The 1996 Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

(PRWORA), also known as welfare reform,

gave states considerable flexibility and

responsibility for formulating and implementing initiatives to reduce welfare

dependency and to encourage employment among adult members of lowincome families with children. Under the

PRWORA, most welfare recipients face a

lifetime limit of 60 months of federal

funding and must meet certain work

requirements to receive assistance. Prior

to the enactment of the PRWORA, several

states modified their welfare programs

under waivers granted by the federal

government that allowed them to implement innovative demonstration projects

to move people from welfare to work.

Changes in the welfare system, under

waivers and the PRWORA, have increased

interest in information about the use of

programs, the characteristics of participants, the length of participation, and

benefit amounts.

This report focuses on the characteristics

and participation of people who received

benefits from any of the following

means-tested assistance programs:1

• Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF)

• General Assistance (GA)

• Food stamps

• Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

• Medicaid

• Housing assistance

The data cover calendar years 2001

through 20032 and provide a set of

baseline estimates to study the effects of

the reforms.3

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S.Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issued October 2006

P70-108

Dynamics of Economic Well-Being:

Participation in Government Programs,

2001 Through 2003

Who Gets Assistance?

Current

Population

Reports

By 

Tracy A. Loveless 

and 

Jan Tin

Household Economic Studies

1 Means-tested programs are those that require

income and/or assets of an individual or family to

fall below specified thresholds in order to qualify for

benefits. These programs provide cash and noncash

assistance to eligible individuals and families.

2 The longitudinal estimates presented here are

based on people who were interviewed in all waves of

the reference period or for whom imputed information exists. Efforts were made during the life of the

panel to ensure that the sample remained representative of the noninstitutionalized population of the

United States by attempting to follow people who

moved to new addresses. If the people included in

the estimates have different experiences in program

participation than those who did not respond initially,

left the sample, or missed two or more consecutive

waves, these longitudinal estimates may be biased.

The panel consists of four rotations interviewed in

consecutive months. For individuals in the fourth

rotation group, monthly data were collected for

January 2001 through December 2003. For individuals interviewed in rotations 1, 2, and 3, monthly data

were not collected for all months at the end of 2003.

For rotations with missing data at the end of 2003,

imputations were made on the basis of the closest

month of data available and then moved forward. For

example, individuals interviewed in rotation 3 had 1

month (December) of data imputed in 2003; rotation

2 had 2 months (November and December) imputed

in 2003; and rotation 1 had 3 months (October,

November, and December) of imputed data in 2003. 3 Part of the PRWORA directed the U.S. Census

Bureau to field a new survey to collect the data necessary to evaluate the impact of welfare reform. To

carry out that directive, the Census Bureau created the

Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD). The SPD collected

data on state welfare programs and the social, economic, demographic, and family changes that may

affect outcomes of the reforms. For each of the 6

years from 1996 through 2002, the Census Bureau

collected data from households previously interviewed in the Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP) from 1992–1994 or 1993–1995.

Cross-sectional data from the SPD were released after

the 1997, 1998, 2001, and 2003 surveys. The first

longitudinal file from the SPD was released in the

summer of 2001 and the second longitudinal file was

released in the fall of 2002. The third longitudinal file

was released in March 2006. For more information

about SPD, see the SPD Web site at 

<www.sipp.census.gov/spd/>. 
The data come from the 2001 panel

of the Survey of Income and

Program Participation (SIPP).4 SIPP is

a longitudinal survey, which means

that, unlike periodic point-in-time

surveys such as the Current

Population Survey, SIPP follows the

same people over time. This longitudinal quality allows examination

of the SIPP sample from two

perspectives.

First, the same people can be

observed over a span of time. The

number of months within a period

of time when individuals received

benefits from one or more meanstested assistance programs can be

examined, and entry and exit activity levels can be measured. For

example, the number, timing, and

duration of people moving into

and out of a particular situation

within a period of time can be

studied, such as the length of time

an individual continuously receives

program benefits.

Second, a population of interest

can be analyzed at single points of

time over regular intervals measuring gross activity levels. This

cross-sectional perspective captures changes over time in the

level of an activity, such as the

proportion of the population

receiving assistance from a

particular program at selected

points in time.

2 U.S. Census Bureau

Description of Concepts 

Average monthly participation rate for (a specified year):

This is an annual-average measure of the monthly percentage of

people who participated in at least one major means-tested program; it represents a weighted average of the 12 monthly participation rates for the year. People who participated in more than

one program in a month are counted once in the total number of

participants for that month.

Participated 1 or more months in (a specified year): the percentage of people who ever participated at any time in at least one

major means-tested program during a specified year.

Participated between 1 and 11 months: the percentage of people who participated in at least one program for a total of between

1 and 11 months (not necessarily consecutive) during the January

2001–December 2003 period.

Participated 12 or more months: the percentage of people who

participated in at least one program for a total of 12 or more

months (not necessarily consecutive) during the January

2001–December 2003 period, including people who participated in

all 36 months of the period.

Participated all 36 months: the percentage of people who participated in at least one program for all 36 months of the January

2001–December 2003 period.

Spell of participation: an uninterrupted period of months in

which an individual receives means-tested assistance and which is

preceded by 1 or more months of nonparticipation; a month is

included in a spell if the individual receives assistance for all or

any part of the month.

Median spell duration: that value for spell length that divides

the distribution of spells by duration in half; one-half of the spells

have a shorter duration and one-half of the spells have a longer

duration than the median.

Median monthly family benefit: that value that divides in half the

distribution of the recipients of assistance by their monthly family

benefit amount in a specified year; one-half of the people in the distribution have benefits below the median and the other half have

benefits above it. The monthly family benefit amount for an individual in a given year represents the amount for the last month in that

year for which the family’s receipt of the benefit was reported (not

necessarily December); if the family participated in a program for

part of that month, then the benefit amount could underestimate the

usual monthly benefit received by the family from that program.

4 The data in this report were collected

from February 2001 through January 2004 in

all 9 waves (interviews) of the Survey of

Income and Program Participation (SIPP).

The population represented (the population

universe) is the civilian noninstitutionalized

population living in the United States. The

sample of households in the SIPP is divided

into four interview groups called rotation

groups. Each month, 1 of the 4 rotation

groups is interviewed about the previous 4

months (the reference period). The 2001

SIPP panel covered the period from January

2001 to December 2003. Data for all four

rotation groups (the full sample) are available for 36 continuous reference months,

the calendar months of January 2001

through December 2003. 
The first section of this report

examines means-tested program

participation rates and the extent to

which the programs are used. The

second section looks at spells of

program use by participant characteristics. The detailed statistical

tables analyzed in this report are

provided at the end of the report.

Highlights

• About 44 million (± 337,000)

people, or 15.4 (± 0.3) percent

of the population, participated

in major means-tested assistance programs in each month,

on average, in 2003.5

• In 2003, individuals were more

likely to participate in Medicaid

than in any of the other programs examined. Twelve (± 0.3)

percent of individuals participated in Medicaid in an average

month in 2003. 

• Individuals with a family income

level below their poverty threshold in 2003 were more likely to

receive at least one type of major

means-tested benefit than individuals who were not in poor

families. About 50.8 (± 1.2)

percent of individuals in poverty

received benefits in at least 1

month in 2003 compared with

9.7 (± 0.3) percent of the

nonpoor. 

• Individuals in households maintained by women with no husband present were more likely

to participate in means-tested

programs in an average month

in 2003 than were individuals in

married-couple households

(40.1 [± 1.1] percent compared

with 9.8 [± 0.3] percent) or

households maintained by men

with no wife present (19.5 

[± 1.7] percent). 

• Adults (people 18 and older)

who did not graduate from high

school were more likely than

high school graduates or those

with some college to participate

in means-tested programs in an

average month in 2003.

Participation rates were 25.6 

(± 1.1) percent, 11.7 (± 0.6) percent, and 5.2 (± 0.3) percent,

respectively, for these groups. 

• Unemployed people were more

likely to receive means-tested

benefits in an average month in

2003 than people with full-time

jobs (25.0 [± 1.5] percent compared with 4.3 [± 0.3] percent). 

• Children (people under 18 years

of age) and people 65 and older

were more likely than people in

the 18–64-year-old age group to

receive benefits from at least

one means-tested assistance

program in all 36 months of the

2001–2003 period examined in

this report. 

• Recipients of benefits from

means-tested programs participated in the SSI program for a

longer period of time (median

duration of 15.0 [± 1.3] months)

than they did in the food stamp

program or Medicaid in the

2001–2003 period. 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

This section investigates the

degree of involvement in meanstested assistance programs using

the following three concepts, each

of which explores a different

aspect of program participation.6

• The “average monthly program participation rate”:

These are annual-average

rates—one for each of the years

2001, 2002, and 2003. The

rate represents a weighted average of the 12 monthly (crosssectional) measurements taken

in the specified year of the proportion of people in the group

who participated in meanstested assistance programs.

Each monthly rate in the average corresponds to the crosssectional population in the

month the measurement was

taken. The measure represents

the share of the group receiving

assistance, on average, in any

given month during the year in

question.

• The percentage of a group who

“participated 1 or more

months in a (specified)

year”: These percentages are

presented for each year from

2001 through 2003. The measure represents the proportion of

people in a group who ever took

part in any means-tested assistance program at any time in a

U.S. Census Bureau 3

5 The estimates in this report (which may

be shown in text, figures, and tables) are

based on responses from a sample of the population and may differ from actual values

because of sampling variability or other factors. As a result, apparent differences

between the estimates for two or more groups

may not be statistically significant. All comparative statements have undergone statistical

testing and are significant at the 90-percent

confidence level unless otherwise noted.

6 A person is considered to participate in

a program if the person receives benefits

from the program or is covered under the

allotment of another person. If, for example,

in a given month, two people in a household

received food stamps and two additional

people in the household were covered by the

food stamp program, then the number of

people from that household who participated

in the food stamp program for that month

would be counted as “four.”
year. It is a measure of gross

activity and corresponds to the

population existing at the end

of the year in question. The

proportion represents the share

of the group that participated in

any assistance program at some

time during the specified year.

• The percentage of the population that “participated for a

(specified) number of

months in the 36-month

period between January

2001 and December 2003”:

This measure is based on the

number of accumulated (not

necessarily consecutive) months

spent in means-tested assistance programs throughout the

entire 36-month time span. It

describes the population receiving assistance at the end of the

36 months.

Program Usage: 

2001 Through 2003

Of the estimated 286 million noninstitutionalized civilians living in

the United States in 2003, approximately 44 million, or 15.4 percent,

participated in one or more major

means-tested assistance programs

during each month of 2003. As

Figure 1 shows, the average

monthly participation rate

increased from 14.3 percent in

2001 to 15.4 percent in 2003. 

Among the population, 6.4 percent

participated in means-tested programs in each month of the

2001–2003 period (Figure 2).

About 10.7 percent of people

under 18 years old participated in

one or more major means-tested

assistance programs for each

month of the 2001–2003 period,

compared with 4.6 percent of

people 18 to 64 years old and 

6.6 percent of people 65 and older

(Figure 3). About 0.2 percent of

welfare (TANF or GA) participants

received benefits in all 36 months;

this was the lowest proportion

among the five programs studied. 

Participation Rates

As Figure 4 illustrates, individuals

were more likely to participate in

Medicaid than in any of the other

programs examined in this report.

The participation rates for TANF or

GA and housing assistance declined

continuously from 2001 through

2003; the rates for SSI did not

change statistically. The average

monthly participation rate in 2003

for Medicaid (12.0 percent) was

higher than that for TANF or GA,

food stamps, housing assistance, or

SSI (Figure 5). A higher proportion

of people (about 3.7 percent of the

population) participated in Medicaid

in all 36 months than in any other

program (Figure 2). 

An estimated 34 million people

received Medicaid benefits in an

average month in 2003; about 18

million of these recipients were

children. About 25.0 percent of

children under age 18 received

Medicaid, compared with 7.2 percent of people 18 to 64 years old,

and 9.4 percent of people 65 and

older (Table A-5).

Participation by 

Poverty Threshold

Figure 6 shows the proportion of

those with family income below

their poverty thresholds who

received benefits during at least 

1 month of 2001 and the corresponding proportion in 2003 (59.0

percent). Similarly, the proportion

4 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 1.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rate in Major 

Means-Tested Programs: 1996–1999, 2001–2003 

Notes: Data are not available for calendar year 2000 because the 2000 SIPP interviews 

were not conducted for budgetary reasons. For concept definitions, see Text Box 

“Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 and 2001 Panels. 

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003

15.4

14.7

14.0 13.5 13.1

14.3 14.9
of those with a family income at or

above their poverty threshold was

near 13.9 percent.7 Additionally,

50.8 percent of those in poverty

received at least one type of major

means-tested benefit in an average

month of 2003, compared with 9.7

percent of those not in poverty

(Figure 7). 

Those in poverty also tended to be

long-term participants in meanstested programs—36.7 percent of

those with family incomes under

their poverty threshold participated in 12 or more months, compared with 4.5 percent of those

with a family income at or above

U.S. Census Bureau 5

Figure 2.

Program Participation Rates for Major Means-Tested Programs: 

January 2001–December 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Participated between 1 and 11 months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated 12 or more months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated all 36 months from January 2001–December 2003

1.2

4.7

8.9

6.4

4.6 6.1

3.7 2.2 3.3 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.2 1.6 2.5 1.3 0.5 1.5

One or more major Medicaid Food stamps TANF/GA Housing assistance SSI

assistance programs

Figure 3.

Program Participation Rates for Major Means-Tested 

Programs by Age: January 2001–December 2003 

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Participated between 1 and 11 months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated 12 or more months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated all 36 months from January 2001–December 2003

Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and older

6.6 8.3

15.7

10.7

3.5

6.3

4.6 3.0

7.7

7 The poverty threshold for a family of

three with one related child was $14,255 in

2001, $14,480 in 2002, and $14,810 in

2003. Data on poverty thresholds by family

size and number of related children under

18 years old for the reported years can be

found at <www.census.gov/hhes/poverty

/threshld.html>.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4.

Program Participation Rates for Major Means-Tested Programs: 2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Participated 1 or more months in 2001 

Participated 1 or more months in 2002 

Participated 1 or more months in 2003

One or more Medicaid Food stamps TANF/GA Housing assistance SSI

major assistance

programs

2.7

20.5 21.1 20.0

16.3 16.8 16.0

8.9 9.5 9.2

2.5 2.2 2.0

6.2 6.0 5.4

2.7 2.9

Figure 5.

Average Monthly Participation Rates for Major Means-Tested Programs: 

2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Average monthly participation rate for 2001

Average monthly participation rate for 2002

Average monthly participation rate for 2003

Medicaid Food stamps TANF/GA Housing assistance SSI

2.2

11.0 11.6 12.0

5.8 6.2 6.7

1.4 1.3 1.3

4.0 3.8 3.7 2.1 2.2
their poverty threshold; and 

28.6 percent of those in poverty

participated in all 36 months of the

2001–2003 period, compared with

2.9 percent of those not in poverty

(Figure 8). 

Participation by Race and

Hispanic Origin

The likelihood of receiving meanstested assistance and the length of

benefit receipt differed among

racial groups. In 2003, 

41.1 percent of Blacks, 18.5 percent of Asians or Pacific Islanders,

and 13.0 percent of non-Hispanic

Whites participated in a meanstested program for at least 

1 month (Figure 9). In 2003, the

average monthly participation rate

for Blacks, 33.7 percent, was

higher than that for non-Hispanic

Whites, 9.7 percent. The average

monthly participation rate for

Asians or Pacific Islanders was

13.4 percent (Figure 10). 

The percentage of Blacks receiving

assistance in all 36 months of the

2001–2003 period was larger than

the percentage of Asians or Pacific

Islanders and of non-Hispanic

Whites, 17.5 percent compared

with 6.3 percent and 3.6 percent,

respectively (Figure 11). The corresponding figures for 12 or more

months of participation were 23.3

percent for Blacks, 8.9 percent for

Asians or Pacific Islanders, and 5.2

percent for non-Hispanic Whites. 

The likelihood of receiving meanstested assistance also varied by

Hispanic origin.8 Hispanics were

more likely than non-Hispanic

Whites to receive benefits for at

least 1 month in 2003—35.7 percent of Hispanics participated in a

program for at least 1 month compared with 13.0 percent of nonHispanic Whites (Figure 9).

Similarly, the average monthly participation rate in 2003 for

Hispanics, 27.0 percent, was

higher than that for non-Hispanic

Whites, 9.7 percent (Figure 10). As

shown in Figure 11, Hispanics

were more likely than non-Hispanic

Whites to be long-term participants, with 10.8 percent of

Hispanics participating in all 36

months, compared with 3.6 percent of non-Hispanic Whites. 

U.S. Census Bureau 7

Figure 6.

Program Participation Rates in Major Means-Tested

Programs by Poverty Status: 2001, 2002, and 2003 

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Participated 1 or more months in 2001 

Participated 1 or more months in 2002 

Participated 1 or more months in 2003

Poor Nonpoor

13.9

58.8

61.3

59.0

14.1 14.5

8 Because Hispanics may be any race,

data in this report for Hispanics overlap

slightly with data for the Black population.

Based on data in the 2001 SIPP Panel and

using the panel weight, 3.5 percent of the

Black population was Hispanic. Data for

American Indians and Alaska Natives are not

shown in this report because of their small

sample size in the survey.
While Blacks and Hispanics had

higher program participation rates

than non-Hispanic Whites, the

number of non-Hispanic Whites

receiving means-tested assistance

exceeded the separate numbers of

Blacks and Hispanics. In 2003,

about 15 million Blacks and 14 million Hispanics participated in a

program for at least 1 month, compared with 25 million non-Hispanic

Whites. Similarly, during the

2001–2003 period, approximately

8 million Blacks and 5 million

Hispanics received means-tested

assistance for 12 or more months,

compared with 10 million nonHispanic Whites. 

Receipt of Means-Tested

Assistance by Age

Figure 12 illustrates that children

under 18 years of age were more

likely to receive means-tested benefits than were people in other age

groups. In an average month during 2003, 28.2 percent (20 million)

of children received some type of

means-tested benefit, compared

with 10.8 percent (19 million) of

people aged 18 to 64 and 12.3

percent (4 million) of people 65

and older. Children also tended to

be long-term participants, with

15.7 percent (11 million) collecting

benefits in 12 or more months and

10.7 percent (8 million) collecting

benefits in all 36 months of the

2001–2003 period (Figure 3). 

Participation Rates by 

Family Type

Families maintained by women

with no husband present had

lower incomes, on average, than

married-couple families.9

Reflecting this finding, individuals

in female-maintained families were

8 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 7.

Average Monthly Participation Rates in 

Major Means-Tested Programs by Poverty Status: 

2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Average monthly participation rate for 2001

Average monthly participation rate for 2002

Average monthly participation rate for 2003

Poor Nonpoor

9.7

47.2

49.1 50.8

8.8 9.3

Figure 8.

Program Participation Rates in Major 

Means-Tested Programs by Poverty Status: 

January 2001–December 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Participated between 1 and 11 months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated 12 or more months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated all 36 months from January 2001–December 2003

Poor Nonpoor

2.9

11.8

36.7

28.6

3.6 4.5

9 The term “no husband or wife present”

describes householders who were not residing with their spouses during the period of

investigation, regardless of their marital

status.
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Figure 9.

Program Participation Rates in Major Means-Tested Programs by 

Race and Hispanic Origin: 2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Participated 1 or more months in 2001 

Participated 1 or more months in 2002 

Participated 1 or more months in 2003

Non-Hispanic White Black Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic (any race)

35.7

13.4 13.9 13.0

42.4 43.2

41.1

21.6 20.5

18.5

37.2 38.2

Figure 10.

Average Monthly Participation Rates in Major Means-Tested Programs by 

Race and Hispanic Origin: 2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Average monthly participation rate for 2001

Average monthly participation rate for 2002

Average monthly participation rate for 2003

Non-Hispanic White Black Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic (any race)

27.0

8.9 9.3 9.7

32.0 33.3 33.7

14.2 14.0 13.4

25.3 26.6
more likely to participate in major

means-tested programs in an average month in 2003 than were people in married-couple families—

40.1 percent compared with 9.8

percent (Figure 13). Similarly, 48.0

percent of individuals in families

maintained solely by women participated in means-tested programs

for at least 1 month of 2003, in

contrast with 13.7 percent of individuals in married-couple families

(Figure 14). Individuals in families

maintained solely by women were

over seven times as likely as individuals in married-couple families

to receive benefits in all 36 months

of the 2001–2003 period—21.1

percent compared with 2.9 percent

(Figure 15). 

10 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 11.

Program Participation Rates in Major Means-Tested Programs by 

Race and Hispanic Origin: January 2001–December 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Participated between 1 and 11 months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated 12 or more months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated all 36 months from January 2001–December 2003

Non-Hispanic White Black Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic (any race)

10.1 10.8

3.0

5.2

3.6

8.7

23.3

17.5

4.7

8.9

6.3

15.0

Figure 12.

Average Monthly Participation Rates in 

Major Means-Tested Programs by Age of Individual:

2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Average monthly participation rate for 2001

Average monthly participation rate for 2002

Average monthly participation rate for 2003

Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and older

12.3

25.3

27.1 28.2

10.1 10.5 10.8

12.4 12.0
Participation Rates 

by Education

For people aged 18 and older, lower

educational attainment was associated with higher program participation rates. The percentage of individuals who did not graduate from

high school and received benefits in

at least 1 month of 2003 (32.8 percent) was higher than the corresponding percentages of high

school graduates (15.8 percent) and

those with some college (7.5 percent, Figure 16). During an average

month of 2003, 25.6 percent of

people who did not graduate from

high school received means-tested

benefits, compared with 11.7 percent of high school graduates and

5.2 percent of individuals with

some college (Figure 17).

Individuals who did not graduate

from high school were more likely

than high school graduates and

people with some college to receive

benefits during the entire 36-month

period of 2001–2003—15.2 percent

compared with 5.1 percent and 1.8

percent, respectively (Figure 18). 

Receipt of Means-Tested

Benefits by Employment Status 

People without jobs—those who

are unemployed or out of the labor

force—were more likely to receive

means-tested benefits in an average month of 2003 than were

either full-time or part-time workers. For people 18 years and

older, 25.0 percent of the unemployed received means-tested benefits in an average month of 2003,

compared with 20.5 percent of

those out of the labor force, 11.1

percent of part-time workers, and

4.3 percent of full-time workers

(Figure 19). 

In addition to receiving meanstested benefits, the unemployed

may also be qualified to receive

unemployment compensation. 

In an average month of 2003, 

U.S. Census Bureau 11

Figure 13.

Average Monthly Participation Rates in Major MeansTested Programs by Family Type: 2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Average monthly participation rate for 2001

Average monthly participation rate for 2002

Average monthly participation rate for 2003

Families with

female householder,

no husband present

Families with

male householder,

no wife present

Married-couple families

40.1

8.7 9.3 9.8

18.5 18.7 19.5

38.1 39.7

Figure 14.

Program Participation for 1 or More Months

in Major Means-Tested Programs by Family Type: 

2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Participated 1 or more months in 2001 

Participated 1 or more months in 2002 

Participated 1 or more months in 2003

Families with

female householder,

no husband present

Families with

male householder,

no wife present

Married-couple families

48.0

14.0 14.4 13.7

29.0 28.7

25.7

48.6

50.6
22.2 percent of the unemployed

received unemployment compensation, 2.6 percent received TANF or

GA, 1.3 percent received SSI,

15.9 percent received food stamps,

15.2 percent received Medicaid,

and 7.3 percent received housing

assistance. 

PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

This section looks at the characteristics of the recipients of assistance.

Two concepts are examined: 

• Median duration of spells of

program participation for

the 2001–2003 period: A spell

is an uninterrupted period of

time (measured in months) in

which an individual receives

means-tested assistance, which

is preceded by a month or more

of nonparticipation. Each recipient has one or more such spells.

The measure examines median

spells throughout the 36-month

period for recipients in the population receiving assistance at

the end of the period. The

median is the value of the spell

length that divides the distribution of spells (not recipients)

into two equal parts.10 The data

address the question “how long,

on average, do recipients stay in

programs continuously once

they enter them?”

12 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 15.

Program Participation Rates in Major 

Means-Tested Programs by Family Type: 

January 2001–December 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population)

Participated between 1 and 11 months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated 12 or more months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated all 36 months from January 2001–December 2003

Families with

female householder,

no husband present

Families with

male householder,

no wife present

Married-couple families

21.1

3.9 4.5 2.9

7.2

11.8

8.3 9.2

28.3

Figure 16.

Program Participation Rates in Major 

Means-Tested Programs by Educational Attainment: 

2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population. People 18 years and older)

Participated 1 or more months in 2001 

Participated 1 or more months in 2002 

Participated 1 or more months in 2003

High school graduate, Some college

no college

Less than 4 years

of high school

7.5

35.4 34.8

32.8

17.3 17.7

15.8

9.0 8.7

10 The median for a group of recipients

cannot be computed when more than half of

the spells for the group were continuing in

the 36th month.
• Median monthly family benefits in (specified year): The

monthly benefit amount for

each recipient represents the

amount of the benefit received

by the individual’s family in the

last month for which they

reported that they received benefits.11 The median is the

amount that divides recipients

into two equally-sized groups,

one consisting of those whose

monthly family benefit falls

below the median, the other of

recipients whose benefit rises

above it. The data refer to the

population of recipients living in

families participating at the end

of the year specified. 

Median Duration of

Participation by Program

For people who received assistance

during the 2001–2003 period,

Table A-7 presents data on the

median duration of spells of

means-tested program participation over the course of the 36

months by type of program and

selected demographic characteristics of participants.

As shown in Figure 20, among all

program participants, the median

spell length for participation in

general was 7.2 months. The

median spell length for SSI was

15.0 months, longer than the 

7.7 months for food stamps, the

7.6 months for Medicaid, and the

4.9 months for TANF or GA. 

Within specific groups of participants, SSI was the program used

for the longest continuous time by

Hispanics (22.3 months), people

U.S. Census Bureau 13

Figure 17.

Average Monthly Participation Rates

in Major Means-Tested Programs by Educational 

Attainment: 2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population. People 18 years and older)

Average monthly participation rate for 2001

Average monthly participation rate for 2002

Average monthly participation rate for 2003

High school graduate, Some college

no college

Less than 4 years

of high school

5.2

28.2

25.5 25.6

11.8 11.3 11.7

5.0 5.1

Figure 18.

Program Participation Rates in Major 

Means-Tested Programs by Educational Attainment: 

January 2001–December 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population. People 18 years and older)

Participated between 1 and 11 months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated 12 or more months from January 2001–December 2003 

Participated all 36 months from January 2001–December 2003

High school graduate, Some college

no college

Less than 4 years

of high school

1.8

7.1

18.7

15.2

3.8

6.9

5.1

2.1 2.7 11 It is not known how the data are

affected by families who did not participate

in the program for the entire last month for

which they reported that they received benefits from the program. If partial-month participation is associated with partial receipt of

benefits, then the use of such partial

amounts to represent an “average” or “usual”

monthly benefit would result in a downward

bias in the data. 
with a work disability (19.3

months), and people not in the

labor force (19.0 months) 

(Table A-7).

Spell Duration by

Demographic Group

Table A-7 reveals that the median

spell length for participation in

means-tested assistance programs

varied by demographic group.

People under 18 years old had the

highest median duration, 7.9

months, compared with 5.4

months for people aged 18 to 64

and 4.0 months for people 65 and

older. People aged 65 and older

who received food stamps had a

median spell duration of 19.8

months, the longest on any program. People who did not graduate from high school remained on

means-tested programs longer (7.4

months) than high school graduates (5.6 months) and those with

some college (3.9 months). 

14 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 19.

Average Monthly Participation Rates in Major Means-Tested Programs by 

Employment Status: 2001, 2002, and 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(Percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population. People 18 years and older)

Average monthly participation rate for 2001

Average monthly participation rate for 2002

Average monthly participation rate for 2003

Full-time work Part-time work Unemployed Not in labor force

20.5

4.1 4.1 4.3

10.8 10.6 11.1

24.7 23.5 25.0

19.7 20.0

Figure 20.

Median Spell Length by Program: 

January 2001–December 2003

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel. 

(In months)

Any Medicaid Food stamps SSI

means-tested

program

Housing TANF/GA

assistance

15.0

4.0

4.9

7.2 7.6 7.7
The median for people who were

not in the labor force was longer

than that for people employed fulltime (7.2 months compared with

3.8 months, respectively).

Variations across demographic

groups in median spell durations

were evident as well for specific

programs. People 18 to 64 years

old remained on food stamps for

7.1 months, shorter than the

duration for people under 18 years

old and people 65 and older 

(8.8 months and 19.8 months,

respectively). 

By race and Hispanic origin, Asians

or Pacific Islanders had longer

stays on TANF or GA (11.4 months)

than did non-Hispanic Whites (4.0

months) or Whites (4.0 months). 

By educational attainment, people

who did not graduate from high

school spent more time than people with higher educational levels

in the housing assistance program.

The median spell duration of SSI

for those with some college education was 7.9 months, compared

with 19.7 months for those who

did not graduate from high school. 

People in families maintained by

women with no husband present

remained on housing assistance

for a median length of 7.6 months,

longer than their counterparts in

married-couple families, whose

median was 3.8 months. 

Monthly Benefit Amounts by

Monthly Participation

For many of the groups, higher

average monthly participation

rates for assistance programs in

general were associated with

higher median monthly family

benefits in 2003.12 For example,

Figure 21 shows that in 2003,

Blacks, whose average monthly

participation rate was 33.7 percent, had a median monthly family

benefit of $259, higher than the

$243 for non-Hispanic Whites,

whose average monthly participation rate was 9.7 percent. Children

under 18 years old, whose average

monthly participation rate was

28.2 percent, received a median

monthly family benefit of $286,

higher than the $105 for those 65

and older, whose average monthly

participation rate was 12.3 percent. In 2003, people who were

employed full-time had an average

monthly participation rate of 4.3

percent and received a median

monthly family benefit of $224; in

comparison, people who were

unemployed had an average

monthly participation rate of 25.0

percent and median monthly benefits of $278. 

Source of the Data

The population represented (the

population universe) in the 2001

SIPP is the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the United

States. The SIPP is a longitudinal

survey conducted at 4-month intervals. The data in this report refer to

the period from January 2001

through December 2003. The institutionalized population, which is

excluded from the population universe, is composed primarily of the

population in correctional institutions and nursing homes (91 percent of the 4.1 million institutionalized population in Census 2000).

U.S. Census Bureau 15

Figure 21.

Median Monthly Benefit Amount in 2003 for People 

Receiving Benefits by Selected Characteristics

Note: For concept definitions, see Text Box “Description of Concepts.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.

(In dollars)

In families with a male

householder, no wife present

In families with a female

householder, no husband present

In married-couple families

65 years and over

18 to 64 years

Under 18 years

Hispanic origin

Black

Non-Hispanic White

279

243

259

259

286

249

105

279

259

12 Median monthly benefit amounts

include TANF or GA, SSI, and food stamps.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) compiled

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is used to

express the 2001 and 2002 monthly benefit

amounts in 2003 dollars. 
Accuracy of the Estimates

Statistics from surveys are subject

to sampling and nonsampling

error. All comparisons presented

in this report have taken sampling

error into account and are significant at the 90-percent confidence

level unless otherwise noted. This

means the 90-percent confidence

interval for the difference between

the estimates being compared

does not include zero.

Nonsampling errors in surveys may

be attributed to a variety of

sources, such as how the survey is

designed, how respondents interpret questions, how able and willing respondents are to provide correct answers, and how accurately

the answers are coded and classified. The U.S. Census Bureau

employs quality control procedures

throughout the production process,

including the overall design of the

surveys, the wording of questions,

the review of the work of interviewers and coders, and the statistical review of reports to minimize

these errors.

The SIPP weighting procedure uses

ratio estimation, whereby sample 

estimates are adjusted to independent estimates of the national

population by age, race, sex, and

Hispanic origin. This weighting

partially corrects for bias due to

undercoverage, but biases may still

be present when people who are

missed by the survey differ from

those interviewed in ways other

than age, race, sex, and Hispanic

origin. How this weighting procedure affects other variables in the

survey is not precisely known. All

of these considerations affect comparisons across different surveys

or data sources.13

For further information on the

source of the data and accuracy of

the estimates, including standard

errors and confidence intervals, go

to <www.bls.census.gov

/sipp/sourceac/S&A-2_SIPP2001

_w1tow9_20050214.pdf> or

contact Mahdi Sundukchi,

Demographic Statistical Methods

Division, at <Mahdi.S.Sundukchi@

census.gov>.

Contacts

Program Participation Statistics—

Statistical Information Staff

301-763-3242

<hhes-info@census.gov>

This report:

John J. Hisnanick, Chief

Longitudinal Income Statistics 

Branch

Housing and Household Economic 

Statistics Division

U.S. Census Bureau

301-763-6685

<John.J.Hisnanick@census.gov>

User Comments

The Census Bureau welcomes the

comments and advice of users of

its data and reports. If you have

any suggestions or comments,

please send an e-mail inquiry to

<hhes-info@census.gov>. 

Suggested Citation:

Loveless, Tracy A. and Jan Tin

Dynamics of Economic Well-Being:

Participation in Government

Programs, 2001 Through 2003

Who Gets Assistance? Current

Population Reports, P70-108, U.S.

Census Bureau, Washington, DC

20023

16 U.S. Census Bureau

13 For a more detailed discussion of SIPP

sampling and weighting, see 

<www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/sam_and

_wt.html>.
U.S. Census Bureau 17

Table A-1.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Any Major Means-Tested Programs by

Selected Characteristics: 2001–2003

Characteristic

Any means-tested program participation rates1

(in percent)

2001

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2002

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2003

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

Total number of recipients2 ............ 39,874 798 41,959 926 44,014 337

As percent of the population .................... 14.3 0.3 14.9 0.3 15.4 0.3

Race and Hispanic Origin3

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 0.3 11.7 0.3 12.3 0.3

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 0.3 9.3 0.3 9.7 0.3

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 1.0 33.3 1.2 33.7 1.2

Asian or Pacific Islander ........................ 14.2 1.5 14.0 1.6 13.4 1.5

Hispanic ..................................... 25.3 1.2 26.6 0.3 27.0 1.3

Not Hispanic.................................. 12.6 0.3 13.1 0.3 13.5 0.3

Age

Under 18 years ............................... 25.3 0.7 27.1 0.8 28.2 0.8

18 to 64 years ................................ 10.1 0.3 10.5 0.4 10.8 0.4

65 years and older ............................ 12.4 0.8 12.0 0.9 12.3 0.9

Sex

Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 0.4 13.2 0.5 13.7 0.4

Women ...................................... 15.9 0.4 16.5 0.5 17.0 0.5

Educational Attainment

(people 18 and older)

Less than high school graduate .................. 25.4 1.0 25.5 1.2 25.6 1.1

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 0.6 11.3 0.6 11.7 0.6

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 0.3 5.1 0.3 5.2 0.3

Disability Status

(people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability .......................... 35.1 1.4 34.7 1.7 35.4 1.7

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 0.3 8.5 0.3 9.2 0.3

Residence

Metropolitan .................................. 13.3 0.4 13.9 0.5 14.3 0.5

Central city ................................. 19.4 0.7 20.0 1.0 20.5 0.9

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 0.4 10.4 0.6 10.8 0.5

Nonmetropolitan .............................. 18.5 0.8 18.9 1.2 19.7 1.1

Region

Northeast .................................... 14.6 0.7 14.8 0.8 15.1 0.7

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 0.6 11.9 0.6 12.7 0.6

South ....................................... 14.9 0.5 15.8 0.6 16.5 0.6

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.9 0.6 16.7 0.7 16.5 0.7

Family Status

In families.................................... 14.4 0.3 15.2 0.4 15.7 0.4

In married-couple families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 0.3 9.3 0.3 9.8 0.3

In families with a female householder,

no husband present......................... 38.1 1.1 39.7 1.2 40.1 1.1

In families with a male householder,

no wife present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 1.6 18.7 1.8 19.5 1.7

Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 0.7 13.6 0.8 13.7 0.8

Employment and Labor Force Status

(people 18 and older)

Employed full-time4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 0.2 4.1 0.3 4.3 0.3

Employed part-time ............................ 10.8 0.7 10.6 0.8 11.1 0.8

Unemployed.................................. 24.7 2.5 23.5 2.4 25.0 2.4

Not in labor force.............................. 19.7 0.6 20.0 0.7 20.5 0.7

Marital Status

(people 18 and older)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 0.3 6.2 0.4 6.7 0.3

Separated, divorced, or widowed................. 17.7 0.8 17.8 0.9 17.9 0.9

Never married ................................ 15.3 0.7 15.8 0.8 15.9 0.8

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio5

Under 1.00 ................................... 47.2 1.1 49.1 1.3 50.8 1.2

1.00 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 0.3 9.3 0.3 9.7 0.3

1 Major means-tested programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), General Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps,

Medicaid, and housing assistance. 2 In thousands. 3 Hispanics may be any race. 4 Full-time and part-time employment reflect the monthly employment status. 5 Family income-to-poverty threshold ratio reflects the monthly poverty status. A ratio of under 1.00 indicates that a person is in poverty, whereas a ratio of higher than

or equal to 1.00 indicates that a person is not in poverty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.
18 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A-2.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families or General Assistance by Selected Characteristics: 2001–2003

Characteristic

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)/General Assistance participation rates

(in percent)

2001

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2002

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2003

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

Total number of recipients1 ............ 3,935 275 3,584 298 3,667 291

As percent of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.3 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.1

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.1

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.4 3.8 0.5 3.7 0.5

Asian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.6 1.8 0.6 1.5 0.5

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 0.4 2.7 0.5 2.7 0.5

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1

Age

Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.3 3.3 0.3 3.4 0.3

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.1

65 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Sex

Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.1 1.5 0.2 1.5 0.2

Educational Attainment

(people 18 and older)

Less than high school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.3 1.6 0.3 1.4 0.3

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

Disability Status

(people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.4 1.6 0.4 1.5 0.4

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.1

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.2 1.3 0.2

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.3 2.3 0.4 2.3 0.3

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.2

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.2 1.2 0.3 1.1 0.3

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.2 1.4 0.3 1.5 0.3

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.2 1.1 0.2

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.3 2.0 0.3 1.9 0.3

Family Status

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.1

In married-couple families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1

In families with a female householder,

no husband present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 0.5 5.8 0.6 5.6 0.5

In families with a male householder,

no wife present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.5 1.1 0.5 1.3 0.5

Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1

Employment and Labor Force Status

(people 18 and older)

Employed full-time3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0

Employed part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2

Unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 1.0 2.7 0.9 2.6 0.9

Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.2

Marital Status

(people 18 and older)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1

Separated, divorced, or widowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.2

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio4

Under 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.7 6.7 0.6 6.1 0.6

1.00 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1

1 In thousands. 2 Hispanics may be any race. 3 Full-time and part-time employment reflect the monthly employment status. 4 Family income-to-poverty threshold ratio reflects the monthly poverty status. A ratio of under 1.00 indicates that a person is in poverty, whereas a ratio of higher than

or equal to 1.00 indicates that a person is not in poverty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.
U.S. Census Bureau 19

Table A-3.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Supplemental Security Income by

Selected Characteristics: 2001–2003

Characteristic

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) participation rates

(in percent)

2001

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2002

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2003

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

Total number of recipients1 ............ 5,775 331 6,097 387 6,350 381

As percent of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.1 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.1

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.8 0.1

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.6 0.1

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.5 4.7 0.5 4.8 0.5

Asian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 0.7 3.0 0.8 3.0 0.8

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.3 2.9 0.5 3.0 0.5

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.1 2.1 0.1 2.1 0.1

Age

Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.4 0.2

65 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 0.5 4.7 0.6 5.0 0.6

Sex

Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.2 1.8 0.2 1.9 0.2

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.5 0.2

Educational Attainment

(people 18 and older)

Less than high school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 0.6 8.2 0.7 7.8 0.7

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.3 2.7 0.3 2.8 0.3

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.1 0.2

Disability Status

(people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1 1.2 18.8 1.4 19.4 1.4

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.1

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.1 2.0 0.2 2.1 0.2

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 0.3 3.0 0.4 3.1 0.4

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.2 1.5 0.2 1.5 0.2

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.3 2.7 0.5 2.7 0.4

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.3 2.5 0.3 2.6 0.3

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.2 1.7 0.3 1.7 0.2

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.4 0.2

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.2 2.1 0.3 2.1 0.3

Family Status

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 0.1

In married-couple families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1

In families with a female householder,

no husband present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 0.4 3.6 0.5 3.7 0.4

In families with a male householder,

no wife present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.6 2.9 0.8 3.3 0.8

Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 0.4 5.1 0.5 5.2 0.5

Employment and Labor Force Status

(people 18 and older)

Employed full-time3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

Employed part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 1.0 0.3

Unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.6

Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 0.4 8.0 0.5 8.0 0.5

Marital Status

(people 18 and older)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.2

Separated, divorced, or widowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 0.5 6.1 0.6 6.2 0.6

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.4 4.0 0.4 3.9 0.4

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio4

Under 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 0.6 6.8 0.6 7.1 0.6

1.00 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.4 0.1

1 In thousands. 2 Hispanics may be any race. 3 Full-time and part-time employment reflect the monthly employment status. 4 Family income-to-poverty threshold ratio reflects the monthly poverty status. A ratio of under 1.00 indicates that a person is in poverty, whereas a ratio of higher than

or equal to 1.00 indicates that a person is not in poverty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.
20 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A-4.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Food Stamps by Selected

Characteristics: 2001–2003

Characteristic

Food stamp participation rates

(in percent)

2001

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2002

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2003

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

Total number of recipients1 ............ 16,096 540 17,467 637 19,274 643

As percent of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 0.2 6.2 0.2 6.7 0.2

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.9 0.2

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 0.2 3.4 0.2 3.8 0.2

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 0.8 17.5 1.0 18.5 1.0

Asian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 0.8 4.2 0.9 4.0 0.9

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 0.6 10.6 0.9 10.9 0.9

Not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 0.2 5.5 0.2 6.1 0.2

Age

Under 18 years ............................... 10.2 0.5 11.0 0.6 11.8 0.6

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.2 4.8 0.3 5.3 0.3

65 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 0.4 3.4 0.5 3.7 0.5

Sex

Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 0.3 5.3 0.3 5.7 0.3

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 0.3 7.1 0.3 7.7 0.3

Educational Attainment

(people 18 and older)

Less than high school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 0.7 11.7 0.9 12.2 0.8

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.4 4.9 0.4 5.5 0.5

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.2 1.9 0.2 2.1 0.2

Disability Status

(people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability .......................... 14.4 1.1 14.6 1.2 15.7 1.3

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 0.2 3.8 0.2 4.3 0.2

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 0.2 5.5 0.3 6.0 0.3

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 0.5 8.8 0.7 9.5 0.7

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 0.2 3.6 0.4 4.0 0.3

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 0.6 9.0 0.9 9.7 0.8

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 0.4 5.3 0.5 5.8 0.5

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 0.4 5.4 0.4 6.0 0.5

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 0.4 7.6 0.4 8.4 0.4

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 0.4 5.6 0.5 5.6 0.4

Family Status

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 0.2 6.5 0.3 7.0 0.3

In married-couple families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.3 0.2

In families with a female householder,

no husband present......................... 20.6 0.9 21.4 1.0 22.7 1.0

In families with a male householder,

no wife present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 1.0 7.0 1.2 7.7 1.2

Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 0.4 4.9 0.5 5.4 0.5

Employment and Labor Force Status

(people 18 and older)

Employed full-time3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.1 1.6 0.2 1.9 0.2

Employed part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.5 4.6 0.5 5.0 0.5

Unemployed.................................. 14.7 2.0 13.9 2.0 15.9 2.1

Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 0.4 8.3 0.5 9.0 0.5

Marital Status

(people 18 and older)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 0.2 2.7 0.2 3.0 0.2

Separated, divorced, or widowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 0.6 7.7 0.7 8.2 0.7

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 0.5 6.5 0.6 7.1 0.6

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio4

Under 1.00 ................................... 28.2 1.0 30.1 1.2 32.1 1.1

1.00 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.1 2.3 0.2 2.7 0.2

1 In thousands. 2 Hispanics may be any race. 3 Full-time and part-time employment reflect the monthly employment status. 4 Family income-to-poverty threshold ratio reflects the monthly poverty status. A ratio of under than 1.00 indicates that a person is in poverty, whereas a ratio of higher

than or equal to 1.00 indicates that a person is not in poverty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.
U.S. Census Bureau 21

Table A-5.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Medicaid by Selected Characteristics:

2001–2003

Characteristic

Medicaid participation rates

(in percent)

2001

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2002

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2003

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

Total number of recipients1 ............ 30,679 718 32,742 839 34,334 826

As percent of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 0.3 11.6 0.3 12.0 0.3

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 0.3 9.3 0.3 9.7 0.3

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 0.3 7.3 0.3 7.6 0.3

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 0.9 24.7 1.1 25.1 1.1

Asian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 1.3 11.7 1.5 11.4 1.4

Hispanic .................................... 19.6 1.1 21.3 1.2 21.8 1.2

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 0.3 10.2 0.3 10.4 0.3

Age

Under 18 years ............................... 21.9 0.7 23.9 0.8 25.0 0.8

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 0.3 7.1 0.3 7.2 0.3

65 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 0.7 9.2 0.8 9.4 0.8

Sex

Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 0.4 10.3 0.4 10.7 0.4

Women ...................................... 12.3 0.4 12.9 0.4 13.3 0.4

Educational Attainment

(people 18 and older)

Less than high school graduate .................. 18.6 0.9 18.9 1.0 19.0 1.0

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 0.5 7.5 0.5 7.7 0.5

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 0.2 3.3 0.3 3.3 0.3

Disability Status

(people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability .......................... 29.3 1.4 29.2 1.6 29.8 1.6

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.2 5.5 0.3 5.9 0.3

Residence

Metropolitan .................................. 10.2 0.3 10.9 0.5 11.3 0.4

Central city ................................. 14.7 0.6 15.5 0.9 16.0 0.8

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 0.4 8.3 0.5 8.5 0.5

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 0.8 14.5 1.1 15.1 1.0

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 0.6 11.8 0.7 11.9 0.7

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 0.5 9.3 0.6 9.8 0.6

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 0.4 11.7 0.5 12.2 0.5

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9 0.6 13.7 0.7 13.8 0.6

Family Status

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 0.3 12.0 0.3 12.5 0.3

In married-couple families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 0.3 7.4 0.3 7.7 0.3

In families with a female householder,

no husband present......................... 29.8 1.0 31.2 1.1 31.7 1.1

In families with a male householder,

no wife present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 1.4 15.4 1.7 16.4 1.6

Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 0.6 9.7 0.7 9.6 0.7

Employment and Labor Force Status

(people 18 and older)

Employed full-time3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.2 1.9 0.2 1.9 0.2

Employed part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 0.6 6.7 0.6 6.9 0.6

Unemployed.................................. 15.6 2.1 15.3 2.0 15.2 2.0

Not in labor force.............................. 15.5 0.6 15.7 0.6 16.1 0.6

Marital Status

(people 18 and older)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.2 3.9 0.3 4.2 0.3

Separated, divorced, or widowed................. 12.6 0.7 12.7 0.8 12.8 0.8

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 0.6 11.4 0.7 11.5 0.7

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio4

Under 1.00 ................................... 37.0 1.1 39.0 1.2 40.3 1.2

1.00 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 0.2 7.1 0.2 7.4 0.2

1 In thousands. 2 Hispanics may be any race. 3 Full-time and part-time employment reflect the monthly employment status. 4 Family income-to-poverty threshold ratio reflects the monthly poverty status. A ratio of under 1.00 indicates that a person is in poverty, whereas a ratio of higher than

or equal to 1.00 indicates that a person is not in poverty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.
22 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A-6.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Housing Assistance by Selected

Characteristics: 2001–2003

Characteristic

Housing assistance participation rates

(in percent)

2001

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2002

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) 2003

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

Total number of recipients1 ............ 11,160 455 10,770 509 10,572 486

As percent of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 0.2 3.8 0.2 3.7 0.2

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.1 2.5 0.2 2.4 0.2

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.2 1.9 0.2 1.9 0.1

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 0.7 12.2 0.8 11.9 0.8

Asian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 0.8 3.1 0.8 3.1 0.8

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 0.5 6.1 0.7 5.6 0.7

Not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.2 3.5 0.2 3.4 0.2

Age

Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 0.4 5.8 0.4 5.6 0.4

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 0.2 3.0 0.2 2.9 0.2

65 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.5 3.9 0.5 3.8 0.5

Sex

Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 0.2 3.1 0.2 3.0 0.2

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 0.2 4.5 0.3 4.4 0.3

Educational Attainment

(people 18 and older)

Less than high school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 0.6 7.4 0.7 7.0 0.6

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.3 3.3 0.4 3.2 0.3

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.2 1.7 0.2 1.6 0.2

Disability Status

(people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 0.8 8.6 1.0 8.6 1.0

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.5 0.2

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 0.2 3.8 0.3 3.7 0.3

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 0.5 6.6 0.6 6.2 0.5

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 0.2 2.2 0.3 2.2 0.3

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 0.4 3.9 0.6 3.9 0.5

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 0.4 5.2 0.5 5.1 0.5

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 0.3 3.2 0.4 3.2 0.3

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.3 3.6 0.3 3.4 0.3

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.3 3.7 0.4 3.5 0.3

Family Status

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.2 3.5 0.2 3.4 0.2

In married-couple families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.1

In families with a female householder,

no husband present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 0.8 13.4 0.8 12.8 0.8

In families with a male householder,

no wife present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.7 2.1 0.7 1.7 0.6

Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 0.5 5.3 0.5 5.2 0.5

Employment and Labor Force Status

(people 18 and older)

Employed full-time3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.2

Employed part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.4 3.2 0.5 3.1 0.4

Unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 1.6 7.4 1.5 7.3 1.5

Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 0.4 5.5 0.4 5.3 0.4

Marital Status

(people 18 and older)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.2

Separated, divorced, or widowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 0.5 5.9 0.6 5.6 0.5

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 0.4 5.2 0.5 4.9 0.5

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio4

Under 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7 0.8 15.2 0.9 15.2 0.9

1.00 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.1 2.0 0.1 1.8 0.1

1 In thousands. 2 Hispanics may be any race. 3 Full-time and part-time employment reflect the monthly employment status. 4 Family income-to-poverty threshold ratio reflects the monthly poverty status. A ratio of under 1.00 indicates that a person is in poverty, whereas a ratio of higher than

or equal to 1.00 indicates that a person is not in poverty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.
U.S. Census Bureau 23

Table A-7.

Median Duration of Participation in Major Means-Tested Programs by Program:

2001–2003 (in months)

Characteristic

Any means-tested

programs1 TANF/GA

Supplemental

Security

Income

Food

stamps Medicaid Housingassistance2

Median

90-

percent

confidence

interval

(±) Median

90-

percent

confidence

interval

(±) Median

90-

percent

confidence

interval

(±) Median

90-

percent

confidence

interval

(±) Median

90-

percent

confidence

interval

(±) Median

90-

percent

confidence

interval

(±)

All recipients3 . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.2 4.9 1.5 15.0 1.3 7.7 0.3 7.6 1.6 4.0 0.0

Race and Hispanic Origin4

White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 0.2 4.0 0.2 15.0 1.5 7.4 0.5 7.6 1.6 3.9 0.0

Not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 0.2 4.0 2.1 11.7 0.8 7.5 0.5 7.6 1.6 3.9 0.0

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 0.3 6.5 5.1 11.8 0.8 8.6 2.5 7.9 3.3 7.5 0.3

Asian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 0.2 11.4 0.8 (X) (X) 7.1 0.8 7.0 4.9 3.7 0.2

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.3 4.0 0.2 22.3 2.6 7.0 0.7 7.7 0.3 3.9 0.2

Not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.2 5.4 1.6 11.9 0.5 7.8 0.3 7.6 0.2 4.0 0.0

Age5

Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 0.2 6.3 13.0 11.3 0.8 8.8 1.2 9.7 2.5 7.0 0.3

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 1.2 4.0 0.2 15.0 1.8 7.1 0.3 7.4 0.2 3.9 0.0

65 years and older. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 0.2 (B) (B) 15.7 1.3 19.8 2.1 4.9 31.1 7.9 0.8

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 0.2 5.7 2.0 15.2 1.3 7.2 0.5 7.7 0.2 3.9 0.0

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 0.2 4.4 1.3 12.0 0.7 8.2 1.2 7.6 0.2 5.0 3.9

Educational Attainment

(people 18 and older)

Less than high school graduate . . . . 7.4 0.3 4.3 2.0 19.7 3.3 10.2 7.1 7.7 0.3 7.2 0.5

High school graduate, no college . . . 5.6 1.8 3.9 0.3 16.2 11.5 7.0 1.0 7.2 0.2 3.9 0.2

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 0.0 3.9 0.3 7.9 0.8 5.2 1.5 5.0 3.1 3.8 0.2

Disability Status

(people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 0.5 4.0 0.3 19.3 1.5 11.6 1.3 9.3 6.6 7.6 0.7

With no work disability. . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 1.3 4.0 0.2 7.8 0.5 6.5 0.8 7.1 0.2 3.8 0.0

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 0.2 5.9 1.8 11.9 0.5 7.6 0.3 7.6 0.2 4.0 0.0

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 0.2 6.9 5.3 11.9 0.7 7.8 0.5 7.6 0.2 4.4 3.9

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.2 5.6 1.6 13.4 13.2 7.3 0.5 7.6 0.2 3.9 0.2

Nonmetropolitan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 0.3 3.8 0.2 19.0 2.0 7.9 0.5 7.9 0.3 3.9 0.2

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.3 7.2 0.7 15.6 3.5 9.0 2.1 7.6 0.3 4.0 0.2

Midwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 0.3 5.3 4.1 11.7 1.5 7.7 0.7 7.8 0.3 7.3 0.7

South. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.2 3.8 0.2 12.9 14.8 8.0 0.5 7.6 0.2 3.9 0.2

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 0.3 5.1 2.1 11.5 2.1 6.1 1.2 7.6 0.3 3.9 0.2

Family Status

In families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.2 4.9 1.5 11.5 0.5 7.6 0.3 7.7 0.2 4.0 0.0

In married-couple families . . . . . . . 6.9 1.6 3.9 0.2 11.5 1.0 6.0 1.6 7.3 0.2 3.8 0.0

In families with a female

householder, no husband

present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 0.3 5.8 1.6 11.3 0.8 8.8 1.5 9.9 2.0 7.6 0.3

In families with a male

householder, no wife present . . . 7.3 0.7 3.8 0.3 15.7 1.3 8.4 2.0 7.8 0.7 3.8 0.2

Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 3.5 4.6 2.3 (X) (X) 9.5 3.1 7.6 0.3 3.9 0.2

Employment and Labor Force

Status

(people 18 and older)

Employed full-time6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 0.0 3.7 0.3 3.9 0.2 3.9 0.2 3.9 0.0 3.7 0.0

Employed part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 0.8 3.7 0.3 11.6 1.2 6.3 0.7 7.3 0.3 4.0 0.2

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.5 3.9 0.3 (B) (B) 8.4 10.2 7.5 0.5 5.1 3.1

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 0.2 4.7 1.6 19.0 1.2 11.4 1.0 7.5 0.2 7.3 0.5

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio7

Under 1.00 ..................... 10.0 1.8 5.9 1.3 (X) (X) 11.5 1.0 11.4 0.5 7.6 0.3

1.00 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 1.0 3.9 0.2 11.3 0.7 5.8 0.8 7.3 0.2 3.8 0.0

See footnotes on next page.
24 U.S. Census Bureau

(X) Not applicable. (B) The sample size is too small for analysis.

1 Major means-tested programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), General Assistance (GA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps,

Medicaid, and housing assistance. 2 Median duration cannot be computed when more than half of the spells are continuing in the last month of data collection. (This situation is especially likely to occur

for elderly recipients whose incomes from other sources are unlikely to rise over time.) 3 Median duration for each program is derived only for those who begin participating in each program at the start of the survey, while those who are already in the

program at the start of the survey are excluded from the analysis. 4 Hispanics may be any race. 5 Age, educational attainment, and other variables are measured at the time the spells begin, except that, for those who are already on programs at the start of the

survey, these characteristics are measured at the first interview. 6 Full-time and part-time employment reflects the average employment status. 7 Family income-to-poverty threshold ratio reflects the monthly poverty status. A ratio of under 1.00 indicates that a person is in poverty, whereas a ratio of higher than

or equal to 1.00 indicates that a person is not in poverty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.
U.S. Census Bureau 25

Table A-8.

Median Monthly Family Benefits of Program Participants by Selected

Characteristics: 2001–2003

Characteristic

Monthly family benefits1

(in 2003 dollars)

2001 2002 2003

Median

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) Median

90-percent

confidence

interval (±) Median

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

All recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 0.8 260 1.6 255 0.8

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 3.3 252 4.1 249 1.6

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 3.3 248 4.1 243 4.9

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 4.1 267 3.3 259 5.8

Asian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 14.0 291 24.7 257 7.4

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 1.6 263 4.1 259 4.9

Not Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 1.6 259 0.8 252 4.1

Age

Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 3.3 289 4.1 286 4.9

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 1.6 259 1.6 249 0.0

65 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 7.4 110 10.7 105 8.2

Sex

Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 4.1 273 4.1 270 5.8

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 3.3 255 4.1 247 1.6

Educational Attainment

(people 18 and older)

Less than high school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 6.6 233 7.4 235 3.3

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 3.3 251 4.9 234 6.6

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 8.2 246 6.6 229 4.9

Disability Status

(people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 4.1 246 6.6 238 7.4

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 0.8 259 0.8 249 3.3

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 4.1 264 4.9 255 1.6

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 1.6 271 2.5 259 2.5

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 2.5 259 0.8 255 0.8

Nonmetropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 1.6 250 1.6 239 4.1

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 2.5 250 4.1 249 0.0

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 0.0 268 6.6 255 0.8

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 0.8 257 3.3 255 1.6

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 1.6 279 4.9 255 2.5

Family Status

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 0.0 271 2.5 265 4.1

In married-couple families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 7.4 280 6.6 279 3.3

In families with a female householder,

no husband present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 2.5 271 2.5 259 3.3

In families with a male householder,

no wife present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 26.3 285 14.8 279 19.7

Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 3.3 135 2.5 130 3.3

Employment and Labor Force Status

(people 18 and older)

Employed full-time3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 4.1 228 5.8 224 9.9

Employed part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 4.9 234 5.8 229 4.1

Unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 9.0 296 21.4 278 12.3

Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 3.3 239 4.1 231 4.1

Marital Status

(people 18 and older)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 1.6 261 0.8 255 0.8

Separated, divorced, or widowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 10.7 162 9.9 149 4.1

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 1.6 261 4.9 254 3.3

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio4

Under 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 0.8 259 0.8 255 0.0

1.00 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 1.6 261 3.3 249 1.6

1 Median monthly family benefits are calculated only for recipients who have reported or imputed amounts for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), General

Assistance (GA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and food stamps, and are expressed in 2003 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). 2 Hispanics may be any race. 3 Full-time and part-time employment reflect the monthly employment status. 4 Family income-to-poverty threshold ratio reflects the monthly poverty status. A ratio of under 1.00 indicates that a person is in poverty, whereas a ratio of higher than

or equal to 1.00 indicates that a person is not in poverty.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel.
U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Washington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Census Bureau

Permit No. G-58