of the regular Food Stamp Program. 

Estimates of the number of people in poverty are 

published annually by the Bureau of the 

Census.7

 These estimates are based on Current 

Population Survey reports of household income 

over the course of a calendar year. We make 

one adjustment to the poverty counts, removing 

poor SSI recipients in California. By law, SSI 

recipients in California are ineligible for food 

stamps because they receive a State-funded cash 

supplement for food. This adjustment helps 

level the playing field between California and all 

other States.8

Because the PAI is a ratio, and not a percentage, 

the value of the PAI can be greater than 100 in 

some States. This will occur whenever the 

adjusted number of food stamp participants is 

larger than the adjusted number of people with 

income less than the poverty line. A PAI greater 

than 100 does not imply that a State is serving 

people ineligible for benefits. The denominator 

in this index is only a rough approximation of 

the pool of people eligible for food stamps, and 

may in some cases be less than the total number 

of people served. As discussed below, the 

denominator will include some people who are 

not eligible for food stamp benefits and exclude 

others who are eligible. 

Why Two Sets of Estimates? 

For most purposes, the participation rate among 

people eligible for benefits is a better measure of 

program performance. FNS uses the povertybased PAI as a basis for awarding performance 

bonuses because it is the best measure available 

 

7

 See DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Lee (2005). The 

Census Bureau posts State poverty estimates on the 

Web at www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html. 8

 For most purposes, this treatment of ineligible SSI 

recipients in California is appropriate. It may be 

useful in some contexts, however, to consider 

participation rates among those eligible for food 

stamp benefits or a cash substitute. 
Page 5 

in time to meet statutory requirements. The 

2002 Farm Bill that authorizes the State 

performance bonuses requires payment by the 

end of the fiscal year following the period of 

performance – by the end of September 2005 for 

performance during fiscal year 2004, for 

example. The timing of the Census Bureau’s 

release of the official poverty statistics each year 

– usually in late August or early September, 

reflecting poverty levels for the prior calendar 

year – enables calculation of a PAI in time to 

meet the law’s requirements. There is not 

enough time to complete the more accurate 

estimates of the number of people eligible for 

food stamp benefits. Waiting for the more 

accurate estimates is inconsistent with the law 

and would delay payments to States. 

How Comparable Are the Two Sets of 

Estimates? 

The value of the PAI as an indicator of program 

success depends on how well the number of 

people in poverty approximates the number of 

people eligible for food stamps. At first glance, 

there is little reason to think that the official 

definition of poverty is a good proxy for food 

stamp eligibility. Eligibility rules for program 

benefits differ substantially from the official 

definition of poverty. In determining eligibility, 

the Food Stamp Program uses a monthly rather 

than annual measure of income, extends benefits 

to those with gross income less than 130 percent 

of the poverty guidelines, and considers many 

other factors such as assets and citizenship. 

An analysis commissioned by FNS suggests that 

nearly 40 percent of those with income less than 

the poverty line are not eligible for food stamps, 

mainly because they have assets that exceed the 

program’s limit or do not meet the program’s 

citizenship requirements. On the other hand, 

about 30 percent of those eligible for benefits 

have income that exceeds the poverty line, as 

officially defined. Many of these have gross 

income above the poverty line but net income 

after deductible expenses below poverty; others 

are poor in the month they qualify for food 

stamps, but not over the course of a full year.9

In practice, however, the number of people in 

poverty (or with income up to 125 percent of 

poverty) is correlated with estimates of the 

number of people eligible for benefits, and ratios 

of participants to the poverty population can 

serve as a useful indicator of program 

performance in some circumstances. Two 

dimensions of comparison are of particular 

interest to FNS: (1) similarities in changes in 

these rates over time; and (2) similarities in the 

relative ranks among States. The tables that 

follow examine the correlations between the two 

measures in regard to these dimensions. 

Table 1 compares the two national measures 

over recent years. Both measures show an initial 

decline and a more recent increase in program 

performance, as well as increases in both the 

number of participants and the number in need 

of or eligible for benefits. Estimated rates based 

on the PAI are somewhat higher with only one 

exception, and the difference widens between 

2001 and 2003.10 But overall, both measures 

show that the Food Stamp Program reaches 

more than half but less than two-thirds of the 

people it is meant to serve. 

In addition, the rank order of States based on the 

PAI is highly correlated with the rank order of 

States based on participation rates among 

eligibles. The rank order correlation between 

the two measures exceeds 0.80 each year 

between 1999 and 2003 (a perfect match would 

equal 1.00). This means that a State’s rank on 

one measure is strongly, but not perfectly, 

associated with its rank on the other measure. 

 

9

 Unpublished tabulations contained in memorandum 

from Karen Cunnyngham to Jenny Genser, 

Distinguishing between the CPS Poverty Population 

and the FSP Eligible Population, April 29, 2003. 10 Beginning in 2005, the denominator of the PAI will 

be the adjusted count of people with income less than 

125 percent of poverty. This change will increase the 

count of low-income people and lower the value of 

the PAI, but also increase the correlation between 

State rankings based on the PAI and the proportion of 

eligibles. 
Page 6 

States with high rankings based on the more 

refined estimates of participation rates among 

eligibles also tend to have high rankings based 

on the simpler ratio of participants to people in 

poverty. 

Tables 2 and 3 illustrate several aspects of the 

association between State rankings on these two 

measures of food stamp participation in fiscal 

years 2002 and 2003. First, for most States, the 

difference in rankings is relatively modest. In 

2003, for example, the rankings for 31 States 

differ by 5 places or less. Second, the difference 

in rankings is large for a few States, but in 

general the differences are not relevant to the 

distribution of performance awards. None of the 

States with large differences in rankings (more 

than 10 places) would have qualified for a 

performance award under either measure. Third, 

there is not much overlap in the group of States 

with large differences in rankings from year to 

year. Only 3 of the 7 States with large 

differences in rankings (more than 10 places) in 

2003 had an equally large difference in 2002. 

The estimated participation rates and the PAI are 

based on fairly small samples of households in 

each State. As a result, there is substantial 

uncertainty associated with the estimates for 

different States. Even sizable differences in 

estimates from year to year or between States 

are not necessarily indications of differences in 

program performance. Despite this uncertainty, 

the estimates can show whether a State’s 

participation rate is probably at the top, at the 

bottom, or in the middle of the distribution of all 

States. 

References

Castner, Laura, and Allen Schirm (2005a). Reaching Those 

in Need: State Food Stamp Participation Rates in 2003. 

Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. 

Castner, Laura, and Allen Schirm (2005b). State Food 

Stamp Participation Rates for the Working Poor in 2002. 

Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. 

Cunnyngham, K. (2005). Food Stamp Program 

Participation Rates: 2003. Alexandria, VA: Food and 

Nutrition Service, USDA. 

DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette Proctor, and Cheryl 

Lee (2005). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance 

Coverage in the United States: 2004. U.S. Census 

Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-229. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fellowes, Matt, and Alan Berube (2005). Leaving Money 

(and Food) on the Table: Food Stamp Participation in 

Major Metropolitan Areas and Counties. Washington, 

DC: The Brookings Institution. 

Food Research and Action Center (2005). Food Stamp 

Access in Urban America: A City-by-City Snapshot. 

Washington, DC: Food Research and Action Center. 

Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation (2005). 

Calculating the Food Stamp Participant Access Rate: A 

Step-by-Step Guide. Alexandria, VA: Food and 

Nutrition Service, USDA. 

Table 1. Comparison of Two Measures of Food Stamp Performance 

 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

 

Participation Rate Among Eligibles 

 Adjusted Count of Participants 16,705 16,898 18,656 20,591 n/a 

 Estimate Number of Eligibles 29,968 31,783 34,693 37,028 n/a 

 Proportion 0.557 0.532 0.538 0.556 n/a 

 

Program Access Index 

 Adjusted Count of Participants 17,196 17,776 19,619 21,950 24,408

 Adjusted Count of Persons in Poverty 31,052 32,907 34,411 35,694 36,810

 Ratio 0.554 0.540 0.570 0.615 0.663 
Page 7 

Table 2. Comparison of State Rankings: 2002 

 

State Proportion of 

Eligibles Rank PAI Rank Difference in Ranks 

 

Alabama 0.53 30 0.70 14 16 

Alaska 0.62 12 0.85 3 9 

Arizona 0.53 30 0.57 33 -3 

Arkansas 0.56 20 0.54 36 -16 

California 0.49 38 0.38 51 -13 

Colorado 0.45 46 0.42 48 -2 

Connecticut 0.58 16 0.62 24 -8 

Delaware 0.51 34 0.57 31 3 

DC 0.66 7 0.78 7 0 

Florida 0.44 47 0.49 45 2 

Georgia 0.54 28 0.71 13 15 

Hawaii 0.74 2 0.77 9 -7 

Idaho 0.46 43 0.51 42 1 

Illinois 0.59 14 0.57 32 -18 

Indiana 0.66 7 0.77 8 -1 

Iowa 0.52 32 0.54 39 -7 

Kansas 0.49 38 0.54 38 0 

Kentucky 0.67 5 0.81 5 0 

Louisiana 0.67 5 0.78 6 -1 

Maine 0.64 11 0.68 18 -7 

Maryland 0.48 41 0.59 27 14 

Massachusetts 0.39 51 0.39 50 1 

Michigan 0.65 10 0.67 20 -10 

Minnesota 0.56 20 0.69 17 3 

Mississippi 0.56 20 0.65 22 -2 

Missouri 0.69 4 0.95 2 2 

Montana 0.50 36 0.57 30 6 

Nebraska 0.54 28 0.51 41 -13 

Nevada 0.42 50 0.54 37 13 

New Hampshire 0.46 43 0.58 28 15 

New Jersey 0.43 48 0.47 47 1 

New Mexico 0.55 25 0.55 35 -10 

New York 0.50 36 0.51 43 -7 

North Carolina 0.46 43 0.51 44 -1 

North Dakota 0.51 34 0.59 25 9 

Ohio 0.56 20 0.69 16 4 

Oklahoma 0.58 16 0.75 11 5 

Oregon 0.81 1 0.98 1 0 

Pennsylvania 0.55 25 0.67 19 6 

Rhode Island 0.57 18 0.62 23 -5 

South Carolina 0.59 14 0.70 15 -1 

South Dakota 0.56 20 0.71 12 8 

Tennessee 0.66 7 0.75 10 -3 

Texas 0.47 42 0.48 46 -4 

Utah 0.43 48 0.41 49 -1 

Vermont 0.60 13 0.66 21 -8 

Virginia 0.52 32 0.51 40 -8 

Washington 0.57 18 0.56 34 -16 

West Virginia 0.72 3 0.81 4 -1 

Wisconsin 0.55 25 0.59 26 -1 

Wyoming 0.49 38 0.57 29 9 

 

 US 0.54 0.57
Page 8 

Table 3. Comparison of State Rankings: 2003

 

State Proportion of 

Eligibles Rank PAI Rank Difference in Ranks 

 

Alabama 0.56 26 0.72 20 6 

Alaska 0.65 13 0.77 17 -4 

Arizona 0.64 16 0.68 22 -6 

Arkansas 0.62 17 0.67 25 -8 

California 0.45 49 0.39 51 -2 

Colorado 0.48 44 0.50 46 -2 

Connecticut 0.53 33 0.66 26 7 

Delaware 0.53 31 0.80 15 16 

DC 0.72 4 0.91 6 -2 

Florida 0.48 42 0.50 47 -5 

Georgia 0.65 14 0.78 16 -2 

Hawaii 0.67 8 0.86 10 -2 

Idaho 0.53 32 0.63 28 4 

Illinois 0.61 19 0.62 32 -13 

Indiana 0.65 15 0.80 13 2 

Iowa 0.57 24 0.60 34 -10 

Kansas 0.55 27 0.57 36 -9 

Kentucky 0.67 9 0.88 9 0 

Louisiana 0.69 6 0.89 8 -2 

Maine 0.72 5 0.92 3 2 

Maryland 0.48 40 0.53 43 -3 

Massachusetts 0.43 51 0.47 49 2 

Michigan 0.65 12 0.74 19 -7 

Minnesota 0.59 23 0.64 27 -4 

Mississippi 0.60 20 0.80 14 6 

Missouri 0.76 3 1.035 1 2 

Montana 0.50 38 0.56 37 1 

Nebraska 0.56 25 0.62 30 -5 

Nevada 0.44 50 0.48 48 2 

New Hampshire 0.46 47 0.62 29 18 

New Jersey 0.47 46 0.47 50 -4 

New Mexico 0.52 36 0.61 33 3 

New York 0.48 43 0.54 41 2 

North Carolina 0.49 39 0.52 44 -5 

North Dakota 0.51 37 0.75 18 19 

Ohio 0.61 18 0.72 21 -3 

Oklahoma 0.67 10 0.97 2 8 

Oregon 0.83 1 0.91 4 -3 

Pennsylvania 0.54 30 0.67 24 6 

Rhode Island 0.53 34 0.62 31 3 

South Carolina 0.65 11 0.90 7 4 

South Dakota 0.52 35 0.67 23 12 

Tennessee 0.82 2 0.91 5 -3 

Texas 0.48 41 0.54 42 -1 

Utah 0.48 45 0.52 45 0 

Vermont 0.60 21 0.80 12 9 

Virginia 0.54 29 0.55 40 -11 

Washington 0.60 22 0.55 39 -17 

West Virginia 0.68 7 0.81 11 -4 

Wisconsin 0.55 28 0.59 35 -7 

Wyoming 0.46 48 0.55 38 10 

 

 US 0.56 0.62 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or 

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.