Measuring the Effect of Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

Participation on Food Security

 

Nutrition Assistance Program Report August 2013

Food and Nutrition Service Office of Policy Support
Non-Discrimination Policy

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

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex 

(including gender identity and expression), marital status, familial status, parental status, 

religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

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

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 

9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-

8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federalrelay). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
 

Measuring the Effect of Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

Participation on Food Security

Authors:

James Mabli

Jim Ohls

Lisa Dragoset

Laura Castner

Betsy Santos

Submitted by:

Mathematica Policy Research

955 Massachusetts Avenue

Suite 801

Cambridge, MA 02139

Project Directors:

Jim Ohls

James Mabli

Survey Director:

Betsy Santos

Submitted to:

Office of Policy Support

Food and Nutrition Service

3101 Park Center Drive

Alexandria, VA 22302-1500

Project Officer:

Sarah Zapolsky 

This study was conducted under Contract number GS-10F-0050L with the Food and Nutrition 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

This report is available on the Food and Nutrition website: http://www.fns.usda.gov

Suggested Citation: 

Mabli, James, Jim Ohls, Lisa Dragoset, Laura Castner, and Betsy Santos. Measuring the Effect 

of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation on Food Security. 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, August 2013.

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support August 2013 

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), Office of Research and Analysis by James Mabli, Jim Ohls, Lisa Dragoset, Laura Castner, 

and Betsy Santos of Mathematica Policy Research. Many individuals made important contributions 

to this study. The authors thank Dawn Nelson and Betsy Santos for designing, pre-testing, and 

directing the telephone surveys; Margie Rosa for overseeing the administration of the telephone 

survey; Lauren Greczyn for leading the locating component of the data collection; Barbara Kolln for 

leading the Information Services team that programmed the computer assisted interview and the 

sample management system; John Hall, assisted by Thomas Decker, for designing and implementing 

the sampling methodology and developing sampling weights; Bryan Bernecker and Aaron Marden 

for expert programming in creating analysis variables and generating study findings; Allen Schirm for 

reviewing the report; Autumn Parker for preparing the manuscript; and many staff at Mathematica’s 

Survey Operations Center. The authors also thank Sarah Zapolsky of FNS for her guidance and 

support throughout the entire study, as well as Anita Singh and Kathryn Law of FNS and Mark 

Nord of the Economic Research Service for their thoughtful review and critique.

Mathematica Project Directors: Jim Ohls and James Mabli

Mathematica Project Number: 06801.710

.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
v

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................. III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................XIX

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1

A. Research Objectives and Analytic Approach.............................................2

B. Layout of the Report................................................................................2

II. DATA AND METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................5

A. Study Design ...........................................................................................5

B. Data Collection and Response Rates ........................................................7

C. Outcome Measures and Explanatory Variables .........................................8

1. Outcome Measures for the Food Security Analyses ............................8

2. Outcome Measures for the Food Expenditure Analyses......................9

3. Explanatory Variables......................................................................10

D. Analysis Methods ..................................................................................11

1. Multivariate Analysis of Food Security..............................................11

2. Multivariate Analysis of Food Expenditures......................................11

3. Standard Errors ...............................................................................12

4. Subgroup Analysis...........................................................................12

E. Weight Construction..............................................................................12

F. Limitations ............................................................................................13

III. CHARACTERISTICS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF SNAP HOUSEHOLDS ................15

A. Food Security Status of Six-Month and New-Entrant 

Households ...........................................................................................15

B. Food Security Status of Children in Six-Month and New-Entrant 

Households with Children......................................................................16

C. Food Spending of Six-Month and New-Entrant Households...................17

D. Explanatory Variables Used in Multivariate Analysis ...............................18

1. Characteristics of Survey Respondents ............................................18

2. Overview of Differences Between New Entrants and Each of 

the Two Samples of Six-Month Households.....................................23
Contents Mathematica Policy Research

vi

IV. SNAP AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY......................................................25

A. Associations Between SNAP and Household Food Security .....................25

B. Associations Between SNAP and Children’s Food Security ......................27

C. Associations Between SNAP and Household Food Security, by 

Subgroup ..............................................................................................29

1. Differences in Associations, by Household Composition..................30

2. Differences in Associations, by Household Income ..........................32

3. Differences in Associations, by SNAP Benefit Amount......................32

4. Summary of Subgroup Findings.......................................................35

V. SNAP AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD EXPENDITURES ..............................................37

A. Associations Between SNAP and Usual Food Expenditures .....................37

B. Associations Between SNAP and Usual Food Expenditures 

Relative to the Cost of the TFP...............................................................38

C. Associations Between SNAP and Household Food Spending, by 

Subgroup ..............................................................................................39

1. Differences in Associations, by Household Composition..................39

2. Differences in Associations, by Household Income ..........................41

3. Differences in Associations, by SNAP Benefit Amount......................41

4. Summary of Subgroup Findings.......................................................44

D. Additional Results .................................................................................44

E. The Relationship between the SNAP Benefit Amount and Food 

Expenditures .........................................................................................45

F. Summary...............................................................................................46

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH..........................47

A. Key Findings..........................................................................................47

B. Comparison of Findings to Related Studies............................................48

C. Implications for Future Research ...........................................................50

D. Implications for Research Methods ........................................................50

REFERENCES.................................................................................................53

APPENDIX A: DATA AND METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX B: EXPANDED SET OF CHARACTERISTICS OF NEWENTRANT AND SIX-MONTH SNAP HOUSEHOLDS
Contents Mathematica Policy Research

vii

APPENDIX C: DETAILS FOR FOOD SECURITY REGRESSIONS

APPENDIX D: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FOR FOOD SECURITY 

REGRESSIONS

APPENDIX E: ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SNAP AND FOOD INSECURITY, 

BY SUBGROUP

APPENDIX F: DETAILS FOR FOOD EXPENDITURES REGRESSIONS

APPENDIX G: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES OF FOOD EXPENDITURES

APPENDIX H: SUBGROUP SAMPLE SIZES

APPENDIX I: BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW-ENTRANT 

HOUSEHOLDS WITH AND WITHOUT A FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

APPENDIX J: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
ix

TABLES

1 Median Household Food Spending in Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households, in Absolute Terms and Relative to the Cost of 

the Thrifty Food Plan .................................................................................xxx

III.1 Median Household Food Spending in Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households, in Absolute Terms and Normalized by the Cost 

of the TFP....................................................................................................18

III.2 Demographic Characteristics, Household Size, and Composition of 

Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP Households ............................................19

III.3 Employment Status, Monthly Income as Percentage of the Poverty 

Line, and Income Sources of Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP 

Households .................................................................................................20

III.4 Prior SNAP Participation and Changes in Household Size, Housing 

Status, or Employment, Pay, or Hours Worked in Past Six Months 

Experienced by Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP Households....................21

III.5 Well-Being, Language of Interview, and Region of Residence of SixMonth and New-Entrant SNAP Households ..................................................22

III.6 Mean State Characteristics Associated with Six-Month and NewEntrant SNAP Households ............................................................................23

IV.1 Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure and Percentage 

of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household 

Composition................................................................................................31

IV.2 Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure and Percentage 

of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household Income................33

IV.3 Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure and Percentage 

of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by SNAP Benefit Amount ...........34

V.1 Regression-Adjusted Average Usual Weekly Household Food 

Spending and Food Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by 

Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by 

Household Composition ..............................................................................40

V.2 Regression-Adjusted Average Usual Weekly Household Food 

Spending and Food Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by 

Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by 

Household Income.......................................................................................42

V.3 Regression-Adjusted Average Usual Weekly Household Food 

Spending and Food Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by 
Tables Mathematica Policy Research

x

Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by SNAP 

Benefit Amount............................................................................................43

A.1 SNAPFS Survey Outcome Rates...................................................................A-7

A.2 Definitions of Weighting Classes for New-Entrant Baseline 

(Completing)............................................................................................A-19

A.3 Definitions of Weighting Classes for New-Entrant Baseline 

(Eligibility Determination) ........................................................................A-20

A.4 Definitions of Weighting Classes for New-Entrant Baseline 

(Contacting).............................................................................................A-21

A.5 Definitions of Weighting Classes for Six-Month Baseline 

(Completing)............................................................................................A-22

A.6 Definitions of Weighting Classes for Six-Month Baseline (Eligibility 

Determination) ........................................................................................A-22

A.7 Definitions of Weighting Classes for Six-Month Baseline 

(Contacting).............................................................................................A-23

A.8 Definitions of Weighting Classes for New-Entrant Follow-Up 

(Completing)............................................................................................A-24

A.9 Definitions of Weighting Classes for New-Entrant Follow-Up 

(Eligibility Determination) ........................................................................A-24

A.10 Definitions of Weighting Classes for New-Entrant Follow-Up 

(Contacting).............................................................................................A-25

B.1 Variables for Which There is at Least a 5 Percentage Point 

Difference between New-Entrant and Six-Month Household 

Percentages For at Least One of the Cross-Sectional or Longitudinal 

Samples.....................................................................................................B- 3

B.2 Demographic Characteristics, Language of Interview, and Region of 

Residence of Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP Households...................... B-4

B.3 Household Size and Composition of Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households ...................................................................................... B-5

B.4 Employment Status, Monthly Income as Percentage of the Poverty 

Line, and Earned and Unearned Income of Six-Month and NewEntrant SNAP Households .......................................................................... B-6

B.5 Income Sources and Average Monthly Income Amounts of SixMonth and New-Entrant SNAP Households ................................................ B-7

B.6 Household Income, Earnings, and Unearned Income of Six-Month 

and New-Entrant SNAP Households, Among Households with 

Income ...................................................................................................... B-8
Tables Mathematica Policy Research

xi

B.7 Household Resources Other than Income of Six-Month and NewEntrant SNAP Households .......................................................................... B-9

B.8 Changes in Household Size, Housing Status, or Employment, Pay, or 

Hours Worked in Past Six Months Experienced by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Households ................................................................ B-10

B.9 SNAP Participation Characteristics of Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households .................................................................................... B-11

B.10 Participation in Non-SNAP Food Assistance Programs in Past 30 

Days of Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP Households............................ B-12

B.11 Food Purchase Behavior of Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP 

Households ............................................................................................. B-13

B.12 EBT Usage, Timing of Receipt of SNAP Benefit Relative to Interview 

Date, and Money Saving Techniques for Food Spending of SixMonth and New-Entrant SNAP Households .............................................. B-14

B.13 Self-Reported Health Status and Body Mass Index of Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Households ................................................................ B-15

B.14 Self-Reported Mental Health and Well-Being of Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Households ................................................................ B-16

B.15 State Characteristics Associated with Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households .................................................................................... B-17

C.1 Coefficients and Standard Errors for Food Insecurity Logistic 

Regressions...............................................................................................C-4

C.2 Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and 

Household Characteristics on a Household’s Likelihood of Having 

Very Low Food Security..............................................................................C-6

C.3 Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and 

Household Characteristics on a Household with Children’s 

Likelihood being Food Insecure .................................................................C-8

C.4 Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and 

Household Characteristics on a Household with Children’s

Likelihood of Having Very Low Food Security ...........................................C-10

D.1 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure or That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Model Specification ........... D-4

D.2 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure or That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether Smaller Set 

of Explanatory Variables Is Used............................................................... D-5
Tables Mathematica Policy Research

xii

D.3 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure or That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether FixedEffects Model Is Used in the Longitudinal Analysis .................................... D-6

D.4 Length of Time Between Interview Date and Reported SNAP Benefit 

Receipt..................................................................................................... D-7

D.5 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure or That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether Model 

Includes “Days Since SNAP Benefit Receipt” Variable.................................. D-8

D.6 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure or That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether SNAP 

Benefits Had Been Received Before the Interview and by Number of 

Days Since SNAP Benefit Receipt for New-Entrant Households .................. D-9

D.7 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure and Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That 

Have Very Low Food Security, by Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP 

Participation Status and by Whether New-Entrant Sample Is 

Restricted to Those Households Still on SNAP Six Months Later............... D-11

E.1 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by Age, Education, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment Status 

of Household Head.................................................................................... E-3

E.2 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by Household Composition and Region of Residence .......................... E-4

E.3 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That are Food 

Insecure, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by Household Income and Sources of Household Income .................... E-5

E.4 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by SNAP Benefit Amount, Expedited Service Receipt, and Prior 

SNAP Participation Status........................................................................... E-6

E.5 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by Health Status and Body Mass Index of Household Head .................. E-7

E.6 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by Household Residential and Ownership Status ................................. E-8

E.7 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status 
Tables Mathematica Policy Research

xiii

and by Household Resources and Food Preparation and Storage 

Capabilities ............................................................................................... E-9

E.8 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That are Food 

Insecure, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by Participation in Nutrition and Community Food Programs............. E-10

E.9 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food 

Insecure, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by Mental Health and Well-Being of Household Head ........................ E-11

E.10 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low 

Food Security, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation 

Status and by Age, Education, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment 

Status of Household Head........................................................................ E-12

E.11 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low 

Food Security, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation 

Status and by Household Composition and Region of Residence.............. E-13

E.12 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low 

Food Security, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation 

Status and by Household Income and Sources of Household Income........ E-14

E.13 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low 

Food Security, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation 

Status and by SNAP Benefit Amount, Expedited Service Receipt, and 

Prior SNAP Participation Status................................................................. E-15

E.14 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low 

Food Security, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation 

Status and by Health Status and Body Mass Index of Household 

Head........................................................................................................ E-16

E.15 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low 

Food Security, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation 

Status and by Household Residential and Ownership Status ..................... E-17

E.16 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low 

Food Security, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation 

Status and by Household Resources and Food Preparation and 

Storage Capabilities................................................................................. E-18

E.17 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low 

Food Security, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation 

Status and by Participation in Nutrition and Community Food 

Programs................................................................................................. E-19

E.18 Regression-Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low 

Food Security, by Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation 

Status and by Mental Health and Well-Being of Household Head.............. E-20
Tables Mathematica Policy Research

xiv

F.1 Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and 

Household Characteristics on Household Usual Weekly Food 

Spending ................................................................................................... F-4

F.2 Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and 

Household Characteristics on Usual Weekly Food Spending Relative 

to the Cost of the Thrifty Food Plan ........................................................... F-6

G.1 Median Household Food Spending in Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households ......................................................................................G-4

G.2 Distribution of Usual Weekly Food Expenditures and Usual Weekly 

Food Expenditures Relative to the Cost of the TFP in Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Households ..................................................................G-5

G.3 Median Household Food Spending in Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households, by Household Size and Presence of Children in 

the Household...........................................................................................G-6

G.4 Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food 

Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Alternative Sample 

Definitions.................................................................................................G-8

G.5 Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food 

Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Alternative Model 

Specifications ............................................................................................G-9

G.6 Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food 

Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Alternative Model 

Specifications ..........................................................................................G-10

G.7 Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food 

Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Whether Fixed-Effects 

Estimator Is Used.....................................................................................G-11

G.8 Length of Time Between Interview Date and Reported SNAP Benefit 

Receipt....................................................................................................G-12

G.9 Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food 

Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Six-Month and NewEntrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether Model Includes 

“Days Since SNAP Benefit Receipt” Variable ..............................................G-12

G.10 Associations Between SNAP Participation and Usual Food 

Expenditures Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Number of Days 

Since SNAP Benefit Receipt for New-Entrant Householdsa .........................G-13

G.11 Regression-Adjusted Household Food Spending and Household 

Food Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether New-Entrant 

Sample Is Restricted to Those Households Still on SNAP Six Months 

Later........................................................................................................G-14
Tables Mathematica Policy Research

xv

G.12 Associations Between SNAP Benefit Amount and Household Food 

Spending, Conducted Separately for Six-Month and New-Entrant 

Households .............................................................................................G-16

H.1 Sample Sizes for Subgroups Used in Multivariate Analysis of Food 

Insecurity and Very Low Food Security Regressionsa ...................................H-3

I.1 Demographic Characteristics, Language of Interview, and Region of 

Residence of Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP Households.......................I-4

I.2 Household Size and Composition of Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households ....................................................................................... I-5

I.3 Employment Status, Monthly Income as Percentage of the Poverty 

Line, and Earned and Unearned Income of Six-Month and NewEntrant SNAP Households ...........................................................................I-6

I.4 Income Sources and Average Monthly Income Amounts of SixMonth and New-Entrant SNAP Households .................................................I-7

I.5 Household Income, Earnings, and Unearned Income of Six-Month 

and New-Entrant SNAP Households, Among Households with 

Income ....................................................................................................... I-8

I.6 Household Resources Other than Income of Six-Month and NewEntrant SNAP Households ...........................................................................I-9

I.7 Changes in Household Size, Housing Status, or Employment, Pay, or 

Hours Worked in Past Six Months Experienced by Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Households .................................................................I-10

I.8 SNAP Participation Characteristics of Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households ..................................................................................... I-11

I.9 Participation in Non-SNAP Food Assistance Programs in Past 30 

Days of Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP Households.............................I-12

I.10 Food Purchase Behavior of Six-Month and New-Entrant SNAP 

Households .............................................................................................. I-13

I.11 EBT Usage, Timing of Receipt of SNAP Benefit Relative to Interview 

Date, and Money Saving Techniques for Food Spending of SixMonth and New-Entrant SNAP Households ...............................................I-14

I.12 Self-Reported Health Status and Body Mass Index of Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Households .................................................................I-15

I.13 Self-Reported Mental Health and Well-Being of Six-Month and 

New-Entrant SNAP Households .................................................................I-16

I.14 State Characteristics Associated with Six-Month and New-Entrant 

SNAP Households ..................................................................................... I-17
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
xvii

FIGURES

1 Study Design ..............................................................................................xxi

2 Household Food Security Status in New-Entrant and Six-Month 

SNAP Householdsa .................................................................................... xxiii

3 Children’s Food Security Status in New-Entrant and Six-Month 

SNAP Households with Childrena ............................................................... xxiv

4 Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a 

Decrease in the Percentage of Households That Were Food Insecure.......... xxv

5 Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a 

Decrease in the Percentage of Households That had Very Low Food 

Security .................................................................................................... xxvi

6 Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a 

Decrease in the Percentage of Households with Children with Food 

Insecurity Among Children ...................................................................... xxvii

7 The Evidence was Mixed as to Whether Participating in SNAP for Six 

Months was Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage of 

Households with Children with Very Low Food Security Among 

Children ................................................................................................. xxviii

8 Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Not Associated with a 

Change in Mean Usual Weekly Household Food Spending .........................xxxi

9 The Evidence was Mixed as to Whether Participating in SNAP for Six 

Months was Associated with a Change in Usual Weekly Household 

Food Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP ......................................... xxxii

II.1 Study Design .................................................................................................6

III.1 Household Food Security Status in New-Entrant and Six-Month 

SNAP Households ........................................................................................16

III.2 Children’s Food Security Status in New-Entrant and Six-Month 

SNAP Households with Children...................................................................17

IV.1 Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a 

Decrease in the Percentage of Households That Were Food Insecure............26

IV.2 Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a 

Decrease in the Percentage of Households That had Very Low Food 

Security .......................................................................................................27

IV.3 Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a 

Decrease in the Percentage of Households with Children with Food 

Insecurity Among Children ..........................................................................28
Figures Mathematica Policy Research

xviii

IV.4 The Evidence was Mixed as to Whether Participating in SNAP for Six 

Months was Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage of 

Households with Children with Very Low Food Security Among 

Children ......................................................................................................29

V.1 Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Not Associated with a 

Change in Usual Weekly Household Food Spending......................................37

V.2 The Evidence was Mixed as to Whether Participating in SNAP for Six 

Months was Associated with a Change in Usual Weekly Household 

Food Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP .............................................38
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. What Are the Objectives?

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides nutrition assistance benefits 

to low-income individuals and families in an effort to reduce hunger and improve the health and 

well-being of low-income people nationwide. Although SNAP has long been one of the largest and 

most important nutrition assistance programs for low-income households, its significance has grown 

even larger in recent years as it experienced record-high levels of participation. In Fiscal Year 2012, 

the program provided benefits to more than 46 million Americans on average per month.

1

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), which administers SNAP, targets benefits to the neediest households; poorer households 

receive greater SNAP benefits than households with more income. To counter rising food prices 

and provide SNAP participants with enough resources to purchase food, the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), enacted in February 2009, raised the maximum SNAP benefit by 

13.6 percent, effective April 2009. Because the benefit amount for all households is determined by 

reducing the maximum benefit according to each household’s income net of certain housing, 

medical, work, and child care expenses, the benefit allotment for households not receiving the 

maximum increased by the same dollar amount as that for households of the same size that received 

the maximum benefit. On average, household benefits increased by approximately $41 under ARRA 

(Leftin et al. 2010). In fiscal year 2011, the average household benefit was $281.

Policymakers, advocates, and those administering SNAP have long hypothesized that SNAP

reduces food insecurity, which is a measure of whether a household experiences food access 

limitations due to lack of money or other resources. Estimating the effect of SNAP on food 

insecurity using household survey data has been challenging, however, because households that 

participate in SNAP can differ in systematic ways from households that do not (commonly referred 

to as selection bias). For example, households that are more food-needy and have lower levels of 

food security are more likely to participate in SNAP. Therefore, initial differences in food insecurity 

between participants and nonparticipants may be greater than the ameliorative effects of the 

program (Nord and Golla 2009). Most research studies, using a variety of data and empirical 

methods, have attempted to isolate SNAP’s effect on food insecurity from the compositional 

differences between participants and nonparticipants, but the evidence supporting the hypothesis 

has been mixed.2

Mathematica Policy Research conducted the SNAP Food Security (SNAPFS) survey for FNS 

between October 2011 and September 2012, to assess the effect of SNAP participation on food 

security and food spending in the post-ARRA environment of higher SNAP allotments. SNAPFS 

was the largest survey of food security and food spending among SNAP participants to date, with 

9,811 households interviewed in 30 States. This report presents the evaluation findings, which are 

based on a quasi-experimental design intended to minimize selection bias by comparing information 

 1 Data were obtained from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm.

2 Recent reviews of the literature of the effects of SNAP on food security can be found in Nord and Golla (2009); 

Ratcliffe and McKernan (2011); Wilde (2007); and Fox et al. (2004). 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xx

collected from SNAP households within days of entering the program to information obtained after 

about six months of participation to control for factors unrelated to SNAP. 

The main objectives of the study were to:

• Assess how household food security and food expenditures vary with SNAP 

participation

• Examine how the relationships between SNAP and food security and between SNAP 

and food expenditures vary by key household characteristics and circumstances

• Examine in more depth what factors may distinguish between food secure and food 

insecure SNAP households with children

This report contains the research findings for the first and second objectives. The third 

objective was based on a qualitative component of the study and was addressed in a separate report.3

B. How Was the Study Conducted?

1. Study Design

SNAPFS survey data were collected from October 2011 through September 2012 using 

computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). As presented in Figure 1, data for the crosssectional analysis come from 9,811 SNAP households interviewed in a nationally representative 

sample of 30 States from October 2011 through February 2012: 6,436 new-entrant households and 

3,375 households that had participated for about six months (“six-month” households). Data for the 

longitudinal analysis come from the 3,275 households that were interviewed as new-entrant 

households from October 2011 through February 2012 that were still participating in the program 

about six months later. These households were interviewed between April and September 2012. The 

analysis samples differed from the initial survey samples. The findings presented in this report are 

based on analyses in which the sample of new-entrant households was restricted to those that 

continued to participate six months later, at the time of the follow-up interview. This restriction 

increased the comparability of new-entrant and six-month households and helped decrease bias in 

comparing the food security (or food expenditures) of six-month and new-entrant households.

 3 Edin, Kathryn, Melody Boyd, James Mabli, Jim Ohls, Julie Worthington, Sara Greene, Nicholas Redel, and 

Swetha Sridharan. “SNAP Food Security: In-Depth Interview Study Final Report.” Washington DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research, March 2013.
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxi

Figure 1. Study Design

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Sample sizes denote numbers of households that completed the survey. In the analysis, the 

sample of new-entrant households was restricted to those households that also completed a 

follow-up interview six months later in order to improve the comparability between the newentrant and six-month households.

2. Analysis Methods

All analyses are based on two sets of comparisons. Using a cross-sectional sample, we compare 

information collected from SNAP households within days of entering the program to information 

collected from a contemporaneous sample of households that have participated for about six 

months. Next, using a longitudinal sample, we compare the baseline information collected from the 

new-entrant SNAP households to information from those same households six months later.

The SNAPFS survey included an 18-item food security module with a 30-day reference period. 

Household food security status was measured using the 10 adult-referenced items of the module. 

Children’s food security status was measured using the 8-item child scale of the module. The survey 

also included a food expenditure module that requested information about expenditures on food in 

the week before the survey, as well as what households usually spend on food in a typical week. In 

much of the analysis, usual weekly food spending was normalized by the cost of the Thrifty Food 

Plan (TFP) to adjust for differences in household size and composition, as well as for inflation in 

food prices.

Descriptive tabulations of household food security and food expenditures are presented to 

characterize the groups of new-entrant and six-month SNAP households. The difference in 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxii

prevalence of food insecurity among new-entrant and six-month households can be attributable to 

differences in SNAP participation as well as differences in characteristics and circumstances of newentrant and six-month households. For this reason, descriptively comparing the prevalence of food 

insecurity across the two groups does not measure the association between SNAP and food security. 

To estimate this association, multivariate regression analysis was used that accounted for observed 

differences in demographic and household characteristics and economic circumstances.4

C. What Did the Study Find?

All analyses 

used weights to account for the survey’s multistage sampling design and for nonresponse.

1. Food Security

a. The Prevalence of Food Insecurity and Very Low Food Security in Households and in 

Households with Children

Simple, descriptive tabulations of the data on key outcome variables, with no adjustment for 

other household characteristics, show that six-month households were less likely than new-entrant 

households to be food insecure or experience very low food security. The percentages of newentrant and six-month households that were food insecure in the cross-sectional sample were 65.5 

and 58.7 percent, respectively—a -6.7 percentage point difference (Figure 2). Similarly, in the 

longitudinal sample, the percentages of new-entrant households and those same households six 

months later that were food insecure were 65.5 and 52.8 percent, respectively—a -12.7 percentage 

point difference.

The percentage of households with very low food security was also smaller for six-month 

households than for new-entrant households. The percentages of new-entrant and six-month 

households that had very low food security in the cross-sectional sample were 39.4 and 32.0 percent, 

respectively—a -7.4 percentage point difference. The analogous percentages in the longitudinal 

sample were 39.4 and 30.4 percent, respectively—a -9.0 percentage point difference.

 4 Although this might help to identify the portion of the difference in the prevalence of food insecurity between 

new-entrant and six-month households attributable to SNAP, it does not eliminate the possibility of bias. Because 

unobservable differences between new-entrant and six-month households may remain, the regression analysis findings 

should not be considered indicative of the causal effects of SNAP.
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxiii

Figure 2. Household Food Security Status in New- Entrant and Six- Month SNAP Householdsa

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

a Percentages of food insecurity and very low food security have not been adjusted for differences in 

characteristics across households.

When only households with children are considered, a smaller percentage of six-month 

households than new-entrant households were food insecure in both the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal samples. In the cross-sectional sample, the percentage of households with children in 

which children were food insecure was 37.0 percent for new-entrant households and 27.1 percent 

for six-month households—a difference of -9.9 percentage points (Figure 3). Similarly, in the 

longitudinal sample, the percentages were 37.0 and 24.1 percent, respectively—a -12.9 percentage 

point difference.

In the cross-sectional sample, the percentage of households with children in which children had 

very low food security was 6.8 percent for new-entrant households and 4.0 percent for six-month 

households—a difference of -2.8 percentage points. In the longitudinal sample, the percentages were 

6.8 and 4.7 percent, respectively—a -2.1 percentage-point difference. 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxiv

Figure 3. Children’s Food Security Status in New- Entrant and Six- Month SNAP Households with 

Childrena

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 2,796 households with children (1,274

new-entrant households and 1,522 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based 

on a data set with 1,274 new-entrant households with children observed at baseline and 

1,295 households with children observed at follow-up six months later.

a Percentages of food insecurity and very low food security have not been adjusted for differences in 

characteristics across households.

b. Associations Between SNAP and Household Food Security

While the descriptive tabulations of the prevalence of food insecurity in the previous section 

show the total change in food security status due to SNAP participation as well as non-SNAP 

changes in household characteristics and circumstances, regression analysis that accounts for 

observed differences between new-entrant and six-month households was used to estimate the 

change in food security status associated with SNAP participation only. We refer to these findings as 

“regression-adjusted” in the figures. Although the same set of new-entrant households are used in 

the cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, the regression-adjusted percentages of food insecure 

new-entrant households differ across the two analyses because they are generated using model 

parameters specific to the samples being examined.

Participating in SNAP for about six months was associated with a decrease in the percentage of 

households that were food insecure by 4.6 percentage points in the cross-sectional sample. The 

reduction was from 65.4 percent of new-entrant households to 60.8 percent of six-month 

households (Figure 4). In the longitudinal sample, SNAP was associated with a decrease in the 

percentage of households that were food insecure by 10.6 percentage points, from 65.1 percent of 

new-entrant households to 54.5 percent of those same households six months later. 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxv

Figure 4. Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage of 

Households That Were Food Insecure

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages were regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic and economic characteristics, current and prior participation in 

Federal and State programs, and State economies and SNAP policies. Chapter II lists the full 

set of variables. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

Participating in SNAP for about six months was also associated with a decrease in the 

percentage of households that experienced particularly severe levels of food insecurity—designated 

“very low food security.” Participating in SNAP was associated with a decrease in the percentage of 

households that experienced very low food security of 5.0 percentage points in the cross-sectional 

sample, from 36.4 percent of new-entrant households to 31.4 percent of six-month households, and 

of 6.3 percentage points in the longitudinal sample, from 35.9 to 29.6 percent (Figure 5).

65.4 65.1

60.8 ***

54.5 ***

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of Households 

Food Insecure

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxvi

Figure 5. Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage of 

Households That had Very Low Food Security

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages were regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic and economic characteristics, current and prior participation in 

Federal and State programs, and State economies and SNAP policies. Chapter II lists the full 

set of variables.

The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

c. Associations Between SNAP and Children’s Food Security

Participating in SNAP for about six months was associated with a decrease in the percentage of 

households with children in which children were food insecure by 8.6 percentage points in the crosssectional sample, from 33.3 percent of new-entrant households to 24.8 percent of six-month 

households (Figure 6). In the longitudinal sample, SNAP was associated with a decrease in the 

percentage of households with children in which children were food insecure by 10.1 percentage 

points, from 32.3 percent of new-entrant households to 22.2 percent of those same households six 

months later.

36.4 35.9

31.4 *** 29.6 ***

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of Households with 

Very Low Food Security

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxvii

Figure 6. Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage of 

Households with Children with Food Insecurity Among Children

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages were regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic and economic characteristics, current and prior participation in 

Federal and State programs, and State economies and SNAP policies. Chapter II lists the full 

set of variables.

The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 2,796 households with children (1,274

new-entrant households and 1,522 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based 

on a data set with 1,274 new-entrant households with children observed at baseline and 

1,295 households with children at follow-up six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

Participating in SNAP was associated with a decrease in the percentage of households with 

children in which children experienced very low food security by 2.0 percentage points in the crosssectional sample, from 3.9 percent of new-entrant households to 1.9 percent of six-month 

households (Figure 7). There was no statistically significant association in the longitudinal sample.

33.3 32.3

24.8 *** 22.2 ***

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of Households Food 

Insecure 

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxviii

Figure 7. The Evidence was Mixed as to Whether Participating in SNAP for Six Months was 

Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage of Households with Children with Very Low Food 

Security Among Children

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages were regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic and economic characteristics, current and prior participation in 

Federal and State programs, and State economies and SNAP policies. Chapter II lists the full 

set of variables.

The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 2,796 households with children (1,274

new-entrant households and 1,522 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based 

on a data set with 1,274 new-entrant households with children observed at baseline and 

1,295 households with children at follow-up six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

d. Associations Between SNAP and Household Food Security, by Subgroup

Estimates of the association between SNAP and household food security for the full survey 

sample might conceal important differences in associations across subgroups. If an association exists 

overall, it might be heavily concentrated in, or much larger for, some subgroups. Conversely, if an 

association does not exist for the entire survey sample of households, it might still exist for some 

subgroups. Estimates of associations for subgroups can help policymakers identify the households 

for which the program might be most effective and better target the program or tailor its services. In 

this report, we focus on subgroups defined by household composition, household income, and 

SNAP benefit amount.5

 5 Due to statistical considerations the subgroup analyses should be regarded as exploratory, and the results should 

be interpreted as suggestive of potential associations between SNAP participation and food security.

3.9 3.4 1.9 ** 2.8 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of Households with 

Very Low Food Security

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxix

We assessed whether SNAP was associated with improved food security for each subgroup. 

The following summarize these findings:

• Household composition. SNAP was associated with an improvement in food security 

for most household composition subgroups, including households with and without 

children, households without an elderly member, and households with and without a 

disabled member. There were generally no associations for households with an elderly 

member.

• Household income. SNAP was associated with an improvement in food security for 

most household income subgroups in the longitudinal sample, but only for some 

households with income below 100 percent of poverty in the cross-sectional sample.

• SNAP benefit amount. SNAP was associated with an improvement in food security 

for most subgroups defined by SNAP benefit amount (as a percentage of the maximum 

benefit). There were no associations for the lowest benefit amount subgroup in the 

cross-sectional sample.

The above discussion summarized which associations were statistically significant for each 

household subgroup. Next, we examine whether the differences across subgroups in the sizes of the 

estimated associations are statistically significant. We summarize these findings here: 

• Household composition. Although the association between SNAP and food security 

were generally similar for households with and without children as well as for 

households with and without a disabled member, there were significant differences 

between households with and without an elderly member.

• Household income. The association between SNAP and food security was similar for 

households with different levels of income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line.

• SNAP benefit amount. The association between SNAP and food security differed in 

general according to the amount of SNAP benefits households received. In both the 

cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, SNAP was associated with a larger decrease in 

very low food security for households with large SNAP benefits (exceeding about 80 

percent of the maximum benefit for household size). In the cross-sectional sample, 

SNAP was associated with a larger decrease in food insecurity for households with 

larger SNAP benefits.

e. Summary of the Analysis of Food Security

The study found that participating in SNAP for about six months was associated with an 

improvement in food security. SNAP was associated with a decrease in both the percentage of 

households that were food insecure and the percentage of households that experienced very low 

food security. This generally holds for child food security as well. 

We also assessed whether SNAP was associated with improved food security for household 

demographic and economic subgroups. For the most part, the results are consistent with the 

findings for the full sample. SNAP was associated with an improvement in food security for most 

household composition subgroups, including households with and without children, households 

without an elderly member, and households with and without a disabled member. When subgroups 

defined by income relative to poverty are examined, the estimated associations between SNAP and 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxx

food security vary. Although most reflect improvements in food security, many of the estimated 

associations are not statistically significant. For SNAP benefit amount subgroups, the estimated 

associations show significant improvements in food security in the longitudinal sample, but few 

significant improvements in the cross-sectional sample. 

2. Food Spending

The SNAPFS survey asked respondents what they spent on food in the prior week and then 

asked what they usually spent on food in a typical week. Past data on usual expenditures collected 

using this module have been shown to be consistent with estimates from the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey, the principal source of data on U.S. household expenditures for goods and services (Nord 

2009). Therefore, we focused on usual weekly food expenditures, rather than expenditures the 

previous week, as our main outcome measure. 

a. Descriptive Tabulations of Household Food Spending

Simple, descriptive tabulations of the data on household spending variables, with no adjustment 

for other household characteristics, show that median usual food spending in a typical week was the 

same for new-entrant and six-month households and equal to $75 in the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal samples (Table 1). Usual food expenditures were, on average, 1 percent smaller than the 

cost of the TFP for new-entrant households and were equal to the cost of the TFP for six-month 

households in both samples. 

Table 1. Median Household Food Spending in Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households, in 

Absolute Terms and Relative to the Cost of the Thrifty Food Plan

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up)

Difference

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures (in dollars)

75 75 0 75 75 0

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures Relative to 

the Cost of the Thrifty 

Food Plan

0.99 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.01

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

b. Associations Between SNAP and Food Spending

Usual food spending was not statistically different for new-entrant and six-month households 

(Figure 8). Looking at the regression-adjusted spending, in the cross-sectional sample, new-entrant 

households usually spent $93.28 per week, and six-month households spent $94.91. In the 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxxi

longitudinal sample, new-entrant households spent $90.79 per week, and six-month households 

spent $93.10.

Figure 8. Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Not Associated with a Change in Mean Usual 

Weekly Household Food Spending

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Food expenditures were regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic and economic characteristics, current and prior 

participation in Federal and State programs, and State economies and SNAP policies. Chapter 

II lists the full set of variables.

The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

Because household food expenditures are highly dependent on household size and 

composition, we also used an outcome measure that adjusted expenditures for household size and 

composition: usual weekly household food expenditures relative to the TFP spending amount.6

 6 The TFP was developed by the USDA and serves as a national standard for a nutritious, minimal-cost diet. It 

represents a set of “market baskets” of food that people in specific age and gender categories could consume at home to 

maintain a healthful diet that meets current dietary standards, taking into account the food consumption patterns of U.S. 

households (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion 2007). Thus, the cost of the 

TFP for a household takes into account the household’s size and composition.

SNAP participation was associated with a 5 percentage point increase in usual expenditures relative 

$93.28 $90.79

$94.91 $93.10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Food Expenditures (Dollars)

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxxii

to the cost of the TFP in the cross-sectional sample, an increase that was statistically significant at 

the 0.10 level (Figure 9). In the longitudinal sample, usual weekly spending relative to the TFP was 

not statistically different for new-entrant households and six-month households. 

Figure 9. The Evidence was Mixed as to Whether Participating in SNAP for Six Months was 

Associated with a Change in Usual Weekly Household Food Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Food expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP were regression-adjusted for differences 

between new-entrant and six-month households in demographic and economic 

characteristics, current and prior participation in Federal and State programs, and State 

economies and SNAP policies. Chapter II lists the full set of variables.

The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

At the subgroup level, we found few significant associations between SNAP participation and 

food expenditures. One notable exception that was consistent across both samples and both 

outcome measures (usual food expenditures and usual food expenditures relative to the cost of the 

TFP) was that SNAP was associated with increased food spending and increased food spending 

relative to the cost of the TFP for households that received large SNAP benefits (exceeding about 

85 percent of the maximum benefit for household size). Participating in SNAP was associated with 

an increase of 18 and 16 percentage points in food spending relative to the cost of the TFP in the 

cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, respectively, for households with large benefits.

1.16 1.16

1.21 *

1.19

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Food Expenditures Relative to the 

Cost of the TFP

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxxiii

c. Diagnostic Statistical Tests and Potential Limitations of the Baseline Expenditures 

Data

The limited evidence of a statistically significant association between SNAP and food 

expenditures was surprising, as economic theory suggests that, if a household is provided a benefit 

to be spent on food, then total expenditures on food will increase. To assess the robustness of our 

findings to alternative estimation methods, we conducted several auxiliary analyses. The results from 

these analyses were generally consistent with those presented above, providing limited evidence of a 

significant association between SNAP participation and food expenditures (see Appendix G for 

details).

A potential explanation for the lack of a strong association between SNAP participation and 

food expenditures may be the timing of the data collection. For logistical reasons, the baseline 

interviews for most survey respondents (84 percent) were conducted several days after households 

received their initial SNAP benefits. While this does not appear to have had a substantial effect on

the food security data, which were collected for the 30 days prior to the interview, the timing may 

have influenced reported expenditures for new-entrant households, which were to report 

expenditures from the seven days prior to the interview, as well as expenditures in a “typical” week.

Because of the strong evidence in the literature that most recipients spend the bulk of their benefits 

shortly after receiving them, it seems likely that many new-entrant households included food bought 

with benefits when reporting their expenditures in the previous week. The implication is that food 

expenditures would not change substantially between the two reporting periods because both 

reports included food bought with benefits. It is important to note that even for households that 

spent a substantial fraction of the first month’s SNAP benefit, we do not have direct evidence that 

they have revised their notion of usual monthly food expenditures.

d. An Alternative Approach to Measuring Associations Between Benefits and Food 

Expenditures With the Survey Data

Because of the concerns about the data for new-entrant households, we drew on a different 

approach to analyze food expenditures. Specifically, we used the six-month household survey data 

from both the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples to examine associations between the amount 

of SNAP benefits and reported usual expenditures. While this does not allow us to exploit the quasiexperimental design of the study, it does allow us to assess the association between SNAP benefit 

amounts and reported usual food expenditures for ongoing SNAP cases. This approach reveals 

whether higher SNAP benefits are associated with higher food expenditures.

Drawing on techniques used extensively in the literature (Fraker 1990; Fox et al. 2004; 

Boonsaeng et al. 2012), we found that a one-dollar increase in SNAP benefits was associated with a 

34- to 48-cent increase in usual food expenditures among six-month households—estimates that are

in or around the range in Fraker (1990) of 17 to 47 cents and the range in Fox et al. (2004) of 26 to 

40 cents. The findings are statistically significant both in absolute dollars and after normalizing the 

outcome measure by household size and composition using the cost of the TFP. 

e. Summary of the Analysis of Food Spending

Under most statistical specifications in the original research design, there was no significant 

association between participating in SNAP and the amount of money spent on food in a typical 

week when examining the full sample of households. Although we obtained some statistically 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xxxiv

significant findings (for example, in our main model specification in the cross-sectional sample), 

these findings were not robust to changes in model specification and sample definitions. 

There were few significant associations between SNAP participation and food expenditures at 

the subgroup level. An exception was that participating in SNAP was associated with an increase in 

food spending and food spending relative to the cost of the TFP for households with large benefits 

(exceeding about 85 percent of the maximum benefit for household size) in both the cross-sectional 

and longitudinal samples. 

Further analysis of the timing of the baseline data collection suggested that having an 

unavoidably high fraction of the interviews take place after new-entrant households had already 

been receiving benefits might have affected the main findings in the food expenditure analysis if 

households very quickly adjust their notion of “usual” spending after receiving their initial SNAP 

benefit. Excluding new-entrant households from the analysis in both the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal samples, we found a positive association between the SNAP benefit amount and food 

spending among households that had been on SNAP for six months.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides nutrition assistance benefits 

to low-income individuals and families in an effort to reduce hunger and improve the health and 

well-being of low-income people nationwide. Although SNAP has long been one of the largest and 

most important nutrition assistance programs for low-income households, its significance has grown 

even larger in recent years as it experienced record-high levels of participation. In Fiscal Year 2012, 

the program provided benefits to more than 46 million Americans on average per month.

7

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), which administers SNAP, targets benefits to the neediest households; poorer households 

receive greater SNAP benefits than households with more income. To counter rising food prices 

and provide SNAP participants with enough resources to purchase food, the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), enacted in February 2009, raised the maximum SNAP benefit by 

13.6 percent, effective April 2009. Because the benefit amount for all households is determined by 

reducing the maximum benefit according to each household’s income net of certain housing, 

medical, work, and child care expenses, the benefit allotment for households not receiving the 

maximum also increased under ARRA. On average, household benefits increased by approximately 

$41 under ARRA (Leftin et al 2010). In fiscal year 2011, the average household benefit was $281.

Policymakers, advocates, and those administering SNAP have long hypothesized that SNAP

reduces food insecurity, which is a measure of whether a household experiences food access 

limitations due to lack of money or other resources. Estimating the effect of SNAP on food 

insecurity using household survey data has been challenging, however, because of differences 

between households that participate in SNAP and households that do not—often referred to as 

selection bias. For example, if more food-needy households are more likely to enroll in SNAP and 

food insecurity is more prevalent among food-needy households, then initial food insecurity 

differences between participants and nonparticipants may countervail the ameliorative effects of the 

program (Nord and Golla 2009). Most research studies, using a variety of data and empirical 

methods, have attempted to isolate SNAP’s effect on food insecurity from the differences between 

participants and nonparticipants, but the evidence supporting the hypothesis has been mixed.8

Mathematica Policy Research conducted the SNAP Food Security (SNAPFS) survey for FNS 

between October 2011 and September 2012, to assess the effect of SNAP participation on food 

security and food spending in the post-ARRA environment of higher SNAP allotments. The 

SNAPFS survey was the largest survey of food security and food spending among SNAP 

participants to date, with 9,811 households interviewed in 30 States. This report presents the 

evaluation findings, which are based on a quasi-experimental design intended to minimize selection 

bias by comparing information collected from SNAP households within days of entering the 

program and after about six months of participating to implicitly control for factors unrelated to 

SNAP. 

 7 Data were obtained from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm.

8 Recent reviews of the literature of the effects of SNAP on food security can be found in Nord and Golla (2009); 

Ratcliffe and McKernan (2011); Wilde (2007); and Fox et al. (2004). 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

2

A. Research Objectives and Analytic Approach

The main objectives of this study were to:

• Assess how household food security and food expenditures vary with SNAP 

participation

• Examine how the relationships between SNAP and food security and between SNAP 

and food expenditures vary by key household characteristics and circumstances

• Examine in more depth what factors distinguish between food secure and food insecure 

SNAP households with children

To address the first and second research objectives, we use SNAPFS survey data and two basic 

comparisons to infer how household food security status and food expenditures vary with SNAP 

participation. First, using data from October 2011 to February 2012, we compare the food security 

status (and food spending) of a sample of new SNAP participant households to that of a 

contemporaneous sample of participant households that have received SNAP for about six months. 

We refer to this as a cross-sectional analysis. Next, we compare the food security status (and food 

spending) of the sample of new SNAP participant households selected from October 2011 to 

February 2012 to that of the same households after they have received benefits for about six 

months, from April to September 2012. We refer to this as a longitudinal analysis.9

We addressed the third research objective in a separate component of this study, in which we 

conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 90 SNAP households containing children who 

participated in the SNAPFS survey. The interviews probed more deeply into households’ 

experiences managing their finances, as well as into how SNAP benefits fit into their overall 

resource and food management. The purpose of this formative, qualitative study was to provide 

insights into the challenges low-income families face and their coping strategies to purchase all the 

food they need with limited resources, and to inform the direction of future research on food 

security, including hypothesis generation and instrument design. The findings from the in-depth 

interview component of the study are covered in a separate report.

We estimated the 

associations between SNAP and food security and between SNAP and food expenditures using 

multivariate regression models and other econometric models. The details of the analysis are 

described in more detail in Chapter II and Appendix A.

10

B. Layout of the Report

In the rest of this report, we discuss the methodology used in the analysis and present findings. 

Chapter II provides an overview of the study design and the data and methodology used in the 

 9 The sample of new-entrant households used in both analyses was considerably smaller than the initial survey 

samples. As discussed in Chapter II, the findings presented in this report are based on analyses in which the sample of 

new-entrant households was restricted to those that continued to participate six months later, at the time of the followup interview. This restriction increased the comparability of new-entrant and six-month households and helped decrease 

bias in comparing the food security (or food expenditures) of six-month and new-entrant households.

10 See Edin, Kathryn, Melody Boyd, James Mabli, Jim Ohls, Julie Worthington, Sara Greene, Nicholas Redel, and 

Swetha Sridharan. “SNAP Food Security: In-Depth Interview Study Final Report.” Washington DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research, March 2013.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

3

analysis. In Chapter III, we describe the food security status and food spending, as well as the 

characteristics and circumstances, of samples of new-entrant and six-month households. Chapters 

IV and V present the estimates of the associations between SNAP and food security and between 

SNAP and food expenditures, respectively. Finally, we conclude in Chapter VI by discussing 

implications for future research. 

The appendices of the report provide supporting and additional tables. Appendix A 

supplements Chapter II with a more detailed discussion of the study design and analysis 

methodology. Appendix B presents an expanded set of characteristics and circumstances of newentrant and six-month SNAP households from Chapter III. Appendices C, D, and E contain 

detailed regression findings and sensitivity and subgroup analyses related to food security, and 

Appendices F and G contain detailed regression findings and sensitivity analyses related to food 

spending. Appendix H contains sample sizes for subgroups. Appendix I compares the characteristics 

of new-entrant households that had a follow-up interview with households that did not have a 

follow-up interview. Finally, Appendix J contains the SNAPFS survey instruments.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

5

II. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the study design and data collection methodology underlying the 

SNAPFS survey. It also describes the outcome measures, analysis methods used to estimate the 

effect of SNAP on food security and food expenditures, and construction of survey weights. 

A. Study Design

This study compares the food security levels of households that have applied for and been 

accepted into SNAP, but that are not yet receiving SNAP benefits, to the food security levels of 

households that have been receiving benefits for several (six to seven) months. This raises the issue 

of “self-selection”: the possibility that members of the two groups being compared may differ in 

characteristics (such as underlying need) other than the defining characteristic—in this case, SNAP 

benefit receipt. For example, if households that have been receiving benefits for six months are 

different from a comparison group that has just entered the program in some unobserved aspect 

that caused them to remain on the program for six months, the six-month group could possibly 

have lower food security, making it appear that SNAP decreased food security. This is not just a 

theoretical possibility. Nord and Golla (2009), in their recent Economic Research Service (ERS) 

study using nationally representative Current Population Survey (CPS) data, present persuasive 

evidence that this actually occurs.

The ideal solution to dealing with the possibility of selection bias is to conduct a “true” 

experiment, in which a set of households are randomly assigned to SNAP versus non-SNAP status. 

However, such experimentation is usually impossible in SNAP, which is an entitlement program. 

Both legal and ethical issues constrain the amount of experimentation that can be done, as discussed 

at length in Burstein et al. (2005) and Fox et al. (2004).

The study’s two research designs seek to solve this problem by replacing a randomized control 

group with a set of carefully constructed comparison groups and using econometric techniques and 

analytic controls to account for differences between households that have participated for six to 

seven months and households that have just entered the program (Figure II.1).

11

 11 Randomized designs that assign households to treatment versus control status represent the gold standard in 

research methods, because they best enable researchers to make causal inferences about policy effects. However, 

extensive studies by FNS and private researchers have concluded that the possibilities for randomized experimentation 

of the impact of SNAP are highly limited because of the size of the program and its role in providing entitlement 

assistance (Fox et al. 2004). The current study was designed using a carefully developed nonrandom design that seeks to 

control for observable differences between SNAP new entrants and ongoing participants in order to minimize selection 

bias. However, there remain some risks that observed associations of variables could be due to differences across 

households that are not observable. For this reason, we refer to the relationships between SNAP and food security as 

associations, rather than causal effects. The discussions in Appendices D and G describe the extensive steps taken to 

address selection bias. While multivariate modeling helps to minimize bias, it does not eliminate it altogether, due to the 

inability to account for unobservable factors that affect both SNAP participation and food security. These steps include 

examining multiple dependent variables, using an extensive data set to control for variables associated with both SNAP 

participation and food security or food expenditures, and using multiple statistical specifications to test the robustness of

our findings. While multivariate modeling helps to minimize bias, it does not eliminate it altogether, due to the inability 

to account for unobservable factors that affect both SNAP participation and food security.

The first is a crosssectional comparison group design that compares an outcome measure at a single point in time 

across a group of participants who have just entered SNAP (group 1) and a group of participants 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

6

who have participated in SNAP for the previous six to seven months (group 2). The second is a 

longitudinal comparison group design that compares an outcome measure over time for a set of 

participants who have just entered SNAP (group 1) and the same set of participants six to seven 

months later (group 3).

Figure II.1. Study Design

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Sample sizes denote numbers of households that completed the survey. In the analysis, the 

sample of new-entrant households was restricted to those households that also completed a 

follow-up interview six months later in order to improve the comparability between the newentrant and six-month households.

By following the same group of households over time, the longitudinal design minimizes the 

bias associated with self-selection that exists when comparing different households at a point in time 

(as in the cross-sectional design). However, by evaluating the outcome measure at different points in 

time, the impact estimate produced in the longitudinal design may be measuring the combined effect 

of the true program impact and any external factors that changed over time, such as changes in 

household characteristics or circumstances unrelated to SNAP, or shifts in the economy or the food 

purchase environment. This confounding is largely avoided in the cross-sectional design, because the 

outcome measures are evaluated at a single point in time. However, the cross-sectional design is 

unable to control for unobserved differences between new-entrant and six-month households that 

might be correlated with the outcomes of interest. Thus, each design has both a distinct strength and 

a distinct weakness relative to the other. By using a set of econometric models to adjust for 

observable and (to the extent possible) unobservable differences between groups and changes in 

external factors over the longitudinal survey period, we seek to address the weaknesses inherent in 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

7

each design to obtain the most definitive estimates of the impact of SNAP participation on 

household food security, although biases may remain. 

B. Data Collection and Response Rates

We drew the sample of SNAP participants in a two-stage process. First, we drew a sample of 30 

States, using probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling.12

SNAPFS survey data were collected from October 2011 through September 2012 using 

computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). Data available for the cross-sectional analysis 

come from 9,811 SNAP households interviewed from October 2011 through February 2012: 6,436 

new-entrant households and 3,375 households that had participated for about six months (“sixmonth” households). Data available for the longitudinal analysis come from the 3,275 households 

that were interviewed as new-entrant households from October 2011 through February 2012 that 

were still participating in the program and were interviewed about six months later. These 

households were interviewed between April and September 2012. As discussed later in this chapter, 

we restricted the samples of new-entrant households in the analysis to those that were still on the 

program six months later in order to increase comparability between new-entrant and six-month 

households. That is, households that continue to participate in SNAP through six months have 

different characteristics and circumstances than households that leave the program before this time. 

For example, households without any children, elderly, or disabled members generally stay on SNAP 

for the shortest time (many of these individuals are subject to time limits on their SNAP 

participation), whereas elderly-only households and households without earnings generally have 

longer participation spells (Mabli et al. 2011). The greater degree of similarity between the newentrant and six-month samples obtained by restricting the new-entrant sample in the analysis to 

those still on SNAP six months later helps to reduce the chance that the association between SNAP 

and food security reflects some other factor related to both staying on SNAP and a household’s 

food security status. As presented in Appendices D and G, the report’s main findings were robust to 

using the unrestricted sample.

We selected States from the 48 

contiguous States and the District of Columbia and used the number of SNAP households in each 

State as the measure of size. Second, we drew samples of participant households from caseload files 

provided by participating States. Appendix A contains additional details about the sampling 

methodology.

Both surveys were organized and directed by Mathematica. All interviews were completed by 

CATI using trained interview staff. Households were given a $2 upfront cash incentive (included in 

the advance letter) and were offered the incentive of a $20 gift card to a local store for completing 

the telephone interview. 

To best measure the prevalence and characteristics of food insecure households as they first 

entered the program, new SNAP households had to be interviewed as soon as possible after SNAP 

certification but before the household had adjusted its food purchasing and consumption behavior 

based on its SNAP allotments. Appendix A describes the steps we took to minimize the time 

between first receipt of benefits and completed interview for new-entrant households. The length of 

 12 We also selected 5 replacement states for a back-up sample to use if some of the originally selected states 

ultimately chose not to participate. In the end, the sample included 4 replacement states.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

8

the baseline field period for each household was approximately two weeks for new-entrant 

households and four weeks for six-month households. The start date for each State’s field period 

was staggered, making the interview period for the full set of baseline interviews last from October 

2011 to February 2012 and the follow-up interviews with new-entrant households six months later 

last from April to September 2012. The length of the field period for follow-up interviews with newentrant households six months later was about six weeks.

Appendix A also summarizes the response rates obtained in the various parts of the data 

collection. The response rates were 55.7 for the new-entrant households’ baseline interview and 55.0 

for the six-month sample interviewed at baseline. The response rate for the follow-up interview with 

the new-entrant sample six months later was 66.6 percent. All response rates were calculated using 

the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) response rate 3 (RR3) formula 

(American Association for Public Opinion Research 2009). The response rate was lower than 

anticipated because the State files obtained as sample frames had a much lower incidence of valid, 

working telephone numbers than expected. Another factor that contributed to the low response rate 

was the 14-day field period. This is much shorter than most field periods for standard surveys, but 

was critical in achieving quick turnaround in the survey so that interview responses reflect clients’ 

true baseline situations before entering SNAP or after six months of receiving SNAP benefits. As 

described in the weighting section of this chapter and in Appendix A, we adjusted survey weights 

using information obtained through our comprehensive nonresponse analysis to ensure that 

household nonresponse did not bias the study findings.

C. Outcome Measures and Explanatory Variables

1. Outcome Measures for the Food Security Analyses

The SNAPFS survey included the 18-item food security module used in the Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS). As in the CPS-FSS, we administered the 18 core items 

of the food security module for assessing the food security of households with children and 10 items 

for households without children. The questionnaire was based on a 30-day recall period. 

We defined four outcome measures for the food security analyses: 

1. Household food insecurity. This is a binary variable indicating whether a household 

was food insecure. Household food security status can be measured using the 10 adultreferenced items for households without children and the full 18 items (the 10 adultreferenced items plus the 8 child-referenced items) for households with children. In this 

study, we measured food security using the 10 adult-referenced items for all households 

to minimize any measurement effects associated with the presence and ages of children 

(Nord and Golla 2009; Nord and Bickel 2002). Households that affirmed three or more 

items were classified as food insecure.

2. Household very low food security. This is a binary variable indicating whether a 

household experienced very low food security. This variable was measured using the 10-

item adult scale of the food security module. Households that affirmed six or more items 

were classified as having very low food security.

3. Children’s food insecurity. For households with children, this is a binary variable 

indicating whether children in the household were food insecure. This variable was 

measured using the 8-item child scale of the food security module (Nord and Bickel 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

9

2002). Households that affirmed two or more items were classified as having food 

insecurity among children. 

4. Children’s very low food security. For households with children, this is a binary 

variable indicating whether children in the household experienced very low food security. 

This variable was measured using the 8-item child scale of the food security module 

(Nord and Bickel 2002). Households that affirmed five or more items were classified as 

having very low food security among children.

2. Outcome Measures for the Food Expenditure Analyses

The SNAPFS survey included the food expenditure module used in the CPS-FSS.13 The module 

first asked the respondent about the places where he or she bought food “last week.” Possible 

locations included supermarket or grocery store; meat market, produce stand, bakery, warehouse 

club, or convenience store; restaurant, fast-food restaurant, cafeteria, or vending machine; and “any 

other place.” Next, the respondent was asked how much the household spent last week for each set 

of store types from which the respondent reported purchasing food. As in the CPS-FSS, the 

respondent was asked to include purchases made with SNAP benefits. The computer interviewing 

system calculated the total amount spent on food, and the interviewer confirmed with the 

respondent last week’s total food expenditures.14

We used usual weekly food expenditures, rather than expenditures last week, as our main 

outcome measure, because research has shown that usual food expenditures estimated from data 

collected using this module were consistent with estimates from the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey—the principal source of data on U.S. household expenditures for goods and services 

(Oliveira and Rose 1996; Nord 2009). This approach is also consistent with the ERS’s annual 

Household Food Security report (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2011).

Finally, the interviewer asked the respondent how 

much the household usually spends on food in a week.

We used two outcome measures of food expenditures. The first was “unadjusted” usual weekly 

household food expenditures. Because household food expenditures are highly dependent on 

household size and composition, we included measures of household size and composition among 

the set of explanatory variables used in the regression. The second outcome measure adjusted 

expenditures for household size and composition: usual weekly household food expenditures 

relative to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) spending amount. We calculated this value by dividing each 

household’s usual weekly food expenditures by the estimated cost of the TFP for that household in 

the interview month. The TFP was developed by the USDA and serves as a national standard for a 

nutritious, minimal-cost diet. It represents a set of “market baskets” of food that people in specific 

age and gender categories could consume at home to maintain a healthful diet that meets current 

dietary standards, taking into account the food consumption patterns of U.S. households (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion 2007). The cost of the TFP 

 13 The CPS-FSS instrument can be found at 

(http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Security_in_the_United_States/Current_Population_Survey/2011/qn2011.p

df ).

14 For the first two categories of stores, respondents were also asked how much they spent on nonfood items (pet 

food, paper products, alcohol, detergents, or cleaning supplies). We excluded this amount from the total food spending 

amount.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

10

for a household depends on the number of household members and the age and gender of each 

person. In addition to adjusting the usual weekly food spending amount by household size and 

composition, the TFP spending amount adjusts for inflation in food prices. This approach is 

important mostly in the longitudinal analysis, when comparing food expenditures from April to 

September 2012 to expenditures that took place from October 2011 to February 2012.15

3. Explanatory Variables

The regression models for the food security and food expenditure analyses included the 

following set of explanatory variables measuring household characteristics and circumstances:16 17

• Gender of household head 

• Race and ethnicity of household head 

• Highest grade completed by household head 

• Employment status of household head 

• Depression status of household head 

• Household income-to-poverty ratio 

• Household size 

• Household composition 

• Prior SNAP participation status

• Participation in Federal or State programs 

• Changes in household size, housing status, employment, pay, or hours worked 

• Region of residence

• State wage and unemployment rate 

• State SNAP policies 

 15 From October 2011 to July 2012 (the most currently available TFP data), the cost of the TFP for a family of four 

(two adults ages 19 to 50, one child age 2 to 3, and a second child age 4 to 5) increased by 0.6 percent, from $125.40 to 

$126.20.

16 The survey defined “household” as “the people who live with the respondent and share food with the 

respondent, including babies, small children, and people who are not related to the respondent.” Some of the analysis 

variables measure a characteristic or circumstance for the “household head.” This was the interview respondent who 

affirmed that (1) he or she was the person who did most of the planning or preparing of meals in his or her family, or (2) 

he or she was the adult in the household who did most of the shopping for food in his or her family.

17 There were two possible ways to define employment: (1) using employment of the household head, or (2) using 

employment of all household members. The data used for the first definition are likely more accurate than the data used 

for the second definition because the household head was sometimes the interview respondent, but the first definition 

does not portray the full story of employment status for each household, as the second definition does. We used the first 

definition in the regression analysis; we also conducted a sensitivity analysis in which we used the second definition, and 

the results were unchanged. 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

11

In Appendix A, we describe how these variables were constructed.

D. Analysis Methods

We used descriptive, tabular analysis to examine the composition of the groups of new-entrant 

and six-month households, as well as to present summary statistics of the outcome measures of food 

security status and food expenditures used in the multivariate analysis. Next, we used multivariate 

regression analysis to estimate the association between SNAP and household food security and food 

expenditures while accounting for compositional and other differences between new-entrant and 

six-month households. All analyses were weighted.

1. Multivariate Analysis of Food Security

Although comparing food insecurity rates across groups using descriptive, tabular analysis 

provides valuable information about how the outcome measure differs across groups, multivariate 

regression analyses are needed to account for compositional differences across groups that might

bias the associations between SNAP and food security. In particular, many household characteristics 

may be correlated with both continuing to participate in the SNAP program through six months and 

a household’s food insecurity status. To help address this concern, we used logistic regression 

analysis to estimate the association between SNAP and food security.18

The main sample for the longitudinal analysis consisted of the new-entrant households 

interviewed from October 2011 to February 2012 that responded to the follow-up interview 

approximately six months later, from April to September 2012. This is a balanced sample in that all 

households contributed the same number of observations (two) to the data file. The outcome 

measures were the same in the longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis, as were the set of 

explanatory variables. 

Participation in SNAP was 

denoted using a binary variable equal to 1 if the household had been participating in SNAP for 

about six months and equal to 0 if the household had just entered SNAP. We present estimates 

measuring the association on both the logistic and percentage. The latter enable us to calculate the 

difference between new-entrant and six-month households in the percentage that are food insecure. 

Appendix A discusses the step-by-step procedure used for obtaining regression-adjusted percentages 

of households that are food insecure.

2. Multivariate Analysis of Food Expenditures

The methodology used to estimate the association between SNAP and household food 

expenditures closely resembled the methodology used to estimate the association between SNAP 

and household food security. Because both expenditure variables are continuous, we used ordinary 

least squares regression analysis to estimate the association between SNAP and each outcome 

measure. The main independent variable and the set of explanatory variables were identical to those 

used in the food security regressions. 

 18 Although multivariate modeling helps minimize bias, it does not eliminate it completely, due to the inability to 

account for unobservable factors that affect both SNAP participation and food security.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

12

3. Standard Errors

Standard errors were estimated using a variance estimator based on a first-order Taylor series 

approximation. We accounted for the complex survey design of the SNAPFS survey when 

estimating standard errors.19 As an approximation, the standard errors in the regression estimates 

based on the longitudinal sample do not account for multiple observations per household.20

4. Subgroup Analysis

 

In addition to estimating the association between SNAP and food security and spending using 

the full sample of households, we estimated the regressions described above for several subgroups, 

such as households with children; households in which the household head was employed full-time, 

part-time, or not employed; households that received benefits of various amounts; and households 

that participated in other food assistance and nutrition programs. Selected subgroup results are 

presented in Chapters IV and V, and a full list of subgroups examined is in Appendix A.21

E. Weight Construction

We used sampling weights for all analyses to account for the complex survey design and for the 

possibility that some groups in the study population may have been over- or underrepresented.

Sampling weights were constructed to correct for differences in households’ selection probabilities

and propensities to respond. These weights restored the distribution of the responding sample to the 

same proportions as the frame of SNAP participant households from which it was drawn. 

Different sets of weights were constructed for the cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses 

described above. Weights were also constructed separately for the samples of new-entrant and sixmonth households. 

As described in detail in Appendix A, the weights are the products of several weighting factors 

that fall into three groups:

1. State-level selection and replacement of noncooperating States

2. Adjustments for selection probabilities within sampled States

3. Nonresponse adjustments at the household level

Based on weighted data, the findings in this study are nationally representative of new-entrant 

and six-month SNAP households at the time of the baseline interviews. The findings are not 

representative of all SNAP households.

 19 We used the Stata software’s “svy” commands.

20 The findings presented in the main text of the report were robust to a sensitivity analysis that estimated a fixed 

effects model that controls for time-invariant factors when estimating the association between SNAP and food security. 

21 There are statistical risks associated with extensive subgroup analysis due to the substantial likelihood—often a 

near certainty—that spurious results are obtained. As we discuss in greater detail in Chapter IV, we attempt to strike a 

compromise between the need for subgroup analysis and the attendant statistical risks by highlighting findings from 

three sets of important subgroups in the text of the report and reporting results for additional subgroups in appendix 

tables to allow additional exploratory analysis, as desired.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

13

F. Limitations

Several limitations are important to consider when interpreting the report’s findings:

• New-entrant household definitions. We identified new-entrant households using 

SNAP caseload files provided by State SNAP agencies. Among the sample of newentrant households selected from these files, households that reported to interviewers 

that they had participated in SNAP within in the past three months were classified as 

being ineligible to participate in the survey. Thus, the new-entrant sample is not 

representative of all SNAP entrants. Households that were excluded consist of those 

who may have had short-term gaps in participation and were thus not necessarily “new” 

to SNAP.

• Response rates. The response rate was lower than expected. Although a nonresponse 

analysis was conducted and survey weights were adjusted for nonresponse at the 

household level, nonresponse bias may exist. That is, the samples may not be fully 

representative of the populations from which they were drawn.

• The date of the interview in relation to date of the receipt of SNAP benefits. 

Ideally, all new-entrants households would have been interviewed before receiving 

SNAP benefits. For logistical reasons, however, the baseline interviews for most survey 

respondents (84 percent) were conducted several days after households received their 

SNAP benefits, with most being interviewed within two weeks. Some new-entrant 

respondents may have reported food security and/or food spending information 

pertaining to the time period just after receipt of benefits, which may bias the association 

between SNAP and food security (or food spending). As presented in greater detail in 

Appendix D, we do not believe this to be the case for food security, as the food security 

index essentially identifies the worst conditions that a household has experienced in the 

previous 30 days. Nonetheless, report findings should be interpreted with this potential 

bias in mind.

• Interpretation of expenditure questions. As discussed in Chapter V and in greater 

detail in Appendix G, the unavoidably high fraction of the baseline interviews that took 

place after new-entrant households had already been receiving benefits might have 

affected the main findings in the food expenditure analysis if households very quickly 

adjust their notion of “usual” spending after receiving their initial SNAP benefit. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

15

III. CHARACTERISTICS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF SNAP HOUSEHOLDS

In this chapter, we use tabular methods to examine the characteristics of SNAP participants in 

the study, including both new-entrant and six-month households. This is important background 

information for the more formal multivariate analysis of how food security and food expenditures 

vary with SNAP participation presented in Chapters IV and V. 

We have structured each table similarly throughout the chapter to focus on possible differences 

between analysis samples. The tables begin with a set of columns that present descriptive statistics 

for the data used for the cross-sectional estimates. We first present characteristics of new-entrant 

SNAP households, compared to a contemporaneous set of participants who have been receiving 

SNAP benefits for about six months. These households were interviewed from October 2011 to 

February 2012. The second set of columns presents longitudinal estimates that compare the 

characteristics of households that were new entrants in the baseline interview to the characteristics 

of those same households about six months later, from April through September 2012. All statistics 

in this chapter are descriptive and have not been regression-adjusted.

The tables restrict the sample of new-entrant households to those that continued to participate 

six months later, at the time of the follow-up interview. All estimates are weighted. 

Because our purpose here is largely descriptive, we do not report significance tests for 

differences between the estimates for new-entrant and six-month households. However, in 

subsequent chapters where the focus is on hypothesis testing, information on statistical significance 

is fully reported.

A. Food Security Status of Six- Month and New- Entrant Households

We begin with simple tabulations of the data on key outcome variables, with no adjustment for 

other household characteristics. These tabulations show that six-month households are less likely 

than new-entrant households to be food insecure or experience very low food security.

The percentages of new-entrant and six-month households that were food insecure in the 

cross-sectional sample were 65.5 and 58.7 percent, respectively—a -6.7 percentage point difference 

(Figure III.1). Similarly, in the longitudinal sample, the percentages of new-entrant households and 

those same households six months later that were food insecure were 65.5 and 52.8 percent, 

respectively—a 12.7 percentage point decrease.

The percentage of households with very low food security was also smaller for six-month 

households than for new-entrant households. The percentages of new-entrant and six-month 

households that had very low food security in the cross-sectional sample were 39.4 and 32.0 percent, 

respectively—a -7.4 percentage point difference. The analogous percentages in the longitudinal 

sample were 39.4 and 30.4 percent, respectively—a 9.0 percentage point decrease.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

16

Figure III.1. Household Food Security Status in New- Entrant and Six- Month SNAP Households

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

B. Food Security Status of Children in Six- Month and New- Entrant 

Households with Children

When only households with children are considered, six-month households had a smaller 

percentage of households that were food insecure than new-entrant households in both the crosssectional and longitudinal samples. In the cross-sectional sample, the percentage of households with 

children in which children were food insecure was 37.0 percent for new-entrant households and 27.1 

percent for six-month households—a difference of -9.9 percentage points (Figure III.2). Similarly, in 

the longitudinal sample, the percentages were 37.0 and 24.1 percent, respectively—a 12.9 percentage 

point decrease.

In the cross-sectional sample, the percentage of households with children in which children had 

very low food security was 6.8 percent for new-entrant households and 4.0 percent for six-month 

households—a difference of -2.8 percentage points. In the longitudinal sample, the percentages were 

6.8 and 4.7 percent, respectively—a 2.1 percentage-point decrease. 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

17

Figure III.2. Children’s Food Security Status in New- Entrant and Six- Month SNAP Households with 

Children

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 2,796 households with children (1,274

new-entrant households and 1,522 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based 

on a data set with 1,274 new-entrant households with children observed at baseline and 

1,295 households with children observed at follow-up six months later.

C. Food Spending of Six- Month and New- Entrant Households

As discussed in Chapter II, the SNAPFS survey asked respondents what they actually spent on 

food last week and then asked what they usually spent on food in a typical week. Past data on usual 

expenditures collected using this module have been shown to be consistent with estimates from the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey, the principal source of data on U.S. household expenditures for 

goods and services (Nord 2009). Therefore, we focus on usual weekly food expenditures, rather than 

expenditures the previous week, as our main outcome measure. As a starting point for our analysis, 

however, we descriptively examine both expenditures last week and usual weekly expenditures. We 

focus our descriptive analysis of the data largely on medians because the median is less sensitive than 

the mean to outliers in the distribution.

Median usual food spending in a typical week was the same for new-entrant and six-month 

households and equal to $75 in the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. The median actual 

expenditure in the week before the interview was $80 for new-entrant households and $75 for sixmonth households in both the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples (Table III.1).22

 22 The findings were similar when the mean was used in place of the median.

These 

findings are somewhat counterintuitive, because economic theory suggests that if a household is 

provided a benefit to be spent on food, total expenditures on food will increase. We discuss this 

issue further in Chapter V.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

18

Table III.1. Median Household Food Spending in Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households, in 

Absolute Terms and Normalized by the Cost of the TFP

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures (in dollars)

75 75 0 75 75 0

Last Week’s Food 

Expenditures (in dollars)

80 75 -5 80 75 -5

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures Relative to 

TFP

0.99 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.01

Last Week’s Food 

Expenditures Relative to 

TFP

1.05 0.96 -0.09 1.05 1.00 -0.05

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

D. Explanatory Variables Used in Multivariate Analysis

Here, we describe the characteristics and circumstances of new-entrant and six-month 

households that were used as explanatory variables in the multivariate analysis, for both the crosssectional and longitudinal samples. 

We begin by examining characteristics of the survey respondents. Next, we present an overview 

of substantial differences between new-entrant and six-month households, where “substantial” 

differences are defined, arbitrarily, as differences of 5 percentage points or more. 

1. Characteristics of Survey Respondents

Demographics. Nearly two-thirds of SNAP households in our samples were female-headed 

(Table III.2). Nearly 50 percent of household heads were non-Hispanic white, about a quarter were 

non-Hispanic black, and another quarter were Hispanic. About 50 percent were between ages 25 

and 49. About a quarter of household heads had less than a high school diploma, and roughly onethird had completed high school but not gone beyond high school.

Household size and composition. In all three samples, most sample members lived in oneor two-person households. Just over one-third of households were single-person households, 24 to 

28 percent had two members, 17 to 20 percent had three members, and 20 to 23 percent had four or 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

19

more members (Table III.2). About 41 to 46 percent of households had children, 11 to 12 percent 

had an elderly member, and 27 to 34 percent had a disabled member. 

Table III.2. Demographic Characteristics, Household Size, and Composition of Six- Month and NewEntrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Household Head Is Female 64 66 2 64 64 0

Race and Ethnicity of 

Household Head

Non-Hispanic, white 47 50 3 47 46 -1

Non-Hispanic, black 26 25 -1 26 26 0

Non-Hispanic, other 7 8 1 7 7 0

Hispanic 23 22 -1 23 24 1

Age of Household Head

18 to 24 20 20 0 20 20 0

25 to 49 52 54 2 52 54 2

50 to 64 21 20 -1 21 20 -1

65 or older 7 6 -1 7 6 -1

Highest Grade Completed 

of Household Head

Less than high school 23 23 0 23 23 0

High school graduate 

(diploma or GED)

33 31 -2 33 33 0

Some college, but no 

degree

36 39 3 36 36 0

College and beyond 9 7 -2 9 8 -1

Household Size

1 Person 38 33 -5 38 36 -2

2 Person 25 24 -1 25 28 3

3 Person 18 20 2 18 17 -1

4 Person 10 12 2 10 10 0

5 Person 6 7 1 6 6 0

6+ Person 4 4 0 4 4 0

Households with Children 41 46 5 41 42 1

Households with Elderly 12 12 0 12 11 -1

Households with a 

Disabled Member

32 34 2 32 27 -5

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households and 

3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant households 

observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months later in the longitudinal sample. 

Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to 

individual questions.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

20

Employment status and income. A substantial majority of households in each sample had 

very limited income resources. About 73 to 79 percent of households had heads who were not 

employed (Table III.3). About 20 to 25 percent of households had no income, 24 to 27 percent had 

some income but were below 50 percent of the poverty line, and 12 to 15 percent had income above 

130 percent of the poverty line. As Table III.3 shows, 20 to 24 percent of the households received 

Social Security income, 9 to 10 percent received unemployment insurance, and 9 to 10 percent 

received SSI. 

Table III.3. Employment Status, Monthly Income as Percentage of the Poverty Line, and Income 

Sources of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households 

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Employment Status of 

Household Head

Employed full-time 12 18 6 12 18 6

Employed part-time 9 9 0 9 10 1

Not employed 79 73 -6 79 73 -6

Monthly Income as a

Percentage of the Poverty 

Line

No income 25 20 -5 25 20 -5

1 to 50% 27 24 -3 27 25 -2

51 to 100% 28 32 4 28 31 3

101 to 130% 7 9 2 7 8 1

More than 130% 12 15 3 12 15 3

Percentage of Households 

with Income Type

TANF 3 5 2 3 4 1

Other welfare such as 

General Assistance

2 3 1 2 3 1

Social Security 21 24 3 21 20 -1

SSI or Supplemental 

Security Income

9 10 1 9 9 0

Unemployment 

insurance or workers’

compensation benefits

10 9 -1 10 9 -1

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

21

Changes in household size, housing status, and employment, pay, or hours worked. Past 

research has suggested that changes in household structure or economic circumstances (often called 

“trigger events”) frequently precede entry into assistance programs. Consistent with this, 21 percent 

of new-entrant households had experienced a change in household size in the past six months, 5 

percent were evicted from their house or apartment in the past six months, and 39 percent 

experienced a change in employment, pay, or hours worked (Table III.4). 

Prior SNAP participation. Across all the samples, 48 to 49 percent of households participated 

in SNAP before their current enrollment (Table III.4).

Table III.4. Prior SNAP Participation and Changes in Household Size, Housing Status, or Employment, 

Pay, or Hours Worked in Past Six Months Experienced by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP 

Households

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Prior SNAP Participation 49 48 -1 49 n.a. n.a.

In Past 6 Months, 

Experienced

Change in Household 

Size

21 14 -7 21 16 -5

Eviction from House or 

Apartment

5 3 -2 5 3 -2

Change in Employment, 

Pay, or Hours Worked

39 26 -13 39 20 -19

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Because respondents may experience more than one trigger event, percentages for aggregate 

categories such as “any trigger” may not equal the sum of the percentages for the component 

categories.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions.

Well-Being. Between 72 and 80 percent of households reported feeling depressed in the past 

30 days (Table III.5).

Language of interview. Ninety percent of interviews were conducted in English (Table III.5).
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

22

Table III.5. Well- Being, Language of Interview, and Region of Residence of Six- Month and NewEntrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Household Head Felt 

Depressed in Past 30 

Days 

80 77 -3 80 72 -6

Interview Conducted in 

English Language

90 91 1 90 90 0

Region of Residence

Northeast 13 12 -1 13 13 0

Mid-Atlantic 7 14 7 7 7 0

Midwest 13 18 5 13 13 0

Southeast 25 17 -8 25 25 0

Southwest 12 11 -1 12 12 0

Mountain Plains 6 6 0 6 6 0

West 24 23 -1 24 24 0

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions.

State characteristics. Across all the samples, the State’s 25th percentile hourly wage was 11 

dollars, the State unemployment rate was 9 percent, and the average State SNAP certification period 

was 12 months. Across all samples, 89 percent of households lived in a State that offered broadbased categorical eligibility for SNAP (Table III.6). 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

23

Table III.6. Mean State Characteristics Associated with Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

State 25th Percentile Wage $11 $11 0 $11 $11 0

State Unemployment Rate 9% 9% 0 9% 9% 0

Percentage of Households 

Residing in States that

Offer Broad-Based 

Categorical Eligibility for 

SNAP

89% 89% 0 89% 89% 0

Average State SNAP 

Certification Period 

12 months 12 months 0 12 months 12 months 0

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions.

2. Overview of Differences Between New Entrants and Each of the Two Samples of SixMonth Households

Much of the analysis in subsequent chapters involves comparisons (in a multivariate context) 

between new-entrant and six-month households in the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. 

Because of this focus on comparisons, it is useful to highlight which variables in the tables we have 

reviewed show substantial differences in one or both of these comparisons. The following variables 

have differences of at least five percentage points:

• Household composition. In the cross-sectional sample, new-entrant households were 

more likely to have only one person and less likely to have children. In the longitudinal 

sample, new-entrant households were more likely to have a disabled member (Table 

III.2).

• Employment status and income. The percentage of new-entrant household heads 

who were not employed was 6 percentage points higher than the percentage of sixmonth households (79 versus 73 percent) in both samples (Table III.3). In addition, the 

percentage of new-entrant households with zero income was 5 percentage points higher 

than the percentage of six-month households (25 versus 20 percent) in both samples. 

• Changes in household size and employment, pay, or hours worked. For both a 

change in household size and a change in employment, pay, or hours worked the 

incidence of these occurrences is higher among new-entrant households than among 

six-month households, and the sizes of differences are larger than for most of the other 

variables we have discussed (Table III.4)
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

24

• Reported depression. In the longitudinal sample, new-entrant households were more 

likely than six-month households to report being depressed in the past 30 days (Table 

III.5).

• Region. In the cross-sectional sample, a lower percentage of new-entrant households 

than six-month households reside in Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern States, and a higher 

percentage reside in Southeastern States (Table III.5). 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

25

IV. SNAP AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY

While the descriptive tabulations of the prevalence of food insecurity in the previous chapter 

show the total change in food security status due to SNAP participation as well as non-SNAP 

changes in household characteristics and circumstances, regression analysis that accounts for 

observed differences between new-entrant and six-month households was used to estimate the 

change in food security status associated with SNAP participation only. We refer to these findings as 

“regression-adjusted” in the figures and tables below.

23

This chapter describes the findings for the estimates of the associations between SNAP and 

household food security. In Section A, we present findings from multivariate analyses that assess 

how food insecurity and very low food security vary with SNAP participation. In Section B, we 

present the findings for children’s food insecurity and very low food security. Finally, in Section C, 

we present the results of repeating the multivariate analysis on selected subgroups of the sample, 

based on household composition, household income, and SNAP benefit amount. 

A. Associations Between SNAP and Household Food Security

Participating in SNAP for about six months was associated with a decrease in the percentage of 

households that were food insecure by 4.6 percentage points in the cross-sectional sample.24 The 

reduction was from 65.4 percent of new-entrant households to 60.8 percent of six-month 

households (Figure IV.1). In the longitudinal sample, SNAP was associated with a decrease in the 

percentage of households that were food insecure by 10.6 percentage points, from 65.1 percent of 

new-entrant households to 54.5 percent of those same households six months later.25

 23 The set of explanatory variables included in the regression models is presented in Chapter II.

24 An important limitation in the analysis is that it was not feasible to use randomized assignment of SNAP 

participants. For this reason, we refer to the relationships between SNAP and food security as associations, rather than 

causal effects. These issues are discussed in detail in Chapter II.

25 Although the same set of new-entrant households are used in the cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, the 

regression-adjusted percentages of food insecure new-entrant households differ across the two analyses, because they are 

generated using model parameters specific to the samples being examined.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

26

Figure IV.1. Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage 

of Households That Were Food Insecure

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. Standard errors in parentheses.

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

SNAP participation was also associated with a reduction in the percentage of households that 

were food insecure with very low food security. Participating in SNAP for about six months was 

associated with a decrease in the percentage of households that experienced very low food security 

of 5.0 percentage points in the cross-sectional sample, from 36.4 percent of new-entrant households 

to 31.4 percent of six-month households, and of 6.3 percentage points in the longitudinal sample, 

from 35.9 to 29.6 percent (Figure IV.2).26

 26 As presented in Appendix D, we found the food insecurity and very low food security results to be robust with 

respect to more restricted samples, different model specifications, and controlling for time since receipt of benefits. It 

was also robust to using the unrestricted sample of new-entrant households, which includes the new-entrant households 

that did not have a follow-up interview.

65.4

(1.0)

65.1

60.8 *** (1.0)

(1.0)*** 54.5***

(1.0)***

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of Households Food 

Insecure

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

27

Figure IV.2. Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage 

of Households That had Very Low Food Security

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. Standard errors in parentheses.

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

B. Associations Between SNAP and Children’s Food Security

Participating in SNAP for about six months was associated with a decrease in the percentage of 

households with children in which children were food insecure by 8.5 percentage points in the crosssectional sample, from 33.3 percent of new-entrant households to 24.8 percent of six-month 

households (Figure IV.3).27

 27 Children’s food security is based on the 8-item child scale of the food security module (Nord and Bickel 2002). 

See Chapter II and Appendix A for details.

In the longitudinal sample, the decrease was 10.1 percentage points. 

36.4

(0.9)

35.9

(1.0) 31.4 ***

(0.7)***

29.6 ***

(0.8)***

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of Households with 

Very Low Food Security

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

28

Figure IV.3. Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage 

of Households with Children with Food Insecurity Among Children

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. Standard errors in parentheses.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 2,796 households with children (1,274

new-entrant households and 1,522 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based 

on a data set with 1,274 new-entrant households with children observed at baseline and 

1,295 households with children observed at follow-up six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

Participating in SNAP was associated with a decrease in the percentage of households with 

children in which children experienced very low food security by 2.0 percentage points in the crosssectional sample, from 3.9 percent of new-entrant households to 1.9 percent of six-month 

households (Figure IV.4). There was no statistically significant association in the longitudinal sample.

33.3

(1.3)

32.3

(1.4) 24.8 ***

(1.4)*** 22.2 ***

(1.6)***

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of Households Food 

Insecure 

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

29

Figure IV.4. The Evidence was Mixed as to Whether Participating in SNAP for Six Months was 

Associated with a Decrease in the Percentage of Households with Children with Very Low Food 

Security Among Children

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II,

Section C. Standard errors in parentheses.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 2,796 households with children (1,274

new-entrant households and 1,522 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based 

on a data set with 1,274 new-entrant households with children observed at baseline and 

1,295 households with children observed at follow-up six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

C. Associations Between SNAP and Household Food Security, by Subgroup

Estimates of the association between SNAP and household food security for the full study 

sample might conceal important differences in associations across subgroups. If an association exists 

overall, it might be heavily concentrated in, or could be much larger for, some subgroups. 

Conversely, if an association does not exist for the entire sample of households, it might still exist 

for some subgroups. Estimates of associations for subgroups can help policymakers identify the 

households for which the program might be most effective and better target the program or tailor its 

services.28

 28 Despite its clear importance, there are statistical risks associated with extensive subgroup analysis. Deriving 

estimates for substantial numbers of subgroups entails a risk that “statistically significant” relationships will spuriously be 

found. This can happen because conducting many standard statistical tests on large numbers of subgroups implies that 

some significant results are likely to be found at random in the data, even if the relationships of interest are not actually 

present in the population. We attempt to strike a compromise between the need for subgroup analysis and the attendant 

statistical risks by highlighting findings from three sets of important subgroups: (1) household composition variables, (2) 

household income, and (3) household SNAP benefit levels. We report results for additional subgroups in Appendix E 

3.9

(0.7)

3.4

(0.6) 1.9 **

(0.4)**

2.8 

(0.7)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Percentage of Households with 

Very Low Food Security

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

30

1. Differences in Associations, by Household Composition

In this and the following sections, we present two types of analyses. First, we assess whether the 

individual subgroups follow patterns that are broadly consistent with the full-sample household food 

security findings reported in the previous section. This essentially determines whether SNAP was 

associated with improved food security for each subgroup. Second, we assess whether the 

magnitudes of the associations between SNAP and food security differ across subgroups.

Presence of children in the household. In general, SNAP participation was associated with 

improved food security for households with children and households without children, though for 

the most part there were no statistical differences in the size of the associations for households with 

and without children (Table IV.1). 

SNAP was also associated with a decrease in the percentage of households that had very low 

food security for households with children. For households without children, an association was 

present only in the longitudinal sample. The difference in the reductions in very low food security 

for households with and without children was statistically significant only in the cross-sectional 

sample.

Presence of elderly in the household. SNAP improved food security generally only for 

households without an elderly member. (In the longitudinal sample, SNAP was associated with a 

reduction in food insecurity for households with an elderly member.) In the cross-sectional sample, 

SNAP was associated with a larger decrease in food insecurity for households without an elderly 

member than for households with an elderly member. We observed similar patterns for analysis of 

very low food security. In both the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, SNAP was associated 

with a larger decrease in very low food security for households without an elderly member than for 

households with an elderly member. 

Presence of disabled in the household. Overall, SNAP was associated with decreases in food 

insecurity and very low food security for households with a disabled member and households 

without a disabled member. There were no statistical differences in the sizes the associations for 

households with a disabled member and households without a disabled member.

 

(continued)

tables to allow additional analysis, as desired. Still, the subgroup analysis should be regarded as exploratory and 

suggestive of possible differences in associations.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

31

Table IV.1. Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure and Percentage of Households That Have 

Very Low Food Security, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household 

Composition

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Insecurity

Full Sample 65.4

(1.0)

60.8

(1.0)

-4.6***

(1.4)

65.1

(1.0)

54.5

(1.0)

-10.6***

(1.3)

Households with Children 61.1

(1.5)

56.0

(1.5)

-5.2***

(1.9)

59.6

(1.8)

49.3

(1.9)

-10.3***

(2.0)

Households Without Children 68.6

(0.9)

64.9

(1.5)

-3.7**

(1.6)

68.8

(1.1)

58.5

(1.3)

-10.3***

(1.8)

Households with Elderly 56.5

(2.6)

59.1

(1.3)

2.5 

(4.5)

56

(2.9)

47.7

(3.1)

-8.3*

(4.4)

Households Without Elderly a 66.6

(1.0)

61.1

(2.9)

-5.6*** 

(1.4)

66.3

(1.0)

55.5

(1.2)

-10.8***

(1.4)

Households with a Disabled 

Member

73.4

(1.7)

67.1

(1.0)

-6.3**

(2.5)

74.2

(1.7)

62.9

(1.4)

-11.3***

(2.4)

Households Without a Disabled 

Member

61.4

(1.2)

57.8

(1.5)

-3.7*

(1.9)

61.2

(1.1)

51.2

(1.2)

-10.0***

(1.5)

Very Low Food Security

Full Sample 36.4

(0.9)

31.4

(0.7)

-5.0***

(1.1)

35.9

(1.0)

29.6

(0.8)

-6.3***

(1.1)

Households with Children b 31.7

(1.3)

24.0

(1.0)

-7.8***

(1.6)

29.5

(1.4)

22.4

(1.2)

-7.0***

(1.6)

Households Without Children 39.9

(1.1)

37.4

(1.3)

-2.5 

(1.8)

40.1

(1.3)

35.2

(1.2)

-4.9***

(1.6)

Households with Elderly 21.6

(2.3)

24.1

(2.9)

2.6

(4.1)

19.7

(2.3)

21.7

(2.6)

2.0

(3.2)

Households Without Elderly c 38.5

(0.9)

32.2

(0.8)

-6.3***

(1.2)

37.9

(1.0)

30.6

(0.9)

-7.3***

(1.2)

Households with a Disabled 

Member

43.9

(1.3)

41.5

(1.3)

-2.4

(2.0)

44.2

(1.3)

39.3

(1.6)

-4.8**

(2.2)

Households Without a Disabled 

Member

32.8

(1.2)

26.6

(0.9)

-6.3***

(1.6)

32.4

(1.3)

25.9

(1.0)

-6.5***

(1.5)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the sample of 

3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the baseline data 

collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants at baseline to the 

same 3,275 participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

a In cross-sectional sample, association for households without elderly significantly different from association 

for households with elderly at the 0.10 level.

b In cross-sectional sample, association for households with children significantly different from association for 

households without children at the 0.5 level.

c In cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, associations for households without elderly significantly different 

from associations for households with elderly at the 0.05 level and 0.10 level, respectively.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

32

2. Differences in Associations, by Household Income

We examined associations between SNAP and food security for five income groups using 

monthly household income relative to the Federal poverty threshold. These groups were (1) zero 

monthly income; (2) income between 1 and 50 percent of poverty; (3) income between 51 and 100 

percent of poverty; (4) income between 101 and 130 percent of poverty; and (5) income more than 

130 percent of poverty.29

For the longitudinal sample, the results closely mirror those for the full sample, with all the 

estimated associations showing reductions in food insecurity and very low food security and most of 

them being statistically significant (Table IV.2). The findings for the cross-sectional sample were not 

consistent with those for the longitudinal sample. Although the signs on the associations between 

SNAP and food insecurity and very low food security were negative, they were not statistically 

significant for several income subgroups. SNAP was associated with a decrease in food insecurity 

only for households with income between 1 and 50 percent of poverty and between 51 and 100 

percent of poverty. For very low food security, the set of households with income between 51 and 

100 percent of poverty was the only subgroup for which SNAP was associated with a decrease in 

very low food security. 

The size of the association between SNAP and food security generally differed by income 

group as evidenced by our rejection of the hypothesis that the associations for all the income groups 

were the same based on the appropriate test statistic for that joint hypothesis. There was, when 

groups were considered individually, one statistically significant difference between the association 

for a group and the association for all other households. Specifically, for very low food security, the 

association for households with income between 51 and 100 percent of poverty was significantly 

different from the association for all other households in the cross-sectional sample. 

3. Differences in Associations, by SNAP Benefit Amount

SNAP was associated with an improvement in food security for most benefit amount 

subgroups (Table IV.3). The differences across benefit groups in the associations between SNAP 

and food insecurity were not statistically significant at the 0.10 level. For both the cross-sectional 

and longitudinal samples, however, we rejected the hypothesis that the associations between SNAP 

and very low food security for all the benefit groups were the same. In both samples, when groups 

were considered individually, the reduction in very low food security was statistically larger for 

households that received large benefits (exceeding about 85 percent of the maximum benefit for 

household size) than for households that received small or medium benefits. The reduction for 

households that received large benefits was -9.7 percentage points in the cross-sectional sample and 

-12.5 percentage points in the longitudinal sample. 

 29 The amount of SNAP benefits received by each household was not included among the set of explanatory 

variables in the regressions. 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

33

Table IV.2. Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure and Percentage of Households That Have 

Very Low Food Security, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household 

Income

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Insecurity

Full Sample 65.4

(1.0)

60.8

(1.0)

-4.6***

(1.4)

65.1

(1.0)

54.5

(1.0)

-10.6***

(1.3)

Monthly Income as a Percentage 

of the Poverty Linea

No Income 58.7

(2.5)

62.2

(2.5)

3.5

(4.1)

59.5

(2.2)

53.9

(2.5)

-5.6

(3.5)

1 to 50% 69.7

(1.5)

62.1

(1.8)

-7.6***

(2.4)

68.2

(1.5)

54.6

(1.7)

-13.6***

(2.6)

51 to 100% 68.3

(1.4)

63.0

(1.8)

-5.3**

(2.1)

68.6

(1.5)

60.5

(2.2)

-8.1***

(2.9)

101 to 130% 68.3

(3.1)

62.3

(2.5)

-6.0

(4.6)

68.5

(2.8)

51.7

(3.0)

-16.9***

(4.5)

More than 130% 62.5

(3.3)

55.4

(2.2)

-7.1

(4.5)

61.4

(3.0)

48.4

(2.5)

-13.0***

(4.1)

Very Low Food Security

Full Sample 36.4

(0.9)

31.4

(0.7)

-5.0***

(1.1)

35.9

(1.0)

29.6

(0.8)

-6.3***

(1.1)

Monthly Income as a Percentage 

of the Poverty Linea

No Income 31.7

(2.3)

29.0

(2.3)

-2.7

(3.0)

32.6

(2.3)

26.5

(1.8)

-6.1*

(3.3)

1 to 50% 38.5

(1.6)

35.8

(2.1)

-2.8

(2.8)

37.6

(1.4)

30.3

(1.6)

-7.3***

(2.2)

51 to 100% b 41.4

(1.8)

30.6

(1.7)

-10.9*** b

(1.9)

41.1

(2.1)

34.0

(2.4)

-7.1***

(2.5)

101 to 130% 34.0

(2.4)

32.8

(2.6)

-1.1

(3.9)

33.1

(2.7)

24.9

(2.0)

-8.1**

(3.2)

More than 130% 29.4

(2.0)

25.8

(2.2)

-3.5

(2.8)

26.5

(2.3)

22.9

(2.2)

-3.6

(3.1)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the sample of 

3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the baseline data 

collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants at baseline to the 

same 3,275 participants about six months later.

SNAP benefit amount was not included as an explanatory variable in the regressions.

a For each sample and food security measure, we conducted a test of the hypothesis that the associations were 

equal across all income groups. The hypothesis was rejected at the 0.01 level in each case.

b In cross-sectional sample, association for households with income between 51 and 100 percent of poverty 

significantly different from association for households with income below 51 percent or above 100 percent of 

poverty at the 0.01 level.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

34

Table IV.3. Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure and Percentage of Households That 

Have Very Low Food Security, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by SNAP 

Benefit Amount

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Insecurity

Full Sample 65.4

(1.0)

60.8

(1.0)

-4.6***

(1.4)

65.1

(1.0)

54.5

(1.0)

-10.6***

(1.3)

SNAP Benefit Amount as 

Percentage of the 

Maximum SNAP Benefita b

Small 69.8

(2.3)

68.7

(1.8)

-1.1

(3.0)

70.1

(2.1)

61.6

(2.0)

-8.5**

(3.3)

Medium 62.0

(1.9)

56.9

(1.8)

-5.1*

(3.1)

62.4

(1.6)

49.3

(2.0)

-13.1***

(2.4)

Large 64.8

(1.5)

58.2

(1.7)

-6.7**

(2.6)

63.8

(1.4)

53.7

(1.6)

-10.0***

(2.1)

Very Low Food Security

Full Sample 36.4

(0.9)

31.4

(0.7)

-5.0***

(1.1)

35.9

(1.0)

29.6

(0.8)

-6.3***

(1.1)

SNAP Benefit Amounta b

Small 36.0

(1.9)

36.8

(1.3)

-0.8

(2.5)

35.6

(1.8)

32.0

(1.7)

-3.6*

(2.2)

Medium 29.0

(1.9)

25.0

(1.4)

-4.1*

(2.4)

29.9

(1.9)

27.0

(1.3)

-2.8

(2.1)

Large c 42.7

(1.9)

33.0

(1.4)

-9.7***

(2.4)

41.9

(1.7)

29.4

(1.4)

-12.5***

(2.0)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

a We computed the SNAP benefit for each household as a percentage of the maximum benefit (by 

household size) and divided the households into three equally sized groups. Small, medium, and large 

benefit groups correspond to households with benefits of 1 to less than 42 percent of the maximum, 42 

to less than 85 percent of the maximum, and at least 85 percent of the maximum in the cross-sectional 

sample, and benefits of 1 to less than 43 percent of the maximum, 43 to less than 88 percent of the 

maximum, and at least 88 percent of the maximum in the longitudinal sample.

b For each sample and food security measure, we conducted a test of the hypothesis that the associations 

were equal across all benefits groups. For very low food security, the hypothesis was rejected at the 0.01 

level for both samples.

c In cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, associations for households with large benefits significantly 

different from associations for households with small or medium benefits at the 0.01 level.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

35

4. Summary of Subgroup Findings

For the most part, the results of the subgroup analysis discussed above are consistent with 

effects observed for the full sample. Most of the household composition subgroups examined had 

associations similar to the full-sample results. When subgroups defined by income relative to poverty 

are examined, there is wider variation in general in the estimated associations, but most are 

improvements in food security, and at least half are statistically significant. (Notably, however, about 

half of the associations for income subgroups are not statistically significant.) For most of the 

benefit amount subgroups, the estimated associations show improvements in food security.

Only a relatively small number of differences across subgroups are statistically significant. In the 

household composition subgroup analysis, the only finding that is fairly consistent across samples 

and measures of food security is that SNAP improved food security for households without an 

elderly member, but not for households with an elderly member. In the income subgroup analysis, 

the associations between SNAP and food security generally did not differ by household income 

relative to the poverty threshold. The associations do differ by SNAP benefit amount, however, 

such that the improvement in food security was larger for households that received large benefits 

(exceeding about 85 percent of the maximum benefit for household size) than for households that 

received small or medium benefits. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

37

V. SNAP AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD EXPENDITURES

This chapter presents estimates of the association between SNAP participation and household 

food expenditures. Sections A through C discuss the findings for the full sample and subgroups 

using the same procedures as in Chapter IV. Then, we conducted a number of sensitivity tests on 

alternative specifications, summarized in Section D. Also in Section D, we discuss concerns about 

the food expenditure data for new-entrant households. Section E presents findings using alternative 

techniques (prevalent in the related literature) that rely only on the data for six-month households.

As discussed in Chapter II, the SNAPFS survey asked respondents what they actually spent on 

food during the previous week and then asked what they usually spent on food in a typical week. Past 

data on usual expenditures collected using this module have been shown to be consistent with 

estimates from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, the principal source of data on U.S. household 

expenditures for goods and services (Nord 2009). In light of this, we have focused on usual weekly 

food expenditures, rather than expenditures the previous week, as our main outcome measure. 

A. Associations Between SNAP and Usual Food Expenditures

Regression-adjusted usual food spending was not statistically different for new-entrant and sixmonth households (Figure V.1). In the cross-sectional sample, new-entrant households usually spent 

$93.28 per week, and six-month households spent $94.91. In the longitudinal sample, new-entrant 

households spent $90.79 per week, and six-month households spent $93.10.

Figure V.1. Participating in SNAP for Six Months was Not Associated with a Change in Usual Weekly 

Household Food Spending

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Average expenditure levels shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant 

and six-month households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter 

II, Section C. Standard errors in parentheses. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the sample of 

3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the baseline data 

collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants at baseline to the 

same 3,275 participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

$93.28

(1.45)

$90.79

(1.40)

$94.91

(1.23) $93.10

(1.45)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Food Expenditures (Dollars)

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

38

B. Associations Between SNAP and Usual Food Expenditures Relative to 

the Cost of the TFP

In the cross-sectional sample, SNAP participation was associated with a 5 percentage point 

increase in usual expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP (significant at the 0.10 level). Usual 

expenditures that were, on average, 21 percent larger than the cost of the TFP for six-month 

households were 16 percent larger than the cost of the TFP for new-entrant households. In the 

longitudinal sample, the usual weekly spending relative to the cost of the TFP was not statistically 

different between new-entrant households and six-month households.30

Figure V.2. The Evidence was Mixed as to Whether Participating in SNAP for Six Months was 

Associated with a Change in Usual Weekly Household Food Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP 

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Average expenditures levels shown are regression-adjusted for differences between newentrant and six-month households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. 

See Chapter II, Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

 30 The change in the average monthly cost of the TFP for a family of four (two adults ages 19 to 50, one child age 

2 to 3, and a second child age 4 to 5) from the baseline to the follow-up period was 0.5 percent (less than one percentage 

point), with average monthly costs increasing from $125.62 to $126.20. The lack of a statistically significant association 

between SNAP and TFP-adjusted usual food expenditures in the longitudinal analysis was robust to using the average 

TFP cost in the baseline period in place of the actual monthly TFP cost in the follow up period (deflating the TFP cost 

for each household in the follow up period). This suggests that changes in food prices do not explain the lack of a 

significant association in the longitudinal analysis.

1.16

(0.02)

1.16

(0.02)

1.21 *

(0.02)* 1.19

(0.02) 

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

Cross-Sectional Analysis Longitudinal Analysis

Food Expenditures Relative to the 

Cost of the TFP

New-Entrant 

Households

Six-Month 

Households
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

39

C. Associations Between SNAP and Household Food Spending, by 

Subgroup

As with food security in the previous chapter, we examined the association between SNAP 

participation and food expenditures (both in dollars and relative to the cost of the TFP) for several 

subgroups of the sample. Although food security was found to be associated with SNAP 

participation for the full sample and several subgroups, we found few significant associations 

between SNAP participation and food expenditures that were consistent across both the crosssectional and longitudinal samples. An exception was the set of subgroups defined by SNAP benefit 

amount. In this section, we present findings about whether SNAP was associated with food 

spending for each subgroup and whether the magnitudes of the associations between SNAP and 

food spending differed across subgroups.

1. Differences in Associations, by Household Composition

There were few significant associations between SNAP participation and food spending, as well 

as between SNAP and food spending relative to the cost of the TFP, for household composition 

subgroups (Table V.1). In the cross-sectional sample, SNAP was associated with 0.05 to 0.09 unit 

increases in TFP-adjusted food spending for households without children, households without 

elderly, and households without a disabled member; there were no significant associations for these 

groups in the longitudinal sample.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

40

Table V.1. Regression- Adjusted Average Usual Weekly Household Food Spending and Food 

Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by Household Composition

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

NewEntrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Spending (Dollars)

Full Sample 93.28

(1.45)

94.91

(1.23)

1.63

(2.23)

90.79

(1.40)

93.10

(1.45)

2.29

(1.64)

Households with Children 120.59

(2.75)

118.46

(2.35)

-2.14

(4.21)

118.03

(2.66)

119.62

(2.14)

1.59

(2.94)

Households Without Children 72.7

(1.25)

76.79

(1.50)

4.09*

(2.15)

71.61

(1.34)

73.9

(1.76)

2.29

(2.29)

Households with Elderly 79.68

(3.20)

74.95

(3.22)

-4.74

(4.71)

74.89

(2.93)

72.87

(3.45)

-2.02

(4.68)

Households Without Elderly a 95.24

(1.62)

97.38

(1.39)

2.15

(2.60)

92.83

(1.55)

95.70

(1.58)

2.87*

(1.68)

Households with a Disabled 

Member

85.47

(3.14)

89.72

(2.29)

4.25

(4.05)

82.74

(2.81)

84.42

(2.65)

1.68

(2.75)

Households Without a Disabled 

Member

97.20

(1.58)

97.39

(1.48)

0.20

(2.13)

94.4

(1.50)

96.54

(1.73)

2.14

(2.02)

Food Spending Relative to 

the Cost of the TFP

Full Sample 1.16

(0.02)

1.21

(0.02)

0.05*

 (0.03)

1.16

(0.02)

1.19

(0.02)

0.03

 (0.02)

Households with Children 1.14

(0.02)

1.13

(0.03)

-0.01

(0.04)

1.14

(0.02)

1.19

(0.03)

0.05

(0.03)

Households Without Children 1.18

(0.02)

1.27

(0.03)

0.09**

(0.04)

1.18

(0.02)

1.20

(0.03)

0.01

(0.04)

Households with Elderly 0.96

(0.04)

0.94

(0.04)

-0.02

(0.06)

0.95

(0.04)

0.93

(0.04)

-0.02

(0.06)

Households Without Elderly 1.19

(0.02)

1.24

(0.02)

0.05*

(0.03)

1.19

(0.02)

1.23

(0.03)

0.04

(0.03)

Households with a Disabled 

Member

1.15

(0.03)

1.19

(0.03)

0.04

(0.05)

1.15

(0.03)

1.17

(0.05)

0.02

(0.05)

Households Without a Disabled 

Member

1.17

(0.02)

1.22

(0.02)

0.05*

(0.03)

1.17

(0.02)

1.20

(0.02)

0.03

(0.03)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

a In cross-sectional sample, association for households without children significantly different from 

association for households with children at the 0.10 level.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

41

2. Differences in Associations, by Household Income

We examined associations between SNAP and food spending for five income groups using 

monthly household income relative to the Federal poverty threshold. These groups were (1) zero 

monthly income; (2) income between 1 and 50 percent of poverty; (3) income between 51 and 100 

percent of poverty; (4) income between 101 and 130 percent of poverty; and (5) income more than 

130 percent of poverty.31

SNAP was associated with a 0.16 and 0.13 unit increase in food spending relative to the cost of 

the TFP for households with income between 1 and 50 percent of poverty in the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal samples, respectively. While SNAP was associated with an increase in TFP-adjusted 

food spending of 0.17 for households with income between 101 and 130 percent of poverty in the 

cross-sectional sample, it was associated with a decrease of 0.12 for households with income more 

than 130 percent of poverty. 

3. Differences in Associations, by SNAP Benefit Amount

SNAP was associated with an increase in food spending and food spending relative to the cost 

of the TFP for large benefit amount subgroups (whose benefits exceeded about 85 percent of the 

maximum benefit for household size) (Table V.3). The increase in food spending relative to the cost 

of the TFP for households that received large benefits was 0.18 in the cross-sectional sample and 

0.16 in the longitudinal sample. While there were no associations between SNAP and TFP-adjusted 

food spending for households that received medium benefits, SNAP was associated with a decrease 

in food spending relative to the cost of the TFP for households that received small benefits.

 31 The amount of SNAP benefits received by each household was not included among the set of explanatory 

variables in the regressions. 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

42

Table V.2. Regression- Adjusted Average Usual Weekly Household Food Spending and Food Spending 

Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by 

Household Income

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Spending (Dollars)

Full Sample 93.28

(1.45)

94.91

(1.23)

1.63

(2.23)

90.79

(1.40)

93.10

(1.45)

2.29

(1.64)

Monthly Income as a Percentage 

of the Poverty Line

No Income 90.88

(2.67)

90.89

(2.85)

0.01

(4.21)

88.41

(2.59)

89.3

(3.92)

0.89

(4.41)

1 to 50% 95.06

(2.56)

102.29

(3.24)

7.23

(5.14)

91.24

(2.39)

99.15

(2.93)

7.91*

(4.38)

51 to 100% 95.00

(2.88)

94.78

(2.54)

-0.22

(4.19)

91.89

(2.55)

93.07

(2.49)

1.19

(3.72)

101 to 130% a 83.56

(3.00)

96.47

(4.90)

12.91**

(6.31)

84.78

(2.65)

87.81

(3.37)

3.03

(3.90)

More than 130% 98.21

(3.28)

88.39

(2.22)

-9.82**

(4.28)

94.85

(3.25)

94.85

(3.76)

0.00

(3.71)

Food Spending Relative to the 

Cost of the TFP

Full Sample 1.16

(0.02)

1.21

(0.02)

0.05*

 (0.03)

1.16

(0.02)

1.19

(0.02)

0.03

 (0.02)

Monthly Income as a Percentage 

of the Poverty Line

No Income 1.26

(0.04)

1.26

(0.05)

0.00

(0.06)

1.27

(0.04)

1.26

(0.05)

-0.01

(0.07)

1 to 50% b 1.14

(0.03)

1.31

(0.04)

0.16***

(0.06)

1.13

(0.03)

1.26

(0.04)

0.13**

(0.05)

51 to 100% 1.14

(0.03)

1.17

(0.03)

0.02

(0.05)

1.14

(0.03)

1.14

(0.03)

0.00

(0.05)

101 to 130% a 1.04

(0.04)

1.21

(0.05)

0.17**

(0.07)

1.06

(0.03)

1.08

(0.04)

0.02

(0.04)

More than 130% c 1.18

(0.03)

1.07

(0.03)

-0.12**

(0.05)

1.17

(0.03)

1.17

(0.07)

0.00

(0.07)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the sample of 

3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the baseline data 

collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants at baseline to the 

same 3,275 participants about six months later.

SNAP benefit amount was not included as an explanatory variable in the regressions.

a In the cross-sectional sample association for households with income between 101 and 130 percent of poverty 

significantly different from association for households with income below 101 percent or above 130 percent of 

poverty at the 0.10 level.

b Associations for households with income between 1 and 50 percent of poverty significantly different from 

association for households with no income or with income at or above 51 percent of poverty at the 0.05 level in 

both the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples.

c Association for households with income above 130 percent of poverty significantly different from association 

for households with income below 130 percent of poverty at the 0.01 level in the cross-sectional sample.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

43

Table V.3. Regression- Adjusted Average Usual Weekly Household Food Spending and Food 

Spending Relative to the Cost of the TFP, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status 

and by SNAP Benefit Amount

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Spending 

(Dollars)

Full Sample 93.28

(1.45)

94.91

(1.23)

1.63

(2.23)

90.79

(1.40)

93.10

(1.45)

2.29

(1.64)

SNAP Benefit Amount as 

Percentage of the 

Maximum SNAP Benefita

Small 93.61

(2.21)

89.31

(2.34)

-4.31

(3.78)

91.70

(2.12)

89.20

(1.82)

-2.51

(2.69)

Medium 101.80

(2.24)

101.83

(2.19)

-0.08

(3.23)

99.37

(2.21)

97.98

(2.10)

-1.38

(2.75)

Largeb 84.38

(2.16)

94.48

(2.06)

10.10***

(3.47)

80.87

(1.98)

92.10

(3.18)

11.22***

(3.32)

Food Spending Relative 

to the Cost of the TFP

Full Sample 1.16

(0.02)

1.21

(0.02)

0.05*

 (0.03)

1.16

(0.02)

1.19

(0.02)

0.03

 (0.03)

SNAP Benefit Amounta

Smallc 1.04

(0.03)

0.94

(0.02)

-0.10**

(0.04)

1.04

(0.03)

0.96

(0.02)

-0.08**

(0.03)

Medium 1.12

(0.02)

1.17

(0.03)

0.05

(0.04)

1.13

(0.02)

1.13

(0.02)

-0.00

(0.03)

Largeb 1.34

(0.03)

1.52

(0.04)

0.18***

(0.05)

1.32

(0.03)

1.48

(0.05)

0.16***

(0.06)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

a We computed the SNAP benefit for each household as a percentage of the maximum benefit (by 

household size) and divided the households into three equally sized groups. Small, medium, and large 

benefit groups correspond to households with benefits of 1 to less than 42 percent of the maximum, 42 

to less than 85 percent of the maximum, and at least 85 percent of the maximum in the cross-sectional 

sample, and benefits of 1 to less than 43 percent of the maximum, 43 to less than 88 percent of the 

maximum, and at least 88 percent of the maximum in the longitudinal sample.

b In cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, associations for households with large benefits significantly 

different from associations for households with small or medium benefits at the 0.01 level.

c In cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, associations for households with small benefits significantly 

different from associations for households with medium or large benefits at the 0.01 level.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

44

4. Summary of Subgroup Findings

We found no evidence of an association between SNAP and food spending for most household 

subgroups. Several exceptions include households with income between 1 and 50 percent of poverty 

and households with large benefits (exceeding about 85 percent of the maximum benefit for 

household size). For these households, SNAP was associated with an increase in food spending 

relative to the cost of the TFP in both the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. Notably, 

however, for households with small benefits SNAP was associated with a decrease in TFP-adjusted 

food spending.

D. Additional Results

Given the association between SNAP participation and food security, we were surprised to find 

so few associations between SNAP and food spending. Economic theory suggests that, if a 

household is provided a benefit to be spent on food, then total expenditures on food will increase. 

Because of the unexpected results, we performed a number of diagnostic checks; however, we found 

the results to be robust with respect to more restricted samples, different model specifications, and 

controlling for time since receipt of benefits. Our diagnostic tests found the following (see 

Appendix G for more details): 

• Results were robust to the choice of measure of food spending (usual expenditures 

versus expenditures last week) and the distributions of the two measures were similar 

between new-entrant and six-month households 

• Results were robust to sample restrictions and the choice of explanatory variables

- Eliminating observations from the tails of the expenditure distribution 

(households with unlikely reported expenditures from the sample)

- Restricting the set of explanatory variables 

- Conducting the analysis with subgroups based on number of days since receipt 

of benefits 

- Using alternative econometric models

While our sensitivity tests did not indicate any particular limitations of the estimation methods, 

we believe that it is likely that the timing of our interviews in relation to the date that households 

received SNAP benefits may have affected the findings reported in Table V.1 and V.2. In particular, 

an unavoidably high fraction of the interviews took place after households had already been 

receiving benefits.

As described in Chapter II and Appendix A, to the extent possible, we minimized the time 

between a household’s entry into SNAP and our interview. However, the majority of respondents 

had already received benefits. Sixteen percent of new-entrant households were interviewed before 

they received their SNAP benefit, 13 percent 1 to 5 days after receipt, 23 percent 6 to 10 days after 

receipt, 24 percent 11 to 15 days after receipt, and 24 percent 16 or more days after receipt.32

 32 See Appendix G for table of number of days between date of benefit receipt and date of interview.

This, 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

45

paired with the fact that most SNAP participants spend a disproportionate amount of their SNAP 

benefits shortly after receiving them (Wilde and Ranney, 2000), makes it possible that many newentrant respondents were already factoring into their usual food expenditures the foods they were 

able to purchase because of their benefit. In fact, in support of this supposition, 84 percent of newentrant households that received their benefit before the interview reported having spent more than 

half of their benefit by the interview date. This is consistent with recent estimates from Castner and 

Henke (2011) that by the first week after receiving benefits for the month, the average SNAP 

household had redeemed over half of its benefit, by the second week, over three-quarters of its 

benefit, and by the end of the third week, 90 percent of its benefit. The SNAPFS survey data suggest 

that, even relatively early in their time on SNAP, respondents’ benefits may have become an 

important component of their food purchase decision making. We acknowledge, however, that there 

were no statistical associations between SNAP and food spending for households that had not yet 

received their benefit at the time of the interview or for households that received their benefit from 

1 to 11 days before the interview. It is also important to note that, even for households that spent a 

substantial fraction of their first month’s SNAP benefit we do not have direct evidence that they 

have revised their notion of “usual” monthly food expenditures.

On the other hand, as presented in the next section, we also found a positive and statistically 

significant relationship in the SNAPFS survey data among new-entrant households between 

reported usual food spending and benefit amount, which may indicate that new-entrant households 

were factoring the benefits received from SNAP into their estimates of usual expenditures. It is 

possible, though, that this association is attributable to other factors correlated with both food 

spending and SNAP benefit amount.

E. The Relationship between the SNAP Benefit Amount and Food 

Expenditures

Because of the concerns about the baseline expenditure data for new-entrant households, we 

drew on a different approach to analyze food expenditures. Specifically, we used the survey data 

from the six-month households in both the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples to examine 

associations between the amount of SNAP benefits and reported usual expenditures. While this does 

not allow us to exploit the full quasi-experimental design of the overall study, it does allow us to 

assess the association between SNAP benefit amounts and reported usual food expenditures for 

ongoing SNAP cases. This approach reveals whether higher SNAP benefits are associated with 

higher food expenditures. 

Drawing on techniques used extensively in the literature (Fraker 1990; Fox et al. 2004; 

Boonsaeng et al. 2012), we estimated how food expenditures vary across SNAP participants with 

different monthly SNAP benefit amounts. This approach allowed us to rely only on six-month 

household data from the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. We found that a one-dollar 

increase in SNAP benefits was associated with a 34 cent and a 48 cent increase in usual food 

expenditures among six-month households in the cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, 

respectively. These estimates that are in or around the range of approximately 0.17 to 0.47 in Fraker 

(1990). More recently, since the Fraker literature review was completed, Fox et al. (2004) cite four 

studies which, after excluding one outlier, found propensities to spend on food between 0.26 and 

0.40, while Boonsaeng (2012) estimated a value 0.31 for the propensity to spend benefits on food at 

home. The above findings from the six-month households in the current study are statistically 

significant both in absolute dollars and after normalizing the outcome measure by household size 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

46

and composition using the cost of the TFP. (Appendix G presents the analysis and its findings in 

more detail.)

F. Summary

Under most statistical specifications in the original research design, there was no significant 

association between participating in SNAP and the amount of money spent on food in a typical 

week when examining the full sample of households. Although we obtained some statistically 

significant findings (for example, in our main model specification in the cross-sectional sample), 

these findings were not robust to changes in model specification and sample definitions. 

There were few significant associations between SNAP participation and food expenditures at 

the subgroup level. An exception was that participating in SNAP was associated with an increase in 

food spending and food spending relative to the cost of the TFP for households with large benefits 

in both the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. 

Further analysis of the timing of the baseline data collection suggested that having an 

unavoidably high fraction of the interviews take place after new-entrant households had already 

been receiving benefits might have affected the main findings in the food expenditure analysis if 

households very quickly adjust their notion of “usual” spending after receiving their initial SNAP 

benefit. Excluding new-entrant households from the analysis in both the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal samples, we found a positive association between the SNAP benefit amount and food 

spending among households that had been on SNAP for six months.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

47

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The main research objectives of the study were to assess how household food security and food 

expenditures are associated with SNAP participation. The findings provide strong evidence that 

SNAP is associated with an improvement in food security. This evidence suggests SNAP is 

accomplishing one of its main goals, that of reducing food insecurity among low-income 

households.

Key findings on food security and food expenditures are summarized in the next section. We 

then compare the associations between SNAP and food security to those found in related studies. 

Finally, we present considerations for future research and lessons learned while conducting this 

study.

A. Key Findings

Food security. The study found that participating in SNAP for about six months was 

associated with an improvement in food security. SNAP was associated with a decrease in the 

percentage of households that were food insecure by 4.6 percentage points in the cross-sectional 

sample and 10.6 percentage points in the longitudinal sample. Participating in SNAP was also 

associated with a decrease in the percentage of households that experienced very low food security 

of 5.0 percentage points in the cross-sectional sample and 6.3 percentage points in the longitudinal 

sample. In terms of percentage changes, these translate into reductions in food insecurity of 7 percent in 

the cross-sectional sample and 16 percent in the longitudinal sample.33

The conclusion that SNAP is associated with an improvement in household food security 

generally holds for child food security as well. SNAP was associated with a decrease in the 

percentage of households with children in which children were food insecure in both samples. In 

addition, SNAP was associated with a decrease in the percentage of households in which children 

experienced very low food security in the cross-sectional sample, although there was no association 

in the longitudinal sample. 

The reductions in very low 

food security are 14 and 18 percent in the two samples, respectively. All associations are statistically 

significant at the 0.01 level.

We also assessed whether SNAP was associated with improved food security for household 

demographic and economic subgroups. For the most part, the results are consistent with the 

findings for the full sample. SNAP was associated with an improvement in food security for most 

household composition subgroups, including households with and without children, households 

without an elderly member, and households with and without a disabled member. When subgroups 

defined by income relative to poverty are examined, the estimated associations between SNAP and 

food security vary. Although most reflect improvements in food security, many of the estimated 

associations are not statistically significant. For most of the SNAP benefit amount subgroups, the 

estimated associations show significant improvements in food security. 

 33 For the cross-sectional analysis, percentage changes are computed as the decrease in the percentage of newentrant households that are food insecure (–4.6 percentage points) divided by the percentage of new-entrant households 

that are food insecure (65.4 percent). Percentage changes for the longitudinal analysis are computed analogously, using 

the association of –10.6 percentage points. Finally, percentage changes for very low food security are computed using 

the percentage of new-entrant households that have very low food security, 36.4 percent.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

48

Only a relatively small number of differences across subgroups are statistically significant. In the 

household composition subgroup analysis, the only finding that is fairly consistent across samples 

and measures of food security is that SNAP is associated with improved food security for 

households without an elderly member, but not for households with an elderly member. In the 

income subgroup analysis, the associations between SNAP and food security generally did not differ 

by household income relative to the poverty threshold. The associations do differ by SNAP benefit 

amount, however, such that the improvement in food security was larger for households that 

received large benefits (exceeding about 85 percent of the maximum benefit for household size) 

than for households that received small or medium benefits.

Food expenditures. The main, quasi-experimental part of the study found few associations 

between SNAP participation and food spending when examining the full sample of households. 

Participating in SNAP for about six months was not associated with changes in usual weekly food 

expenditures. Although participating in SNAP was associated with an increase in usual weekly food 

expenditures relative to the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, this association was present only in the 

cross-sectional sample and was not robust to using more restricted samples and different model 

specifications.

There were few significant associations between SNAP participation and food expenditures at 

the subgroup level. An exception was that participating in SNAP was associated with an increase in 

food spending and food spending relative to the cost of the TFP for households with large benefits 

(exceeding about 85 percent of the maximum benefit for household size) in both the cross-sectional 

and longitudinal samples. Notably, however, for households with small benefits SNAP was 

associated with a decrease in food spending relative to the cost of the TFP.

Because of concerns about the baseline expenditure data for new-entrant households, we used 

the survey data from the six-month households in the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples to 

examine associations between the amount of SNAP benefits and reported usual expenditures. We 

found that a one-dollar increase in SNAP benefits was significantly associated with 34 cent and 48 

cent increases in usual food expenditures among six-month households in the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal analyses. Significant estimates were also obtained when expenditures were measured 

relative to the cost of the TFP to normalize for household size and composition. 

B. Comparison of Findings to Related Studies

As stated above, SNAP participation is associated with a reduction in food insecurity of 7

percent in the cross-sectional sample and 16 percent in the longitudinal sample. The reductions in 

very low food security are 14 and 18 percent in the two samples, respectively. How large should 

these associations be considered from the perspective of the past literature?

One answer to this question is to note that, as discussed earlier, parts of the past literature have 

failed to find any clear associations at all (Gibson-Davis and Foster 2006; Ribar and Hamrick 2003; 

Gundersen and Oliveira 2001; Huffman and Jensen 2008), or even positive associations between 

SNAP and food insecurity (Wilde and Nord 2005). Compared with these studies, the analysis 

reported here suggests that SNAP is associated with substantial improvements in food security.

At the other end of the spectrum, several studies have found that SNAP is associated with 

reductions in food insecurity in the range of about 20 to 30 percent. Using the 1996, 2001, and 2004 

SIPP panels to estimate an instrumental variables model, Ratcliffe, McKernan, and Zhang (2011) 

found that receiving SNAP was associated with a reduction in the probability of food insecurity of 
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

49

31 percent and a reduction in the probability of very low food security of 20 percent. Mykerezi and 

Mills (2010) found that SNAP was associated with a reduction in food insecurity of 39 percent.34

Comparing food insecurity of individuals who continue to participate in SNAP with those who leave 

using matched CPS data, Nord (2012) found that SNAP was associated with a reduction in very low 

food security of 28 percent, though the estimate ranged up to 45 percent in auxiliary analyses. Nord 

and Golla (2009) found that very low food security falls by roughly one-third (34 percent) using 

matched CPS data.35

Compared with these studies, the analysis reported here suggests that SNAP is associated with 

smaller improvements in food security. Our estimates might be somewhat conservative, as suggested 

in one of the sensitivity tests summarized previously. We know that, unavoidably, there were 

sometimes delays of more than two weeks between the new-entrant interviews and when those 

households received benefits. Our estimated associations are larger when the analysis is limited to 

cases in which these delays either did not occur at all or were very short. Restricting the new-entrant 

sample to households that had not received benefits as of the interview date resulted in estimated 

associations of 18 to 26 percent reductions in food insecurity and 26 to 31 percent reductions in 

very low food security.36

In comparing our work to the studies that found that SNAP is associated with reductions in 

food insecurity, it is also important to consider that the studies have different populations and were 

conducted in different time periods. Our study estimates the association between SNAP and food 

security for households that have just entered SNAP by comparing them with those that have 

participated for about six months. Other estimates in the literature include those derived by 

Mykerezi and Mills (2010), Ratcliffe, McKernan, and Zhang (2011), and Yen et al. (2008), who 

compare all SNAP participants (regardless of how long they have participated in the program) and 

nonparticipants; Nord (2012) who compares participants with program leavers; and Nord and Golla 

(2009) who compare individuals two to six months before SNAP entry with those one to six months 

after entry.

Although this provides some evidence that our estimates might be 

conservative, differences in observable and unobservable characteristics between households that 

had and had not yet received benefits prevent us from being able to definitively conclude that our 

associations are underestimated. Furthermore, because the food security index essentially identifies 

the worst food security conditions that a household has experienced in the previous 30 days, any 

bias introduced by interviewing households following benefit receipt should be at least partially 

mitigated by the recall period of the food security index. Under plausible assumptions, for most 

households, the worst food security condition would occur just before entering SNAP, so the 

outcome measure in our study is likely to have captured the worst food security condition even for 

the small percentage of households interviewed more than two weeks after receiving benefits.

 34 The percentage change is calculated by Mykerezi and Mills (2010) by dividing the marginal effect (the percentage 

point reduction in food insecurity) by the percentage of SNAP participants who are food insecure. To make the findings 

of that study comparable to the findings in our study and in Ratcliffe, McKernan, and Zhang (2011), we instead divided 

the marginal effect in Mykerezi and Mills (2010) by the percentage food insecure in absence of the program. 

35 The findings in the current study are also qualitatively similar to those in Depolt, Moffit, and Ribar (2009); 

Bartfield and Dunifon (2006); Borjas (2005); and Yen et al. (2008).

36 Appendix D presents the findings from sensitivity analyses of the amount of time since the receipt of benefits.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

50

Study periods also differ across studies. Some extend back to the 1990s (Yen et al. [2008] and 

Mykerezi and Mills [2010] used data from 1996 and 1999, respectively), whereas others extend 

through the early to the mid-2000s (Ratcliffe, McKernan, and Zhang [2011] used three SIPP panels, 

which cover from 1996 to 2007; Nord and Golla [2009] used CPS data from 2001 to 2006). Nord 

(2012) provided more recent evidence, extending to the period of the recent recession, by using CPS 

data from 2001 to 2009. Our study provides the most recent evidence, from late 2011 to mid-2012. 

It is also the only study examining SNAP participation and food security for which all data were 

collected in the period after the 2009 increase in SNAP benefits under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009.37

C. Implications for Future Research 

Several, substantive research directions are suggested by the study findings. These include:

• More examination of reasons why SNAP households without elderly members

experienced improvements in food security, while households with elderly members 

generally did not. This may reflect different benefit amounts (households with elderly 

members received an average SNAP benefit of $144 in FY 2011 compared to $307 for 

households without an elderly member). Alternatively, it may reflect different coping 

strategies related to food insecurity.

• More examination of reasons why the improvement in food security associated with 

SNAP was not larger for lower income households, relative to higher income 

households. Given that households with less income generally receive higher SNAP 

benefits, we expected to find the improvements in food security to be larger for 

households with less income. We found no association for zero income households and 

generally no pattern in relation to income for households with positive income. 

• Examination of how the association between SNAP and food security differs according 

to households’ physical access to food. By linking measures of food access to the

SNAPFS survey data file, one could examine whether the association between SNAP 

participation and household food security differs by access to SNAP retailers, including 

different types of retailers like supermarkets or superstores, large grocery stores, or 

convenience stores.

D. Implications for Research Methods

There are also several lessons learned from the project that pertain to performing similar 

research:

• Obtaining State cooperation. The process of obtaining our sample-frame files took 

extensive resources and in some cases required lengthy negotiations with the States to 

gain their active participation in the study and allay their concerns about data 

 37 Nord and Prell (2011) estimate the association between the increase in SNAP benefits provided by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and household food security using the CPS-FSS, rather than SNAP 

participation per se. They found that the increase was associated with a 9 percent reduction in food insecurity and an 18 

percent reduction in very low food security.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

51

confidentiality and the costs of providing data. While day to day involvement in this 

process by FNS is not generally necessary, the active cooperation of FNS staff in 

providing support and making critical phone calls was important in assuring States that 

FNS was supportive of the study. 

• Interviewing new-entrant households before they receive SNAP benefits. Short of 

implementing methods that would substantially increase data collection costs, we believe 

that there is no feasible way to interview new-entrant households prior to their start of 

benefits. Most States distribute EBT benefits to new cases relatively quickly after 

approval. In most States, the only way to reach clients before they begin receiving 

benefits would be to station field staff at the program offices. This would be very 

expensive, however, and would require adapting to the very different intake procedures 

used by States. And, even then, ways would have to be found to reach clients who apply 

and are certified without an office interview, as occurs now in an increasing number of 

States. Alternatively, interview protocols for new-entrant households could include more 

comprehensive sets of questions that attempt to trace out the change in food 

expenditures in the weeks before SNAP began and the days or weeks after SNAP began. 

• Obtaining accurate data on food expenditures for SNAP households. It would be 

useful to develop ways of doing extensive probing during interviews about whether 

benefits are included in food expenditures. In our survey module on expenditures, we 

included Current Population Survey questionnaire language asking respondents to 

include purchases made with SNAP benefits. But there was evidence that significant 

numbers did not include purchases made with their benefits. Future survey projects 

should include more probes in this area. Specifically, more probes should be included

that, during the interview, compare the usual weekly food expenditures to the SNAP 

benefit amount and ask in different ways whether respondents are including benefits in 

their reported food expenditure. Approaches based on cognitive interviews with SNAP 

households would be valuable in learning more about how food expenditures change just 

before entering SNAP, in the early weeks of SNAP participation, and after several 

months of receiving benefits.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

53

REFERENCES

The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2011. Standard Definitions: Final 

Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th edition. AAPOR.

Bartfeld, J., and R. Dunifon.“State-Level Predictors of Food Insecurity Among Households with 

Children.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 25, 2006, pp. 921–942.

Biggs, D., B. De Ville, and E. Suen. “A Method of Choosing Multi-Way Partitions for Classification 

and Decision Trees.” Journal of Applied Statistics. 18 (1), 49-62, 1991. 

Boonsaeng, Tullaya, Carlos E. Carpio, Chen Zhen, Abigail M. Okrent. “The Effect of Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program on Food Spending Among Low-Income Households” Selected 

Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2012 

AAEA Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, August 12-14, 2012. Available at 

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/124839/2/AAEApaper_seattle2012_final.pdf

Borjas, G.J. “Food Insecurity and Public Assistance.” Journal of Public Economics, vol. 88, 2004, pp. 

1421–1443.

Burstein, N., W. Hamilton, M.K. Fox, C. Price, and M. Battaglia. ―Assessing the Food Security and 

Diet Quality Impacts of FNS Program Participation: Final Menu of Survey Options.

Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc., 2005.

Castner, Laura and Juliette Henke. “Benefit Redemption Patterns in the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program”. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service, Office of Research and Analysis, 2011.

Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. Household Food 

Security in the United States in 2010. ERR-125, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. 

September 2011. available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR125/ERR125.pdf

DePolt, R.A., R.A. Moffitt, and D.C. Ribar. “Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families and Food Hardships in Three American Cities.” Pacific Economic Review, vol. 14, 2009,

pp. 445–473.

Edin, Kathryn, Melody Boyd, James Mabli, Jim Ohls, Julie Worthington, Sara Greene, Nicholas 

Redel, Swetha Sridharan. “SNAP Food Security In-Depth Interview Study.”. Final report 

submitted to the Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

Alexandria, VA: USDA, FNS, March 2013.

Fox, M.K., W. Hamilton, and B. Lin. 2004. Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on 

Nutrition and Health: Volume 3 Literature Review. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research 

Report No. 19-3. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr19-3/

Fraker, Thomas M. “The Effects of Food Stamps on Food Consumption: A Review of the 

Literature.” Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 1990.

Gibson-Davis, C., and E.M. Foster. “A Cautionary Tale: Using Propensity Scores to Estimate the 

Effect of Food Stamps on Food Insecurity.” Social Service Review, vol. 80, 2006, pp. 93–126.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

54

Gundersen, C., and V. Oliveira. “The Food Stamp Program and Food Insufficiency.” American 

Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 83, 2001, pp. 875–887.

Huffman, S.K., and H.H. Jensen. “Food Assistance Programs and Outcomes in the Context of

Welfare Reform.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 89, 2008, pp. 95–115.

Kalton, Graham and Ismael Flores-Cervantes. “Weighting Methods”, Journal of Official Statistics, 

Vol.19, No.2, 2003. pp. 81–97, 2003. 

Kass, G. V. An Exploratory Technique for Investigating Large Quantities of Categorical Data.”

Applied Statistics 29 (2), 119-127, 1980.

Leftin, Joshua, Andrew Gothro, and Esa Eslami. “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2009.” Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, October 2010.

Magidson, Jay. “The Use of the New Ordinal Algorithm in CHAID to Target Profitable Segments”, 

The Journal of Database Marketing, 1, 29–48, 1993.

Nord, Mark. Food Spending Declined and Food Insecurity Increased for Middle-Income and LowIncome Households From 2000 to 2007, EIB-61, U.S. Dept. of Agri., Econ. Res. Serv., 

October 2009.

Nord, Mark. 2011. “How Much Does the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Alleviate 

Food Insecurity? Evidence from Recent Programme Leavers,” Public Health Nutrition 15(5): 811-

817.

Nord, Mark, and Gary Bickel. “Measuring Children’s Food Security in U.S. Households, 1995-99”. 

FANRR-25, USDA, Economic Research Service. 2002.

Nord, Mark, and Anne Marie Golla. “Does SNAP Decrease Food Insecurity? Untangling the SelfSelection Effect. Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service, Economic Research 

Report Number 85, October, 2009.

Nord, Mark, and Mark Prell. Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP 

Benefits, ERR-116, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 2011.

Oliveira, Victor, and Donald Rose. 1996. Food Expenditure Estimates From the 1995 CPS Food 

Security Supplement: How Do They Compare With the Consumer Expenditure Survey? Staff 

Report No. AGES9617, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Ratcliffe, C., S. McKernan, and S. Zhang. “How Much Does the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program Reduce Food Insecurity?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 93, no. 4, 2011, 

pp. 1082–1098.

Ribar, D.C., and K.S. Hamrick. “Dynamics of Poverty and Food Sufficiency.” Research report no. 

36. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 2003.

Schochet, Peter Z. (2008). Technical Methods Report: Guidelines for Multiple Testing in Impact 

Evaluations (NCEE 2008-4018). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation 

and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security Mathematica Policy Research

55

Siegel, P.H., Chromy, J.R., & Copello, E.A.. Propensity Models Versus Weighting Cell Approaches 

to Nonresponse Adjustment: A Methodological Comparison. Presented at American 

Association for Public Opinion Research 60th Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL, May 

2005.

Strayer, Mark , Esa Eslami, and Joshua Leftin. “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011”, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service, Office of Research and Analysis. Project Officer, Jenny Genser. Alexandria, VA: 2012. 

Trippe, Carole, and Jessica Gillooly. “Noncash Categorical Eligibility for SNAP: State Policies and 

the Number and Characteristics of SNAP Households Categorically Eligible Through Those 

Policies.” Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, July 2010. 

Wilde, P. “Measuring the Effect of Food Stamps on Food Insecurity and Hunger: Research and 

Policy Considerations.” Journal of Nutrition, vol. 137, 2007, pp. 307–310.

Wilde, Parke, and Mark Nord. “The Effect of Food Stamps on Food Security: A Panel Data 

Approach.” Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 27, 2005, pp. 425–432.

Wilde, Parke E. and Christine K. Ranney. "The Monthly Food Stamp Cycle: Shopping Frequency 

and Food Intake Decisions in an Endogenous Switching Regression Framework," American 

Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), 

pages 200-213, 2000. 

Wun, L.-M., Ezzati-Rice, Digaetano, R., Goksel, H., and Hao, H.,"Using Data from the National 

Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to Assess the Effectiveness of Nonresponse Adjustment in the 

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)," 2005 ASA Proceedings of the Section on Survey 

Research Methods, (CD-ROM).

Yen, Stephen T., Margaret Andrews, Zhuo Chen, and David B. Eastwood. “Food Stamp Program

Participation and Food Insecurity: An Instrumental Variables Approach.” American Journal of 

Agricultural Economics, vol. 90, 2008, pp. 117–132.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
APPENDIX A

DATA AND METHODOLOGY
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-3

Chapter II presented an overview of the study design and data collection methodology 

underlying the study, as well as the outcome measures and analysis methods. This Appendix

presents more detailed information about the data collection methodology, the analysis methods

used to estimate the association between SNAP and food security and food expenditures, and the 

construction of sampling weights used in the analysis. 

A. Sampling Methodology

The data consist of two samples. The sample used in the cross-sectional analysis includes 9,811 

SNAP households interviewed in 30 States from October 2011 through February 2012. It comprises 

6,436 new-entrant households and 3,375 households that have participated for about six months (we 

refer to these households as “six-month” households, for convenience). The sample used in the 

longitudinal analysis comprises the 6,436 new-entrant households interviewed from October 2011 

through February 2012 plus a portion of those households—3,275 households in total—who were 

still participating in the program about six months later.38

A key consideration in our approach to sampling was that the only practical way to obtain 

sample frames for a national sample of SNAP participants was through the State agencies that 

operate the program. Because the USDA does not have a national file with the information that is 

needed, we ensured efficiency in sampling by drawing the sample of SNAP participants in a twostage process. First, we drew a sample of States, using probability-proportional-to-size (PPS)

sampling. Second, we drew samples of participant households from caseload files provided by 

participating States. 

These households were interviewed 

between April and September 2012. 

We selected States from the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia and used the 

number of SNAP households in each State as the measure of size. At the first stage, we selected 30 

States. All States with at least one-thirtieth of the national caseload (14 States) were sampled with 

certainty. The rest were sampled with probabilities proportional to size and were referred to as 

noncertainty States. We also selected 5 replacement States from the noncertainty group for a backup 

sample to use if some of the originally selected States ultimately chose not to participate. In the end, 

the sample included 4 replacement States.39

In sampling individual households within States from State-supplied caseload files, we 

calculated the sample sizes according to the following principles:

• For each certainty State, the sample size was set proportional to the size of the State’s 

caseload. For instance, if State A and State B were both certainty States, and if the 

 38 As we discuss later in the Appendix, in both the cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, we restricted the 

sample of new-entrant households to those that were still participating in SNAP six months later in order to increase the 

comparability between the new-entrant and six-month samples. Thus, the sample sizes above are the initial sample sizes, 

rather than the analytic sample sizes.

39 The states that participated in the survey were Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, 

Washington, and Wisconsin.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-4

caseload in State A was 50 percent larger than in State B, then State A had 1.5 times the 

sample of State B.

• For the States not chosen with certainty, equal-sized samples were taken, reflecting the 

fact that the States had already been selected with probabilities proportional to size.

Given the total sample size that we targeted across all States

40

B. Data Collection

, determined using a power 

analysis, these sampling rules defined a unique number of cases to be selected from each State. The 

sample of new-entrant households was to be used in both the cross-sectional and longitudinal 

analyses and was re-interviewed approximately six months after the initial interview, whereas the 

sample of six-month households was interviewed only once. Thus, to allow for attrition in the 

longitudinal sample over time, we selected a much larger sample of new-entrant households than 

six-month households during the baseline survey period.

The household survey used to obtain data for the cross-sectional analysis was conducted 

between October 2011 and February 2012. The follow-up survey for new-entrant households that 

was used in the longitudinal analysis was conducted between April and early September 2012. All 

interviews were completed by telephone with computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) 

using trained interview staff.

An analytic objective in conducting the telephone survey was to minimize the time between 

program entry and the baseline interview so that respondents’ information pertained to the time 

period prior to entry into SNAP. In light of this need, Mathematica adopted a “rolling sample” 

procedure. We divided the States into seven cohorts of about four States each. Within cohorts, 

States loaded their raw SNAP certification files on a secure FTP site at the same time, and the 

sampled SNAP households were released for data collection at the same time several days later. 

Across cohorts, sampling and data collection was conducted sequentially, although the interviewing 

periods slightly overlapped one another. That is, the interviewing of the first cohort was still 

underway at the time sampling activities for the second cohort began, and so on. The length of the 

baseline field period was approximately two weeks for new-entrant households and four weeks for 

six-month households, while the length of the field period for follow-up interviews with new-entrant 

households six months later was about six weeks. Given the staggered start dates across states for 

the baseline field periods, the baseline data collection period lasted from October 2011 to February 

2012. The follow-up period lasted from April to September 2012.

Sequence of Data Collection Procedures

Upon receipt of the new-entrant and six-month caseload files from the States, Mathematica 

reviewed the data files, obtained additional information for incomplete data files (for example, 

missing telephone numbers), and sampled households. (This is discussed in more detail in the next 

section.) Mathematica mailed to sampled households an advance letter signed by a USDA official 

that included a $2 prepaid incentive and promised $20 additional incentive upon completion of the 

telephone survey. Approximately three days after advance letters were mailed to the sampled 

 40 The target analysis sample size was 7,618 new-entrant households at baseline; 4,000 six-month households at 

baseline; and 4,000 new-entrant household six months later at follow-up. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-5

households, telephone interviewers began contacting the households and conducting interviews 

using the programmed CATI instrument. An automated call scheduler was used to manage the 

sample by controlling the delivery of cases to the interviewers.

Generally speaking, the goals of “call scheduling” were to (1) find a time when someone would

answer the telephone for an initial contact to screen the number as an eligible household and 

identify the most appropriate household-level respondent, (2) schedule and keep appointments to 

interview the respondent, and (3) deliver calls to interviewers with special skills (such as refusal 

conversion or language specialists), as appropriate. To achieve these goals, we defined time slots, 

created queues, and set rules for the initial call. We also rotated cases in and out of appropriate 

queues and through the time slots. Minimum and maximum call rules were also established as well 

as times when messages were left on answering machines and times when supervisors reviewed 

cases.

To ensure high-quality data collection, all interviewers assigned to the project, both experienced 

and new, received two-day, in-person, project-specific training. Interviewers received a description 

of the study and instructions on how to respond to questions about it. In addition, a “walk-through” 

of the instrument explained the intent of each item and offered appropriate probes that were 

specific to the questions.

To ensure telephone interviewers performed as trained, they were regularly monitored via a 

system that enables verbal and visual monitoring without either the interviewer’s or the respondent’s 

knowledge. Interviewers were informed that they were to be monitored but did not know when 

observations would take place. Respondents were also informed at the start of the interview that 

their conversation may be recorded for quality-control purposes.

Minimizing the Time Between First Receipt of Benefits and Completed Interview for NewEntrant Households

To best measure the prevalence and characteristics of food-insecure households as they first 

entered the program, it was essential that new SNAP households be interviewed as soon as possible 

after SNAP certification but before the household had adjusted its food purchasing and 

consumption behavior based on its SNAP allotments. Two phases of the survey work were critical 

in this regard: (1) minimizing the “front-end” setup time during which the raw State data files were 

received, processed, sampled and loaded into the Survey Management System (SMS) for use by the 

CATI center, and (2) minimizing the data collection period in the CATI center. 

Minimizing front-end setup time. As part of its work in developing operational plans for the survey, 

Mathematica used multiple avenues toward minimizing the time from when the State uploaded its 

SNAP certification data file onto Mathematica’s secure FTP site to when Mathematica could

commence telephone interviews with the sampled cases. We undertook the following steps with 

each State data file before conducting CATI interviews: 

• Retrieved State data files, read them into SAS, ran edit checks, and removed duplicate 

case records.

• Reviewed the data file; followed up with State SNAP agencies with files that were 

incomplete (for example, some states submitted “six-month” sample files that contained 

only cases that had been on the program for four months. States were notified to resubmit files for six-month households).
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-6

• Verified that data files were loaded into the sample management system, assigned case 

identifiers, and checked for missing or incomplete respondent contact information.

• For many states, sent the entire file to a private locating company for address and 

telephone updates. For some states, only specific cases for which there was insufficient 

contact information were sent to the locating company. Files were not sent to a private 

locating company for states with data sharing restrictions.

• Used sampling programs to select SNAP households, conducted an additional duplicate 

check, and flagged the sampled cases on the file.

• Checked for complete mailing addresses. If address was complete, sent advanced letter. 

If address was incomplete, located address.

• Released sample to survey operations center for CATI interviewing.

In most cases, interviews in a given State began three days after receiving the final State file, to 

allow sufficient time for sample members to receive the advance letters. Given that the State SNAP 

data files included cases that had been certified one to five days prior to data file delivery, the total 

elapsed time from SNAP certification to the sample case being released for telephone interviewing 

was about four to eight days, with the range being a function of the SNAP certification date relative 

to data file delivery date. 

Minimizing the data collection period. We considered a 7-day field period for new-entrant 

households, but chose instead to use a 14-day field period. Both scenarios require working cases in 

the sample much more intensively in terms of calls per day than is the case with standard CATI 

surveys, which extend over a much longer time period. However, concerned that a 7-day period 

might lead to unacceptably low response rates, we used a 14-day CATI period in which for the first 

7 days, cases were worked nearly as intensely as they would have been worked under the 7-day CATI 

period design. The additional 7 days that followed helped us ensure that response rates were not 

adversely affected. 

C. Response Rates

Table A.1 summarizes the response rates that were obtained in the various parts of the data 

collection. The response rates were 55.7 for the new-entrant households’ baseline interview and 55.0 

for the six-month sample interviewed at baseline. The response rate for the follow-up interview with 

the new-entrant sample six months later was 66.6 percent. All response rates were calculated using 

the American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate 3 (RR3) formula (AAPOR 

2009). 

The response rates in the baseline interview reflect two challenges of the survey effort. First, the 

goal of achieving quick turnaround in the survey raises an important trade-off among competing 

SNAPFS survey objectives. In particular, longer data collection periods allow survey staff and 

researchers time to successfully locate, contact, and interview the sample population, thereby 

obtaining higher overall response and minimizing potential nonresponse bias. But allowing several 

weeks for data collection leads to the analytical risk that because new SNAP entrants may have 

adjusted their food purchasing and consumption behavior based on their SNAP allotments before 

they were interviewed for this survey, the interview may not be a true “baseline” that reflects clients’ 

situations prior to entering the program. This study used a 14-day field period, which is much 

shorter than most field periods for standard surveys.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-7

Table A.1. SNAPFS Survey Outcome Rates 

New-Entrant 

Households Six-Month Households

Baseline Survey (October 2011 to 

February 2012)

Total Starting Sample 11,706 6,509

Eligibility Rate 98.8 94.3

Cooperation Rate 88.0 85.1

Refusal Rate 7.6 9.6

Contact Rate 67.5 68.9

Response Rate 55.7 55.0

Total Completes 6,436 3,375

Follow- Up Survey (April 2012 to 

September 2012)

Total Starting Samplea 6,370

Eligibility Rate 77.9

Cooperation Rate 90.2

Refusal Rate 7.2

Contact Rate 74.4

Response Rate 66.6

Total Completes 3,275

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Calculations based on AAPOR (2009). 

The contact rate measures the proportion of all cases in which some responsible member of 

the housing unit was reached by the survey. They are based on contact with households, 

including respondents, rather than contacts with respondents only. It includes in the base the 

estimated eligible cases among the undetermined cases.

The cooperation rate is the proportion of all cases interviewed of all eligible units ever 

contacted. It defines those unable to do an interview as also incapable of cooperating and 

they are excluded from the base.

The response rate measures the number of complete interviews with reporting units divided 

by the number of eligible reporting units in the sample. It estimates what proportion of cases 

of unknown eligibility is actually eligible.

The refusal rate is the proportion of all cases in which a housing unit or the respondent 

refuses to be interviewed or breaks-off an interview, of all potentially eligible cases. It 

includes estimated eligible cases among the unknown cases.

The eligibility rate is the estimated proportion of cases of unknown eligibility that are eligible. 

This estimate is based on the proportion of eligible units among all units in the sample for 

which a definitive determination of status was obtained (a conservative estimate).

a Difference between follow up starting sample size and baseline number of completes for new-entrant 

households due to in-depth interviews conducted with selected households with children.

Second, we attribute the lower-than-targeted response rate (the target was 65 percent) to a 

much lower incidence than expected of valid, working telephone numbers on the State frame files. 

In some States, the majority of clients did not have telephone numbers in the program files. Even in 

States for which the caseload files had telephone numbers for most clients, many numbers were not 

current. Locating households with no numbers or nonworking telephone numbers on the frame 

files, in the short period that cases were being worked, proved difficult.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-8

As described in the methodology section below, we conducted a comprehensive nonresponse 

analysis to ensure that household nonresponse did not bias the study findings.

D. Analysis Methods

We used descriptive, tabular analysis to examine the composition of the groups of new-entrant 

and six-month households, as well as to present summary statistics of the outcome measures of food 

security status and food expenditures used in the multivariate analysis. Next, we used multivariate 

regression analysis to estimate the association between SNAP and household food security and food 

expenditures while accounting for compositional differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households. All analyses were weighted.

The tables in the body of this report restrict the sample of new-entrant households to those that 

continued to participate six months later at the time of the follow-up interview. This restriction 

decreases the size of the sample used in the analysis, and thus potentially decreases statistical power 

in the analyses of food security in Chapter IV and food expenditures in Chapter V. However, it 

increases the comparability of new-entrant and six-month households and helps to decrease bias in 

comparing the food security (or food expenditures) of six-month and new-entrant households. 

1. Descriptive Analysis

We used descriptive analysis to examine the characteristics and circumstances of the samples of 

new-entrant and six-month households, and to assess the food-insecurity rates and usual weekly 

food expenditures for each group. Unless otherwise noted, statistics represent weighted means and 

percentages of the group of new-entrant households or the group of six-month households. 

Note that to simplify the presentation, and because the purpose of this initial analysis is 

descriptive, we did not include standard errors in these tables. However, Chapters IV and V, which 

focus more on hypothesis testing, provide full documentation of statistical significance.

2. Multivariate Analysis of Food Security

We examined two outcomes: (1) food security and (2) food expenditures. In this section, we 

discuss the multivariate methodology used in the food security analyses. In the next section we 

discuss the analogous methodology for the food expenditures analyses.

Although comparing food insecurity rates across groups using descriptive, tabular analysis 

provides valuable information about how the outcome measure differs across groups, multivariate 

regression analyses are needed to account for compositional differences across groups that might

bias the associations between SNAP and food security. In particular, many household characteristics 

may be correlated with both continuing to participate in the SNAP program through six months and 

a household’s food insecurity status. To help to address this concern, we used logistic regression 

analysis to estimate the effect of SNAP on food security.41

 41 While multivariate modeling helps to minimize bias, it does not eliminate it altogether, due to the inability to 

account for unobservable factors that affect both SNAP participation and food security.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-9

Outcome Measures

The SNAPFS survey included the 18-item food security module used in the Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS). The questionnaire was based on a 30-day recall 

period. 

We defined four outcome measures for the food security analyses: 

1. Household food insecurity. A binary variable indicating whether a household was 

food insecure. Household food security status can be measured using the 10 adultreferenced items for households without children and the full 18 items (the 10 adultreferenced items plus the 8 child-referenced items) for households with children. In this 

study, we measured food security using the 10 adult-referenced items for all households 

to minimize any measurement effects associated with the presence and ages of children 

(Nord and Golla 2009; Nord and Bickel 2002). Households that affirmed 3 or more 

items were classified as food insecure.

2. Household very low food security. A binary variable indicating whether a household 

experienced very low food security. This variable was measured using the 10-item adult 

scale of the food security module. Households that affirmed 6 or more items were 

classified as having very low food security.

3. Children’s food insecurity. For households with children, a binary variable indicating 

whether children in the household were food insecure. This variable was measured 

using the 8-item child scale of the food security module (Nord and Bickel 2002).

Households that affirmed 2 or more items were classified as having food insecurity 

among children. 

4. Children’s very low food security. For households with children, a binary variable 

indicating whether children in the household experienced very low food security. This 

variable was measured using the 8-item child scale of the food security module (Nord 

and Bickel 2002). Households that affirmed five or more items were classified as having 

very low food security among children.

Empirical Model for Cross-Sectional Analysis

We estimated logistic regression models that relate the probability of food insecurity or very low 

food security to SNAP participation status and a set of household and State characteristics. 

Participation in SNAP was denoted using a binary variable equal to 1 if the household had been 

participating in SNAP for about six months and equal to 0 if the household had just entered SNAP. 

The set of variables measuring household characteristics and circumstances consisted of:42 43

 42 All of the variables were defined using information from the SNAPFS survey, except for the state economic and 

SNAP policy variables. Analysis variables were not defined using variables from the administrative data files provided by 

states for the sample frame construction.

43 The survey defined “household” as “the people who live with the respondent and share food with the 

respondent, including babies, small children, and people who are not related to the respondent.” Some of the analysis 

variables measure a characteristic or circumstance for the “household head.” This was the interview respondent who 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-10

• Gender of household head. A binary variable indicating whether the household head is 

female. 

• Race and ethnicity of household head. Binary variables indicating whether the 

household head is Hispanic; non-Hispanic black; or non-Hispanic non-black and nonwhite (referred to as non-Hispanic “other”). The referent group was non-Hispanic white.

• Highest grade completed of household head. Binary variables indicating whether the 

household head has completed high school, some college, or at least college. The 

referent group completed less than high school. 

• Employment status of household head. Binary variables indicating whether the 

household head was employed full-time or employed part time. The referent group was 

“not employed.” 

• Depression status of household head. A binary variable indicating whether the head 

of household felt depressed in the past 30 days. It is based on whether the respondent 

stated that he or she felt one of the following conditions either a little of the time, most 

of the time, or all of the time in the past 30 days: “felt so sad nothing could cheer you 

up”; “felt nervous”; “felt restless or fidgety”; “felt hopeless”; “felt that everything was an 

effort”; or “felt worthless.” 

• Household income-to-poverty ratio. A variable measuring a household’s gross 

monthly income relative to the SNAP income eligibility standards for Fiscal Year 2012

(http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/government/FY12_Income_Standards.htm). The 

standards represent 100 percent of the poverty level for each household size and closely 

resemble the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.

• Household size. A discrete variable equal to the number of people in the household.

• Household composition. Binary variables indicating whether the household includes 

children; whether the household includes an elderly member (age 65 and over); and 

whether the household includes a disabled individual (self-reported in the survey). 

• Prior SNAP participation status. A binary variable indicating whether the household 

had participated in SNAP prior to its current enrollment.

• Participation in federal or State programs. Binary variables indicating whether the 

household was participating in federal or State programs such as TANF, other welfare 

programs such as General Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or 

unemployment compensation. 

• Changes in household size, housing status, employment, pay, or hours worked.

Binary variables indicating whether the household had experienced a change in the past 

six months in household size, housing status (as measured by eviction), or employment, 

pay, or hours worked. 

 

(continued)

affirmed that (1) he or she was the person who did most of the planning or preparing of meals in his or her family, or (2) 

he or she was the adult in the household who did most of the shopping for food in his or her family.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-11

• Region of residence. Binary variables indicating the FNS region in which the 

household lives. The Western region is the referent group.

• State wage and unemployment rate. We used the 25th percentile of the State wage 

distribution to represent the typical wage rate of a low-income worker in the State and 

the State unemployment rate to measure the general economic environment in the State. 

Wage information was obtained from the May 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics State 

Occupation and Wage Estimates data [http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm ]. 

We calculated the State unemployment rate as the average of the nonseasonally adjusted 

unemployment rate from October 2011 through February 2012 for the baseline period 

and from April 2012 through August 2012 for the follow-up period. We obtained this 

information from Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics data.

• State SNAP policies. A binary variable indicating whether the State offers broad-based 

categorical eligibility to SNAP participants. This variable is measured using State-level 

data from Trippe and Gallooly (2010) compiled for FNS. We also included the average 

certification period in the State in fiscal year 2011 obtained from SNAP Quality Control 

data used in Strayer et al. (2012). 

We transform the raw logistic regression coefficient of the SNAP participation variable into a 

“marginal effect” to measure the association of SNAP participation with the probability of being 

food insecure (or, in alternate specifications, the probability of experiencing very low food security). 

We present the raw regression coefficients and standard errors for the main specification of each 

regression to familiarize the reader with the model specification. We follow with tables that 

summarize the association between SNAP and food insecurity (or very low food security) for the 

full sample and subgroup samples. These summary tables compare the rates of food insecurity 

across groups after accounting or adjusting for compositional differences across groups. Appendices 

C and F contain regression coefficients and standard errors for all models.

The summary tables have the regression-adjusted percentage of new-entrant households that 

are food insecure; the regression-adjusted percentage of six-month households that are food 

insecure; the difference in these percentages, which is the marginal effect; and the standard error of 

the marginal effect. Regression-adjusted percentages of households that are food insecure were 

obtained by performing the following steps:

• Obtain the percentage for six-month households. We evaluated the logistic 

regression equation using the regression coefficient estimates, setting the SNAP 

participation variable equal to 1 for all households, and using the means of all other 

explanatory variables calculated over six-month and new-entrant households. This 

process generated a single predicted probability of a six-month household being food 

insecure.

• Obtain the percentage for new-entrant households. We evaluated the logistic 

regression equation using the regression coefficient estimates, setting the SNAP 

participation variable to 0 for all households, and using the means of all other 

explanatory variables calculated over six-month and new-entrant households. This 

process generated a single predicted probability of a new-entrant household being food 

insecure.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-12

• Obtain the marginal effect of SNAP on food insecurity. We calculated the difference

in the two predicted probabilities to obtain the estimate of the marginal effect of SNAP 

on food insecurity.

We followed an analogous set of steps to obtain the regression-adjusted percentages of 

households that experienced very low food security. 

Empirical Model for the Longitudinal Analysis

The main sample for the longitudinal analysis consisted of the new-entrant households 

interviewed from October 2011 to February 2012 that responded to the follow-up interview 

approximately six months later, from April 2012 to September 2012. This is a “balanced” sample in 

that all household contributed the same number of observations (two) to the data file. 

The outcome measures were the same in both the longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis, as 

were the set of explanatory variables. We defined the values of the explanatory variables for the sixmonth households and the new-entrant households in the longitudinal analysis using data from the 

follow-up interview and baseline interview, respectively. Although we could use this approach for 

the State-level unemployment rate, the variables measuring State SNAP policies in the baseline 

period were not updated in the follow-up period, because they are fiscal year measures and the 

baseline and follow-up periods were both in fiscal year 2012. 

Subgroup Analysis

In addition to estimating the association between SNAP and food security using the full 

(restricted) sample of 6,650 households, we estimated the regressions described above for the 

following subgroups44

• Household composition. Whether a household includes children; among households 

with children, whether a household is a single-parent or multiple-parent household; 

whether a household includes an elderly member; and whether a household includes a 

disabled individual. 

:

• Age of household head. Households in which the head of household was age 18 to 24; 

age 25 to 49; age 50 to 64; or age 65 or older.

• Highest grade completed of household head. Households in which the household 

head’s highest grade of schooling completed was less than high school; high school; or 

more than high school.

• Race and ethnicity of household head. Households in which the household head was 

white, non-Hispanic; black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; or non-white, non-black, and nonHispanic.

 44 There are statistical risks associated with extensive subgroup analysis due to the substantial likelihood—often a 

near certainty—that spurious results are obtained (Schochet 2008). As we discuss in greater detail in Chapter IV, we 

attempt to strike a compromise between the need for subgroup analysis and the attendant statistical risks by highlighting 

findings from three sets of important subgroups in the text of the report and reporting results for additional subgroups 

in appendix in tables in Appendix E to allow additional exploratory analysis, as desired.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-13

• Employment status of household head. Households in which the household head 

was employed full time; employed part time; or not employed.

• Region of residence. Households that lived in the Northeast region; Mid-Atlantic 

region; South region; Southeast region; Midwest region; Mountain region; or West 

region.

• Household income. Households with zero income; households with an income-topoverty ratio greater than zero, but less than or equal to 50 percent; households with an 

income-to-poverty ratio greater than 50 percent but less than or equal to 130 percent; 

households with an income-to-poverty ratio greater than 130 percent.

• Sources of income. Whether households received income from the following sources: 

TANF; SSI; Social Security benefits; other retirement benefits such as a government or 

private pension or annuity; unemployment insurance or worker’s compensation benefits; 

veteran’s benefits; child-support payments; or financial support from families and 

friends. 

• SNAP benefit amount. Households that small, medium, or large benefit amounts as a 

percentage of the maximum benefit. Small, medium, and large benefit groups 

correspond to households with benefits of 1 to less than 42 percent of the maximum, 42 

to less than 85 percent of the maximum, and at least 85 percent of the maximum in the 

cross-sectional sample, and benefits of 1 to less than 43 percent of the maximum, 43 to 

less than 88 percent of the maximum, and at least 88 percent of the maximum in the 

longitudinal sample.

• Expedited service. Whether households were certified for SNAP by receiving 

expedited service.45

• Prior SNAP participation status. Whether households participated in SNAP prior to 

their current enrollment.

• Health status. Households in which the head of household reported health as excellent, 

very good, good, fair, or poor.

• Body mass index. Households in which the head of household’s body mass index 

(BMI), based on self-reported height and weight, fell into the following categories: 

underweight (BMI less than 18.5); normal (BMI from 18.5 to 24.9); overweight (BMI 

from 25.0 to 29.9); and obese (BMI greater than or equal to 30.0). 

• Household transportation resources. Households that owned a car, truck, or other 

vehicle; households that did not own but had access to a car, truck, or other vehicle; 

households that did not own and did not have access to a car, truck, or other vehicle. 

• Household residential status and type. Household that lived in a house, townhouse, 

condo, mobile home or trailer, or apartment; household that lived in a room or in a 

motel or hotel; household that lived in another type of place (includes homeless living in 

 45 This information is from the State SNAP caseload administrative files used to construct the SNAPFS sample 

frame.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-14

a shelter or mission and homeless living on the street; in a car, van, or recreational 

vehicle; in an abandoned building; or in another place).

• Home-ownership status. Among households that lived in a house, townhouse, condo, 

mobile home or trailer, apartment or room, whether the household owned the place in 

which it lived; rented its own place or contributed to rent at a friend’s or family 

member’s place; or lived rent-free.

• Food preparation and storage capabilities. Whether household had access to a place 

where it could prepare a meal; access to a refrigerator; access to a standalone freezer; 

access to a gas or electric stove; and access to a microwave. 

• Participation in food assistance and nutrition programs. For households with 

school-age children, whether children received free or reduced-price lunches at school; 

for households with school-age children, whether children received free or reduced-price 

breakfasts at school; for households with children less than five years of age, whether 

children in the household received free or reduced-price food at a daycare or Head Start 

program; for households with children less than five years of age or with women ages 15 

to 45, whether women or children in the household received Special Supplemental 

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

• Participation in community food programs. Whether households received emergency 

food from a church, food pantry, or food bank in the last 30 days; whether household 

members went to a community program or senior center to eat prepared meals in the 

last 30 days; whether adults ever ate any meals at a soup kitchen or shelter; whether in 

the past 30 days anyone in the household received any meal from “Meals on Wheels” or 

any other program providing home-delivered meals. 

• Mental health and well-being. Whether household experienced depression in the past 

30 days; whether the amount of help a household would expect to get from family living 

nearby, if needed, was all, most, very little, or none of the help needed; whether the 

amount of help a household would expect to get from friends living nearby, if needed, 

was all, most, very little, or none of the help needed; and whether the amount of help a 

household would expect to get from the community besides family and friends living 

nearby, if needed, was all, most, very little, or none of the help needed.

Standard Errors

Standard errors were estimated using a variance estimator based on a first-order Taylor series 

approximation. We accounted for the complex survey design of the SNAPFS survey when 

estimating standard errors by using the Stata software’s “svy” commands and identifying both the 

primary sampling unit (PSU) identifier and the strata identifier. As an approximation, the standard 

errors in the regression estimates based on the longitudinal sample do not account for multiple 

observations per household.

3. Multivariate Analysis of Food Expenditures

The methodology used to estimate the association between SNAP and household food 

expenditures closely resembled the methodology used to estimate the association between SNAP 

and household food security. Below, we discuss the differences between the two approaches.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-15

Outcome Measures

The SNAPFS survey included the food-expenditure module used in the CPS-FSS.46 The 

module first asked the respondent about the places where he or she bought food “last week.” 

Possible locations included supermarket or grocery store; meat market, produce stand, bakery, 

warehouse club, and convenience store; restaurant, fast fast-food restaurant, cafeteria, or vending 

machine; and “any other place.” Next, the respondent was asked how much the household spent last 

week for each set of store types from which the respondent reported purchasing food. As in the 

CPS-FSS, the respondent was asked to include purchases made with SNAP benefits. The computer 

interviewing system calculated the total amount spent on food, and the interviewer confirmed with 

the respondent last week’s total food expenditures.47

We used usual weekly food expenditures, rather than expenditures last week, as our main 

outcome measure, because research has shown that usual food expenditures estimated from data 

collected using this module were consistent with estimates from the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey—the principal source of data on U.S. household expenditures for goods and services 

(Oliveira and Rose 1996; Nord 2009). This approach is also consistent with the Economic Research 

Service’s annual Household Food Security report (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2011).

Finally, the interviewer asked the respondent 

how much the household usually spends on food in a week.

We used two measures of food expenditure as outcome variables. First, “Unadjusted” usual 

weekly household food expenditures was used as one outcome measure, and household size and 

composition were included among the set of explanatory variables used in the regression. We also 

used a second outcome measure that adjusted for household size and composition: usual weekly 

household food expenditures relative to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) spending amount. We 

calculated this value by dividing each household’s usual weekly food expenditures by the estimated 

cost of the TFP for that household in the interview month. The TFP was developed by the USDA

and serves as a national standard for a nutritious, minimal-cost diet. It represents a set of “market 

baskets” of food that people in specific age and gender categories could consume at home to 

maintain a healthful diet that meets current dietary standards, taking into account the food 

consumption patterns of U.S. households (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition 

Policy and Promotion 2007). In addition to adjusting the usual weekly food spending amount by 

household size and composition, the TFP spending amount also adjusts for inflation in food prices. 

This approach is important mostly in the longitudinal analysis, when comparing food expenditures 

from April to September 2012 with expenditures that took place from October 2011 to February 

2012.48

 46 The CPS-FSS instrument can be found here 

(http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Security_in_the_United_States/Current_Population_Survey/2011/qn2011.p

df )

47 For the first two categories of stores, respondents were also asked how much they spent on nonfood items (pet 

food, paper products, alcohol, detergents, or cleaning supplies). We excluded this amount from the total food spending 

amount.

48 From October 2011 to July 2012 (the most currently available TFP data), the cost of the TFP for a family of four 

(two adults ages 19 to 50, one child age 2 to 3 and a second child age 4 to 5) increased by 0.6 percent, from $125.40 to 

$126.20.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-16

Empirical Model

Because both expenditure variables are continuous, we used ordinary least squares regression 

analysis to estimate the association between SNAP and each outcome measure. As in the food 

security regressions, the main independent variable was the binary SNAP participation variable. The 

set of other explanatory variables was identical to the set used in those regressions, as well. 

Because the regressions are specified to be linear, the raw coefficient on the SNAP participation 

variable measures the difference in usual weekly food expenditures (or usual expenditure relative to 

the cost of the TFP) between six-month and new-entrant households, after accounting for 

compositional differences between the two groups. In these models, there is no need to compute 

marginal effects separately. Regression-adjusted means were obtained in a way analogous to that 

used for the regression-adjusted percentages of food insecure households. However, in place of a 

mean predicted probability, the regression predictions yielded a mean predicted amount of 

expenditures (or expenditures per person per TFP) for each household in the sample. 

As in the food security regressions, standard errors were estimated using a variance estimator 

based on a first-order Taylor series approximation.

4. Weight Construction

We used sampling weights for all analyses to account for the complex sample design and for the 

possibility that some groups in the study population may have been overrepresented or

underrepresented. Sampling weights were constructed to correct for differences in households’ 

selection probabilities and propensities to respond. These weights restored the distribution of the 

responding sample to the same proportions as the frame of SNAP participant households from 

which it was drawn. 

Different sets of weights were constructed for the cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses 

described above. Weights were also constructed separately for the samples of new-entrant and sixmonth households. All weights were intended only for use in making national estimates. 

The weights are the products of several weighting factors that fall into three groups:

1. State-level selection and replacement of noncooperating States

2. Adjustments for selection probabilities within sampled States

3. Nonresponse adjustments at the household level

The sample design was a two-stage design, except in California, where three stages were used:

1. States were selected in the first stage.

2. In California, the second stage comprised groups of counties.

3. Households were selected at the final stage.

The Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) were states. Thirty-five states were selected using PPS 

methods. A subsample of 5 States was selected as a reserve sample, and the main sample consisted 

of the remaining States. Because 5 of the 30 States in the main sample chose not to participate, all 

the reserve States were used in the study.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-17

In California, 15 secondary selection units (SSUs)—in general, counties—were sampled with 

PPS. Five were randomly assigned to backup status, and the main sample of SSUs consisted of 10 

units. All the main SSUs participated in the study, so no backup SSUs were used.

Within each PSU (or SSU in California), samples of new-entrant and six-month households

were sampled separately using equal probability selection methods within each group.

State-Level Weights

The first step in creating the weights was to construct a response-adjusted PSU weight.

(1) W1_2 = W1 × W2 = 1

Pa

×

1

RRar

 ,

where Pa is the PSU’s probability of selection into the sample of 35 States, and RRar is the unweighted participation rate for States in FNS Region R.

Fourteen states were selected with certainty for the sample of 35 and 11 with probability 

proportional to size. Thus,

(2) Pa = 11∗MOSa

∑∈NONCERT MOS if not selected with certainty.

Pa=1.0 otherwise, where MOSa is the measure of size for PSU “a.”

Other Weighting Adjustments for Selection Probabilities

The next steps accounted for probabilities of selection within PSUs.

(3) 3 1/ W P = b .

(4) 4 1/ W P = fab .

Pb=the probability of selection of SSU “b” in California. In other States, Pb=1.0.

(5) Pb = 15∗MOSb

∑ MOSk

B

k=1

×

10

15 ,

where MOSb is the measure of size for SSU “b” and B is the total number of SSUs in California 

(equal to 10).49

(6) fab

fab

fab

n

P

N =

,

 49 In the formula, “10” represents the number of SSUs in the main sample and “15” represents the number in the 

sample prior to randomly assigning 5 to backup status. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-18

where nfab is the number of households sampled from frame “F” (new-entrant or six-month) in PSU 

“A,” and in California, in SSU “B”, and Nfab is the number of cases on frame f in State a, and in 

California in SSU “b.”

Nonresponse Adjustments and Final Weight

The next set of weighting factors was obtained by conducting a nonresponse analysis and 

making adjustments for nonresponse. The nonresponse analysis was based on the SNAP 

administrative data included in the state sampling frame and data from the American Community

Survey (ACS) 2005-2009 summary file, which was the most recent summary file at the time of the 

construction of baseline sampling weights. The administrative data from the sampling frame 

contained several variables including age and gender of the SNAP unit head, language spoken in the 

home, and the household’s residential ZIP code and address information. One of the most useful 

pieces of information on the sample frame was the street address and zip code of households’ 

residential location for all responders and nonresponders. We used Geographic Information System 

(GIS) software (ARC GIS), to geocode these addresses and assigned Census tract level area 

population characteristics to each household using ACS data.

To perform the GIS-based nonresponse analysis, we first assigned the appropriate Census tract

indicator to each household and then merged a file of tract-level population characteristics from the 

ACS to the household-level sample frame file. We then merged on a set of variables measuring 

population characteristics at the tract level that included:

• The percentage of individuals in the population with income less than 100 percent of 

the federal poverty threshold

• The percentage of individuals in the population with income less than 200 percent of 

the federal poverty threshold

• The percentage of Hispanic individuals in the population

• The percentage of non-white individuals in the population

• The percentage of households with female head with at least one child under 18

• The percentage of individuals in the population with less than a high school education

• The percentage of housing units without a vehicle

Once tract-level population characteristics were merged onto the household sample frame 

records, these characteristics were treated in ways similar to the sample frame variables in analyzing 

nonresponse patterns and creating nonresponse adjustment factors. 

In conducting the nonresponse analysis, we drew heavily on a recent technique called Chisquare Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) (Kass (1980); Biggs et al. (1991); Magidson 

(1993)). CHAID is a type of classification tree analysis that has been used for several years as a way 

of choosing variables to use in making weighting adjustments to survey data. Kalton and FloresCervantes (2003) discuss CHAID as one method of forming adjustment cells and mention its use in 

weighting the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the Survey of Income and 

Program Participation. In recent work, Siegel, Chromy and Copello (2005) used CHAID in a 

comparison of methods for making nonresponse weighting adjustments and Wun, et.al. (2005) 

discuss using CHAID to select auxiliary variables in a study of alternative weighting adjustment 

methods for the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-19

Based on a CHAID analysis, we determined that the variables in Tables A.2 to A.10 used in the 

nonresponse adjustment were an appropriate basis for the weighting work, given the twin objectives 

of keeping the analysis relatively tractable while at the same time representing the complex 

determinants of nonresponse. These variables include both information from the ACS area file and 

also data from the sample frames.

CHAID was used in order to create weighting classes for three separate sets of weights: newentrant households at baseline; six-month households at baseline; and new-entrant households six 

months later at follow-up. Within those three overall sets of weights, weighting adjustments were 

computed separately for three sources of nonresponse: (1) unable to determine eligibility for the 

survey; (2) unable to contact, conditional upon determining eligibility; and (3) unable to complete the 

interview, conditional upon contacting. Tables A.2 through A.10 present the weighted classes and 

associated weighting adjustment factor for each of the nine sets of weights. Each column in the table 

represents a weighting class. All households in the same weighting class receive the same value of 

the weighting adjustment factor.

Table A.2. Definitions of Weighting Classes for New- Entrant Baseline (Completing)

Weighting Class

1 2 3

Area Characteristic

Defining Weight Group

Age (years) > 39 < 39 < 39

Percentage of Female Headed 

Households with Children

-- > 14.18 < 14.18

Number of Observations in Each Column 3064 1878 1914

Weighting Adjustment Factor W7 for 

Cases in the Weighting Class

1.08 1.04 1.07

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: “--“ as an entry means that the cell is not used to define the weighting class shown in the 

column. For instance, percentage of Female headed households with Children is not part of 

the definition of Weighting Class #1.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-20

Table A.3. Definitions of Weighting Classes for New- Entrant Baseline (Eligibility Determination)

Weighting Class Number

1 2 3 4 5 6

Area Characteristic Defining 

Weighting Class

Percentage of non-white 

individuals in the population

> 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Percentage of Hispanic individuals 

in the population

-- < 7.23 < 7.23 < 7.23 < 7.23 > 7.23

Age (years) -- > 30 > 30 > 30 > 30 --

Language -- Not Eng Not Eng Eng -- --

Gender (male=1) -- 1 or 

missing

0 -- -- --

Number of Observations in Each 

Column

5284 499 750 94 692 401

Weighting Adjustment Factor for 

Cases in the Weighting Class

1.12 1.08 1.05 1.13 1.11 1.14

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: “--“ as an entry means that the cell is not used to define the weighting class shown in the 

column. For instance, percentage of Hispanic individuals in the population is not part of the 

definition of Weighting Class #1.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-21

Table A.4. Definitions of Weighting Classes for New- Entrant Baseline (Contacting)

Weighting Class Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Area Characteristic 

Defining Weighting Class

The percentage of 

non-white individuals 

in the population

-- > 55 < 55 < 55 > 10 < 10 -- -- -- -- > 55 < 55 < 55 -- -- --

Age (years) > 39 > 39 > 39 > 39 > 30 

< 39

> 30 

< 39

> 30 

< 39

> 30 

< 39

>30 

<39

>30 

<39

< 30 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30

Language -- -- Eng Not 

Eng

Eng Eng Eng Not 

Eng

Eng Not 

Eng

Eng Eng Eng Not 

Eng

Eng Not 

Eng

Percentage under 200 

percent of the Federal 

Poverty Threshold

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >

40.43

< 

40.43

-- -- --

Percentage with at 

least a High School 

Education

-- -- -- --

25.73

> > <

25.73 25.73

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Gender (male=1) 0 1 or 

miss.

1 or 

miss.

1 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

1 1 0 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

1 1

Number of Observations 

in each Column

2524 523 1372 308 354 187 573 288 964 136 471 729 1028 460 1600 189

Weighting Adjustment 

Factor W5 for Cases in 

the Weighting Class

1.33 1.61 1.42 1.29 1.68 1.42 1.45 1.35 1.76 1.51 1.78 1.49 1.63 1.44 1.83 1.48

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: “--“ as an entry means that the cell is not used to define the weighting class shown in the column. For instance, percentage of nonwhite individuals in the population is not part of the definition of Weighting Class #1.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-22

Table A.5. Definitions of Weighting Classes for Six- Month Baseline (Completing)

Weighting Class Number

1 2 3 4 5 6

Area Characteristic Defining 

Weighting Class

Age (years) > 39 > 39 < 39 -- -- --

Percentage of female 

headed households with 

children

> 14.18 > 14.18 > 14.18 > 14.18 < 14.18 --

Language Eng Eng Eng Eng Eng Not Eng

Percentage of non-white 

individuals in the 

population

< 10 > 10 -- -- -- --

Percentage with at least a 

high School Education

< 25.73 < 25.73 < 25.73 > 25.73 -- --

Number of Observations in 

Each Column

261 230 475 613 1380 732

Weighting Adjustment Factor 

W7 for Cases in the 

Weighting Class

1.23 1.11 1.05 1.09 1.08 1.06

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: “--“ as an entry means that the cell is not used to define the weighting class shown in the 

column. For instance, percentage of non-white individuals in the population is not part of the 

definition of Weighting Class #3.

Table A.6. Definitions of Weighting Classes for Six- Month Baseline (Eligibility Determination)

Weighting Class Number

1 2 3

Area Characteristic Defining 

Weighting Class

Percentage of Hispanic individuals 

in the population

> 7.23 < 7.23 --

Gender (male=1) 1 1 0 or missing

Number of Observations in Each 

Column

716 847 2737

Weighting Factor W6 for Cases in the 

Weighting Class

1.13 1.08 1.07

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: “--“ as an entry means that the cell is not used to define the weighting class shown in the 

column. For instance, percentage of Hispanic individuals in the population is not part of the 

definition of Weighting Class #3.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-23

Table A.7. Definitions of Weighting Classes for Six- Month Baseline (Contacting)

Weighting Class Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Area Characteristic 

Defining Weighting Class

Percentage of female 

headed households 

with children

-- -- -- -- < 

14.18

>

14.18 

-- -- < 

14.18

< 

14.18

>

14.18

-- >

14.18

< 

14.18

Age (years) > 39 > 39 > 39 > 30 

< 39

> 30 

< 39

> 30 

< 39

> 30 

< 39

> 30 

< 39

< 30 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30

Language -- -- -- Eng Eng Eng Not 

Eng

-- Not 

Eng

Not 

Eng

Not 

Eng

Eng -- --

Percentage under 200 

percent of the Federal 

Poverty Threshold

-- -- -- < 

40.43

>

40.43

>

40.43

-- -- < 

40.43

>

40.43

-- -- -- --

Percentage with at 

least a high school 

education

< 

25.73

>

25.73

>

25.73

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Gender (male=1) -- 1 0 or 

miss.

1 or 

miss.

1 or 

miss.

1 or 

miss.

1 or 

miss.

0 1 or 

miss.

1 or 

miss. 

1 or 

miss.

1 or 

miss.

0 0

Number of Observations 

in Each Column

1526 657 819 228 57 154 64 876 190 94 368 73 668 736

Weighting Adjustment 

Factor W5 for Cases in 

the Weighting Class

1.44 1.39 1.28 1.73 1.68 2.26 1.39 1.49 1.92 1.54 2.18 1.43 1.53 1.67

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: “--“ as an entry means that the cell is not used to define the weighting class shown in the column. For instance, percentage of Female 

headed households with Children is not part of the definition of Weighting Class #1.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-24

Table A.8. Definitions of Weighting Classes for New- Entrant Follow- Up (Completing)

Weighting Class Number

1 2

Area Characteristic Defining 

Weighting Class

Percentage with at least a high 

school education

< 25.73 > 25.73

Number of Observations in Each 

Column

3187 3249

Weighting Adjustment Factor W13 for 

Cases in the Weighting Class

1.42 1.36

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Table A.9. Definitions of Weighting Classes for New- Entrant Follow- Up (Eligibility Determination)

Weighting Class Number

1 2 3 4 5

Area Characteristic Defining 

Weighting Class

Age (years) > 39 > 39 > 39 < 39 < 39

Region West, SW, 

SE, East, 

Mtn.

Midwest, NE, 

Mid. Atl.

Midwest, NE, 

Mid. Atl.

-- --

Percentage of non-white 

individuals in the 

population

-- >10 < 10 -- --

Language -- -- -- Eng Not Eng

Number of Observations in 

Each Column

1595 499 747 637 2958

Weighting Factor W12 for 

Cases in the Weighting Class

1.03 1.02 1.08 1.12 1.08

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: “--“ as an entry means that the cell is not used to define the weighting class shown in the 

column. For instance, percentage of non-white individuals in the population is not part of the 

definition of Weighting Class #1.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-25

Table A.10. Definitions of Weighting Classes for New- Entrant Follow- Up (Contacting)

Weighting Class Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Area Characteristic 

Defining Weighting 

Class

Percentage with at 

least a high school 

education

-- > 25.73 < 25.73 -- -- -- --

Percentage of 

Hispanic individuals in 

the population

-- -- -- > 7.23 < 7.23 < 7.23 < 7.23

Age (years) > 39 < 39 < 39 < 39 > 30 

< 

< 30

39

< 30

Region -- -- -- -- -- West, SE, 

NE

Midwest, 

Mid. Atl., 

SW, East, 

Mtn.

Gender (male=1) -- 1 1 0 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

0 or 

miss.

Number of 

Observations in Each 

Column

2841 651 688 1072 428 268 488

Weighting Factor W11 

for Cases in the 

Weighting Class

1.21 1.61 1.47 1.47 1.28 1.23 1.51

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: “--“ as an entry means that the cell is not used to define the weighting class shown in the 

column. For instance, percentage non-white is not part of the definition of Weighting Class 

#1.

Characteristics of households and the areas in which households lived that were identified by 

the nonresponse analysis as being associated with nonresponse were used to define weighting classes 

to compute nonresponse adjustments. Based on the output of the CHAID analysis we decided to 

create weighting classes and perform adjustments separately for the contact rate (equal to the 

number of households successfully contacted divided by the number of households released for 

interviewing), the eligibility determination rate (equal to the number of households that were eligible 

for the survey divided by the number of households contacted), and the completion rate (equal to 

the number of households that completed the survey divided by the number of households that 

were contacted and were eligible for the survey). Adjustments were done separately for the baseline 

newcomers, the newcomers at follow up at six months, and the six-month sample at baseline. 

Returning to the mathematical discussion of the weights, 

(7) W5f = 1

CTRCf

 ,

(8) W6f = 1

DRDf

 ,
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research

A-26

(9) W7f = 1

CREf

 ,

Where,

(10) CTRCf = n(contacted)Cf

n(released)Cf

 (the contact rate),

(11) DRDf = n(eligible)Df

n(contacted)Df

 (the eligibility rate),

(12) CREf = n(completed)Ef

n(eligible)Ef

 (the completion rate).

Cf refers to the cells formed for the contact rate adjustments for frame “f” (new-entrant or sixmonth); Df refers to the cells formed for the eligibility rate adjustments; Ef refers to the cells 

formed for the completion rate adjustments. 

The final weight for each case in the cross-sectional sample was the product of the seven 

weighting factors.

(13) Wfinal,if = W1 ∗ W2 ∗ W3 ∗ W4 ∗ W5f ∗ W6f ∗ W7f .

The sample frames received from the States generally included five days’ worth of intakes, while 

the six-month sample frame included households who entered the program over a one-month 

period. As a result, sampling rates were typically higher for the new-entrant sample and relatively 

lower for the six-month sample. This finding affects the “W4” factor and means that, overall, 

weights tend to be higher for the six-month sample than the new-entrant sample, because for the 

six-month sample, we are weighting up to a larger frame. In all analyses presented in this report, 

therefore, we have multiplied the weights of the six-month households so that the sum of the 

weights for new-entrant households and the sum of the weights for the six-month households are 

equal. We did this separately in the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples.50

The weights used for the six-month households in the longitudinal sample were constructed by 

adjusting the baseline weights for these households for nonresponse at the follow up survey. We 

used CHAID analysis to define the adjustment cells, as we did in constructing the weights for the 

cross-sectional sample. This analysis indicated that weighting classes once again be constructed 

separately based on the contact rate, determination rate, and completion rate (referred to as W11f,

W12f,W13f in Tables A.8 to A.10 above). The results of the CHAID analysis also suggested cells 

for making the adjustments.

 50 Diagnostic analyses in Appendices D and G include analyses that are based on the unrestricted sample. 
APPENDIX B

EXPANDED SET OF CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW- ENTRANT AND SIX- MONTH 

SNAP HOUSEHOLDS
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-3

In this appendix, we use tabular methods to examine the characteristics of SNAP participants in 

the study, including both new-entrant and six-month households. The tables are structured the same 

as the Chapter III tables. All the control variables shown in the Chapter III tables are included in 

this appendix.

Table B.1 highlights the categorical variables which vary “substantially” between new-entrant 

and six-month households, where “substantially” is defined as a difference of at least 5 percentage 

points. Several continuous variables (presented in tables B.5 and B.6) also show considerable 

variation between the analysis samples.

Table B.1. Variables for Which There is at Least a 5 Percentage Point Difference between New- Entrant and SixMonth Household Percentages For at Least One of the Cross- Sectional or Longitudinal Samples

Variable

Table 

Number

Cross Section Sample

Which Group Has Higher Value 

of Variable?

Longitudinal Sample 

Region of Residence: Mid-Atlantic

Which Group Has Higher Value 

of Variable?

B.2 Six-month NSD

Region of Residence: Midwestern B.2 Six-month NSD

Region of Residence: Southeastern B.2 New-entrant NSD

Household has only One Person B.3 New-entrant NSD

Household Has Children B.3 Six-month NSD

Household Has Disabled Member B.3 NSD New-entrant

Household Head is Not Employed B.3 New-entrant New-entrant

Household Has No Income B.4 New-entrant New-entrant

Receives Financial Support from Family 

or Friends

B.5 NSD New-entrant

Lives in House, Townhouse, or Condo B.7 Six-month NSD

Change in Household Size in Previous 

Six Months

B.8 New-entrant New-entrant

Change in Employment, Pay, or Hours 

Worked in Previous 6 Months

B.8 New-entrant New-entrant

Received SNAP Benefits 12 Months Ago B.9 New-entrant n.a.

SNAP Benefits Between 101 and 200 

per Month

B.9 Six-month Six-month

SNAP Benefits between 201 and 301 B.9 New-entrant New-entrant

Children in NSLP in Previous 30 Days B.10 NSD New-entrant

Children in SBP in Previous 30 Days B.10 NSD New-entrant

Received Emergency Food from Church, 

Food Bank, etc. in Previous 30 Days

B.10 NSD New-entrant

Interviewed closer to date of receiving 

SNAP benefits 

B.12 New-entrant New-entrant

Use Discount Coupons when Buying 

Food

B.12 NSD Six-month

Sometimes Buy Large Quantities for 

Cheap Prices

B.12 NSD Six-month

Percentage of respondents that in the 

last 30 days felt sad, nervous, restless, 

hopeless, worthless 

B.14 New-entrant New-entrant

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Notes: “NSD” stands for “no substantial difference” between groups, where “substantial differences” are defined 

to be 5 percentage points or more. n.a. = not applicable.

The cross-sectional sample refers to a sample of new SNAP participant households and a 

contemporaneous sample of households that have received SNAP for about six months, interviewed from 

October 2011 to February 2012. The longitudinal sample refers to sample of new-entrant households 

interviewed from October 2011 to February 2012 and those same households interviewed again after they 

received benefits for about six months, from April 2012 to September 2012.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-4

Table B.2. Demographic Characteristics, Language of Interview, and Region of Residence of Six- Month and 

New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

Six-Month 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Interview Conducted in 

English Language

90.2 (0.8) 91.5 (0.8) 1.3 (1.1) 90.0 (0.8) 90.2 (0.8) 0.2 (1.1)

Gender of Household Head

Male 36.3 (0.7) 34.2 (1.0) -2.1 (1.2) 36.3 (0.7) 36.4 (0.8) 0.1 (1.1)

Female 63.7 (0.7) 65.8 (1.0) 2.1 (1.2) 63.7 (0.7) 63.6 (0.8) -0.1 (1.1)

Race and Ethnicity Of 

Household Head

Non-Hispanic, white 46.9 (2.5) 50.2 (2.5) 3.3 (3.5) 46.9 (2.5) 46.0 (2.6) -0.8 (3.6)

Non-Hispanic, black 26.1 (2.1) 24.6 (2.5) -1.5 (3.3) 26.1 (2.1) 26.1 (2.1) 0.0 (3.0)

Non-Hispanic, other 7.2 (0.6) 7.9 (0.6) 0.7 (0.8) 7.2 (0.6) 7.4 (0.7) 0.2 (0.9)

Hispanic 23.2 (2.3) 21.6 (2.1) -1.6 (3.1) 23.2 (2.3) 24.0 (2.4) 0.8 (3.3)

Age of Household Head

18 to 24 19.7 (0.9) 19.8 (0.7) 0.1 (1.1) 19.7 (0.9) 20.4 (0.8) 0.7 (1.2)

25 to 49 52.2 (1.2) 53.8 (1.1) 1.6 (1.6) 52.2 (1.2) 53.7 (1.1) 1.5 (1.6)

50 to 64 21.2 (0.9) 20.2 (0.8) -1.0 (1.2) 21.2 (0.9) 19.5 (0.9) -1.7 (1.3)

65 and older 6.9 (0.8) 6.2 (0.5) -0.7 (0.9) 6.9 (0.8) 6.4 (0.7) -0.6 (1.1)

Highest Grade Completed of 

Household Head

Less than high school 23.0 (0.9) 22.5 (0.9) -0.5 (1.3) 23.0 (0.9) 22.9 (0.9) -0.1 (1.3)

High school graduate 

(diploma or GED)

32.6 (1.1) 31.1 (0.8) -1.5 (1.4) 32.6 (1.1) 32.7 (1.1) 0.1 (1.6)

Some college, but no 

degree 35.7 (1.1) 39.0 (0.9) 3.2 (1.4) 35.7 (1.1) 36.0 (1.1) 0.3 (1.6)

Technical, trade, or 

vocational degree

5.9 (0.4) 6.4 (0.5) 0.5 (0.6) 5.9 (0.4) 5.9 (0.4) 0.0 (0.6)

Associate’s degree 6.8 (0.7) 6.6 (0.3) -0.2 (0.8) 6.8 (0.7) 6.6 (0.7) -0.2 (1.0)

Bachelor’s degree or 

beyond 8.7 (0.6) 7.4 (0.5) -1.2 (0.8) 8.7 (0.6) 8.4 (0.6) -0.2 (0.8)

Region of Residence

Northeast 12.9 (4.4) 11.8 (4.5) -1.2 (6.3) 12.9 (4.4) 12.7 (4.3) -0.2 (6.2)

Mid-Atlantic 7.4 (4.9) 13.5 (6.0) 6.1 (7.7) 7.4 (4.9) 7.5 (4.9) 0.1 (6.9)

Midwest 12.9 (4.4) 18.0 (4.9) 5.4 (6.6) 12.9 (4.4) 12.8 (3.8) -0.1 (5.8)

Southeast 25.5 (5.6) 17.0 (3.8) -8.5 (6.8) 25.5 (5.6) 24.7 (5.4) -0.8 (7.8)

Southwest 12.3 (3.5) 11.0 (3.5) -1.4 (4.9) 12.3 (3.5) 12.3 (3.5) 0.0 (4.9)

Mountain Plains 5.7 (2.5) 5.6 (3.3) 0.0 (4.1) 5.7 (2.5) 5.8 (2.5) 0.1 (3.5)

West 23.5 (4.3) 23.1 (4.1) -0.5 (5.9) 23.5 (4.3) 24.2 (4.5) 0.7 (6.2)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households and 

3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant households 

observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal sample. Individual 

panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual 

questions. Standard errors in parentheses.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-5

Table B.3. Household Size and Composition of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Household Size

1 Person 38.4 (1.1) 33.0 (1.1) -5.5 (1.6) 38.4 (1.1) 36.3 (1.2) -2.2 (1.6)

2 Person 24.6 (1.1) 24.3 (0.9) -0.3 (1.4) 24.6 (1.1) 27.8 (1.1) 3.2 (1.6)

3 Person 17.6 (0.6) 19.5 (0.9) 1.9 (1.1) 17.6 (0.6) 16.9 (0.6) -0.7 (0.8)

4 Person 10.0 (0.5) 12.4 (0.7) 2.4 (0.9) 10.0 (0.5) 9.8 (0.6) -0.2 (0.8)

5 Person 5.7 (0.5) 7.1 (0.5) 1.5 (0.7) 5.7 (0.5) 5.8 (0.5) 0.1 (0.7)

6+ Person 3.7 (0.4) 3.7 (0.3) 0.0 (0.5) 3.7 (0.4) 3.5 (0.4) -0.2 (0.6)

Households with Children 40.7 (1.1) 46.1 (1.0) 5.4 (1.5) 40.7 (1.1) 42.5 (1.3) 1.7 (1.7)

Single adult 17.9 (0.7) 21.4 (0.8) 3.5 (1.1) 17.9 (0.7) 20.5 (0.8) 2.6 (1.1)

Multiple adults 22.8 (0.9) 24.7 (0.7) 1.9 (1.1) 22.8 (0.9) 21.9 (1.0) -0.9 (1.3)

Households without 

Children 59.3 (1.1) 53.9 (1.0) -5.4 (1.5) 59.3 (1.1) 57.6 (1.3) -1.7 (1.7)

Households with Elderly 12.2 (0.8) 11.5 (0.6) -0.6 (1.0) 12.2 (0.8) 11.3 (0.7) -0.8 (1.1)

Elderly living alone 4.3 (0.4) 3.9 (0.4) -0.4 (0.6) 4.3 (0.4) 3.9 (0.4) -0.3 (0.6)

Elderly living with others 7.9 (2.8) 7.6 (2.5) -0.3 (3.8) 7.9(2.8) 7.4 (0.5) -0.5 (2.8)

Households without 

Elderly 87.9 (0.8) 88.5 (0.6) 0.6 (1.0) 87.9 (0.8) 88.7 (0.7) 0.8 (1.1)

Households with a 

Disabled Member

32.4 (1.2) 33.9 (0.9) 1.4 (1.5) 32.4 (1.2) 27.4 (1.1) -5.0 (1.6)

Households without a 

Disabled Member

67.6 (1.2) 66.1 -1.4 (1.2) 67.6 (1.2) 72.6 (1.1) 5.0 (1.6)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions. Standard errors in parentheses.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-6

Table B.4. Employment Status, Monthly Income as Percentage of the Poverty Line, and Earned and 

Unearned Income of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Employment Status of 

Household Head

Employed full time 12.1 (0.6) 18.0 (0.8) 5.9 (1.0) 12.1 (0.6) 17.7 (0.9) 5.6 (1.1)

Employed part time 9.4 (1.1) 9.4 (0.6) 0.0 (1.3) 9.4 (1.1) 9.6 (0.7) 0.2 (1.3)

Not employed 78.5 (1.3) 72.6 (1.1) -5.9 (1.7) 78.5 (1.3) 72.6 (1.4) -5.9 (1.9)

Monthly Income as a 

Percentage of the 

Poverty Line

No income 24.7 (0.9) 19.8 (0.8) -4.9 (1.2) 24.7 (0.9) 20.4 (0.8) -4.3 (1.2)

1% to 50% 27.4 (0.8) 24.3 (1.0) -3.1 (1.3) 27.4 (0.8) 24.9 (1.0) -2.5 (1.3)

51% to 100% 28.3 (0.9) 32.0 (1.0) 3.6 (1.3) 28.3 (0.9) 31.2 (0.7) 2.9 (1.1)

101% to 130% 7.2 (0.4) 8.6 (0.6) 1.4 (0.7) 7.2 (0.4) 8.5 (0.6) 1.3 (0.7)

More than 130% 12.4 (0.9) 15.4 (1.1) 3.0 (1.4) 12.4 (0.9) 15.0 (0.9) 2.6 (1.3)

Percentage of 

Households with No 

Earned Income

70.6 (1.2) 63.6 (1.2) -7.0 (1.7) 70.6 (1.2) 63.6 (1.2) -7.0 (1.7)

Percentage of 

Households with No 

Unearned Income

40.4 (1.1) 38.7 (1.1) -1.7 (1.6) 40.4 (1.1) 41.5 (1.1) 1.1 (1.6)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions. Standard errors in parentheses.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-7

Table B.5. Income Sources and Average Monthly Income Amounts of Six- Month and New- Entrant 

SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Percentage of Households 

with Income Type

TANF 2.6 (0.4) 5.0 (0.4) 2.4 (0.6) 2.6 (0.4) 4.3 (0.3) 1.7 (0.5)

Social Security 21.1 (1.4) 23.7 (1.0) 2.6 (1.7) 21.1 (1.4) 20.5 (1.1) -0.6 (1.8)

SSI or Supplemental 

Security Income

9.1 (0.7) 10.5 (0.9) 1.4 (1.1) 9.1 (0.7) 8.7 (0.7) -0.4 (1.0)

Unemployment insurance 

or worker's 

compensation benefits

9.6 (0.7) 9.3 (0.6) -0.3 (0.9) 9.6 (0.7) 9.0 (0.9) -0.6 (1.1)

Child support payments 5.2 (0.5) 7.0 (0.5) 1.7 (0.7) 5.2 (0.5) 6.6 (0.6) 1.4 (0.8)

Financial support from 

friends or family

28.6 (0.7) 24.9 (1.0) -3.6 (1.2) 28.6 (0.7) 23.5 (0.9) -5.1 (1.1)

Other income 8.4 (0.6) 10.6 (0.7) 2.2 (0.9) 8.4 (0.6) 9.7 (0.8) 1.3 (1.0)

Median Monthly Income 

Amount among 

Households with Positive 

Income from the Specified 

Source (in dollars)

TANF 254.0 347.0 93.0 254.0 300.0 46.0

Social Security 821.0 823.0 2.0 821.0 854.0 33.0

Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI)

674.0 647.0 -27.0 674.0 687.0 13.0

Unemployment insurance 

or worker's 

compensation benefits

600.0 708.0 108.0 600.0 616.0 16.0

Child support payments 281.0 274.0 -7.0 281.0 257.0 -24.0

Financial support from 

friends or family

130.0 120.0 -10.0 130.0 135.0 5.0

Other income 316.0 300.0 -16.0 316.0 272.0 -44.0

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions. Standard errors for percentages in parentheses.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-8

Table B.6. Household Income, Earnings, and Unearned Income of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP 

Households, Among Households with Income

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Monthly Household Income 

among Households with 

Positive Income (in dollars)

10th Percentile 100.0 200.0 100.0 100.0 200.0 100.0

25th Percentile 430.0 596.0 166.0 430.0 537.0 107.0

50th Percentile 862.4 1,000.0 137.6 862.4 963.2 100.8

75th Percentile 1,479.4 1,655.5 176.1 1,479.4 1,549.6 70.2

90th Percentile 2,199.0 2,446.2 247.2 2,199.0 2,408.0 209.0

Mean 1,101.2 

(22.8)

1,267.5 

(31.1)

166.3 

(38.6)

1,101.2 

(22.8)

1,216.7 

(26.0)

115.5 

(34.6)

Standard Deviation 1,037.6 1,126.8 89.2 1,037.6 1,133.7 96.1

Monthly Household Earnings 

among Households with 

Positive Earnings (in dollars)

10th Percentile 344.0 412.8 68.8 344.0 430.0 86.0

25th Percentile 688.0 752.5 64.5 688.0 774.0 86.0

50th Percentile 1,161.0 1,290.0 129.0 1,161.0 1,277.1 116.1

75th Percentile 1,720.0 1,892.0 172.0 1,720.0 1,811.4 91.4

90th Percentile 2,580.0 2,752.0 172.0 2,580.0 2,731.4 151.4

Mean 1,355.6 

(46.6)

1,501.6 

(40.7)

146.0 

(61.9)

1,355.6 

(46.6)

1,461.5 

(34.6)

105.9 

(58.0)

Standard Deviation 1,028.6 1,171.7 143.1 1,028.6 1,049.2 20.6

Monthly Household 

Unearned Income among 

Households with Positive 

Unearned Income (in dollars)

10th Percentile 72.0 84.0 12.0 72.0 100.0 28.0

25th Percentile 200.0 236.0 36.0 200.0 226.0 26.0

50th Percentile 600.0 674.0 74.0 600.0 643.0 43.0

75th Percentile 1,000.0 1,036.0 36.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 0.0

90th Percentile 1,500.0 1,564.0 64.0 1,500.0 1,477.0 -23.0

Mean 723.0 

(19.1)

766.9 

(25.5)

43.9 

(31.9)

723.0 

(19.1)

748.0 

(20.0)

25.0 

(27.7)

Standard Deviation 752.5 699.6 -52.9 752.5 836.4 83.9

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households and 

3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant households 

observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal sample. Individual 

panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual 

questions. Standard errors for means in parentheses.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-9

Table B.7. Household Resources Other than Income of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP 

Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

Six-Month 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Currently Own a Vehicle 55.8 (1.0) 57.2 (1.3) 1.4 (1.6) 55.8 (1.0) 56.1 (1.0) 0.3 (1.4)

Currently Do Not Own, 

but Have Access to, a 

Vehicle

19.4 (0.8) 19.8 (0.8) 0.4 (1.1) 19.4 (0.8) 19.5 (0.8) 0.1 (1.1)

Currently Have a Credit 

Card

21.7 (1.1) 22.4 (1.0) 0.7 (1.5) 21.7 (1.1) 23.7 (1.1) 2.1 (1.6)

Residence

House, townhouse, 

condo 48.2 (1.2) 53.0 (1.2) 4.8 (1.7) 48.2 (1.2) 47.4 (1.3) -0.8 (1.8)

Mobile home or trailer 11.2 (1.5) 9.5 (1.1) -1.7 (1.9) 11.2 (1.5) 11.1 (1.4) -0.2 (2.1)

Apartment 32.2 (1.7) 31.2 (1.3) -0.9 (2.1) 32.2 (1.7) 35.3 (1.7) 3.1 (2.4)

Homeless or othera 8.4 (0.5) 6.3 (0.4) -2.2 (0.6) 8.4 (0.5) 6.2 (0.4) -2.2 (0.6)

Home Ownership Status

Owns 14.7 (1.0) 15.8 (0.9) 1.1 (1.3) 14.7 (1.0) 14.8 (1.1) 0.1 (1.5)

Rents 64.7 (1.7) 66.2 (0.9) 1.5 (1.9) 64.7 (1.7) 67.0 (1.6) 2.3 (2.3)

Lives rent free 20.6 (1.0) 18.0 (0.9) -2.6 (1.3) 20.6 (1.0) 18.2 (1.0) -2.4 (1.4)

Does not own but 

receives Section 8 or 

Public Housing 

assistance

9.3 (0.7) 10.6 (0.8) 1.3 (1.1) 9.3 (0.7) 10.4 (0.7) 1.1 (1.0)

Food Preparation and 

Storage Capabilities

Access to a 

refrigerator 98.3 (0.3) 98.9 (0.2) 0.6 (0.4) 98.3 (0.3) 98.7 (0.3) 0.3 (0.4)

Access to a standalone food freezer 47.9 (1.5) 48.4 (1.3) 0.4 (2.0) 47.9 (1.5) 51.0 (1.2) 3.0 (1.9)

Access to a gas or 

electric stove

96.8 (0.4) 97.6 (0.3) 0.8 (0.5) 96.8 (0.4) 97.8 (0.3) 1.0 (0.5)

Access to a microwave 

oven

90.8 (0.5) 92.6 (0.7) 1.8 (0.9) 90.8 (0.5) 92.5 (0.5) 1.7 (0.7)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions. Standard errors in parentheses.

a

Consists of “homeless, living in shelter or mission”, “homeless, living on street”, “car, van , or recreational 

vehicle”, “room”, “motel or hotel”, “abandoned building”, or “other”.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-10

Table B.8. Changes in Household Size, Housing Status, or Employment, Pay, or Hours Worked in Past Six 

Months Experienced by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Experienced Change in 

Household Size, Housing 

Status, or Employment, Pay, or 

Hours Worked in Past 6 Months

52.1 (1.4) 36.1 (1.6) -16.0 (2.1) 52.1 (1.4) 34.0 (1.0) -18.1 (1.7)

Change in Household Size 21.1 (1.2) 13.8 (0.6) -7.3 (1.3) 21.1 (1.2) 16.5 (0.8) -4.7 (1.4)

Birth of child 2.3 (0.3) 3.2 (0.3) 0.9 (0.4) 2.3 (0.3) 3.7 (0.3) 1.4 (0.4)

New step, foster, or adopted 

child

0.1 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) -0.1 (0.0)

Marriage or new partner 0.2 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.8 (0.2) 0.6 (0.2)

Separation or divorce 3.7 (0.4) 0.9 (0.2) -2.8 (0.4) 3.7 (0.4) 0.6 (0.2) -3.1 (0.4)

Death of household member 1.2 (0.2) 0.7 (0.1) -0.6 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) -0.9 (0.2)

Family/boarder moving in 3.9 (0.4) 3.7 (0.4) -0.2 (0.6) 3.9 (0.4) 4.4 (0.5) 0.5 (0.6)

Family/boarder moving out 5.5 (0.4) 4.3 (0.4) -1.2 (0.6) 5.5 (0.4) 2.9 (0.3) -2.7 (0.5)

Evicted from House or 

Apartment 4.7 (0.5) 2.5 (0.3) -2.2 (0.6) 4.7 (0.5) 3.3 (0.4) -1.4 (0.6)

Change in Employment, Pay, or 

Hours Worked

39.0 (1.2) 26.3 (1.5) -12.7 (1.9) 39.0 (1.2) 20.3 (0.9) -18.7 (1.5)

Obtained a job (self) 2.6 (0.4) 5.4 (0.6) 2.9 (0.7) 2.6 (0.4) 4.8 (0.5) 2.2 (0.6)

Obtained a job (other 

household member)

2.8 (0.4) 3.7 (0.6) 0.8 (0.7) 2.8 (0.4) 4.1 (0.5) 1.3 (0.6)

Lost a job (self) 14.9 (0.9) 6.8 (0.7) -8.0 (1.1) 14.9 (0.9) 3.4 (0.4) -11.5 (1.0)

Lost a job (other household 

member)

18.4 (1.0) 6.9 (0.8) -11.5 (1.3) 18.4 (1.0) 3.9 (0.5) -14.5 (1.1)

Increase in pay or hours 

worked (self)

0.8 (0.2) 1.3 (0.3) 0.5 (0.4) 0.8 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3) 0.8 (0.4)

Increase in pay or hours 

worked (other household 

member)

1.0 (0.2) 1.9 (0.4) 0.9 (0.4) 1.0 (0.2) 1.5 (0.3) 0.5 (0.4)

Decrease in pay or hours 

worked (self)

5.9 (0.6) 5.0 (0.6) -0.9 (0.8) 5.9 (0.6) 2.3 (0.3) -3.6 (0.7)

Decrease in pay or hours 

worked (other household 

member)

6.4 (0.6) 3.6 (0.4) -2.9 (0.7) 6.4 (0.6) 2.1 (0.3) -4.3 (0.7)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Because respondents may experience multiple trigger events, percentages for aggregate categories 

such as “any trigger” may not equal the sum of the percentages for the component categories.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households and 

3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant households 

observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal sample. Individual 

panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual 

questions. Standard errors in parentheses.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-11

Table B.9. SNAP Participation Characteristics of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

Six-Month 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Prior SNAP 

Participation

49.1 (1.7) 47.9 (0.9) -1.2 (1.9) 49.1 (1.7) n.a. n.a.

Received Benefits 3 

Months Ago

26.7 (2.4) n.a. n.a. 26.7 (2.4) n.a. n.a.

Received Benefits 6 

Months Ago

36.0 (1.9) n.a. n.a. 36.0 (1.9) n.a. n.a.

Received Benefits 12 

Months Ago

46.7 (1.4) 40.8 (1.5) -5.9 (2.1) 46.7 (1.4) n.a. n.a.

Benefit Amount

$0 to $100 16.4 (1.3) 15.7 (0.7) -0.8 (1.5) 16.4 (1.3) 16.7 (1.0) 0.2 (1.6)

$101 to $200 41.7 (1.8) 48.5 (1.2) 6.8 (2.2) 41.7 (1.8) 48.3 (1.0) 6.6 (2.1)

$201 to $300 18.1 (1.0) 8.8 (0.7) -9.3 (1.2) 18.1 (1.0) 10.0 (0.6) -8.1 (1.2)

$301 or more 23.8 (1.4) 27.1 (1.0) 3.3 (1.7) 23.8 (1.4) 25.1 (1.1) 1.3 (1.8)

Mean Benefit 

Amount

236.1 (7.0) 241.1 (3.6) 5.0 (7.9) 236.1 (7.0) 235.2 (4.2) -0.9 (8.2)

Length of Time 

Benefits Typically 

Last

1 week or less n.a. 14.7 (0.8) n.a. n.a. 15.9 (0.8) n.a.

2 weeks n.a. 25.0 (0.8) n.a. n.a. 23.0 (0.8) n.a.

3 weeks n.a. 40.7 (1.0) n.a. n.a. 39.2 (1.0) n.a.

4 weeks n.a. 17.5 (0.9) n.a. n.a. 19.0 (0.7) n.a.

More than 4 weeks n.a. 2.2 (0.2) n.a. n.a. 2.9 (0.3) n.a.

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions. Standard errors in parentheses.

n.a. = not applicable
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-12

Table B.10. Participation in Non- SNAP Food Assistance Programs in Past 30 Days of Six- Month and 

New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

NSLP (children ages 5 to 

18)a

72.9 (1.9) 74.8 (1.7) 1.8 (2.5) 72.9 (1.9) 48.1 (2.6) -24.8 (3.2)

SBP (children ages 5 to 

18)

57.5 (2.0) 58.1 (2.0) 0.7 (2.8) 57.5 (2.0) 42.6 (2.0) -14.9 (2.8)

NSLP & SBP (children ages 

5 to 18)

55.4 (2.0) 56.4 (2.1) 1.1 (2.9) 55.4 (2.0) 39.6 (2.2) -15.8 (3.0)

NSLP or SBP (children 

under age 5)

12.5 (1.5) 13.9 (1.5) 1.4 (2.1) 12.5 (1.5) 12.4 (1.2) -0.1 (1.9)

WIC 27.9 (1.3) 29.4 (1.1) 1.4 (1.7) 27.9 (1.3) 31.4 (1.2) 3.5 (1.8)

Community Programs

Received emergency 

food from a church, 

food pantry, or food 

bank

23.0 (0.9) 19.0 (0.6) -4.0 (1.1) 23.0 (0.9) 17.1 (0.7) -5.9 (1.1)

Went to community 

program or senior 

center to eat prepared 

meals

4.4 (0.5) 4.4 (0.4) 0.0 (0.6) 4.4 (0.5) 3.9 (0.4) -0.5 (0.6)

Ate meals at a soup 

kitchen or shelter

4.3 (0.4) 3.2 (0.3) -1.1 (0.5) 4.3 (0.4) 3.0 (0.3) -1.3 (0.5)

Received meals from 

"Meals on Wheels" or 

any other homedelivery meal programs

1.5 (0.3) 1.8 (0.2) 0.3 (0.4) 1.5 (0.3) 1.1 (0.2) -0.4 (0.4)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions. Standard errors in parentheses.

a

Differences in NSLP participation percentages for six-month households in the cross-sectional sample and 

six-month households in the longitudinal sample may be due to seasonal differences. The six-month 

households in the cross-sectional sample were interviewed in fall and winter of 2011 (that is, during the 

school year) whereas the six-month households in the longitudinal sample were interviewed six to seven 

months later (in spring/summer 2012).
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-13

Table B.11. Food Purchase Behavior of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of Six-Month 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Purchase Most of Groceries at

Supermarkets / grocery stores 77.3 (1.1) 75.8 (1.2) -1.5 (1.6) 77.3 (1.1) 79.6 (1.0) 2.3 (1.5)

Discount stores 14.2 (1.0) 14.7 (1.1) 0.5 (1.5) 14.2 (1.0) 11.2 (0.8) -3.0 (1.3)

Warehouse clubs 1.7 (0.3) 2.2 (0.3) 0.5 (0.4) 1.7 (0.3) 2.0 (0.3) 0.3 (0.4)

Convenience stores 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) -0.1 (0.1)

Ethnic food stores 1.0 (0.2) 1.2 (0.4) 0.1 (0.4) 1.0 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.3)

Farmer’s markets 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) -0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) -0.1 (0.1)

Dollar stores 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.1)

Other stores 4.8 (0.3) 5.3 (0.7) 0.5 (0.8) 4.8 (0.3) 5.2 (0.5) 0.4 (0.6)

Reason for Store

Low prices or sales 50.6 (1.4) 52.7 (1.5) 2.1 (2.1) 50.6 (1.4) 55.2 (1.2) 4.5 (1.8)

Quality or variety of food 11.0 (0.8) 9.8 (0.7) -1.2 (1.1) 11.0 (0.8) 8.4 (0.5) -2.6 (0.9)

Close to home / Convenient / 

Easy to get to 26.6 (0.8) 26.7 (1.0) 0.2 (1.3) 26.6 (0.8) 24.9 (1.0) -1.7 (1.3)

Other 11.3 (0.6) 10.6 (0.6) -0.8 (0.8) 11.3 (0.6) 11.3 (0.7) -0.1 (0.9)

Mode of Transportation

Drive own car 45.7 (1.0) 47.3 (1.3) 1.7 (1.6) 45.7 (1.0) 47.0 (1.4) 1.3 (1.7)

Drive someone else’s car 9.5 (0.7) 9.1 (0.6) -0.4 (0.9) 9.5 (0.7) 9.0 (0.6) -0.5 (0.9)

Someone else drives 35.0 (0.9) 36.8 (1.3) 1.8 (1.6) 35.0 (0.9) 36.3 (1.3) 1.3 (1.6)

Walk 16.0 (0.9) 14.3 (0.7) -1.7 (1.1) 16.0 (0.9) 15.8 (0.9) -0.2 (1.3)

Bus 10.1 (1.0) 10.2 (1.0) 0.1 (1.4) 10.1 (1.0) 9.8 (0.6) -0.4 (1.2)

Taxi 1.8 (0.3) 2.1 (0.3) 0.3 (0.4) 1.8 (0.3) 2.1 (0.3) 0.3 (0.4)

Ride bicycle 1.8 (0.5) 1.3 (0.3) -0.5 (0.6) 1.8 (0.5) 2.0 (0.5) 0.2 (0.7)

Other 1.6 (0.3) 2.0 (0.4) 0.4 (0.5) 1.6 (0.3) 1.5 (0.2) -0.1 (0.4)

Usually go directly from home 93.4 (0.7) 93.9 (0.5) 0.5 (0.9) 93.4 (0.7) 94.7 (0.6) 1.3 (0.9)

How Many Minutes One Way from 

Home (among those that usually 

go directly from home)

0 to 5 25.8 (1.0) 24.6 (0.9) -1.3 (1.3) 25.8 (1.0) 26.0 (0.9) 0.1 (1.3)

6 to 10 30.2 (1.0) 29.8 (1.2) -0.4 (1.6) 30.2 (1.0) 29.9 (1.0) -0.3 (1.4)

11 to 20 29.5 (1.1) 31.0 (0.9) 1.5 (1.4) 29.5 (1.1) 29.9 (1.1) 0.3 (1.6)

21 to 30 9.3 (0.5) 9.5 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8) 9.3 (0.6) 8.9 (0.5) -0.4 (0.8)

31 to 60 4.7 (0.6) 4.5 (0.4) -0.3 (0.7) 4.7 (0.6) 4.8 (0.5) 0.1 (0.8)

More than 60 0.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2)

Median minutes 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0

How Many Miles One Way from 

Home (among those that usually 

go directly from home)

Less than one mile 12.1 (0.8) 11.9 (0.6) -0.2 (1.0) 12.1 (0.8) 11.0 (0.9) -1.1(1.2)

0-5 miles 55.7 (1.5) 53.9 (1.6) -1.8 (2.2) 55.7 (1.5) 56.5 (1.8) 0.9 (2.3)

5-10 miles 16.3 (0.8) 17.5 (1.0) 1.2 (1.3) 16.3 (0.8) 18.1 (1.3) 1.8 (1.5)

10-20 miles 11.3 (1.1) 11.8 (1.9) 0.5 (2.2) 11.3 (1.1) 10.1 (1.0) -1.3 (1.5)

Over 20 miles 4.7 (0.5) 5.0 (0.5) 0.3 (0.7) 4.7 (0.5) 4.3 (0.5) -0.3 (0.7)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of participants who 

have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates compare new SNAP participants 

to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households and 3,375 sixmonth households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline 

and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal sample. Individual panels within tables may have 

slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions. Standard errors for percentage 

estimates in parentheses.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-14

Table B.12. EBT Usage, Timing of Receipt of SNAP Benefit Relative to Interview Date, and Money 

Saving Techniques for Food Spending of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of Six-Month 

Households Difference

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Percentage of Actual Food 

Spending Last Week Bought 

Using EBT Card

Less than half 11.0 (0.8) 12.9 (0.7) 2.0 (1.1) 11.0 (0.8) 12.6 (0.6) 1.6 (1.0)

About half 5.2 (0.5) 6.7 (0.6) 1.5 (0.8) 5.2 (0.5) 6.9 (0.6) 1.8 (0.8)

More than half 83.9 (1.0) 80.4 (0.8) -3.5 (1.3) 83.9 (1.0) 80.5 (1.0) -3.4 (1.4)

Length of Time Between 

Interview Date and Reported 

SNAP Benefit Receipt

0 to 5 days

27.3 (1.6) 15.3 (1.6)

-12.0 

(2.3) 27.3 (1.6) 16.5 (1.3)

-10.8 

(2.1)

6 to 10 days 25.8 (1.3) 17.8 (1.8) -8.0 (2.2) 25.8 (1.3) 18.0 (1.8) -7.8 (2.2)

11 to 15 days 23.3 (0.8) 20.6 (1.4) -2.7 (1.6) 23.3 (0.8) 18.3 (1.0) -5.0 (1.3)

16 to 20 days 12.9 (0.8) 17.2 (1.2) 4.3 (1.4) 12.9 (0.8) 17.5 (1.0) 4.6 (1.3)

21 to 25 days 6.4 (0.7) 14.7 (1.6) 8.3 (1.7) 6.4 (0.7) 13.0 (0.8) 6.6 (1.1)

26+ days 4.3 (0.4) 14.4 (1.0) 10.1 (1.1) 4.3 (0.4) 16.7 (1.0) 12.4 (1.1)

Money Saving Techniques for 

Food Spending

Used coupons when buying 

food

45.2 (1.0) 47.5 (1.2) 2.3 (1.6) 45.2 (1.0) 50.4 (1.0) 5.2 (1.4)

Bought food in large 

quantities to receive bulk 

discounts

37.9 (0.9) 40.1 (1.1) 2.2 (1.4) 37.9 (0.9) 42.7 (1.2) 4.8 (1.5)

Bought food items because 

they were on sale

85.3 (0.8) 86.2 (0.8) 1.0 (1.1) 85.3 (0.8) 86.7 (0.7) 1.4 (1.1)

Bought food that was near 

or past its expiration date 

at a discount

25.9 (0.9) 24.4 (1.0) -1.5 (1.3) 25.9 (0.9) 29.3 (1.0) 3.5 (1.3)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households and 

3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant households 

observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal sample. Individual 

panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual 

questions. Standard errors in parentheses.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-15

Table B.13. Self- Reported Health Status and Body Mass Index of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP 

Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Self-Reported Health 

Status

Excellent 10.3 (0.6) 10.8 (0.9) 0.5 (1.1) 10.3 (0.6) 11.7 (0.6) 1.4 (0.8)

Very good 19.9 (0.8) 20.6 (0.8) 0.7 (1.1) 19.9 (0.8) 24.0 (0.8) 4.1 (1.1)

Good 32.1 (1.1) 30.7 (1.0) -1.4 (1.5) 32.1 (1.1) 31.0 (0.9) -1.1 (1.4)

Fair 26.4 (1.1) 26.0 (0.8) -0.4 (1.4) 26.4 (1.1) 24.8 (1.0) -1.6 (1.5)

Poor 11.3 (0.8) 11.9 (0.7) 0.6 (1.1) 11.3 (0.8) 8.5 (0.7) -2.8 (1.1)

Body Mass Index of 

Respondent (based on 

self-reported height and 

weight)

Less than 18.5 1.8 (0.3) 2.0 (0.3) 0.2 (0.4) 1.8 (0.3) 1.8 (0.3) 0.0 (0.4)

18.5 to less than 25 33.4 (1.1) 30.6 (1.1) -2.8 (1.6) 33.4 (1.1) 30.9 (1.2) -2.5 (1.6)

25 to less than 30 31.0 (1.2) 31.9 (1.1) 0.8 (1.6) 31.0 (1.2) 32.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.6)

30 or more 33.9 (1.3) 35.6 (0.8) 1.8 (1.5) 33.9 (1.3) 35.3 (1.2) 1.5 (1.8)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions. Standard errors in parentheses.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-16

Table B.14. Self- Reported Mental Health and Well- Being of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

Percentage of Respondents that 

in the Last 30 Days Felta

So sad nothing could cheer 

them up

48.0 (0.8) 41.9 (1.3) -6.1 (1.5) 48.0 (0.8) 38.5 (1.0) -9.5 (1.3)

Nervous 50.4 (1.0) 45.6 (1.0) -4.8 (1.4) 50.4 (1.0) 41.3 (1.3) -9.1 (1.6)

Restless or Fidgety 49.5 (1.0) 46.8 (1.1) -2.7 (1.5) 49.5 (1.0) 40.5 (1.7) -9.0 (2.0)

Hopeless 35.4 (0.8) 29.6 (1.1) -5.8 (1.4) 35.4 (0.8) 25.8 (0.9) -9.6 (1.2)

That everything was an effort 62.7 (0.8) 60.2 (1.0) -2.5 (1.3) 62.7 (0.8) 54.0 (1.3) -8.7 (1.5)

Worthless 28.5 (0.9) 24.8 (0.8) -3.7 (1.2) 28.5 (0.9) 21.6 (0.9) -6.9 (1.3)

Percentage of Households that, 

if Needed Help, Would Get this 

Amount of Help from Family 

Living Nearby

All of the help needed 18.7 (0.7) 21.6 (0.9) 2.9 (1.1) 18.7 (0.7) 19.8 (0.8) 1.1 (1.1)

Most of the help needed 30.7 (0.9) 31.0 (1.4) 0.2 (1.7) 30.7 (0.9) 31.8 (1.1) 1.1 (1.4)

Very little of the help needed 30.6 (0.7) 28.9 (1.0) -1.8 (1.2) 30.6 (0.7) 28.7 (0.9) -2.0 (1.1)

No help 20.0 (1.0) 18.6 (0.7) -1.3 (1.2) 20.0 (1.0) 19.7 (0.8) -0.2 (1.3)

Percentage of Households that, 

if Needed Help, Would Get this 

Amount of Help from Friends

All of the help needed 8.3 (0.6) 9.9 (0.8) 1.7 (1.0) 8.3 (0.6) 9.4 (0.5) 1.1 (0.8)

Most of the help needed 28.0 (0.8) 30.6 (0.9) 2.6 (1.2) 28.0 (0.8) 30.3 (0.9) 2.3 (1.2)

Very little of the help needed 43.6 (0.9) 40.4 (1.0) -3.3 (1.3) 43.6 (0.9) 41.7 (1.0) -1.9 (1.3)

No help 20.1 (0.8) 19.1 (0.7) -1.0 (1.1) 20.1 (0.8) 18.6 (1.0) -1.5 (1.3)

Percentage of Households that, 

if Needed Help, Would Get this 

Amount of Help from Other 

People in the Community 

Besides Family and Friends

All of the help needed 6.0 (0.4) 5.3 (0.4) -0.7 (0.6) 6.0 (0.4) 4.8 (0.5) -1.2 (0.6)

Most of the help needed 18.6 (0.7) 19.8 (1.0) 1.2 (1.2) 18.6 (0.7) 19.5 (0.8) 0.9 (1.1)

Very little of the help needed 44.9 (0.8) 42.5 (1.2) -2.4 (1.4) 44.9 (0.8) 43.1 (1.2) -1.9 (1.4)

No help 30.5 (0.9) 32.4 (1.3) 1.9 (1.6) 30.5 (0.9) 32.6 (1.3) 2.2 (1.6)

Percentage of Households that 

Consider Neighborhood

Very safe 42.4 (1.5) 43.3 (1.5) 0.9 (2.1) 42.4 (1.5) 43.3 (1.5) 0.9 (2.1)

Somewhat safe 48.1 (1.2) 46.9 (1.2) -1.2 (1.7) 48.1 (1.2) 46.8 (1.1) -1.3 (1.6)

Very unsafe 9.6 (0.6) 9.8 (0.8) 0.2 (1.0) 9.6 (0.6) 10.0 (0.6) 0.4 (0.8)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of participants 

who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates compare new SNAP 

participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households and 3,375 

six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant households observed at 

baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal sample. Individual panels within tables 

may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.

a

Responses of “all of the time”, “most of the time”, “a little of the time” were counted as affirmative; “none of the time” 

were not counted as affirmative. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B-17

Table B.15. State Characteristics Associated with Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

State 25th Percentile Wage 

(Dollars)

10.8 (0.1) 10.8 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 10.8 (0.1) 10.8 (0.1) -0.1 (0.1)

State Unemployment Rate 

(Percentage)

8.8 (0.2) 8.5 (0.2) 0.3 (0.3) 8.8 (0.2) 8.8 (0.2) 0.0 (0.3)

State Offers Broad-Based 

Categorical Eligibility for 

SNAP (Percentage)

89.1 (5.6) 89.0 (6.1) -0.1 (8.3) 89.1 (5.6) 89.0 (5.6) -0.1 (7.9)

Average State SNAP 

Certification Period 

(Months)

12.2 (0.3) 12.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.4) 12.2 (0.3) 12.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.4)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item

nonresponse to individual questions. Standard errors in parentheses.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
APPENDIX C

DETAILS FOR FOOD SECURITY REGRESSIONS
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research

C-3

A. Regression Analysis of the Associations between SNAP and Household 

Food Insecurity and between SNAP and Very Low Food Security

Raw Regression Coefficients

Our main estimates of the association between SNAP and food security are derived from 

regression analysis of the data, based on logistic regression techniques. As described in the Data and 

Methodology discussion in Chapter II, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of the baseline data, 

comparing new-entrant and six-month households, and a longitudinal analysis of the new-entrant 

household sample at two points in time approximately six months apart. The main independent 

variable of interest in these analyses was the binary variable that measures whether a household had 

participated in SNAP for six months or was a new-entrant household. Although we focus on 

summary measures of the association between SNAP and food security in Chapter IV, in this 

section we describe the full set of regression coefficients and standard errors to provide background 

information for regression results behind the summary measures. 

Table C.1 presents the regression coefficients and standard errors from the logistic regression 

of household food insecurity. In the cross-sectional sample, participating in SNAP for six months 

was negatively associated with the likelihood that a household was food insecure. Households were 

also less likely to be food insecure if they completed high school or beyond, relative to less than high 

school; conducted their interview in English rather than Spanish; had children; had an elderly 

member in the household; lived in the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic compared with the West; or lived 

in a State that offered broad-based categorical eligibility. In contrast, households were more likely to 

be food insecure if they had a household head age 25 to 64, compared with having a household head 

age 18 to 24; had a household head experiencing depression in the past 30 days; had a disabled 

person living in the household; participated in SNAP prior to their current enrollment; received SSI 

or unemployment compensation; or experienced a change in household size, had been evicted from 

their house or apartment, or experienced a change in employment, pay, or hours worked in the past 

six months. The coefficients of the remaining variables were not statistically significant at the 10 

percent level. 
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research

C-4

Table C.1. Coefficients and Standard Errors for Food Insecurity Logistic Regressions

Cross-Sectional 

Estimates

Longitudinal 

Estimates

Coefficient

Standard 

Error Coefficient

Standard 

Error

Six-Month SNAP Participant (new entrant participant is referent 

group)

-0.197*** 0.059 -0.444*** 0.055

Household Head is Female (male is referent group) 0.005 0.078 0.014 0.091

Race and Ethnicity of Household Head (non-Hispanic white is referent 

group)

Non-Hispanic black 0.003 0.097 -0.034 0.089

Non-Hispanic other 0.088 0.109 -0.082 0.126

Hispanic -0.054 0.127 0.049 0.137

Age of Household Head (18 to 24 is referent group)

25-49 0.415*** 0.086 0.391*** 0.105

50-64 0.218** 0.110 0.319*** 0.110

65 and older 0.381 0.259 0.487** 0.230

Highest Grade Completed (referent group is less than high school)

High school -0.221** 0.094 -0.158 0.118

Some college -0.220** 0.096 -0.213** 0.097

College and beyond -0.455*** 0.153 -0.563*** 0.132

Employment Status of Household Head (nonemployed is referent 

group)

Employed full time -0.016 0.110 -0.085 0.117

Employed part time 0.108 0.106 0.043 0.093

Household Head Felt Depressed in Past 30 Days (not depressed is 

referent group)

1.040*** 0.085 1.006*** 0.085

Interview Conducted in English Language (Spanish is referrent group) -0.361** 0.170 -0.311 0.202

Monthly Income as a Percentage of the Poverty Line -0.035 0.059 -0.052 0.063

Household Size 0.008 0.026 -0.017 0.029

Household Contains Children (referent group is no children) -0.395*** 0.116 -0.387*** 0.110

Household Contains Elderly (referent group is no elderly) -0.373** 0.146 -0.587*** 0.153

Household Contains Disabled Individual (referent group is no 

disabled)

0.247*** 0.076 0.302*** 0.074

Participated in SNAP Prior to Current Spell (referent group is never 

participated prior)

0.181** 0.081 0.136* 0.078

Participation in Federal or State Programs

TANF -0.101 0.158 0.222 0.223

Welfare -0.231 0.185 -0.43 0.280

SSI 0.207* 0.110 0.188 0.118

Unemployment compensation 0.235** 0.099 0.279*** 0.089

Experienced Trigger Events in Past Six Months

Change in household size 0.228*** 0.077 0.175*** 0.065

Eviction 0.942*** 0.268 0.943*** 0.246

Change in employment, pay, or hours worked 0.155*** 0.055 0.119* 0.068

Region of Residence (Western Region is referent group)

Northeast -0.355*** 0.129 -0.318** 0.154

Mid-Atlantic -0.313** 0.146 -0.286 0.190

Midwest -0.170 0.121 -0.094 0.141

Southeast -0.111 0.160 -0.137 0.165

Southwest 0.028 0.192 -0.006 0.207

Mountain Plains -0.184 0.191 -0.116 0.230

State 25th Percentile Wage -0.020 0.081 0.04 0.075

State Unemployment Rate -0.003 0.028 -0.013 0.034

State Offers Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility for SNAP (referent 

group is not having BBCE)

-0.215** 0.085 -0.052 0.091

Average State SNAP Certification Period 0.020* 0.012 0.011 0.014

Sample Size 6,432 6,331

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research

C-5

In the longitudinal sample, participating in SNAP for six months was negatively associated with 

the likelihood that a household was food insecure (Table C.1). Households were also less likely to be 

food insecure if they completed some college or beyond, relative to less than high school; had 

children; had an elderly member in the household; or lived in the Northeast compared with the 

West. In contrast, households were more likely to be food insecure if they had a household head age 

25 and older, compared with having a household head age 18 to 24; had a household head 

experiencing depression in the past 30 days; had a disabled person living in the household;

participated in SNAP prior to their current enrollment; received unemployment compensation; or 

had a change in household size, had been evicted from their house or apartment, or experienced a 

change in employment, pay, or hours worked in the past six months. The coefficients of the 

remaining variables were not statistically significant at the 10 percent level. 

Table C.2 presents the analogous set of regression coefficients and standard errors from the 

logistic regression of whether a household had very low food security. The sets of variables that 

were statistically associated with very low food security in both samples generally were similar to the 

sets from the food insecurity regressions. Two notable exceptions include highest grade completed 

and household size. More education was associated with a lower likelihood that a household was 

food insecure, but was generally not associated with the likelihood that a household had very low 

food security. Having more people in the household was not associated with the likelihood that a 

household was food insecure, but was associated with a lower likelihood that the household had 

very low food security.
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research

C-6

Table C.2. Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and Household Characteristics on a 

Household’s Likelihood of Having Very Low Food Security

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient

Standard 

Error Coefficient

Standard 

Error

Six-Month SNAP Participant (new entrant participant is referent 

group)

-0.224*** 0.049 -0.286*** 0.050

Household Head is Female (male is referent group) -0.157** 0.079 -0.141 0.100

Race and Ethnicity of Household Head (non-Hispanic white is 

referent group)

Non-hispanic black 0.058 0.075 -0.024 0.093

Non-hispanic other 0.073 0.125 -0.025 0.195

Hispanic -0.112 0.108 -0.159 0.145

Age of Household Head (18 to 24 is referent group)

25-49 0.252*** 0.078 0.343*** 0.117

50-64 0.052 0.093 0.242** 0.113

65 and older -0.101 0.227 -0.015 0.279

Highest Grade Completed (referent group is less than high 

school)

High school 0.004 0.102 0.035 0.140

Some college 0.069 0.078 -0.018 0.109

College and beyond -0.143 0.127 -0.261** 0.126

Employment Status of Household Head (nonemployed is 

referent group)

Employed full time 0.018 0.124 -0.112 0.110

Employed part time 0.040 0.112 -0.089 0.088

Household Head Felt Depressed in Past 30 Days (not depressed 

is referent group)

1.099*** 0.117 1.093*** 0.077

Interview Conducted in English Language (Spanish is referrent 

group)

0.210 0.211 0.339** 0.133

Monthly Income as a Percentage of the Poverty Line -0.085 0.053 -0.046 0.054

Household Size -0.078*** 0.024 -0.069** 0.029

Household Contains Children (referent group is no children) -0.280*** 0.096 -0.291*** 0.082

Household Contains Elderly (referent group is no elderly) -0.416** 0.172 -0.481** 0.214

Household Contains Disabled Individual (referent group is no 

disabled)

0.389*** 0.066 0.302*** 0.081

Participated in SNAP Prior to Current Spell (referent group is 

never participated prior)

0.273*** 0.089 0.228*** 0.080

Participation in Federal or State Programs

TANF 0.162 0.150 0.548*** 0.170

Welfare -0.130 0.190 -0.211 0.173

SSI 0.178 0.109 0.165 0.112

Unemployment compensation 0.379*** 0.117 0.323*** 0.075

Experienced Trigger Events in Past Six Months

Change in household size 0.291*** 0.087 0.253*** 0.086

Eviction 0.726*** 0.186 0.660*** 0.213

Change in employment, pay, or hours worked 0.176** 0.069 0.212*** 0.075

Region of Residence (western region is referent group)

Northeast -0.174 0.118 -0.266* 0.149

Mid-Atlantic -0.037 0.169 0.078 0.195

Midwest -0.035 0.127 -0.047 0.136

Southeast -0.011 0.149 -0.156 0.159

Southwest 0.131 0.196 0.053 0.207

Mountain Plains 0.092 0.196 -0.07 0.225

State 25th Percentile Wage -0.037 0.078 -0.007 0.079

State Unemployment Rate 0.029 0.025 0.019 0.030

State Offers Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility for SNAP 

(referent group is not having BBCE)

-0.074 0.083 -0.039 0.088

Average State SNAP Certification Period 0.010 0.014 0.008 0.014

Sample Size 6,432 6,331

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

*, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research

C-7

Table C.3 presents the regression coefficients and standard errors from the logistic regression 

of food insecurity for households with children. In the cross-sectional sample, participating in SNAP 

for six months was negatively associated with the likelihood that a household was food insecure. 

Households were also less likely to be food insecure if they completed high school or some college, 

relative to less than high school, or conducted their interview in English rather than Spanish. In 

contrast, households were more likely to be food insecure if they had a household head age 25 to 49, 

compared with having a household head age 18 to 24; had a household head experiencing 

depression in the past 30 days; or experienced a change in household size, or had been evicted from 

their house or apartment in the past six months. Households also were more likely to be food 

insecure the greater the age of the oldest child in the household. 

In the longitudinal sample, participating in SNAP for six months was negatively associated with 

the likelihood that a household was food insecure (Table C.3). Households were also less likely to be 

food insecure if the household head had completed high school or beyond, relative to less than high 

school; or conducted the interview in English rather than in Spanish. In contrast, households were 

more likely to be food insecure if they had a household head age 25 to 64, compared with having a 

household head age 18 to 24; had a household head experiencing depression in the past 30 days; had

a disabled person living in the household; had received TANF; or experienced a change in 

household size or had been evicted from their house or apartment in the past six months. Like the 

cross-sectional sample, households also were more likely to be food insecure the greater the age of 

the oldest child in the household. 
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research

C-8

Table C.3. Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and Household Characteristics on a 

Household with Children’s Likelihood being Food Insecure

Cross-Sectional 

Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient

Standard

Error Coefficient

Standard

Error

Six-Month SNAP Participant (new entrant participant is referent 

group)

-0.418*** 0.105 -0.511*** 0.082

Household Head is Female (male is referent group) 0.023 0.159 0.145 0.170

Race and Ethnicity of Household Head (non-Hispanic white is 

referent group)

Non-hispanic black 0.138 0.109 0.154 0.152

Non-hispanic other 0.062 0.203 -0.067 0.189

Hispanic -0.022 0.121 -0.139 0.108

Age of Household Head (18 to 24 is referent group)

25-49 0.387** 0.184 0.337** 0.158

50-64 0.368 0.250 0.327** 0.166

65 and older 0.672 0.470 0.201 0.581

Highest Grade Completed (referent group is less than high 

school)

High school -0.240* 0.127 -0.332*** 0.122

Some college -0.224* 0.131 -0.308** 0.154

College and beyond -0.285 0.206 -0.415* 0.228

Employment Status of Household Head (nonemployed is 

referent group)

Employed full time -0.013 0.154 0.012 0.197

Employed part time 0.143 0.155 -0.034 0.153

Household Head Felt Depressed in Past 30 Days (not depressed 

is referent group)

1.264*** 0.102 1.218*** 0.110

Interview Conducted in English Language (Spanish is referrent 

group)

-0.961*** 0.164 -0.913*** 0.166

Monthly Income as a Percentage of the Poverty Line -0.044 0.076 -0.143 0.099

Household Size -0.008 0.036 -0.003 0.039

Household Contains Elderly (referent group is no elderly) -0.407 0.390 -0.276 0.554

Household Contains Disabled Individual (referent group is no 

disabled)

0.175 0.170 0.283** 0.110

Participated in SNAP Prior to Current Spell (referent group is 

never participated prior)

0.008 0.113 0.049 0.097

Participation in Federal or State Programs

TANF 0.150 0.141 0.373** 0.150

Welfare -0.061 0.439 -0.023 0.566

SSI -0.162 0.257 -0.264 0.208

Unemployment compensation 0.070 0.127 0.239 0.161

Experienced Trigger Events in Past Six Months

Change in household size 0.279*** 0.096 0.230** 0.102

Eviction 0.476** 0.200 0.599** 0.278

Change in employment, pay, or hours worked 0.094 0.095 0.019 0.089

Region of Residence (western region is referent group)

Northeast -0.224 0.190 -0.374 0.304

Mid-Atlantic 0.069 0.252 -0.402 0.306

Midwest -0.082 0.189 -0.354 0.228

Southeast -0.196 0.221 -0.068 0.292

Southwest -0.058 0.266 -0.182 0.302

Mountain Plains 0.054 0.300 -0.297 0.350

State 25th Percentile Wage 0.034 0.098 0.075 0.109

State Unemployment Rate -0.02 0.039 0.001 0.060

State Offers Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility for SNAP 

(referent group is not having BBCE)

0.197 0.132 -0.068 0.128

Average State SNAP Certification Period 0.012 0.017 0.012 0.020

Age of Oldest Child in Household 0.082*** 0.009 0.081*** 0.009

Sample Size 2,707 2,486

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

*, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research

C-9

Table C.4 presents the regression coefficients and standard errors from the logistic regression 

of whether a household with children had very low food security. In the cross-sectional sample, 

participating in SNAP for six months was negatively associated with the likelihood that children had 

very low food security. Children were also less likely to have very low food security if they lived in a 

household in which the household head completed high school, relative to less than high school; 

conducted their interview in English rather than Spanish; participated in SNAP prior to their current 

enrollment; or had a change in pay, employment, or hours worked over the past six months. In 

addition, the state unemployment rate was negatively associated with food insecurity. In contrast, 

children were more likely to have very low food security if the household head was black, compared 

with non-Hispanic white; had a household head experiencing depression in the past 30 days; had a 

disabled member; the household head was receiving TANF or unemployment compensation; or if 

the household had an older child. 

In the longitudinal sample, participating in SNAP for six months was not associated with the 

likelihood that children had very low food security at the 0.10 level (Table C.4). Children were less 

likely to have very low food security if the respondent conducted their interview in English rather 

than Spanish; the household residence was in the Midwest or Mountain Plan states; if the state of 

residence offered broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP, compared with not having BBCE. In 

addition, the state unemployment rate was negatively associated with very low food security. 

Children were more likely to have very low food security if the head of household was black, 

compared to non-Hispanic white; had experienced depression within the last 30 days; was receiving 

unemployment compensation; if the household had undergone a change in size over the past six 

months; had a disabled member, or an older child.
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research

C-10

Table C.4. Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and Household Characteristics on a 

Household with Children’s Likelihood of Having Very Low Food Security

Cross-Sectional 

Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient

Standard

Error Coefficient

Standard

Error

Six-Month SNAP Participant (new entrant participant is referent 

group)

-0.722*** 0.280 -0.199 0.214

Household Head is Female (male is referent group) -0.229 0.251 -0.04 0.249

Race and Ethnicity of Household Head (non-Hispanic white is 

referent group)

Non-hispanic black 0.941*** 0.272 1.055*** 0.273

Non-hispanic other 0.196 0.388 -0.107 0.526

Hispanic 0.454 0.315 0.335 0.324

Age of Household Head (18 to 24 is referent group)

25-49 0.149 0.337 -0.042 0.282

50-64 0.670 0.417 0.367 0.405

65 and older 0.572 0.764 -1.393 1.302

Highest Grade Completed (referent group is less than high 

school)

High school -0.537* 0.326 -0.34 0.274

Some college -0.182 0.254 -0.225 0.276

College and beyond -0.279 0.405 -0.594 0.471

Employment Status of Household Head (nonemployed is 

referent group)

Employed full time 0.237 0.355 0.101 0.276

Employed part time 0.340 0.367 -0.332 0.472

Household Head Felt Depressed in Past 30 Days (not depressed 

is referent group)

1.439*** 0.320 1.703*** 0.422

Interview Conducted in English Language (Spanish is referrent 

group)

-0.869*** 0.354 -0.761* 0.417

Monthly Income as a Percentage of the Poverty Line 0.039 0.194 -0.145 0.128

Household Size -0.005 0.067 -0.025 0.087

Household Contains Elderly (referent group is no elderly) -0.751 0.794 -0.101 0.447

Household Contains Disabled Individual (referent group is no 

disabled)

0.446* 0.268 0.602** 0.259

Participated in SNAP Prior to Current Spell (referent group is 

never participated prior)

-0.363* 0.209 -0.157 0.290

Participation in Federal or State Programs

TANF 0.669* 0.361 0.334 0.467

Welfare -0.269 0.569 -0.516 0.779

SSI -0.558 0.416 -0.753 0.473

Unemployment compensation 0.695*** 0.238 0.396* 0.224

Experienced Trigger Events in Past Six Months

Change in household size 0.392 0.264 0.522*** 0.174

Eviction 0.055 0.542 0.431 0.504

Change in employment, pay, or hours worked -0.376** 0.188 -0.198 0.171

Region of Residence (western region is referent group)

Northeast -0.226 0.493 -0.281 0.498

Mid-Atlantic 0.247 0.549 -0.52 0.543

Midwest -0.018 0.462 -0.976** 0.480

Southeast -0.18 0.57 -0.382 0.523

Southwest -0.187 0.672 -0.774 0.657

Mountain Plains -1.01 0.925 -1.585** 0.717

State 25th Percentile Wage 0.035 0.266 0.091 0.192

State Unemployment Rate -0.273*** 0.107 -0.219* 0.121

State Offers Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility for SNAP 

(referent group is not having BBCE)

-0.038 0.227 -0.770*** 0.223

Average State SNAP Certification Period -0.048 0.043 -0.02 0.037

Age of Oldest Child in Household 0.120*** 0.023 0.107*** 0.023

Sample Size 2,707 2,486

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

*, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
APPENDIX D

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FOR FOOD SECURITY REGRESSIONS
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research

D-3

The finding in Chapter IV that SNAP was associated with improved food security was generally 

consistent across the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, across the two outcome measures of 

food insecurity and very low food security, and across household food security and child food 

security. Nevertheless, we conducted auxiliary analyses to determine whether the associations 

between SNAP and food insecurity (or very low food security) were sensitive to the empirical 

modeling decisions or decisions related to which households were included in the analysis sample. 

The findings reported in Chapter IV were found to be robust to these alternative specifications. In 

this appendix, we present the results of these auxiliary analyses.

Diagnostic Checks Associated with Model Specification

We conducted several auxiliary analyses to determine whether the associations between SNAP 

and food insecurity (or very low food security) were sensitive to the statistical model or the set of 

explanatory variables included in the model. The findings reported in Chapter IV were found to be 

robust to these alternative specifications. 

Ordinary least squares (OLS). In place of estimating a logistic regression model, we 

estimated an OLS regression of food insecurity (or very low food security) on SNAP and the same 

set of explanatory variables used above. This allowed us to test the sensitivity of our findings to the 

functional form of the model. Relative to our main findings presented above, the associations 

between SNAP and food insecurity and between SNAP and very low food security decreased by less 

than half a percentage point in the cross-sectional sample and by less than one percentage point in 

the longitudinal sample (Table D.1). For example, in the cross-sectional sample, the estimated 

association between SNAP and the percentage of food insecure households was a decrease of -4.3 

percentage points, compared to a decrease of -4.6 percentage points in the original model.
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research

D-4

Table D.1. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure or That Have 

Very Low Food Security, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Model 

Specification

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Insecure

Main Model Specification 

(Logistic Regression 

Model) 

65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Alternative Model 

Specification 

(OLS Regression Model)

64.2 60.0 -4.3*** 63.9 54.2 -9.7***

Food Insecure with Very 

Low Food Security 

Main Model Specification 

(Logistic Regression 

Model) 

36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Alternative Model 

Specification 

(OLS Regression Model)

38.0 33.4 -4.6*** 37.7 31.9 -5.8***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

Explanatory variables. Maintaining the logistic regression model, we also assessed the 

specification of the model in terms of the set of explanatory variables used. Our basic analysis used a 

relatively large number of explanatory variables, reflecting both the richness of the data set and the 

many variables that may affect food security and explain differences between SNAP six-month and 

new-entrant households. We tested the sensitivity of our findings using a more parsimonious set of 

explanatory variables limited to household size, household composition (whether the household had 

children, whether the household had an elderly individual living in the household, whether the 

household had a disabled individual living in the household), household income, region of residence, 

interview conducted in English, and prior SNAP participation. As Table D.2 shows, relative to our 

main findings, SNAP was associated with larger decreases in food insecurity and very low food 

security (-6.5 percentage points for food insecurity in the cross-sectional sample, compared to -4.6 

percentage points in the original model, for example). A statistical comparison of the model fit from 

these “restricted” models to the original specification (the “unrestricted” models) rejected using the 

parsimonious specification in favor of using the original model for both the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal samples and for food insecurity and very low food security.
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research

D-5

Table D.2. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure or That Have 

Very Low Food Security, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether 

Smaller Set of Explanatory Variables Is Used

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Insecure

Main Model Specification 

(Original Set of 

Explanatory Variables) 

65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Alternative Model 

Specification 

(Smaller Set of 

Explanatory Variables)

65.7 59.2 -6.5*** 65.7 53.2 -12.5***

Food Insecure with Very 

Low Food Security

Main Model Specification 

(Logistic Regression 

Model) 

36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Alternative Model 

Specification 

(OLS Regression Model)

38.6 31.5 -7.0*** 38.5 29.7 -8.8***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

Fixed-effects model. Continuing to use a balanced data file that restricts the sample of newentrant households to only those households that also completed a follow-up interview about six 

months later, we estimated a fixed-effects model, which makes it possible to account for timeinvariant differences across households. This can reduce the chances of having “omitted variable 

bias” caused by a correlation between an unobserved time-invariant household factor and both 

SNAP participation and food security. (This, of course, can be done only with the longitudinal 

sample.) As an approximation, we estimated the standard errors of the model without accounting 

for the complex survey design.

In this auxiliary analysis, SNAP was associated with a decrease in the percentage of households 

that were food insecure of 11.3 percentage points (Table D.3). The comparable association in our 

main model specification was -10.6 percentage points. In the very low food security regressions, 

SNAP was associated with a decrease in the percentage of households that had very low food 

security of 7.4 percentage points, compared to a reduction of 6.3 percentage points without fixed 

effects. The high degree of correspondence between the two sets of findings suggests that our 

results are robust to using a fixed-effects model to control for time-invariant factors when estimating 

the association between SNAP and food security.
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research

D-6

Table D.3. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure or That Have 

Very Low Food Security, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether 

Fixed- Effects Model Is Used in the Longitudinal Analysis

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Insecure

Main Model Specification 

(Logistic Regression; 

No Fixed Effects) 

65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Alternative Model 

Specification 

(OLS Regression with 

Fixed Effects)

N.A. N.A. N.A. 65.0 53.7 -11.3***

Food Insecure with Very Low 

Food Security

Main Model Specification 

(Logistic Regression; 

No Fixed Effects) 

36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Alternative Model 

Specification 

(OLS Regression with 

Fixed Effects)

N.A. N.A. N.A. 38.7 31.3 -7.4***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

N.A. = Not Available

*, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

Diagnostic Checks Associated with the Amount of Time Between the Interview Date and 

the Date of Receipt of SNAP Benefits 

We conducted several auxiliary analyses to determine whether the associations between SNAP 

and food insecurity (or very low food security) were sensitive to the timing of the interviews relative 

to when respondents received their SNAP benefits. The food security findings reported in Chapter 

IV were found to be robust to these alternative specifications. 

The survey asked new-entrant households whether they had received their SNAP benefits yet. 

For those new-entrant households that reported receiving their benefit, the survey requested the 

date of benefit receipt. Six-month households were asked only to provide the date of the most 

recent receipt of SNAP benefits. 
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research

D-7

Almost 30 percent of new-entrant households were interviewed within 5 days of receiving their 

SNAP benefit51

Table D.4. Length of Time Between Interview Date and Reported SNAP Benefit Receipt

(Table D.4). Another 26 percent were interviewed within 6 to 10 days and 23

percent within 11 to 15 days of their reported date of benefit receipt. For six-month households, 

there was generally a longer time between the interview date and the reported receipt of benefits, by 

design of the study. (An analytic objective in conducting the telephone survey was to minimize the 

time between program entry and the baseline interview for new-entrant households so that 

respondents’ information pertained to the time period prior to entry into SNAP; this was not 

applicable to six-month households.)

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of Six-Month 

Households Difference

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

0 to 5 Days 27 15 -12 27 17 -11

6 to 10 Days 26 18 -8 26 18 -8

11 to 15 Days 23 21 -3 23 18 -5

16 to 20 Days 13 17 4 13 18 5

21 to 25 Days 6 15 8 6 13 7

26+ Days 4 14 10 4 17 13

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households and 

3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant households 

observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal sample.

Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to 

individual questions.

We re-estimated our original specification including “days since benefit receipt” as one of the 

explanatory variables. In this specification, participating in SNAP for about six months was 

associated with decreases in the percentages of households that were food insecure by 4.2 

percentage points in the cross-sectional sample and 10.4 percentage points in the longitudinal 

sample (Table D.5). These are similar to the estimates in our main specification of 4.6 and 10.6, 

respectively. Repeating this sensitivity analysis using very low food security as the outcome measure, 

we find that SNAP was associated with decreases in the percentage of households that experienced 

very low food security by 3.9 percentage points in the cross-sectional sample and 5.9 percentage

points in the longitudinal sample—similar to the estimates in our main specification of 5.0 and 6.3, 

respectively.

 51 Sixteen percent of new-entrants were interviewed before receiving benefits and are characterized as having “0” 

days since benefit receipt.
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research

D-8

Table D.5. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure or That Have 

Very Low Food Security, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether 

Model Includes “Days Since SNAP Benefit Receipt” Variable

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

NewEntrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Insecure

Main Model Specification 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Alternative Model That 

Includes “Days Since 

Benefit Receipt” as 

Explanatory Variable

65.4 61.2 -4.2*** 64.4 54.0 -10.4***

Food Insecure with Very Low 

Food Security

Main Model Specification 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Alternative Model That 

Includes “Days Since 

Benefit Receipt” as 

Explanatory Variable

35.9 31.9 -3.9*** 35.0 29.1 -5.9***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

As an additional set of sensitivity analyses, we categorized new-entrant households into four 

groups based on the days since benefit receipt: 0 days, greater than 0 days, 1 to 11 days, or 12 days 

or more.52

The findings from the main specification reported earlier were robust to these alternative 

specifications. As anticipated, there was a tendency for the groups interviewed before receiving 

benefits or within a short time of receiving benefits to have stronger associations between SNAP 

and food security. For instance, for households that had not received benefits as of the interview 

date, SNAP participation was associated with greater reductions in food insecurity than for the 

entire samples in the main analysis. The reduction in food insecurity in the sensitivity analysis was 

12.7 percentage points in the cross-sectional sample and 18.9 percentage points in the longitudinal 

sample (Table D.6). Among households that had already received benefits by the time of the 

We estimated the food insecurity and very low food security regressions for each of these 

sets of new-entrant households and the full set of six-month households.

 52 Eleven days was the median number of days in the new-entrant sample among new-entrant households that had 

received their benefit at the time of the interview.
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research

D-9

interview, the associations between SNAP and food insecurity (or very low food security) were, for 

the most part, statistically indistinguishable for households that had received their benefit at least 12 

days before the interview from the associations for households that had received benefits more 

recently (Table 5). The exception was for the cross-sectional analysis of very low food security, in 

which the reduction was larger among households that had received their benefits more recently.

Table D.6. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure or That Have Very Low Food 

Security, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether SNAP Benefits Had Been 

Received Before the Interview and by Number of Days Since SNAP Benefit Receipt for New- Entrant Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Insecurea

Main analysis sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6*** 

New-entrant households that 

had not received benefits 

before interview

72.5 59.8 -12.7*** b 72.2 53.3 -18.9*** b

New-entrant households that 

had received benefits before 

interview

63.8 60.3 -3.5** 63.5 54.1 -9.4*** 

New-entrant households had 

received benefits 1 to 11 

days before interview

65.1 60.0 -5.1*** 64.5 53.7 -10.8***

New-entrant households that 

had received benefits at least 

12 days before interview

61.6 59.9 -1.6 61.6 53.4 -8.2***

Food Insecure with Very Low 

Food Securitya

Main analysis sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

New-entrant households that 

had not received benefits 

before interview

40.8 30.2 -10.6*** c 40.3 28.1 -12.3*** c

New-entrant households that 

had received benefits before 

interview

35.2 31.2 -4.0*** 34.7 29.5 -5.2***

New-entrant households had 

received benefits 1 to 11 

days before interview

36.6 30.8 -5.8*** c 35.7 28.9 -6.9***

New-entrant households that 

had received benefits at least 

12 days before interview

32.9 30.8 -2.1 32.6 28.8 -3.8**

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of participants 

who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates compare new SNAP 

participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set with 3,275 newentrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months later.

a All samples use the original set of six-month households. Only the sample of new-entrant households is restricted by 

days since benefit receipt. 

b Association between SNAP and food insecurity for households that had not received benefits before the interview is 

statistically different from the association for households that had received benefits at the 0.01 level in the crosssectional and longitudinal samples.

c Association between SNAP and very low food security for households that had not received benefits before the 

interview is statistically different from the association for households that had received benefits at the 0.05 level and 

0.01 level in the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples, respectively. Association for 1- to 11-day households is 

statistically different from association for 12+ day households at the 0.10 level in the cross-sectional sample.

*, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research

D-10

Because the food security index essentially identifies the worst food security conditions that a 

household has experienced in the previous 30 days, any bias introduced by interviewing households 

post benefit receipt should be at least partially mitigated by the recall period of the food security 

index. Under plausible assumptions, for most households, the worst food security condition would 

occur just before entering SNAP, so the measure is likely to have captured the worst food security 

condition even for the small percentage of households interviewed three or four weeks after 

receiving benefits. 

Overall, this sensitivity analysis suggests that the study’s findings remained consistent—SNAP 

benefits were generally associated with improved food security across different sets of households 

grouped by time since receipt of benefits at baseline. These results provide further evidence of the 

robustness of our basic results. In addition, the findings for households that had not received their 

benefits as of the interview date suggest that the association between SNAP and food security found 

in the main analysis might be somewhat conservative. However, because households that had not 

yet received benefits may differ in observable and unobservable characteristics from households that 

had received benefits, differences in the sizes of the associations may not be due only to the amount 

of time since benefit receipt.

Comparison of Findings to Unrestricted New-Entrant Household Sample 

In Chapter IV, we restricted the sample of new-entrant households to those that continued to 

participate six months later, at the time of the follow-up interview, to improve the comparability of 

the groups of new-entrant and six-month households. In this section, we present the findings from 

the analysis that uses the unrestricted sample of new-entrant households. 

Using the unrestricted sample of new-entrant households, SNAP was associated with a decrease 

in the percentage of households that were food insecure by 4.7 percentage points in the crosssectional sample and 10.9 percentage points in the longitudinal sample (Table D.7). This compares 

to 4.6 and 10.8 using the restricted sample.

Using the unrestricted sample of new-entrant households, participating in SNAP for about six 

months was associated with a decrease in the percentage of households that experienced very low 

food security by 5.8 percentage points in the cross-sectional sample and 7.0 percentage points in the 

longitudinal sample (Table D.7). This compares to 5.0 and 6.3 using the restricted sample. We 

conclude that the restricted sample findings do not appear to be sensitive to this restriction.
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research

D-11

Table D.7. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure and RegressionAdjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six- Month and NewEntrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether New- Entrant Sample Is Restricted to Those 

Households Still on SNAP Six Months Later

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Food Insecure

Restricted sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Unrestricted sample 65.4 60.7 -4.7*** 65.3 54.4 -10.9***

Food Insecure with Very 

Low Food Security

Restricted sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Unrestricted sample 37.1 31.3 -5.8*** 36.7 29.6 -7.1***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
APPENDIX E

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SNAP AND FOOD INSECURITY, BY SUBGROUP
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-3

Table E.1. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure, by Six Month and 

New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Age, Education, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment 

Status of Household Head

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New 

Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Age of Household Head

18 to 24 54.5 51.5 -3.0 54.8 44.3 -10.5**

25 to 49 68.6 63.7 -4.9** 68.1 56.8 -11.3***

50 to 64 70 63.6 -6.4** 69.5 61.6 -7.9***

65 and older 55.6 58.6 3.1 61.1 47 -14.0**

Highest Grade Completed of 

Household Head

Less than high school 72.3 63.9 -8.4*** 71.4 59 -12.4***

High school graduate 

(diploma or GED)

64.9 58 -6.9*** 65.3 54.4 -10.8***

Greater than high school 62.9 61.2 -1.7 62.3 52.3 -10.0***

Race and Ethnicity of 

Household Head

White, non-hispanic 66.4 60.3 -6.1*** 66.2 54.3 -11.8***

Black, non-hispanic 64 61.3 -2.7 63.9 51.8 -12.1***

Other, non-hispanic 67.7 70.6 2.9 69.9 60.1 -9.8

Hispanic 67.5 58.5 -9.0*** 65.1 58 -7.1***

Employment Status of 

Household Head

Employed full-time 58.5 57.2 -1.2 59 48.3 -10.7**

Employed part-time 65.8 62.5 -3.3 66.8 51.2 -15.6**

Nonemployed 66.7 61.6 -5.1*** 66.3 56.3 -10.0***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-4

Table E.2. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure, by Six Month and 

New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household Composition and Region of Residence

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Households with Children 61.1 56 -5.2*** 59.6 49.3 -10.3***

Single-adult households 

with children

60.3 54.5 -5.9 59.5 48.3 -11.2***

Multiple-adult households 

with children

62.5 57.7 -4.8 60.3 50.1 -10.1***

Households without 

Children

68.6 64.9 -3.7** 68.8 58.5 -10.3***

Households with Elderly 56.5 59.1 2.5 56 47.7 -8.3*

Households without Elderly 66.6 61.1 -5.6*** 66.3 55.5 -10.8***

Households with a Disabled 

Member

73.4 67.1 -6.3** 74.2 62.9 -11.3***

Households without a 

Disabled Member

61.4 57.8 -3.7* 61.2 51.2 -10.0***

Region of Residence

Northeast 62.4 54.1 -8.3** 64.6 49.2 -15.4***

Midatlantic 62.2 60.7 -1.5 62.1 56.7 -5.3***

Southeast 62.7 62.8 0.1 62.6 51.5 -11.1***

South 71.2 66.4 -4.8 70.8 57.7 -13.1***

Mountain 70.5 60.8 -9.7* 73.1 56.4 -16.7***

Midwest 65.9 61.7 -4.2** 66.5 57.7 -8.7***

West 67.8 62 -5.7** 66.4 57 -9.5***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-5

Table E.3. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That are Food Insecure, by Six Month and New 

Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household Income and Sources of Household Income

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Monthly Income as a Percentage 

of Poverty

No Income 58.7 62.2 3.5 59.5 53.9 -5.6

1% to 50% 69.7 62.1 -7.6*** 68.2 54.6 -13.6***

51% to 100% 68.3 63 -5.3** 68.6 60.5 -8.1***

101% to 130% 68.3 62.3 -6 68.5 51.7 -16.9***

More than 130% 62.5 55.4 -7.1 61.4 48.4 -13.0***

Household Receives TANF 

Income

Yes 77.3 45.5 -31.8*** 75.8 53 -22.8***

No 65.2 61.4 -3.9*** 64.9 54.7 -10.2***

Household Receives SSI or 

Supplemental Security Income

Yes 74.7 68.3 -6.4 73.9 61.2 -12.7**

No 64.6 60 -4.7*** 64.3 53.8 -10.5***

Household Receives Social 

Security income

Yes 64.6 61.3 -3.3 65.2 56.4 -8.7***

No 65.7 60.8 -4.9*** 65.3 54.2 -11.1***

Household Receives Retirement 

Benefits Such as a Government 

or Private Pension or Annuity

Yes 42.4 57.3 14.9* 38.6 54 15.5

No 65.7 60.9 -4.7*** 65.6 54.3 -11.3***

Household Receives 

Unemployment Insurance or 

Worker's Compensation Benefits

Yes 70.8 66.4 -4.4 72.9 60.5 -12.4**

No 64.7 60.4 -4.3*** 64.5 53.9 -10.6***

Household Receives Veteran’s 

Benefits

Yes 78.2 87.7 9.5 82.5 80.3 -2.2

No 65.4 60.6 -4.8*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Household Receives Child 

Support Payments

Yes 68.3 51.2 -17.1*** 67.5 49.7 -17.8***

No 65.4 61.4 -4.0*** 65.2 54.8 -10.3***

Household Receives Financial 

Support from Friends or Family

Yes 74.3 69 -5.3** 73.6 66.8 -6.8***

No 62.2 58.1 -4.1** 62.1 50.9 -11.2***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the sample of 

3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the baseline data 

collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants at baseline to the 

same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-6

Table E.4. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure, by Six Month and 

New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by SNAP Benefit Amount, Expedited Service Receipt, and 

Prior SNAP Participation Status

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

SNAP Benefit Amount

Less than $100 73.9 74.6 0.7 74.4 66.8 -7.5**

$101 to $200 66.4 63.2 -3.3 66.5 56.8 -9.7***

$201 to $300 64.6 62.7 -1.8 64.7 50.4 -14.3***

$301 and above 61.5 51.3 -10.2*** 52.4 43.7 -8.7**

Expedited Service Receipt

Yes 66 60.2 -5.9** 64.4 53.8 -10.6***

No 65.5 60.6 -4.9*** 65.8 55.5 -10.4***

Participated in SNAP Prior to 

Current Spell

Yes 69.5 63.8 -5.7*** 68.9 56.8 -12.1***

No 61.8 57.7 -4.1** 61.7 52.6 -9.1***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-7

Table E.5. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure, by Six Month and 

New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Health Status and Body Mass Index of Household 

Head

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Self-Reported Health Status

Excellent 45.5 42.7 -2.7 46.5 34.3 -12.2***

Very good 51.7 49.3 -2.4 51.1 44 -7.2**

Good 65.6 60.8 -4.8* 65.7 54.2 -11.4***

Fair 76.4 69 -7.3*** 76.5 65.6 -10.9***

Poor 82.8 78.6 -4.2 84.5 78.5 -6.0**

Body Mass Index

Underweight (less than 

18.5)

97.5 97.1 -0.4 87 33.6 -53.4***

Normal (18.5 to 24.9) 60.2 60.6 0.3 60.2 53.4 -6.9***

Overweight (25.0 to 29.9) 68.2 60.5 -7.7*** 68.2 51.1 -17.1***

Obese (30.0 and above) 67.2 61.3 -5.9*** 67.2 57.5 -9.7***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-8

Table E.6. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure, by Six Month and 

New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household Residential and Ownership Status

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Household Residential 

Status and Type

Lives in house, 

townhouse, condo, mobile 

home, or apartment

64.2 59.8 -4.3*** 64 53.3 -10.7***

Lives in room or motel or 

hotel

88.6 75.8 -12.8 91.3 70.9 -20.5**

Other 91 97.5 6.5 73.3 97.7 24.4*

Home Ownership Status

Own the place in which 

household lives

58.9 56.2 -2.7 59.8 45.8 -13.9***

Rents own place or 

contributes to rent at a 

friend or family’s place

68.6 61.6 -7.0*** 68 56.1 -11.9***

Live rent free 57.9 59.9 2 58.4 51.5 -6.9**

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-9

Table E.7. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure, by Six Month and 

New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household Resources and Food Preparation and 

Storage Capabilities

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Household Resources

Owns car, truck, or other 

type of vehicle

62.9 57.8 -5.1* 62.4 50.4 -12.0***

Does not own, but has 

access to a car, truck, or 

other type of vehicle

62.3 60.5 -1.8 62.9 51.7 -11.2***

Does not own or have 

access to a car, truck, or 

other type of vehicle

73.5 69.6 -3.8 73.5 65.9 -7.6**

Does not have credit card 

that can be used to make 

purchases

68.8 63.3 -5.5*** 68.4 58.5 -9.9***

Has credit card that can 

be used to make 

purchases

53.9 51 -2.9 53.5 41 -12.5***

Food Preparation and 

Storage Capabilities

Household has access to a 

place where it can prepare 

a meal

Yes 66.4 61.2 -5.1*** 65.9 55.4 -10.4***

No 96.6 100 3.4 98.6 79.8 -18.8

Household has access to a 

refrigerator 

Yes 64.3 59.9 -4.4*** 64 53.5 -10.5***

No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Household has access to a 

standalone freezer

Yes 60.6 57.5 -3.1 61 48.7 -12.3***

No 68.2 62.6 -5.5** 67.4 59.5 -7.8***

Household has access to a 

gas or electric stove

Yes 64.1 59.7 -4.4*** 63.9 53.3 -10.6***

No 86.5 92.5 6.1 80.1 91.9 11.8**

Household has access to a 

microwave

Yes 63.6 59.6 -4.0*** 63.5 53.3 -10.1***

No 76.2 75.5 -0.7 75.7 65.6 -10.1*

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-10

Table E.8. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That are Food Insecure, by Six Month and New 

Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Participation in Nutrition and Community Food Programs

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Children in Household Receive 

Free or Reduced-Cost Lunches at 

School

Yes 67.3 61.1 -6.3** 67.5 53.6 -13.9***

No 63.1 59.1 -4 60.9 48.5 -12.4**

Children in Household Receive 

Free or Reduced-Cost Breakfasts 

at School

Yes 68.4 61.2 -7.2** 68.6 54.2 -14.4***

No 63.3 60.2 -3.1 61.1 49.4 -11.7***

Children in Household Receive 

Free or Reduced-Cost Food at a 

Day-Care or Head Start Program

Yes 61.6 36.4 -25.2** 67.2 43.5 -23.7**

No 56.2 51.5 -4.7 53.1 42.8 -10.3***

Women or Children in the 

Household Receive Food 

Through the WIC Program

Yes 60.6 49.4 -11.3*** 58.6 45.8 -12.8***

No 64.3 63.7 -0.6 64.2 54.5 -9.7***

Household Received Emergency 

Food from a Church, Food 

Pantry, Or Food Bank

Yes 83.4 77.7 -5.7** 83.3 80.0 -3.2

No 59.9 56.7 -3.2* 59.8 49.0 -10.8***

Household Attended Community 

Program or Senior Center to Eat 

Prepared Meals

Yes 92.6 82.9 -9.7** 95.5 93.6 -1.8

No 64.3 60 -4.3*** 64.1 53.2 -10.8***

Household at Meals at a Soup 

Kitchen or Shelter

Yes 91.8 87.1 -4.6 90.2 97.8 7.6*

No 64.3 59.9 -4.4*** 64.1 53.2 -10.9***

Household Received Meals from 

“Meals on Wheels” or Any Other 

Home-Delivered Meal Program

Yes 66.3 82.4 16.1 n/a n/a n/a

No 65.2 60.5 -4.7*** 65.0 54.3 -10.6***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the sample of 

3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the baseline data 

collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants at baseline to the 

same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-11

Table E.9. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Are Food Insecure, by Six Month and 

New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Mental Health and Well- Being of Household Head

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 65.4 60.8 -4.6*** 65.1 54.5 -10.6***

Household Experienced 

Depression in Past 30 Days

Yes 70.9 66.4 -4.5*** 71.3 60.9 -10.4***

No 41.1 38 -3.1 42.3 33.3 -9.0***

Amount of Help Household 

Would Expect to Get from 

Family Living Nearby if 

Needed 

All of the help needed 47.6 43.8 -3.8 46.1 34.4 -11.6***

Most of the help needed 58.6 52.3 -6.3*** 58.5 48.4 -10.1***

Very little of the help 

needed

76.7 73.5 -3.2

76.1 65.6 -10.5***

No help 77.6 74.8 -2.8 77.8 66.5 -11.3***

Amount of Help Household 

Would Expect to Get from 

Friends Living Nearby if 

Needed 

All of the help needed 40.6 46.9 6.3 38.8 34.4 -4.5

Most of the help needed 55.7 51.5 -4.3* 56.3 44.8 -11.5***

Very little of the help 

needed

71.7 66.5 -5.1**

71.5 60.8 -10.7***

No help 76 70.5 -5.5* 75.8 64.3 -11.5***

Amount of Help Household 

Would Expect to Get from 

Community Besides Family 

and Friends Living Nearby if 

Needed 

All of the help needed 54.6 55.6 1.1 55.5 44.9 -10.6

Most of the help needed 58.5 54 -4.4 57.8 45.6 -12.2***

Very little of the help 

needed 69.1 61.2 -7.9*** 69.1 57.8 -11.3***

No help 66.3 65.5 -0.7 66.3 56.5 -9.8***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-12

Table E.10. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by 

Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Age, Education, Race and Ethnicity, and 

Employment Status of Household Head

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Age of Household Head

18 to 24 28.4 24.8 -3.6 28.6 20.5 -8.1***

25 to 49 39.3 33.3 -6.0*** 38.1 31.8 -6.4***

50 to 64 42.2 34.3 -7.9*** 42 36.6 -5.4*

65 and older 18.6 20 1.4 18.7 15.9 -2.8

Highest Grade Completed of 

Household Head

Less than high school 34.4 28.6 -5.8** 33.5 27.9 -5.6**

High school graduate 

(diploma or GED)

36 29.2 -6.8*** 35.9 30.2 -5.7***

Greater than high school 37 33.4 -3.5 36.2 28.8 -7.3***

Race and Ethnicity of 

Household Head

White, non-hispanic 38.1 33.2 -4.9*** 37.7 32.6 -5.1***

Black, non-hispanic 39.1 33.8 -5.3* 39 28.7 -10.3***

Other, non-hispanic 38.4 39.8 1.4 39.6 34 -5.6

Hispanic 29.8 22.3 -7.5** 27.4 22.1 -5.3**

Employment Status of 

Household Head

Employed full-time 31.8 26.9 -4.9 31.3 22.3 -9.0**

Employed part-time 30.9 30.5 -0.4 31 24.6 -6.4

Nonemployed 37.7 32 -5.7*** 37.1 31.4 -5.7***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-13

Table E.11. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by 

Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household Composition and Region of 

Residence

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Households with Children 31.7 24 -7.8*** 29.5 22.4 -7.0***

Single-adult households 

with children

35.5 26.2 -9.3** 33.3 24.2 -9.1***

Multiple-adult households 

with children

28.2 21.3 -7.0*** 25.7 20.5 -5.3**

Households without 

Children

39.9 37.4 -2.5 40.1 35.2 -4.9***

Households with Elderly 21.6 24.1 2.6 19.7 21.7 2

Households without Elderly 38.5 32.2 -6.3*** 37.9 30.6 -7.3***

Households with a Disabled 

Member

43.9 41.5 -2.4 44.2 39.3 -4.8**

Households without a 

Disabled Member

32.8 26.6 -6.3*** 32.4 25.9 -6.5***

Region of Residence

Northeast 30.1 25 -5 30.8 22 -8.8***

Midatlantic 38.7 29.7 -9.0* 39.4 37.6 -1.8

Southeast 33.8 34.7 0.9 34.6 26 -8.6***

South 36.6 33.1 -3.5 36.9 30.8 -6.2*

Mountain 37.4 32.1 -5.3 38.5 27.4 -11.1**

Midwest 38 32.3 -5.8*** 38.3 33.8 -4.6*

West 36.4 29.2 -7.2** 33.8 29.4 -4.4***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-14

Table E.12. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six 

Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household Income and Sources of Household 

Income

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Monthly Income as a Percentage 

of Poverty

No Income 31.7 29 -2.7 32.6 26.5 -6.1*

1% to 50% 38.5 35.8 -2.8 37.6 30.3 -7.3***

51% to 100% 41.4 30.6 -10.9*** 41.1 34 -7.1***

101% to 130% 34 32.8 -1.1 33.1 24.9 -8.1**

More than 130% 29.4 25.8 -3.5 26.5 22.9 -3.6

Household Receives TANF 

Income

Yes 44.7 23.4 -21.4** 42.5 36.3 -6.1

No 36 31.6 -4.4*** 35.5 29.4 -6.1***

Household Receives SSI or 

Supplemental Security Income

Yes 43.2 37.5 -5.7 42.3 36.9 -5.4

No 35.8 30.8 -5.0*** 35.3 29 -6.3***

Household Receives Social 

Security Income

Yes 32.8 30.7 -2.1 33 32.5 -0.5

No 37.2 31.5 -5.7*** 36.5 28.7 -7.8***

Household Receives Retirement 

Benefits Such as a Government 

or Private Pension or Annuity

Yes 14 14.7 0.7 5.4 16.9 11.5**

No 36.8 31.6 -5.1*** 36.5 29.4 -7.0***

Household Receives 

Unemployment Insurance or 

Worker's Compensation Benefits

Yes 47.4 35.2 -12.2** 47.4 33.5 -13.9***

No 35.2 30.9 -4.3*** 34.8 29 -5.8***

Household Receives Veteran’s 

Benefits

Yes 28.6 29.9 1.3 30 59.3 29.3*

No 36.3 31.4 -4.9*** 35.8 29.4 -6.4***

Household Receives Child 

Support Payments

Yes 32.9 15.5 -17.4*** 32 25.4 -6.6

No 36.6 32.1 -4.4*** 36 29.8 -6.2***

Household Receives Financial 

Support from Friends or Family

Yes 45.7 43.3 -2.4 44.6 40.8 -3.8

No 32.8 27.1 -5.7*** 32.5 26 -6.5***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the sample of 

3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the baseline data 

collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants at baseline to the 

same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-15

Table E.13. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by 

Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by SNAP Benefit Amount, Expedited 

Service Receipt, and Prior SNAP Participation Status

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

SNAP Benefit Amount

Less than $100 44.6 41.3 -3.3 44.7 39.9 -4.8

$101 to $200 36.2 35.3 -0.9 36.1 30.8 -5.4***

$201 to $300 36 33 -3 34.6 24.3 -10.3***

$301 and above 32 19.6 -12.3*** 25.8 20.7 -5.1

Expedited Service Receipt

Yes 38 34.5 -3.5* 36.7 30.5 -6.2***

No 35.7 30 -5.7*** 35 28.7 -6.3***

Participated in SNAP Prior to 

Current Spell

Yes 41.6 36.4 -5.2** 40.4 33.9 -6.5***

No 31.5 26.3 -5.2*** 31.1 25.1 -6.0***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-16

Table E.14. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by 

Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Health Status and Body Mass Index of 

Household Head

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Self-Reported Health Status

Excellent 19.2 17.6 -1.6 18.5 12.3 -6.2**

Very good 26.2 19.7 -6.5** 25.7 19.5 -6.2**

Good 34.4 28.3 -6.1*** 34.3 29.6 -4.7*

Fair 45 38.6 -6.4** 45 39.1 -5.9***

Poor 53.4 53.2 -0.1 52.1 48.1 -3.9

Body Mass Index

Underweight (less than 

18.5)

45.2 51.4 6.3 51.4 9.2 -42.2***

Normal (18.5 to 24.9) 31.9 28.1 -3.8 31.6 28.6 -2.9

Overweight (25.0 to 29.9) 37.9 28.7 -9.2*** 37.1 27.4 -9.7***

Obese (30.0 and above) 37.8 34.5 -3.2 37.5 29.7 -7.7***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-17

Table E.15. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by 

Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household Residential and Ownership 

Status

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Household Residential 

Status and Type

Lives in house, 

townhouse, condo, mobile 

home, or apartment

35 29.9 -5.0*** 34.6 28.5 -6.1***

Lives in room or motel or 

hotel

69.4 19.6 -49.8** 69.0 7.5 -61.6***

Other 56.7 73.3 16.6 43.6 74.8 31.2***

Home Ownership Status

Own the place in which 

household lives

26.2 24.4 -1.8 28.0 21.5 -6.5**

Rents own place or 

contributes to rent at a 

friend or family’s place

38.6 30.3 -8.3*** 37.0 30.8 -6.2***

Live rent free 32.2 35 2.8 34.0 25.9 -8.1***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-18

Table E.16. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by 

Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Household Resources and Food 

Preparation and Storage Capabilities

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Household Resources

Owns car, truck, or other 

type of vehicle

32.5 28.5 -4.0* 31.7 26.6 -5.2***

Does not own, but has 

access to a car, truck, or 

other type of vehicle

36.2 29.6 -6.6 35.1 28.3 -6.9**

Does not own or have 

access to a car, truck, or 

other type of vehicle

45.2 39.4 -5.7 45.3 36.9 -8.4***

Does not have credit card 

that can be used to make 

purchases

39 34.4 -4.7*** 38.6 33.9 -4.8***

Has credit card that can 

be used to make 

purchases

26.9 20.5 -6.4** 25.8 15.8 -10.0***

Food Preparation and 

Storage Capabilities

Household has access to a 

place where it can prepare 

a meal

Yes 37.9 32.2 -5.7*** 37.0 30.5 -6.5***

No 44 15.4 -28.6 41.4 33.9 -7.5

Household has access to a 

refrigerator 

Yes 35.2 30.4 -4.9*** 34.6 28.5 -6.1***

No 51 27.8 -23.2 48.6 24.7 -23.9

Household has access to a 

standalone freezer

Yes 30.7 26.1 -4.5*** 30.9 23.1 -7.8***

No 39.4 34.2 -5.2*** 38.3 34.6 -3.7*

Household has access to a 

gas or electric stove

Yes 34.9 29.7 -5.1*** 34.3 28.3 -6.0***

No 46.2 60.4 14.3 39.0 36.3 -2.7

Household has access to a 

microwave

Yes 34.5 30 -4.6*** 34.0 27.9 -6.1***

No 42.7 36.7 -6 40.7 40.5 -0.2

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-19

Table E.17. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by Six 

Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Participation in Nutrition and Community Food 

Programs

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Children in Household Receive 

Free or Reduced-Cost Lunches at 

School

Yes 34 26.5 -7.5** 32.5 25.4 -7.1**

No 31.6 18.9 -12.7*** 30.3 21.8 -8.5**

Children in Household Receive 

Free or Reduced-Cost Breakfasts 

at School

Yes 34.7 26.4 -8.2*** 33.8 24.6 -9.2***

No 32.2 22.5 -9.7*** 28.5 23.5 -5.0*

Children in Household Receive 

Free or Reduced-Cost Food at a 

Day-Care or Head Start Program

Yes 18.4 7.8 -10.5 6.3 3 -3.2

No 28.8 20.5 -8.3*** 26.5 17.5 -9.0***

Women or Children in the 

Household Receive Food through 

the WIC Program

Yes 25 17.3 -7.6* 21 18.5 -2.5

No 36.8 32.1 -4.6** 36.7 28.1 -8.6***

Household Received Emergency 

Food from a Church, Food 

Pantry, or Food Bank

Yes 53.5 49.6 -4 54.4 56 1.6

No 31.4 27.2 -4.2*** 31 24.4 -6.6***

Household Attended Community 

Program or Senior Center to Eat 

Prepared Meals

Yes 64.8 55.7 -9 61.6 61.4 -0.2

No 35.2 30.4 -4.7*** 34.8 28.6 -6.2***

Household at Meals at a soup 

Kitchen or Shelter

Yes 64.8 72.1 7.3 60.7 74.1 13.4

No 35.3 30.2 -5.1*** 35 28.6 -6.4***

Household Received Meals from 

“Meals on Wheels” or any other 

Home-Delivered Meal Program

Yes 36.9 66.2 29.3* 3.8 92.6 88.8**

No 36.2 31 -5.2*** 35.7 29.4 -6.3***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and six-month 

households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the sample of 

3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the baseline data 

collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants at baseline to the 

same 3,275 participants about six months later.
Appendix E Mathematica Policy Research

E-20

Table E.18. Regression- Adjusted Percentage of Households That Have Very Low Food Security, by 

Six Month and New Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Mental Health and Well- Being of 

Household Head

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

New Entrant 

Households

Six Month 

Households Difference

Full Sample 36.4 31.4 -5.0*** 35.9 29.6 -6.3***

Household Experienced 

Depression in Past 30 Days

Yes 43.1 37.5 -5.6*** 43.2 36.2 -6.9***

No 14.5 12.4 -2.1 15.9 12.9 -2.9*

Amount of Help Household 

Would Expect to Get from 

Family Living Nearby if 

Needed 

All of the help needed 20.3 16.2 -4.1* 18.5 14.6 -3.8

Most of the help needed 30.8 24.8 -6.0*** 30.2 22.2 -7.9***

Very little of the help 

needed

42.9 39.5 -3.4

42.4 37.8 -4.6*

No help 51.9 47.5 -4.4 52.6 42.5 -10.1***

Amount of Help Household 

Would Expect to Get from 

Friends Living Nearby if 

Needed 

All of the help needed 20.5 19.1 -1.4 18.7 13.3 -5.5

Most of the help needed 28.3 23.2 -5.0** 26.3 19.6 -6.7***

Very little of the help 

needed

39.2 34.9 -4.3*

39 35.2 -3.8**

No help 48.9 41.7 -7.2** 49.9 39 -10.8***

Amount of Help Household 

Would Expect to Get from 

Community Besides Family 

and Friends Living Nearby if 

Needed 

All of the help needed 28.5 19.3 -9.2* 27.3 20.4 -6.9

Most of the help needed 28.6 24.3 -4.3* 26.7 21.5 -5.2*

Very little of the help 

needed 37.2 32.1 -5.0** 37.7 31 -6.7***

No help 40.6 35.4 -5.2** 39.3 31.9 -7.3***

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: Percentages shown are regression-adjusted for differences between new-entrant and sixmonth households in demographic, economic, and household characteristics. See Chapter II, 

Section C. 

The cross-sectional estimates compare the sample of 3,275 new SNAP participants to the 

sample of 3,375 participants who had been receiving SNAP for about six months as of the 

baseline data collection. The longitudinal estimates compare the 3,275 new SNAP participants 

at baseline to the same 3,275 participants about six months later.
APPENDIX F

DETAILS FOR FOOD EXPENDITURES REGRESSIONS
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix F Mathematica Policy Research

F-3

A. Regression Analysis of the Associations between SNAP and Usual Food

Expenditures

Our main estimates of the association between SNAP and food expenditures are based on 

regression analysis of the data. As described in the data and methodology discussion in Chapter II, 

we performed a cross-sectional analysis of the baseline data, comparing new-entrant and six-month 

households, and a longitudinal analysis of the new-entrant household sample at two points in time 

approximately six months apart. The main independent variable of interest in these analyses was the 

binary variable that measures whether a household had participated in SNAP for six months or was 

a new-entrant household. Although we focus on the association between SNAP and food 

expenditures in Chapter V, in this section we describe the full set of regression coefficients and 

standard errors from these models. 

Usual Weekly Expenditures. Table F.1 presents the regression coefficients and standard 

errors from the ordinary least squares regression of usual weekly food expenditures. A key finding 

here is that in the cross-sectional analysis, compared to just entering the program, participating in 

SNAP for six months was not statistically associated with household food expenditures. The 

coefficient was 1.629 and the standard error was 2.226. The coefficient can be interpreted as 

meaning that participating in SNAP was associated with a 1 to 2 dollar increase in usual weekly food 

spending, though the estimate was not statistically significant. 

A number of the other explanatory variables in the regression were found to have effects on 

spending in the cross-sectional analysis (Table F.1). Usual weekly food spending was positively 

associated with having a black, non-Hispanic household head, relative to a white, non-Hispanic 

head; having a larger household; having children in the household; living in the Northeast, compared 

to in the West; and living in a state that offers broad-based categorical eligibility. Food spending was 

negatively associated with having a household head age 50 or older, compared with having a head 

age 18 to 24; and with having a household had that completed high school, some college, or college, 

compared with less than high school.

The findings in the longitudinal analysis were generally similar. There was no association 

between SNAP participation and usual weekly food spending. The coefficient in Table V.3 was 

2.701 and the standard error was 1.697. The increase in food spending was also not statistically 

significant at conventional levels. Usual weekly food spending was positively associated with having 

a black, non-Hispanic household head, relative to a white, non-Hispanic head; having a larger 

household; having children in the household; experiencing a change in household size or a change in 

employment, pay, or hours worked in the past 6 months; and living in the Northeast relative to the 

West. Food spending was negatively associated with having a household head age 25 or older 

relative to age 18 to 24; completing high school, some college, or college relative to less than high 

school; being employed part time relative to not employed; receiving TANF or welfare benefits; 

living in the Southeast compared to the West; and living in a state with a higher average wage. 
Appendix F Mathematica Policy Research

F-4

Table F.1. Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and Household Characteristics on 

Household Usual Weekly Food Spending

Cross-Sectional 

Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient

Standard 

Error Coefficient

Standard 

Error

Six-Month SNAP Household (new-entrant household is referent 

group)

1.629 2.226 2.289 1.636

Household Head is Female (male is referent group) 2.754 1.914 3.671 2.263

Race and Ethnicity of Household Head (non-Hispanic white is 

referent group)

Non-hispanic black 5.507** 2.181 4.825** 2.053

Non-hispanic other -1.974 4.126 0.094 4.524

Hispanic 0.214 3.751 1.363 2.828

Age of Household Head (18 to 24 is referent group)

25-49 2.542 2.977 -7.610* 4.078

50-64 -7.118** 3.131 -13.56*** 3.682

65 and older -15.32** 6.345 -24.17*** 6.370

Highest Grade Completed (referent group is less than high 

school)

High school -7.611** 3.210 -10.15*** 2.770

Some college -8.908** 3.535 -7.885*** 2.656

College and beyond -9.205** 4.091 -11.38*** 3.951

Employment Status of Household Head (nonemployed is 

referent group)

Employed full time -4.042 3.344 -2.164 3.348

Employed part time 2.009 2.700 -7.931** 3.766

Household Head Felt Depressed in Past 30 Days (not depressed 

is referent group)

3.412 2.267 2.364 2.318

Monthly income as A Percentage of the Poverty Line 0.809 1.525 0.157 1.662

Household Size 16.309*** 1.384 16.966*** 1.124

Household Contains Children (referent group is no children) 6.487** 3.137 7.215** 2.975

Household Contains Elderly (referent group is no elderly) -5.633 4.441 -3.814 5.014

Household Contains Disabled Individual (referent group is no 

disabled)

0.849 2.665 1.021 3.196

Participated in SNAP Prior to Current Spell (referent group is 

never participated prior)

-1.551 1.935 -0.069 2.152

Participation in Federal or State Programs

TANF 5.681 5.915 -11.22* 5.929

Welfare -7.705 5.997 -14.97* 8.609

SSI 0.916 4.890 -1.586 3.560

Unemployment compensation -0.438 3.171 1.635 3.832

Experienced Trigger Events in Past Six Months

Change in household size 2.646 2.915 7.663*** 2.699

Eviction 1.009 4.573 5.325 6.907

Change in employment, pay, or hours worked 0.351 2.161 4.301* 2.240

Region of Residence (western region is referent group)

Northeast 7.608** 3.039 13.012*** 4.115

Mid-Atlantic 0.901 4.674 -0.398 5.902

Midwest -0.540 4.237 -3.165 5.589

Southeast -7.094 5.069 -12.57* 6.764

Southwest -2.050 5.849 -4.576 7.402

Mountain Plains -6.381 6.234 -5.295 7.892

State 25th Percentile Wage -3.883* 2.099 -5.481** 2.218

State Unemployment Rate -0.499 0.740 -0.074 1.201

State Offers Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility for SNAP 

(referent group is not having BBCE)

4.175* 2.147 2.164 2.720

Average State SNAP Certification Period 0.155 0.374 -0.629 0.400

Sample Size 6,434 6,332

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of participants 

who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates compare new SNAP 

participants to the same participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Appendix F Mathematica Policy Research

F-5

Usual Weekly Expenditures Relative to Cost of the Thrifty Food Plan. Table F.2 presents 

the regression coefficients and standard errors from the ordinary least squares regression of usual 

weekly food expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP. SNAP was associated with a 0.047 unit 

increase in usual expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP in the cross-sectional sample; there was 

no statistical association in the longitudinal sample. 

A number of the other explanatory variables in the regression were found to have effects on 

spending in the cross-sectional analysis (Table F.2). Usual weekly food spending relative to the cost 

of the TFP was positively associated with having a female household head; having black, nonHispanic household head, relative to a white, non-Hispanic head; having a larger household; having 

a household head that reported experiencing depression in the past 30 days; having children in the 

household; having children in the household; living in the Northeast, compared to in the West; and 

living in a state that offers broad-based categorical eligibility. Food spending was negatively 

associated with having a household head age 50 or older, compared with having a head age 18 to 24; 

having a household had that completed high school, some college, or college, compared with less 

than high school; having a larger household; having an elderly member in the household; and living 

in a state with a higher 25th percentile wage.

The findings in the longitudinal analysis were generally similar. Exceptions include that TFPadjusted expenditures are negatively associated with having a household head that is employed part 

time; receiving TANF or welfare benefits; and living in the Southeast, relative to the West. TFPadjusted expenditures were positively associated with changes in household size and changes in 

employment, pay, or hours worked.
Appendix F Mathematica Policy Research

F-6

Table F.2. Regression Coefficients of the Effects of SNAP Participation and Household Characteristics on Usual 

Weekly Food Spending Relative to the Cost of the Thrifty Food Plan

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient

Standard 

Error Coefficient

Standard 

Error

Six-Month SNAP Household (new-entrant household is 

referent group)

0.047* 0.025 0.027 0.025

Household Head is Female (male is referent group) 0.100*** 0.027 0.093*** 0.031

Race and Ethnicity of Household Head (non-Hispanic white is 

referent group)

Non-hispanic black 0.104*** 0.028 0.083*** 0.028

Non-hispanic other -0.004 0.058 0.041 0.081

Hispanic -0.007 0.044 -0.012 0.036

Age of Household Head (18 to 24 is referent group)

25-49 0.046 0.046 -0.070 0.059

50-64 -0.091** 0.043 -0.144*** 0.053

65 and older -0.135* 0.074 -0.257*** 0.084

Highest Grade Completed (referent group is less than high 

school)

High school -0.079* 0.043 -0.113*** 0.032

Some college -0.106** 0.045 -0.092*** 0.031

College and beyond -0.099* 0.053 -0.136*** 0.052

Employment Status of Household Head (nonemployed is 

referent group)

Employed full time -0.029 0.038 -0.041 0.041

Employed part time 0.045 0.037 -0.082* 0.044

Household Head Felt Depressed in Past 30 Days (not 

depressed is referent group)

0.051* 0.028 0.004 0.034

Monthly Income as a Percentage of the Poverty Line -0.023 0.018 -0.011 0.026

Household Size -0.149*** 0.013 -0.139*** 0.010

Household Contains Children (referent group is no children) 0.120*** 0.037 0.172*** 0.037

Household Contains Elderly (referent group is no elderly) -0.176*** 0.044 -0.143*** 0.054

Household Contains Disabled Individual (referent group is no 

disabled)

-0.001 0.031 0.032 0.044

Participated in SNAP Prior to Current Spell (referent group is 

never participated prior)

0.005 0.024 0.006 0.028

Participation in Federal or State Programs -0.123 0.085

TANF 0.068 0.052

Welfare -0.053 0.079 -0.182** 0.079

SSI 0.017 0.054 -0.034 0.050

Unemployment compensation 0.002 0.038 0.020 0.048

Experienced Trigger Events in Past Six Months 0.098*** 0.036

Change in household size 0.046 0.037

Eviction 0.008 0.072 0.049 0.074

Change in employment, pay, or hours worked -0.004 0.023 0.053* 0.029

Region of Residence (western region is referent group) 0.147*** 0.052

Northeast 0.131*** 0.036

Mid-Atlantic -0.002 0.060 0.025 0.076

Midwest -0.019 0.049 -0.024 0.072

Southeast -0.094 0.059 -0.157* 0.087

Southwest -0.044 0.068 -0.014 0.093

Mountain Plains -0.102 0.077 -0.038 0.096

State 25th Percentile Wage -0.052** 0.024 -0.056* 0.030

State Unemployment Rate -0.007 0.008 0.011 0.017

State Offers Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility for SNAP 

(referent group is not having BBCE)

0.070** 0.028 0.016 0.033

Average State SNAP Certification Period -0.001 0.005 -0.007 0.005

Sample Size 6,434 6,332

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of participants 

who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates compare new SNAP 

participants to the same participants about six months later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
APPENDIX G

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES OF FOOD EXPENDITURES
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-3

Chapter V presents estimates of the association between SNAP participation and household 

food expenditures. The lack of evidence of a statistically significant association between SNAP and 

food expenditures was surprising. Economic theory suggests that, if a household is provided a 

benefit to be spent on food, then total expenditures on food will increase. Our prior hypothesis had 

been that the results for food security and expenditures would be similar, but they are not. As noted 

in Chapter IV, SNAP was associated with a decrease in the probability that a household was food 

insecure and the probability that a household had very low food security, but the findings on food 

expenditures provide little evidence of an association with SNAP participation. In this appendix we 

describe several auxiliary analyses we conducted to check model specifications and the expenditure 

data provided by respondents. We also discuss other issues related to potential reporting error. 

A. Descriptive Analysis of Food Spending

As a starting point for our diagnostic assessment, we descriptively examine both expenditures 

last week and usual weekly expenditures. We focus our descriptive analysis of the data on medians 

because the median is less sensitive than the mean to outliers in the distribution.

1. Usual Expenditures and Expenditures Last Week 

Median usual food spending in a typical week was the same for new-entrant and six-month 

households and equal to $75 in the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. The median 

expenditure in the week before the interview was $80 for new-entrant households and $75 for sixmonth households in both the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples (Table G.1).53

 53 The findings were similar when the mean was used in place of the median.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-4

Table G.1. Median Household Food Spending in Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

NewEntrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures (in dollars)

75 75 0 75 75 0

Last Week’s Food 

Expenditures (in dollars)

80 75 -5 80 75 -5

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures Relative to 

TFP

0.99 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.01

Last Week’s Food 

Expenditures Relative to 

TFP

1.05 0.96 -0.09 1.05 1.00 -0.05

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

2. Usual Expenditures Relative to the Cost of the TFP

In a typical week, median food spending was 0.99 times the cost of the TFP for new-entrant 

households and 1.00 times the cost of the TFP for six-month households in the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal samples (Table G.1). Median food spending based on spending in the week before the 

interview was 1.05 times the cost of the TFP for new-entrant households and 0.96 times the cost of 

the TFP for six-month households in the cross-sectional sample. In the longitudinal sample, these 

numbers were 1.05 and 1.00, respectively. 

The above patterns are consistent with most of the multivariate findings, showing no positive 

association between SNAP and food expenditures. To examine these patterns more fully, Table G.2 

presents characteristics of the distributions of usual weekly food expenditures and usual weekly food 

expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP. Not only did new-entrant and six-month households 

have similar median food spending amounts, but the distributions of usual weekly food expenditures 

and expenditures relative to the TFP were similar at nearly all points in the distribution (10th, 25th, 

75th and 90th percentiles). 
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-5

Table G.2. Distribution of Usual Weekly Food Expenditures and Usual Weekly Food Expenditures 

Relative to the Cost of the TFP in Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures

10th percentile 20 25 5 20 25 5

25th percentile 50 50 0 50 50 0

50th percentile 75 75 0 75 75 0

75th percentile 120 125 5 120 120 0

90th percentile 200 200 0 200 200 0

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures Relative to 

TFP

10th percentile 0.30 0.33 0.03 0.30 0.36 0.06

25th percentile 0.60 0.61 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.00

50th percentile 0.99 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.00

75th percentile 1.49 1.45 -0.04 1.49 1.46 -0.03

90th percentile 2.26 2.29 0.03 2.26 2.18 -0.07

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

The percentages of households that reported they usually spend zero dollars on food in a 

typical week were 5.3 and 5.0 percent for new-entrant and six-month households in the crosssectional sample, and 5.3 and 3.4 percent in the longitudinal sample (not shown in table). As we 

discuss later in this Appendix, we were surprised by the number of households that reported zero 

dollars, particularly among six-month households, because all respondents were instructed to include 

food purchased with SNAP benefits in the spending amounts.

B. Descriptive Analysis of Food Spending by Household Size and 

Composition

Table G.3 presents descriptive tabulations of median food spending for new-entrant and sixmonth households by household size and composition. We used the following measures of food 

expenditures: usual food spending, usual food spending relative to the cost of the TFP, and food 

spending last week. We examined one-person households, two-person households without children, 

three- or more person households without children, two-person households with children, threeperson households with children, and four- or more person households with children. With several 

exceptions, the findings generally supported the full-sample results reported at the beginning of 

Chapter V, with minimal to no differences in food spending across new-entrant and six-month 

households (Table G.3). 
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-6

Table G.3. Median Household Food Spending in Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households, by Household 

Size and Presence of Children in the Household

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures (in dollars)

All households 75 75 0 75 75 0

1-person household

without children

50 50 0 50 50 0

2-person household 

without children

70 75 5 70 75 5

3- or more person household 

without children

100 100 0 100 80 -20

2-person household 

with children

80 90 10 80 80 0

3-person household

with children

100 100 0 100 100 0

4- or more person household

with children

125 120 -5 125 130 5

Last Week’s Food Expenditures 

(in dollars)

All households 80 75 -5 80 75 -5

1-person household

without children

53 50 3 53 51 -2

2-person household 

without children

73 65 -8 73 60 -13

3- or more person household 

without children

100 100 0 100 90 -10

2-person household 

with children

100 80 -20 100 89 -11

3-person household

with children

100 100 0 100 95 -5

4- or more person household

with children

150 120 -30 150 140 -10

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures Relative to TFP

All households 0.99 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.01

1-person household

without children

1.10 1.13 0.03 1.10 1.12 0.02

2-person household 

without children

0.86 0.87 0.01 0.86 0.86 0.00

3- or more person household 

without children

0.66 0.73 0.06 0.66 0.66 0.00

2-person household 

with children

1.20 1.21 0.01 1.20 1.23 0.03

3-person household

with children

0.95 0.96 0.01 0.95 0.95 0.00

4- or more person household

with children

0.85 0.83 -0.02 0.85 0.94 0.06

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of participants 

who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates compare new SNAP 

participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set with 3,275 newentrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months later.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-7

C. Auxiliary Multivariate Analyses of the Association Between SNAP and 

Food Expenditures

After performing diagnostic assessments based on descriptive tabulations of food spending, we 

conducted extensive diagnostic assessments based on multivariate analyses. 

1. Sample Restrictions

The analysis samples in our main specification included all respondents with a nonmissing value 

for usual food expenditures. We were concerned that values in the tails of the expenditure 

distributions could be unduly influencing the regression results. For example, the distributions of 

usual weekly food expenditures had relatively large concentrations of households reporting spending 

nothing on food in a typical week and a nontrivial number of households reporting very large weekly 

expenditures. This was true both for new-entrant households and for six-month households. 

To examine the effects of these values in the tails of the distributions, we restricted the sample 

in the following four ways and re-estimated the OLS regression model of usual weekly spending 

relative to the cost of the TFP for each restricted sample:

• Excluded all households that reported usually spending zero dollars on food

• Excluded all households with usual spending relative to the cost of the TFP less than 

the 5th percentile (0.00 for new-entrant households) or greater than the 99th percentile 

(4.52 for new-entrant households)

• Excluded all households with usual spending relative to the cost of the TFP less than 

the 10th percentile (0.30 for new-entrant households) or greater than the 95th percentile 

(2.90 for new-entrant households)

• Excluded all households with usual spending relative to the cost of the TFP less than 

the 10th percentile (0.30 for new-entrant households) or greater than the 90th percentile 

(2.26 for new-entrant households)

The statistically significant association of 0.05 between SNAP and usual spending relative to the 

cost of the TFP in the cross-sectional sample was robust to excluding households reporting zero 

expenditures, but was not robust to trimming the values in both tails of the expenditure distribution 

(Table G.4). In the longitudinal analysis, there were no statistically significant associations of SNAP 

and usual food spending relative to the cost of the TFP for any specification. We conclude that the 

cross-sectional sample finding is sensitive to the effects of the values in the tails in the distribution.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-8

Table G.4. Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food Spending Relative to the 

Cost of the TFP, by Alternative Sample Definitions

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient on 

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Coefficient on 

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Full Sample 0.047 0.025 0.065 0.027 0.025 0.279

Sample Restrictions

Exclude households 

reporting zero usual 

expenditure

0.055 0.024 0.022 0.014 0.026 0.593

Exclude households with 

usual expenditures below 

the 5th percentile or above 

the 99th percentile

0.029 0.025 0.247 0.017 0.020 0.414

Exclude households with 

usual expenditures below 

the 10th percentile or 

above the 95th percentile

0.006 0.018 0.796 -0.001 0.018 0.938

Exclude households with 

usual expenditures below 

the 10th percentile or 

above the 90th percentile

0.003 0.015 0.846 0.015 0.015 0.314

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

2. Using a Minimal Set of Explanatory Variables in the Regressions

We also assessed the specification of the multivariate regression models used to estimate the 

associations. As described above, our basic regression analysis used a relatively large number of 

explanatory variables, reflecting both the richness of the data set and the many variables that may 

affect food expenditures and explain differences between SNAP six-month and new-entrant 

households. Given the numbers of independent variables involved in the basic equation, we decided 

it could yield additional insight if we estimated a model with a more parsimonious set of explanatory 

variables limited to household size, household composition, and household income. In particular, we 

estimated a regression model in which the explanatory variables consisted of only the SNAP 

participation variable, household size, whether the household had children, whether the household 

had an elderly member, whether the household had a disabled member, household income to 

poverty ratio, and region of residence. We then compared the model fit from this “restricted” model 

to the original specification (the “unrestricted” model).

Based on the full cross-sectional sample, including households with zero expenditures on food, 

under this parsimonious specification, the association between SNAP and usual expenditures relative 

to the TFP was 0.046 and was statistically significant (p-value was equal to 0.042) (Table G.5). In the 

longitudinal sample, there were no statistically significant associations. In both cases, based on 
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-9

statistical tests, we rejected the “restricted” model in favor of the original, “unrestricted” 

specification that included more explanatory variables. 

Table G.5. Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food Spending Relative to the 

Cost of the TFP, by Alternative Model Specifications

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient on

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Coefficient on 

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Full Sample 0.047 0.025 0.065 0.027 0.025 0.279

Use a Minimal Set of 

Explanatory Variables Based 

on Household Income, Size, 

and Composition 

0.046 0.023 0.042 0.011 0.023 0.628

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

3. Using Alternative Dependent Variables and Alternative Econometric Estimators

As another way to assess the possible influence of values in the tails of the expenditure 

distributions, we estimated quantile regression models (estimated at the 50th percentile) to assess 

changes in the median amount of usual weekly food expenditures relative to the TFP, as done in 

Nord and Prell (2011) to examine usual weekly food spending reported in the CPS. This model is 

sometimes an attractive alternative to OLS regression models because quantile regressions fit the 

median (or other quantiles) of the outcome measure, whereas OLS regression models fit the mean 

of the outcome measure. This focus on the median makes the approach less sensitive to outliers and 

more focused on the center of the distribution.54 In the cross-sectional analysis, we found no 

statistical association between SNAP and usual expenditures relative to the TFP (Table G.6). This 

was true both when using the full sample, including zero food expenditure households, and when 

excluding these households from the sample. In the longitudinal analysis, SNAP was associated with 

a 0.03 unit increase in usual expenditure relative to the cost of the TFP. This finding was not robust 

to excluding the zero-expenditure households from the sample.

 54 In estimating quantile regression models, standard statistical software packages cannot estimate standard errors 

that account for the complex survey design in the SNAPFS survey. As an approximation, we have estimated these 

auxiliary specifications without accounting for the complex survey design.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-10

Table G.6. Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food Spending Relative to the 

Cost of the TFP, by Alternative Model Specifications

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient on 

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Coefficient on 

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Full Sample 0.047 0.025 0.065 0.027 0.025 0.279

Alternative Model 

Specifications

Quantile regression 

(median)

0.017 0.300 0.561 0.032 0.017 0.071

OLS regression with logtransformed usual weekly 

expenditures as dependent 

variables

0.029 0.19 0.133 0.017 0.019 0.395

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

As a separate specification, we estimated an OLS regression model in which we logtransformed the TFP-adjusted expenditure variable to obtain a distribution that was more normally 

distributed. Zero-expenditure households had to be excluded from this analysis because of the 

logarithmic transformation. Although the distribution of observations appears somewhat more 

normal after the log transformation, we found no association between SNAP and expenditures 

relative to the TFP (Table G.6).

4. Using a Fixed-Effects Estimator in the Longitudinal Analysis

Continuing to use a balanced data file that restricts the sample of new-entrant households to 

only those households that also completed a follow-up interview about six months later, we 

estimated a fixed-effects model, which makes it possible to account for time-invariant differences 

across households. (This, of course, can only be done with the longitudinal sample.) As an 

approximation, we estimated the standard errors of the model without accounting for the complex 

survey design.

In the fixed-effects analysis, SNAP was not associated with usual expenditures or usual 

expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP. In the model with usual expenditures relative to the 

cost of the TFP, the coefficient and standard error of the coefficient on the SNAP variable were 

0.022 and 0.022 (Table G.7). This compares to 0.027 and 0.025 in our main longitudinal analysis 

(without fixed effects). The high degree of correspondence between the two sets of findings 

suggests that our results are robust to using a fixed-effects model to control for time-invariant 

factors when estimating the association between SNAP and food expenditures.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-11

Table G.7. Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food Spending Relative to the 

Cost of the TFP, by Whether Fixed- Effects Estimator Is Used

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient on 

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Coefficient on 

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Full Sample 0.047 0.025 0.065 0.027 0.025 0.279

Alternative Model 

Specification

Fixed-effects regression 0.022 0.022 0.317

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

D. Diagnostic Checks Associated with the Amount of Time Between the 

Interview Date and the Date of Receipt of SNAP Benefits 

We conducted several auxiliary analyses to determine whether the associations between SNAP 

and expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP were sensitive to the timing of the interviews 

relative to when new-entrant households received their first SNAP benefits. The positive association 

between SNAP and food expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP reported in Chapter V for the 

cross-sectional sample was generally not robust to these alternative specifications. 

The survey asked new-entrant households whether they had received their SNAP benefits yet. 

For those that reported receiving their benefit, the survey requested the date of benefit receipt. Sixmonth households were asked only to provide the date of the most recent receipt of SNAP benefits.

Almost 30 percent of new-entrant households were interviewed within 5 days of receiving their 

SNAP benefit55 (Table G.8). Another 26 percent were interviewed within 6 to 10 days and 23

percent within 11 to 15 days of their reported date of benefit receipt. For six-month households, 

there was generally a longer time between the interview date and the reported receipt of benefits, by 

design of the study. (An analytic objective in conducting the telephone survey was to minimize the 

time between program entry and the baseline interview for new-entrant households so that 

respondents’ information pertained to the time period prior to entry into SNAP; this was not 

applicable to six-month households.)

 55 Sixteen percent of new-entrants were interviewed before receiving benefits and are characterized as having “0” 

days since benefit receipt.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-12

Table G.8. Length of Time Between Interview Date and Reported SNAP Benefit Receipt

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage 

of SixMonth 

Households Difference

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow Up) Difference

0 to 5 days 27 15 -12 27 17 -11

6 to 10 days 26 18 -8 26 18 -8

11 to 15 days 23 21 -3 23 18 -5

16 to 20 days 13 17 4 13 18 5

21 to 25 days 6 15 8 6 13 7

26+ days 4 14 10 4 17 13

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 3,275 new-entrant households 

and 3,375 six-month households in the cross-sectional sample; and 3,275 new-entrant 

households observed at baseline and again at follow up six months later in the longitudinal 

sample. Individual panels within tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item 

nonresponse to individual questions.

We re-estimated our original specification including “days since benefit receipt” as one of the 

explanatory variables. In this specification, SNAP was associated with an increase in TFP-adjusted 

expenditures of 0.051 in the cross-sectional sample (Table G.9). This is similar to the estimate in our 

main specification of 0.047. In the longitudinal analysis, SNAP continued not to be statistically 

associated with TFP-adjusted expenditures. 

Table G.9. Associations Between SNAP Participation and Household Food Spending Relative to the 

Cost of the TFP, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether Model 

Includes “Days Since SNAP Benefit Receipt” Variable

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient 

on SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Coefficient 

on SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Main Model Specification 0.047* 0.025 0.065 0.027 0.025 0.279

Alternative Model that 

Includes “Days Since Benefit 

Receipt” as Explanatory 

Variable

0.051** 0.026 0.050 0.041 0.026 0.110

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-13

As an additional set of sensitivity analyses, we categorized new-entrant households into four 

groups based on the days since benefit receipt: 0 days, greater than 0 days, 1 to 11 days, or 12 days 

or more.56

Participating in SNAP for six months was associated with about a 0.05 unit increase in 

expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP for households that had received benefits before the 

interview in the cross-sectional sample. For households that had received their benefit at least 12 

days before the interview, SNAP was associated with a 0.08 unit increase in expenditures relative to 

the cost of the TFP in the cross-sectional sample and a 0.07 unit increase in the longitudinal sample. 

There were no statistical associations for households that had not yet received benefits or for 

households that received them less than 12 days before the interview (Table G.10).

We estimated the TFP-adjusted expenditures regressions for each of these sets of newentrant households and the full set of six-month households.

Table G.10. Associations Between SNAP Participation and Usual Food Expenditures Relative to the 

Cost of the TFP, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Number of Days 

Since SNAP Benefit Receipt for New- Entrant Householdsa

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Coefficient on 

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Coefficient on 

SNAP 

Participation

Standard

Error p-Value

Main analysis sample 0.047* 0.025 0.065 0.027 0.025 0.279

New-entrant households that 

had not received benefits 

before interview

-0.009 0.045 0.838 -0.051 0.047 0.281

New-entrant households that 

had received benefits before 

interview

0.046* 0.026 0.072 0.033 0.026 0.210

New-entrant households had 

received benefits 1 to 11 days 

before interview

0.015 0.032 0.632 0.013 0.039 0.739

New-entrant households that 

had received benefits at least 

12 days before interview

0.081** 0.037 0.027 0.068** 0.030 0.023

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set with 

3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months later.

a All samples use the original set of six-month households. Only the sample of new-entrant households is 

restricted by days since benefit receipt.

*, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

Because many SNAP households begin to spend their SNAP benefit soon after receiving it, 

interviewing new-entrant households after they received their SNAP benefit would seem likely to 

 56 Eleven days was the median number of days in the new-entrant sample among new-entrant households that had 

received their benefit at the time of the interview.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-14

affect their reporting of “expenditures last week.” Whether it affects the measure of “usual 

expenditures” is less clear. Unlike the 30-day food security measure and the measure of food 

expenditures “last week,” the amount of expenditures households “usually” spend on food in a 

typical week does not have a specific calendar-based recall period associated with it. New-entrant 

households that have received their benefit in the past few days or weeks may report usual 

expenditures from the pre-SNAP period. Households that have been on SNAP for a few weeks may 

even report their usual expenditures that include their SNAP benefit. Because of the uncertainty in 

what the usual expenditures variable represents, it is difficult to make sense of the finding that 

SNAP was associated with TFP-adjusted expenditures only for the group of households that were 

not interviewed until at least 12 days after receiving benefits.

E. Comparison of Findings to Unrestricted New- Entrant Household 

Sample

The findings in Chapter V restrict the sample of new-entrant households to those that 

continued to participate six months later, at the time of the follow-up interview. In this section, we 

present the findings from analyses that use the unrestricted sample of all new-entrant households. 

In the unrestricted sample, SNAP was not associated with usual weekly food expenditures for 

either the cross-sectional or the longitudinal samples (Table G.11). SNAP was also not associated 

with expenditure relative to the cost of the TFP. Thus, the one significant association based on the 

restricted sample is not obtained with the unrestricted sample.

Table G.11. Regression- Adjusted Household Food Spending and Household Food Spending Relative 

to the Cost of the TFP, by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Participation Status and by Whether 

New- Entrant Sample Is Restricted to Those Households Still on SNAP Six Months Later

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal estimates

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

Six-Month 

Households Difference

New-Entrant 

Households

(Baseline)

New-Entrant 

Households

(Six-Month 

Follow-Up) Difference

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures (in dollars)

Restricted sample 93.28 94.91 1.63 90.26 92.96 2.70

Unrestricted sample 95.44 95.78 0.34 92.83 94.09 1.26

Usual Weekly Food 

Expenditures Relative to 

the Cost of the TFP

Restricted sample 1.16 1.21 0.05* 1.16 1.19 0.03

Unrestricted sample 1.19 1.21 0.02 1.19 1.19 0.00

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-15

F. Potential Reporting Error for Expenditure Questions

As mentioned in Chapter V, another possible explanation for our unexpected findings regarding 

the association between SNAP and food expenditures is that, for some respondents, the question 

sequence may not have elicited the desired information about expenditures. We consider this 

possibility here.

In gathering the “expenditures last week” information, the module asked a set of questions 

disaggregated by type of food store. These were then aggregated across stores in conducting the 

analysis. A separate question that came after the “last week” questions asked about usual weekly 

food expenditures. Both types of questions explicitly asked respondents to include purchases made 

with SNAP benefits.

This question structure is included in the CPS-FSS, on which the annual volumes of the 

“Household Food Security in the United States” report, produced by ERS, are based. To the best of 

our knowledge, no major difficulties with the CPS data have been identified. 

However, the fact that we obtained a nontrivial percentage of households that reported usually 

spending zero dollars on food in both our baseline and follow-up surveys raises issues regarding 

how respondents interpreted the questions. The percentages of households that reported they 

usually spend zero dollars on food in a typical week were 4.7 and 5.0 percent for new-entrant and 

six-month households in the cross-sectional sample, and 4.7 and 3.4 percent, respectively, in the 

longitudinal sample. If respondents who were receiving SNAP benefits at the time correctly 

understood the question, they would presumably report a positive usual weekly expenditure—that 

made with SNAP benefits. Therefore, correct responses of “zero usual expenditures” seem unlikely, 

particularly for the households that have been on SNAP for six months. 

The existence of “zero expenditure” responses raises issues not only about the data for those 

respondents themselves, but also about whether other respondents may have failed to include SNAP 

benefits in reporting their expenditures. It is uncertain what effects any potential reporting error 

might have on the association between SNAP and food expenditures.

G. Relationship Between SNAP Benefit Amount and Food Expenditures

As another diagnostic assessment of the quality of the reported expenditure data, we estimated 

the association between SNAP benefit amount and reported usual food expenditures for six-month 

households to determine whether households that receive greater amounts in SNAP benefits spend 

more on food. The purpose of this assessment was to determine whether the association fell within 

the range of estimates presented in a previous study (Fraker 1990) in a literature review of the effects 

of SNAP on food consumption. 

Fraker (1990) summarized the findings from 17 studies, spanning two decades, of the effects of 

SNAP on the money value of food used by households.57

 57 The study first reviewed the association between SNAP benefits and food expenditures. Next, it compared the 

association between SNAP benefits and food expenditures to the association between cash income and food 

expenditures to consider the implications of the differences for the effectiveness of food coupons versus cash assistance 

at increasing food expenditures. It also examined the effects of SNAP on the availability of nutrients in the household 

from the home food supply and the effects of SNAP on the intake of nutrient by individuals. 

The underlying data sets, analytic 
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-16

techniques, food expenditure outcome measures, and populations varied widely across studies. On 

the basis of this review, Fraker found that the provision of an additional dollar’s worth of SNAP 

benefits to a recipient was estimated to stimulate the consumption of additional food from the home 

food supply with a money value of 17 to 47 cents (Fraker 1990, page 61). 

The basic equation used in most of the 17 studies related expenditures to benefit amount, 

income, household size, and demographic and economic characteristics. The reviewed studies 

differed in whether they adjusted the outcome measure for household size and household 

composition. To estimate a model similar to these studies, we estimated a regression of usual weekly 

food expenditures on weekly benefit amount, household income relative to poverty, household size, 

and the full set of explanatory variables included in our original model specification listed in Chapter 

II. The main differences between our original model and the model estimated here are that (1) we 

included the benefit amount reported in the survey, scaled so that it is on a weekly basis, by dividing 

by 4.3 to correspond to the recall period of reported expenditures; and (2) we exclude the binary 

variable indicating whether households are six-month or new-entrant households. We estimated the 

model separately for six-month households and new-entrant households, as well as by crosssectional and longitudinal samples. 

We found that a one-dollar increase in SNAP benefits was associated with a 34 cent and 48 cent 

increase in usual food expenditures among six-month households in the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal analyses, respectively—estimates that are in or around the range in Fraker (1990) of 17 

to 47 cents. The findings are statistically significant both in absolute dollars and after normalizing 

the outcome measure by household size and composition using the cost of the TFP, with increases 

in TFP-adjusted expenditures of 0.004 and 0.007, respectively. 

Table G.12. Associations Between SNAP Benefit Amount and Household Food Spending, Conducted 

Separately for Six- Month and New- Entrant Households

Cross-Sectional Estimates Longitudinal Estimates

Usual Weekly Food Expenditures (in dollars)

Six-Month Households $0.34*** $0.48***

New-Entrant Households $0.29*** N.A.

Usual Weekly Food Expenditures Relative to 

the Cost of the TFP

Six-Month Households $0.004*** $0.007***

New-Entrant Households $0.003*** N.A.

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The cross-sectional estimates compare new SNAP participants to a contemporaneous set of 

participants who have been receiving SNAP for about six months. The longitudinal estimates 

compare new SNAP participants to the same participants about six months later.

Cross-sectional estimates are based on a data set with 6,650 households (3,275 new-entrant 

households and 3,375 six-month households). Longitudinal estimates are based on a data set 

with 3,275 new-entrant households observed at baseline and again at follow-up six months 

later.

N.A. Data not available.

 *, **, *** Significantly different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respectively.

We repeated the analysis for new-entrant households as part of the data diagnostic check. A 

one-dollar increase in SNAP benefits was associated with a 29 cent increase in usual food 
Appendix G Mathematica Policy Research

G-17

expenditures among new-entrant households (Table G.12) in both the cross-sectional and 

longitudinal samples. If reported expenditures reflected the period before receiving SNAP benefits, 

we would only expect a positive association between benefit amount and food expenditures if there 

was a third variable correlated with both benefits and expenditures. We believe we have accounted 

for most of those likely factors (household size, household composition, income, region of 

residence). Thus, we believe the new-entrant findings are consistent with the points made earlier that 

many of the baseline respondents had received their initial benefits before the survey and that some 

may have included food bought with these initial allotments in their reported “usual” expenditures.

Overall, this analysis suggests that limitations in our ability to collect accurate data on usual 

spending by new-entrant households may have affected our ability to estimate accurately the 

association between SNAP participation and food spending. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
APPENDIX H

SUBGROUP SAMPLE SIZES
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix H Mathematica Policy Research

H-3

Table H.1. Sample Sizes for Subgroups Used in Multivariate Analysis of Food Insecurity and Very 

Low Food Security Regressionsa

Cross-Sectional Estimates

Longitudinal 

Estimates

Full Sample 6,432 6,332

Households with Children 2,709 2,488

Single-adult households with 

children

1,469 1,300

Multiple-adult households with 

children

1,240 1,188

Households without Children 3,723 3,844

Households with Elderly 839 791

Households without Elderly 5,593 5,541

Households with a Disabled Member 2,322 2,111

Households without a Disabled 

Member

4,110 4,221

Monthly Income as a Percentage of 

Poverty

No Income 1,384 1,399

1% to 50% 1,748 1,673

51% to 100% 1,565 1,572

101% to 130% 804 761

More than 130% 931 927

SNAP Benefit Amount

Less than $100 1,057 1,081

$101 to $200 2,588 2,608

$201 to $300 742 740

$301 and above 2,045 1,903

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

a These are not the sizes of the subgroups in the raw data file. Instead, they are the sample sizes of the 

analytic files used in the regression analysis in Chapter IV once “don’t know”, “refusals”, and “missings” 

are excluded from the file for all variables included in the regression. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
APPENDIX I

BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW- ENTRANT HOUSEHOLDS WITH AND 

WITHOUT A FOLLOW- UP INTERVIEW
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-3

In this appendix, we use tabular methods to examine the characteristics of new-entrant SNAP 

households by whether the household completed a follow-up interview approximately six months 

later. Because all characteristics are measured at the time of the baseline interview, we have removed 

the table headers indicating whether estimates are from the cross-sectional or longitudinal analysis. 

Estimates are presented for all new-entrant households (column 1); new-entrant households at 

baseline that completed a follow-up interview about six months later (column 2); and new-entrant 

households at baseline that did not complete a follow-up interview (column 3). The fourth column 

subtracts the estimate for households without a follow-up interview (column 3) from the estimate 

for households with a follow-up interview (column 2). All analyses are weighted using survey 

weights for new-entrant households.58 The tables are structured the same as the Appendix B tables.

 58 The weights differ from those used in Chapters III through V and Appendices B through H in that they have 

not been normalized to sum to the sum of the weights of the six-month households.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-4

Table I.1. Demographic Characteristics, Language of Interview, and Region of Residence of Six- Month and 

New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Interview Conducted in 

English Language

90.3 (0.9) 90.2 (0.8) 90.4 (1.0) -0.2 (1.3)

Gender of Household Head

Male 38.7 (0.7) 36.3 (0.7) 41.0 (1.1) -4.7 (1.3)

Female 61.3 (0.7) 63.7 (0.7) 59.0 (1.1) 4.7 (1.3)

Race and Ethnicity Of 

Household Head

Non-Hispanic, white 47.4 (2.5) 46.9 (2.5) 47.9 (2.7) -1.1 (3.7)

Non-Hispanic, black 24.7 (1.9) 26.1 (2.1) 23.3 (2.0) 2.8 (2.9)

Non-Hispanic, other 7.7 (0.4) 7.2 (0.6) 8.3 (0.6) -1.1 (0.8)

Hispanic 24.3 (2.3) 23.2 (2.3) 25.5 (2.5) -2.3 (3.4)

Age of Household Head

18 to 24 23.3 (0.6) 19.7 (0.9) 26.9 (0.8) -7.1 (1.2)

25 to 49 53.7 (0.6) 52.1 (1.2) 55.3 (0.8) -3.1 (1.4)

50 to 64 18.3 (0.6) 21.2 (0.9) 15.4 (0.7) 5.8 (1.1)

65 and older 4.6 (0.5) 6.9 (0.8) 2.3 (0.3) 4.6 (0.9)

Highest Grade Completed of 

Household Head

Less than high school 23.0 (0.8) 23.0 (0.9) 23.0 (1.1) 0.1 (1.4)

High school graduate 

(diploma or GED)

33.0 (0.9) 32.6 (1.1) 33.3 (1.2) -0.8 (1.6)

Some college, but no 

degree

36.7 (1.0) 35.7 (1.1) 37.7 (1.2) -2.0 (1.6)

Technical, trade, or 

vocational degree

5.7 (0.3) 5.9 (0.4) 5.5 (0.5) 0.4 (0.6)

Associate’s degree 6.6 (0.5) 6.8 (0.7) 6.3 (0.5) 0.4 (0.9)

Bachelor’s degree or 

beyond

7.3 (0.5) 8.7 (0.6) 5.9 (0.5) 2.7 (0.8)

Region of Residence

Northeast 12.7 (4.4) 12.9 (4.4) 12.5 (4.5) 0.4 (6.3)

Mid-Atlantic 7.3 (4.7) 7.4 (4.9) 7.2 (4.5) 0.3 (6.7)

Midwest 12.6 (4.0) 12.6 (3.7) 12.6 (4.3) 0.1 (5.7)

Southeast 24.6 (5.0) 25.5 (5.6) 23.8 (4.5) 1.7 (7.2)

Southwest 13.7 (3.4) 12.3 (3.5) 15.1 (3.3) -2.7 (4.8)

Mountain Plains 5.8 (2.7) 5.7 (2.5) 5.8 (3.0) -0.2 (3.9)

West 23.3 (3.8) 23.5 (4.3) 23.1 (3.4) 0.5 (5.5)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up interview 

six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not complete a follow-up 

interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households (column 

1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 new-entrant 

households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within tables may have slightly 

fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-5

Table I.2. Household Size and Composition of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Household Size

1 Person 36.8 (0.8) 38.4 (1.1) 35.1 (1.0) 3.3 (1.5)

2 Person 24.0 (0.7) 24.6 (1.1) 23.4 (1.0) 1.2 (1.5)

3 Person 18.3 (0.4) 17.6 (0.6) 19.0 (0.7) -1.4 (0.9)

4 Person 11.1 (0.5) 10.0 (0.5) 12.2 (0.8) -2.2 (0.9)

5 Person 5.7 (0.4) 5.6 (0.5) 5.8 (0.5) -0.1 (0.7)

6+ Person 4.1 (0.2) 3.7 (0.4) 4.5 (0.3) -0.7 (0.5)

Households with Children 42.5 (0.8) 40.7 (1.1) 44.3 (1.1) -3.5 (1.6)

Single adult 17.8 (0.5) 17.9 (0.7) 17.6 (0.8) 0.3 (1.1)

Multiple adults 24.7 (0.7) 22.8 (0.9) 26.6 (1) -3.8 (1.3)

Households without 

Children

57.5 (0.8) 59.3 (1.1) 55.7 (1.1) 3.6 (1.6)

Households with Elderly 8.9 (0.5) 12.2 (0.8) 5.7 (0.5) 6.5 (0.9)

Elderly living alone 2.8 (0.3) 4.3 (0.4) 1.3 (0.2) 3.0 (0.4)

Elderly living with others 6.1 (0.4) 7.9 (0.6) 4.4 (0.4) 3.5 (0.7)

Households without Elderly 91.1 (0.5) 87.8 (0.8) 94.3 (0.5) -6.5 (0.9)

Households with a 

Disabled Member

28.2 (0.9) 32.4 (1.2) 23.9 (0.9) 8.5 (1.5)

Households without a 

Disabled Member

71.8 (0.9) 67.6 (1.2) 76.1 (0.9) -8.5 (1.5)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions..
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-6

Table I.3. Employment Status, Monthly Income as Percentage of the Poverty Line, and Earned and 

Unearned Income of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Employment Status of Household 

Head

Employed full time 14.3 (0.5) 12.1 (0.6) 16.6 (0.8) -4.5 (1.0)

Employed part time 9.1 (0.6) 9.4 (1.1) 8.8 (0.6) 0.6 (1.3)

Not employed 76.6 (0.8) 78.5 (1.3) 74.6 (0.9) 3.9 (1.6)

Monthly Income as a Percentage 

of the Poverty Line

No income 25.9 (0.7) 24.7 (0.9) 27.1 (0.9) -2.5 (1.3)

1% to 50% 27.2 (0.6) 27.4 (0.8) 27.1 (1.0) 0.4 (1.3)

51% to 100% 27.4 (0.9) 28.3 (0.9) 26.5 (1.0) 1.8 (1.3)

101% to 130% 7.1 (0.4) 7.2 (0.4) 7.0 (0.5) 0.1 (0.6)

More than 130% 12.4 (0.7) 12.4 (0.9) 12.3 (0.7) 0.1 (1.1)

Percentage of Households with No 

Earned Income

68.6 (0.8) 70.6(1.2) 66.6(1.0) 4.0 (1.6)

Percentage of Households with No 

Unearned Income

42.7 (0.7) 40.4(1.1) 45.1(0.8) -4.7 (1.4)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-7

Table I.4. Income Sources and Average Monthly Income Amounts of Six- Month and New- Entrant 

SNAP Households

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Percentage of Households 

with Income Type

TANF 2.2 (0.2) 2.5 (0.4) 1.8 (0.3) 0.8 (0.5)

Social Security 17.9 (1.2) 21.1 (1.3) 14.7 (1.2) 6.4 (1.8)

SSI or Supplemental Security 

Income

7.7 (0.6) 9.1 (0.7) 6.3 (0.6) 2.8 (0.9)

Unemployment insurance or 

worker's compensation 

benefits

9.4 (0.5) 9.6 (0.7) 9.1 (0.6) 0.5 (0.9)

Child support payments 6.0 (0.3) 5.2 (0.5) 6.8 (0.5) -1.5 (0.7)

Financial support from 

friends or family

29.8 (0.6) 28.6 (0.7) 31.0 (0.8) -2.4 (1.1)

Other income 7.8 (0.3) 8.4 (0.6) 7.2 (0.5) -1.2 (0.8)

Median Monthly Income 

Amount among Households 

with Positive Income from the 

Specified Source (in dollars)

TANF 300.0 254.0 361.0 -107.0 

Social Security 801.0 821.0 776.0 45.0

Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI)

674.0 674.0 674.0 0.0

Unemployment insurance or 

worker's compensation 

benefits

624.0 600.0 696.0 -96.0

Child support payments 292.0 281.0 292.0 -11.0

Financial support from 

friends or family

150.0 130.0 150.0 -20.0

Other income 335.0 316.0 350.0 -34.0

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-8

Table I.5. Household Income, Earnings, and Unearned Income of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP 

Households, Among Households with Income

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Monthly Household Income 

among Households with Positive 

Income (in dollars)

10th Percentile 120.0 100.0 140.0 -40.0

25th Percentile 425.0 430.0 401.0 29.0

50th Percentile 900.0 862.4 934.0 -71.6

75th Percentile 1513.6 1479.4 1548.0 -68.6

90th Percentile 2300.0 2199.0 2460.0 -261.0

Mean 1128.4 

(18.8)

1101.2 (22.8) 1156.5 (24.6) -55.3 

(33.5)

Monthly Household Earnings 

among Households with Positive 

Earnings (in dollars)

10th Percentile 399.9 344.0 438.6 -94.6

25th Percentile 742.4 688.0 774.9 -86.9

50th Percentile 1199.7 1161.0 1238.4 -77.4

75th Percentile 1800.0 1720.0 1857.6 -137.6

90th Percentile 2580.0 2580.0 2631.6 -51.6

Mean 1394.0 

(30.3)

1355.6 (46.6) 1427.9 (33.5) -72.2 

(57.4)

Monthly Household Unearned 

Income among Households with 

Positive Unearned Income (in 

dollars)

10th Percentile 60.0 72.0 60.0 12.0

25th Percentile 200.0 200.0 190.0 10.0

50th Percentile 538.0 600.0 500.0 100.0

75th Percentile 982.0 1000.0 940.0 60.0

90th Percentile 1491.0 1500.0 1448.0 52.0

Mean 695.8 

(15.9)

723.0 (19.1) 666.2 (20.9) 56.9 

(28.3)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-9

Table I.6. Household Resources Other than Income of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Currently Own a Vehicle 55.0 (0.8) 55.8 (1.0) 54.3 (1.2) 1.5 (1.6)

Currently Do Not Own, but 

Have Access to, a Vehicle

19.7 (0.6) 19.4 (0.8) 20.1 (0.8) -0.7 (1.1)

Currently Have a Credit Card 20.4 (0.7) 21.7 (1.1) 19.2 (0.7) 2.5 (1.3)

Residence

House, townhouse, condo 48.5 (1.1) 48.1 (1.2) 49.0 (1.5) -0.9 (1.9)

Mobile home or trailer 10.6 (1.3) 11.2 (1.5) 10.0 (1.2) 1.2 (19)

Apartment 32.1 (1.5) 32.1 (1.7) 32.1 (1.6) 0.0 (2.3)

Homeless or othera 8.7 (0.4) 8.4 (0.5) 8.9 (0.6) -0.5 (0.8

Home Ownership Status

Owns 13.5 (0.7) 14.6 (1.0) 12.4 (0.8) 2.2 (1.3)

Rents 65.3 (1.2) 64.3 (1.7) 66.3 (1.2) -1.9 (2.1)

Lives rent free 20.3 (0.7) 20.4 (1.0) 20.2 (0.7) 0.3 (1.2)

Does not own but receives 

Section 8 or Public Housing 

assistance

7.7 (0.5) 9.3 (0.7) 6.2 (0.5) 3.2 (0.9)

Food Preparation and Storage 

Capabilities

Access to a refrigerator 98.4 (0.2) 98.3 (0.3) 98.5 (0.2) -0.2 (0.4)

Access to a stand-alone 

food freezer 

49.2 (0.9) 47.9 (1.5) 50.4 (1.1) -2.4 (1.9)

Access to a gas or electric 

stove

96.8 (0.3) 96.8 (0.3) 96.8 (0.3) 0.1 (0.4)

Access to a microwave oven 91.1 (0.4) 90.8 (0.5) 91.4 (0.7) -0.7 (0.9)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.

a

Consists of “homeless, living in shelter or mission”, “homeless, living on street”, “car, van , or recreational 

vehicle”, “room”, “motel or hotel”, “abandoned building”, or “other”.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-10

Table I.7. Changes in Household Size, Housing Status, or Employment, Pay, or Hours Worked in Past 

Six Months Experienced by Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Experienced Change in Household 

Size, Housing Status, or 

Employment, Pay, or Hours Worked 

in Past 6 Months

Change in Household Size 20.3 (0.8) 21.1 (1.2) 19.5(0.7) 1.7 (1.4)

Birth of child 2.4 (0.2) 2.3 (0.3) 2.5 (0.3) -0.2 (0.4)

New step, foster, or adopted child 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.1)

Marriage or new partner 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1) -0.3 (0.1)

Separation or divorce 3.7 (0.3) 3.7 (0.4) 3.6 (0.3) 0.0 (0.5)

Death of household member 0.8 (0.1) 1.2 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.8 (0.2)

Family/boarder moving in 4.4 (0.3) 3.9 (0.4) 5.0 (0.5) -1.1 (0.6)

Family/boarder moving out 4.6 (0.3) 5.5 (0.4) 3.7 (0.3) 1.9 (0.5)

Evicted from House or Apartment 4.6 (0.4) 4.7 (0.5) 4.5 (0.6) 0.1 (0.8)

Change in Employment, Pay, or 

Hours Worked

42.6 (1.0) 39.0 (1.2) 46.1(1.4) -7.1 (1.8)

Obtained a job (self) 3.2 (0.3) 2.6 (0.4) 3.9 (0.4) -1.3 (0.6)

Obtained a job (other household 

member)

3.8 (0.3) 2.8 (0.4) 5.0 (0.6) -2.1 (0.7)

Lost a job (self) 18.2 (0.7) 14.9 (0.9) 21.6(1.1) -6.7 (1.4)

Lost a job (other household 

member)

20.6 (0.8) 18.4 (1.0) 23.0(1.4) -4.6 (1.7)

Increase in pay or hours worked 

(self)

1.2 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3) -0.8 (0.4)

Increase in pay or hours worked 

(other household member)

0.7 (0.1) 1.0 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2)

Decrease in pay or hours worked 

(self)

7.2 (0.5) 5.9 (0.6) 8.6 (0.8) -2.7 (1.0)

Decrease in pay or hours worked 

(other household member)

6.9 (0.4) 6.4 (0.6) 7.3 (0.7) -0.9 (0.9)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.

Because respondents may experience multiple trigger events, percentages for aggregate 

categories such as “any trigger” may not equal the sum of the percentages for the component 

categories.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-11

Table I.8. SNAP Participation Characteristics of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Prior SNAP Participation 48.5 (1.0) 49.1 (1.7) 47.8(1.0) 1.3 (2.0)

Received Benefits 3 Months 

Ago

25.1 (1.5) 26.6 (2.4) 23.4(1.4) 3.2 (2.8)

Received Benefits 6 Months 

Ago

34.9 (1.3) 36.0 (1.9) 33.9(1.4) 2.1 (2.4)

Received Benefits 12 Months 

Ago

46.1 (0.9) 46.7 (1.4) 45.5(1.5) 1.3 (2.1)

Benefit Amount

$0 to $100 15.3 (1.0) 16.4 (1.3) 14.1(0.9) 2.4 (1.6)

$101 to $200 41.4 (1.7) 41.7 (1.8) 41.1(2.0) 0.6 (2.7)

$201 to $300 18.9 (1.) 18.1 (1.0) 19.8(1.2) -1.6 (1.6)

$301 or more 24.4 (1.1) 23.8 (1.4) 25.1(1.4) -1.3 (2.0)

Mean Benefit Amount 241.8 (5.9) 236.1 (7.0) 247.7(6.4) -11.6 (9.5)

Length of Time Benefits 

Typically Last

1 week or less n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

2 weeks n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

3 weeks n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

4 weeks

More than 4 weeks n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.

n.a. = not applicable
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-12

Table I.9. Participation in Non- SNAP Food Assistance Programs in Past 30 Days of Six- Month and 

New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

NSLP (children ages 5 to 18) 69.0 (1.4) 72.9 (1.9) 65.6(1.6) 7.3 (2.5)

SBP (children ages 5 to 18) 56.2 (1.6) 57.5 (2.0) 55.1(1.8) 2.4 (2.7)

NSLP & SBP (children ages 5 to 18) 53.6 (1.6) 55.4 (2.0) 51.9(2.0) 3.4 (2.8)

NSLP or SBP (children under age 5) 12.7 (1.1) 12.5 (1.5) 12.8(1.4) -0.3 (2.1)

WIC 25.5 (1.1) 27.9 (1.3) 23.2(1.2) 4.7 (1.8)

Community Programs

Received emergency food from 

a church, food pantry, or food 

bank

21.7 (0.8) 23.0 (0.9) 20.3(1.2) 2.7 (1.5)

Went to community program or 

senior center to eat prepared 

meals

4.4 (0.4) 4.4 (0.5) 4.4(0.5) 0.0 (0.7)

Ate meals at a soup kitchen or 

shelter

4.2 (0.3) 4.3 (0.4) 4.0(0.4) 0.3 (0.6)

Received meals from "Meals on 

Wheels" or any other homedelivery meal programs

1.5 (0.2) 1.5 (0.3) 1.5(0.2) 0.0 (0.4)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-13

Table I.10. Food Purchase Behavior of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Purchase Most of Groceries at

Supermarkets / grocery stores 76.8 (1.0) 77.1 (1.1) 76.5(1.1) 0.6 (1.6)

Discount stores 14.5 (0.9) 14.1 (1.0) 14.9(1.0) -0.8 (1.4)

Warehouse clubs 1.6 (0.2) 1.7 (0.3) 1.6 (0.3) 0.2 (0.4)

Convenience stores 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)

Ethnic food stores 1.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) -0.2 (0.3)

Farmer’s markets 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)

Dollar stores 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) -0.2 (0.2)

Other stores 4.6 (0.3) 4.8 (0.3) 4.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.5)

Reason for Store

Low prices or sales 50.3 (1.1) 50.6 (1.4) 49.9(1.1) 0.7 (1.8)

Quality or variety of food 11.2 (0.5) 11.0 (0.8) 11.5(0.6) -0.5 (1.0)

Close to home / Convenient / Easy to 

get to

26.7 (0.8) 26.6 (0.8) 26.9(1.1)

-0.3 (1.4)

Other 11.3 (0.5) 11.3 (0.6) 11.3(0.6) 0.1 (0.8)

Mode of Transportation

Drive own car 45.6 (1.0) 45.7 (1.0) 45.5(1.5) 0.2 (1.8)

Drive someone else’s car 9.0 (0.6) 9.5 (0.7) 8.5 (0.9) 0.9 (1.1)

Someone else drives 34.1 (0.8) 35.0 (0.9) 33.2(1.0) 1.8 (1.3)

Walk 17.4 (0.8) 16.0 (10.1) 18.9(0.8) -2.8 (10.1)

Bus 10.2 (1.0) 10.1 (1.0) 10.3(1.3) -0.2 (1.6)

Taxi 1.6 (0.2) 1.8 (0.3) 1.4 (0.3) 0.4 (0.4)

Ride bicycle 1.8 (0.2) 1.8 (0.5) 1.7 (0.4) 0.0 (0.6)

Other 1.3 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3) 1.1 (0.2) 0.5 (0.4)

Usually go directly from home 93.7 (0.4) 93.4 (0.7) 94.0(0.4) -0.6 (0.8)

How Many Minutes One Way from 

Home (among those that usually go 

directly from home)

0 to 5 26.9 (0.7) 25.8 (1.1) 27.9(1.1) -2.1 (1.6)

6 to 10 29.6 (0.7) 30.2 (1.0) 29.0(0.9) 1.2 (1.3)

11 to 20 30.0 (0.9) 29.5 (1.1) 30.4(1.0) -0.9 (1.5)

21 to 30 8.8 (0.5) 9.3 (0.5) 8.3 (0.6) 1.0 (0.8)

31 to 60 4.4 (0.4) 4.7 (0.6) 4.1 (0.5) 0.6 (0.8)

More than 60 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2)

Median minutes 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0

How Many Miles One Way from Home 

(among those that usually go directly 

from home)

Less than one mile 13.3 (0.5) 12.0 (0.8) 14.5(0.7) -2.5 (1.1)

0-5 miles 54.5 (1.2) 55.7 (1.5) 53.4(1.3) 2.2 (2.0)

5-10 miles 16.9 (0.7) 16.3 (0.9) 17.6(1.0) -1.3 (1.3)

10-20 miles 11.1 (0.9) 11.3 (1.1) 10.9(1.0) 0.5 (1.5)

Over 20 miles 4.2 (0.4) 4.7 (0.5) 3.6 (0.4) 1.0 (0.6)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not complete a 

follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 newentrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within tables may 

have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-14

Table I.11. EBT Usage, Timing of Receipt of SNAP Benefit Relative to Interview Date, and Money 

Saving Techniques for Food Spending of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Percentage of Actual Food 

Spending Last Week Bought 

Using EBT Card

Less than half 11.0 (0.7) 11.0 (0.8) 11.0(0.9) -0.1 (1.2)

About half 5.2 (0.4) 5.2 (0.5) 5.3 (0.6) -0.1 (0.8)

More than half 83.8 (0.8) 83.9 (1.0) 83.7(0.9) 0.2 (1.3)

Length of Time Between 

Interview Date and Reported 

SNAP Benefit Receipt

0 to 5 days 27.3 (1.6) 28.0 (1.5) 28.7 (1.7) 0.7 (2.3)

6 to 10 days 25.8 (1.3) 23.5 (0.9) 21.3 (1.0) -2.2 (1.3)

11 to 15 days 23.3 (0.8) 22.8 (1.2) 22.3 (1.6) -0.5 (2.0)

16 to 20 days 12.9 (0.8) 13.5 (0.5) 14.2 (0.6) 0.7 (0.8)

21 to 25 days 6.4 (0.7) 6.8 (0.5) 7.2 (0.5) 0.4 (0.7)

26+ days 4.3 (0.4) 5.3 (0.3) 6.3 (0.5) 1.0 (0.6)

Money Saving Techniques for 

Food Spending 10.0

Used coupons when buying 

food

44.5 (0.9) 45.2 (1.0) 43.8 1.3) 1.4 (1.6)

Bought food in large 

quantities to receive bulk 

discounts

37.7 (0.8) 37.8 (0.9) 37.6(1.1) 0.2 (1.4)

Bought food items because 

they were on sale

84.8 (0.7) 85.3 (0.8) 84.3(1.0) 0.9 (1.3)

Bought food that was near 

or past its expiration date at

a discount

23.9 (0.8) 25.8 (0.9) 21.9(1.1) 4.0 (1.4)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-15

Table I.12. Self- Reported Health Status and Body Mass Index of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP 

Households

Percentage 

of NewEntrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Self-Reported Health Status

Excellent 11.6 (0.5) 10.3 (0.6) 13.0(0.6) -2.7 (0.8)

Very good 21.6 (0.6) 19.8 (0.8) 23.3(0.9) -3.5 (1.2)

Good 31.4 (0.6) 32.0 (1.1) 30.9(0.7) 1.2 (1.3)

Fair 25.3 (0.7) 26.4 (1.1) 24.3(1.1) 2.1 (1.6)

Poor 9.9 (0.5) 11.3 (0.8) 8.5 (0.7) 2.7 (1.1)

Body Mass Index of Respondent 

(based on self-reported height 

and weight)

Less than 18.5 2.0 (0.2) 1.8 (0.3) 2.3 (0.3) -0.5 (0.4)

18.5 to less than 25 34.3 (0.8) 33.4 (1.1) 35.3(0.9) -2.0 (1.4)

25 to less than 30 31.8 (0.6) 31.0 (1.2) 32.5(1.2) -1.5 (1.7)

30 or more 31.9 (0.7) 33.9 (1.3) 29.9(0.9) 4.0 (1.6)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-16

Table I.13. Self- Reported Mental Health and Well- Being of Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

Percentage of Respondents that in the 

Last 30 Days Felta

So sad nothing could cheer them up 47.6 (0.6) 48.0 (0.8) 47.3(1.2) 0.7 (1.4)

Nervous 49.9 (0.7) 50.4 (1.0) 49.3(0.9) 1.1 (1.3)

Restless or Fidgety 49.6 (0.7) 49.5 (1.0) 49.6 1.2) -0.2 (1.6)

Hopeless 34.7 (0.5) 35.4 (0.8) 33.9(0.9) 1.5 (1.2)

That everything was an effort 63.1 (0.6) 62.7 (0.8) 63.5(1.1) -0.8 (1.4)

Worthless 27.6 (0.5) 28.4 (0.9) 26.8(0.9) 1.7 (1.3)

Percentage of Households that, if 

Needed Help, Would Get this Amount of 

Help from Family Living Nearby

All of the help needed 19.1 (0.6) 18.5 (0.7) 19.7(0.8) -1.1 (1.1)

Most of the help needed 30.9 (0.6) 30.5 (0.9) 31.3(0.8) -0.8 (1.2)

Very little of the help needed 29.7 (0.5) 30.3 (0.7) 29.1(0.7) 1.3 (1.0)

No help 19.7 (0.7) 19.8 (1.0) 19.6(0.8) 0.2 (1.3)

Percentage of Households that, if 

Needed Help, Would Get this Amount of 

Help from Friends

All of the help needed 9.0 (0.4) 8.2 (0.6) 9.7 (0.6) -1.5 (0.8)

Most of the help needed 28.1 (0.6) 27.8 (0.8) 28.4(0.8) -0.6 (1.1)

Very little of the help needed 42.2 (0.7) 43.4 (0.9) 40.9(0.8) 2.5 (1.2)

No help 20.3 (0.7) 20.0 (0.8) 20.6(0.9) -0.6 (1.2)

Percentage of Households that, if 

Needed Help, Would Get this Amount of 

Help from Other People in the 

Community Besides Family and Friends

All of the help needed 5.6 (0.4) 5.9 (0.4) 5.2 (0.5) 0.7 (0.6)

Most of the help needed 18.5 (0.5) 18.3 (0.7) 18.6(0.7) -0.3 (1.0)

Very little of the help needed 43.3 (0.8) 44.2 (0.8) 42.4(1.1) 1.8 (1.4)

No help 31.3 (0.8) 30.0 (0.9) 32.5(1.1) -2.5 (1.4)

Percentage of Households that Consider 

Neighborhood

Very safe 41.2 (1.0) 42.0 (1.5) 40.4(1.1) 1.6 (1.9)

Somewhat safe 48.1 (0.7) 47.7 (1.2) 48.4(1.1) -0.7 (1.6)

Very unsafe 10.1 (0.6) 9.5 (0.6) 10.6(1.0) -1.1 (1.2)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not complete a 

follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 newentrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within tables may 

have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.

a

Responses of “all of the time”, “most of the time”, “a little of the time” were counted as affirmative; “none of the 

time” were not counted as affirmative. 
Appendix I Mathematica Policy Research

I-17

Table I.14. State Characteristics Associated with Six- Month and New- Entrant SNAP Households

Percentage of 

New-Entrant 

Households

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

with a Follow-up 

Interview

Percentage of NewEntrant Households 

without a Follow-up 

Interview Difference

State 25th Percentile Wage 

(Dollars)

10.7 (0.1) 10.8 (0.1) 10.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0.1)

State Unemployment Rate 

(Percentage)

8.7 (0.2) 8.8 (0.2) 8.7 (0.2) 0.1 (0.3)

State Offers Broad-Based 

Categorical Eligibility for SNAP 

(Percentage)

89.3 (5.6) 89.1 (5.6) 89.4 (5.6) -0.3 (7.9)

Average State SNAP 

Certification Period (Months)

12.1 (0.3) 12.2 (0.3) 12.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.4)

Source: SNAP Food Security Survey 2012.

Note: The table compares the characteristics of new SNAP participants that completed a follow up 

interview six months later to the characteristics of new SNAP participants that did not 

complete a follow-up interview.

Standard errors in parentheses.

Tabulations are based on the following overall sample sizes: 6,436 new-entrant households 

(column 1), 3,275 new-entrant households with a follow-up interview (column 2), and 3,161 

new-entrant households without a follow-up interview (column 3). Individual panels within 

tables may have slightly fewer observations due to item nonresponse to individual questions.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
APPENDIX J

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
MPR Reference No.: 06801.602

SNAP Food Security

Telephone Survey

CATI SPECIFICATIONS 

May 24, 2011 
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 5 (3-8-11)

A. INTRODUCTION

ALL

SAMPLE MEMBER FROM SAMPMEM_NAME

the parent or guardian of FULLNAME IF AGE LT 18

Hello 

Hello, my name is [INTVNAME]. I am calling from Mathematica Policy 

Research on behalf of the US Department of Agriculture. May I please speak to 

[FULLNAME/the parent or guardian of FULLNAME]?

SAMPLE MEMBER COMES TO PHONE .................... 1 GO TO INTRO1

SAMPLE MEMBER UNAVAILABLE/BAD TIME........... 2 SCHEDULE CALL BACK

NO ONE ANSWERS....................................................3 GO TO NO ANSWER SCREEN

NO SUCH PERSON AT THIS NUMBER ..................... 4 GO TO LOCATING SCREEN

HELLO SCREEN = 1

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name

SampMemb Hello, my name is ______________ and I’m calling from Mathematica Policy 

Research. As you may recall from the letter we recently mailed you, we are 

conducting a survey on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that funds 

the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, or [STATE SNAP NAME], 

which is also known as food stamps, to learn more about families and their 

food needs. The interview will take about 25-30 minutes, and your cooperation 

is completely voluntary. Your participation in the survey will not affect any 

government assistance you are receiving now or in the future. All answers you 

give will be confidential and no individual results will be presented. As a token 

of appreciation, we will be sending you a $20 gift card after the interview is 

complete.

BEGIN INTERVIEW.....................................................1

DID NOT RECEIVE OR DOES NOT RECALL 

LETTER.......................................................................2 GO TO LETTER SCREEN

WANTS MORE INFORMATION .................................. 3 GO TO MORE INFO SCREEN

NOT A GOOD TIME ....................................................4 GO TO APPOINTMENT SCREEN

HUNG UP DURING INTRODUCTION ......................... 5

SUPERVISOR REVIEW .............................................. 6
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 6 (3-8-11)

INTRO1 = 1

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name 

EBT STATE NAME FROM EBTstate_name

MONTH, YEAR FROM CertificationDate

in MONTH, YEAR IF NEW PARTICIPANT

around 6 months ago IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT

SCRN1a. Based on the information we have, you were most recently approved for 

[STATE SNAP NAME] benefits (NEW: in MONTH, YEAR / CURRENT: around

6 months ago). Is that correct?

PROBE: This program used to be called food stamps. It puts money on an 

[EBT STATE NAME] card that you can use to buy food.

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO Sup Review

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO Sup Review

IF NEW PARTICIPANT AND SCRN1A = 1, GO TO A1

IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT AND SCRN1A = 1 OR 0, GO TO SCRN1D

NEW PARTICIPANT AND SCRN1A = 0

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name 

SCRN1b. Have you applied for [STATE SNAP NAME] benefits in the last two months?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO END

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO Sup Review

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO Sup Review

NEW PARTICIPANT AND SCRN1B = 1

SCRN1c. What was the outcome of that application?

APPLICATION WAS APPROVED ............................... 1

APPLICATION IS STILL PENDING ............................. 2 GO TO Sup Review

APPLICATION WAS DENIED...................................... 3 GO TO END

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO Sup Review

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO Sup Review
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 7 (3-8-11)

NEW PARTICIPANT AND SCRN1C = 1 

EBT STATE NAME FROM EBTstate_name

SCRN1ca. How many times has money been put on your [EBT STATE NAME] card since 

you’ve been approved this most recent time?

| | | TIMES (0 - 5)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO Sup Review

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO Sup Review

PROGRAMMER: IF SCRN1ca = 0 OR 1, GO TO A1; IF SCRN1ca >1, GO TO END

CURRENT PARTICIPANT AND SCRN1A = 1 OR 0

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name

SCRN1d. Are you now participating in [STATE SNAP NAME]?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO END

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO Sup Review

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO Sup Review

CURRENT PARTICIPANT AND SCRN1D = 1 

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name

SCRN1e. About how many months in a row have you been participating in [STATE SNAP 

NAME]?

| | | MONTHS (1 - 18)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO Sup Review

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO Sup Review

INTERVIEWER: ENTER 18 IF MORE THAN 18 MONTHS

PROGRAMMER: IF SCRN1e = 4 - 8 MONTHS GO TO A1; ELSE GO TO END
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 8 (3-8-11)

SCRN1B = 0 OR R; SCRN1C = 3 OR 4; SCRN1CA>1 OR = R; SCRN1D=0 OR 4; SCRN1E=R

just recently were approved in [STATE SNAP NAME] IF NEW PARTICIPANT

have been participating in [STATE SNAP NAME] for about 6 months IF CURRENT 

PARTICIPANT

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name

END Those are all the questions I have. This survey is for people who are currently 

participating in [STATE SNAP NAME] and (were just recently approved /have 

been participating in [STATE SNAP NAME] for about 6 months). Thank you for 

your time. Good-bye. CODE AS INELIGIBLE

Sup Review Those are all the questions I have for now. I need to clarify some information with 

my supervisor. We will call you back if we have additional questions.

SCRN1A = 1

A1. Are you the person who does most of the planning or preparing of meals in 

your family?

INTERVIEWER: IF R ANSWERS “SOMETIMES” OR “50/50,” ENTER YES.

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO A2

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO A2

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO A2

A1 = 0

A1a. Which adult in your household does most

(STRING 40)

of the planning or preparing of 

meals?

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SCRN1A = 1

A2. Are you the person who does most of the shopping for food

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO A3

in your family?

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO A3

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO A3
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 9 (3-8-11)

A2 = 0

A2a. Which adult in your household does most of the shopping for food?

ENTER 1 TO RECORD NAME .................................... 1

SAME AS MEAL PLANNER ........................................ 2 GO TO A3 CHECK

A2A = 1

A2a_NAME RECORD NAME

(STRING 40)

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

A3 PROGRAMMER CHECK

IS RESPONDENT THE MEAL PLANNER OR FOOD SHOPPER?

IF YES, GO TO B1, IF NO, GO TO A3a. IF NEITHER FOOD SHOPPER NOR MEAL PLANNER 

IS AVAILABLE, SCHEDULE CALL BACK.

A1 = 0 AND A2 = 0

A3a. Can I please speak to [FILL NAME COLLECTED AT A2a]?

COMES TO PHONE....................................................1 GO TO INTRO2

FOOD SHOPPER UNAVAILABLE............................... 2

BAD TIME/CALL BACK ............................................... 3 SCHEDULE CALL BACK

A3A = 2 AND A2A NE TO 2

A4a. Can I please speak to [FILL NAME COLLECTED AT A1a]?

COMES TO PHONE....................................................1 GO TO INTRO2

MEAL PLANNER UNAVAILABLE................................ 2 SCHEDULE CALL BACK

BAD TIME/CALL BACK ............................................... 3 SCHEDULE CALL BACK
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 10 (3-8-11)

A4A = 1

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name

INTRO2 Hello, my name is __________ and I’m calling from Mathematica Policy 

Research. We are conducting a survey on behalf of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture that funds the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, or 

[STATE SNAP NAME], which is also known as food stamps, to learn more 

about families and their food needs. The interview will take about 25-30 

minutes, and your cooperation is completely voluntary. Your participation in 

the survey will not affect any government assistance you are receiving now or 

in the future. All answers you give will be confidential and no individual results 

will be presented. As a token of appreciation, we will be sending you a $20 gift 

card after the interview is complete.

PROCEED WITH INTERVIEW .................................... 1

BAD TIME/CALL BACK ............................................... 2 SCHEDULE CALL BACK

A5. Are you at least 18 years old?

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO B1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO SUP REVIEW

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO SUP REVIEW

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO SUP REVIEW
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 11 (3-8-11)

B. HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

ALL

The first few questions are about the people you live with.

B1. Please tell me the first name of everyone who lives in your household. By 

household, I mean the people who live with you and share food with you. 

Please include babies, small children, and people who are not related to you.

RESPONDENT LIVES ALONE.................................... 0 GO TO B4

ENTER NAMES...........................................................1

(ALLOW UP TO 10 NAMES)

(STRING 40)

NAME 

B1 NE 0 

ASK B2 FOR ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS RECORDED IN B1.

NAME 1 FILL FIRST NAME COLLECTED AT B1

THEN FILL EACH SUBSEQUENT NAME (NAME 2 – NAME 10)

B2. And what is [NAME 1]’s relationship to you

INTERVIEWER: CODE COHABITEE’S CHILD AND OTHER CHILDREN WHO ARE 

NOT NATURAL, ADOPTED OR STEP, BUT FOR WHOM THE 

SAMPLE MEMBER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY, AS “OTHER 

CUSTODIAL CHILD.”

?

HUSBAND OR WIFE...................................................1

UNMARRIED PARTNER ............................................. 2

SON OR DAUGHTER (INCLUDING

BIOLOGICAL, STEP, OR ADOPTED CHILD).............. 3

OTHER CUSTODIAL OR FOSTER CHILD.................. 4

PARENT (MOTHER, FATHER,

INCLUDING STEPPARENTS AND IN-LAWS)............. 5

SIBLING (BROTHER OR SISTER

INCLUDING IN-LAWS)................................................6

GRANDCHILD .............................................................7

OTHER RELATIVE......................................................8

NON-RELATIVE (INCLUDING

ROOMER OR BOARDER)........................................... 9

OTHER SPECIFY........................................................10

________________________________(STRING 60)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 12 (3-8-11)

B1 NE 0

ASK B3 FOR ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS RECORDED IN B1.

NAME 1 FILL FIRST NAME COLLECTED AT B1

THEN FILL EACH SUBSEQUENT NAME (NAME 2 – NAME 10)

B3. What is [NAME 1]’s age?

| | | AGE (0 - 99)

INTERVIEWER: IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD ENTER “0”.

YEARS ........................................................................1

B3 GE 15 (HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS RECORDED IN B1 15 OR OLDER).

NAME 1 FILL FIRST NAME COLLECTED AT B1

THEN FILL EACH SUBSEQUENT NAME (NAME 2 – NAME 10)

B3a. ASK ONLY IF NEEDED: IS [NAME 1] male or female?

MALE...........................................................................1

FEMALE ......................................................................2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

Do you IF B1 = 0

Does anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

you IF B1 = 0

anyone in the household IF B1 NE 0

B4. (Do you/Does anyone in your household) have a physical, mental, or other 

health condition that limits the kind or amount of work that (you/anyone in the 

household) can do?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 13 (3-8-11)

C. TRIGGER EVENTS

ALL

The next few questions are about changes that may have occurred in your household in 

the past 6 months.

C1. Has there been a change in the number of people living in your household over 

the past 6 months?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO C2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO C2

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO C2

C1 = 1

C1a. What caused that change?

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

BIRTH OF CHILD ........................................................1

NEW STEP, FOSTER OR ADOPTED CHILD.............. 2

MARRIAGE/NEW PARTNER....................................... 3

SEPARATION OR DIVORCE ...................................... 4

DEATH OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBER........................... 5

FAMILY/BOARDER MOVING IN ................................. 6

FAMILY/BOARDER MOVING OUT.............................. 7

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................8

________________________________(STRING 500)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 14 (3-8-11)

ALL

were you IF B1 = 0

was your household IF B1 NE 0

C2. At any time in the past 6 months (were you/was your household) evicted from 

your house or apartment?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

C3. Have you (or anyone in your household) had a change in employment or a 

change in pay or hours worked from a job in the past 6 months?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO D1

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO D1

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO D1

B1 NE 0

C3a. Who in your household had a change in employment or a change in pay or 

hours worked from a job in the past 6 months?

[LIST ALL MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD AGE 15 AND OVER FROM B1]

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

RESPONDENT............................................................1

NAME 1 .......................................................................2

NAME 2 .......................................................................3

NAME 3 .......................................................................4

NAME 4 .......................................................................5
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 15 (3-8-11)

C3 = 1

you IF B1 = 0 OR C3A = 1

NAME FILL FROM C3A

C3b. What was that change in employment or a change in pay or hours worked from 

a job that (you/[NAME]) experienced in the past 6 months?

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

OBTAINED A JOB .......................................................1

LOST JOB ...................................................................2

INCREASE IN PAY OR HOURS.................................. 3

DECREASE IN PAY OR HOURS ................................ 4

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................5

________________________________(STRING 500)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

[REPEAT FOR EACH PERSON RECORDED IN C3a]
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 16 (3-8-11)

D. SNAP PARTICIPATION

ALL

D1. Next, we’re going to ask you about your participation in SNAP.

NEW PARTICIPANT

EBT STATE NAME FROM EBTstate_name

D1a. [IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT, GO TO D1b. IF NEW PARTICIPANT, ASK:] Have 

you already received your SNAP benefits? That is, has money been put on 

your [EBT/STATE NAME] card?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO D6

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO D6

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO D6

CURRENT PARTICIPANT OR D1A = 1

And on what IF D1a = 1

On what IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT

you IF B1 = 0

your household IF B1 NE 0

D1b. (And on what/On what) date did (you/your household) receive your most recent 

SNAP benefits? That is, when was money most recently put on your 

[EBT/STATE NAME] card?

| | | / | | | / | | | | |

MONTH DAY YEAR

(1 - 12) (1 - 31) (2011-2012)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF DATE IS MORE THAN 1 MONTH PRIOR TO INTERVIEW DATE I just want 

to be sure I recorded the date correctly. Did you say DATE? 

HARD CHECK: IF DATE IN FUTURE I’m sorry. I must have recorded the date incorrectly. 

Can you please give me that date again?

CURRENT PARTICIPANT OR D1A = 1

household’s IF B1 NE 0

EBT/STATE NAME FROM EBTstate_name

D2. How many dollars were put on your (household’s) [EBT/STATE NAME] card 

this most recent time?

$ | | | | AMOUNT ISSUED ON EBT CARD (1 – 2,000)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO D5
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 17 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO D5

SOFT CHECK: IF HH MEMBERS LISTED IN B1 LT 8 AND D2 IS GT 1,000 I just want to be 

sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?

D2 NE D OR R

D3. How much of the [FILL AMOUNT IN D2] that you most recently received have 

you used so far?

NONE - HAVE NOT USED YET .................................. 0

ENTER AMOUNT SPENT SO FAR ............................. 1

ENTER BALANCE REMAINING.................................. 2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO D4

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO D4

D3 = 1 OR 2

D3a.

$ | | | | AMOUNT (1 – 2,000) GO TO D5

HARD CHECK: IF AMOUNT RECORDED IN D3A GT AMOUNT IN D2 I’m sorry. I must have 

made a mistake. The (amount spent/balance remaining) is more than the amount you 

received. Is there an error?

D3 OR D3A = D OR R

D4. Would you say as of now you have used...

CODE ONE ONLY

Less than half,............................................................1

About half,..................................................................2

Or more than half of your monthly

SNAP benefits?..........................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

IF NEW PARTICIPANT, GO TO D6. IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT, ASK:
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 18 (3-8-11)

CURRENT PARTICIPANTS

D5. How many weeks do your SNAP benefits usually last? Do they last...

CODE ONE ONLY

1 week or less, ...........................................................1

2 weeks,......................................................................2

3 weeks,......................................................................3

4 weeks, or .................................................................4

more than 4 weeks?...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

you IF B1 = 0

your household IF B1 NE 0

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

MONTH, YEAR FROM CertificationDate

D6. Before (you/your household) began receiving SNAP benefits this most recent 

time, that is in (MONTH, YEAR), had you (or anyone in your household) ever 

participated in SNAP before?

PROBE: This program used to be called food stamps.

PROBE: IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS RECEIVING SNAP AS A CHILD, SAY:

Since turning 18.

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO E1

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO E1

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO E1

NEW PARTICIPANT AND D6=1

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

FILL MONTH AND YEAR FROM INTERVIEW DATE MINUS 3 MONTHS

IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT GO TO D9; IF NEW ENTRANT, ASK D7, D8 AND D9

D7. Were you (or anyone in your household) receiving SNAP benefits 3 months 

ago, that is, in [FILL MONTH AND YEAR]?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 19 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r

NEW PARTICIPANT AND D6=1

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

FILL MONTH AND YEAR FROM INTERVIEW DATE MINUS 6 MONTHS

D8. Were you (or anyone in your household) receiving SNAP benefits 6 months 

ago, that is, in [FILL MONTH AND YEAR]?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

D6=1

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

FILL MONTH AND YEAR FROM INTERVIEW DATE MINUS 1 YEAR

D9. Were you (or anyone in your household) receiving SNAP benefits a year ago, 

that is, in [FILL MONTH AND YEAR]?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 20 (3-8-11)

E. FOOD PURCHASE BEHAVIOR

ALL

E1. Where do you buy most of your groceries?

ENTER NAME OF ONE STORE.................................. 1 GO TO E1_NAME

MULTIPLE STORES NAMED...................................... 2 GO TO E1_NAME2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO F1

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO F1

E1 = 1

E1_NAME

INTERVIEWER: RECORD NAME OF STORE

________________________________(STRING 60) GO TO E1a

E1=2

E1_NAME2 If you had to choose just one of these stores, which one would you say you 

shop at most often?

INTERVIEWER: RECORD NAME OF STORE

________________________________(STRING 60)
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 21 (3-8-11)

E1 NE D OR R

E1a. What kind of store is that?

INTERVIEWER: CODE TYPE OF STORE 

CODE ONE ONLY

SUPERMARKETS/GROCERY STORES..................... 1

DISCOUNT STORES SUCH AS WAL-MART,

TARGET, OR KMART .................................................2

WAREHOUSE CLUBS, SUCH AS PRICE CLUB, 

COSTCO, PACE, SAM’S CLUB, BJ’S ......................... 3

CONVENIENCE STORES SUCH AS 7-11,

QUICK CHECK, QUICK STOP, WAWA....................... 4

ETHNIC FOOD STORES SUCH AS

BODEGA’S ASIAN FOOD MARKETS, OR

CARIBBEAN MARKETS.............................................. 5

FARMER’S MARKET...................................................6

DOLLAR STORES.......................................................7

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................8

________________________________(STRING 100)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 22 (3-8-11)

E1 NE D OR R

E2. What is the main

CODE ONE ONLY

reason you shop at (FILL NAME FROM E1)?

LOW PRICES ..............................................................01

SALES.........................................................................02

QUALITY OF FOOD ....................................................03

VARIETY OF FOODS (GENERAL).............................. 04

VARIETY OF SPECIAL FOODS

(SUCH AS GLUTEN FREE)......................................... 05

CLOSE TO HOME/CONVENIENT............................... 06

EASY TO GET TO.......................................................07

PRODUCE SELECTION.............................................. 08

MEAT DEPARTMENT ................................................. 09

LOYALTY/FREQUENT SHOPPER PROGRAM........... 10

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................11

________________________________(STRING 200)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

E1 NE D OR R

E3. How do you usually get to (FILL NAME FROM E1)?

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

DRIVE OWN CAR........................................................1

DRIVE SOMEONE ELSE’S CAR ................................. 2

SOMEONE ELSE DRIVES ME.................................... 3

WALK ..........................................................................4

BUS ............................................................................5

TAXI ............................................................................6

RIDE BICYCLE............................................................7

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................8

________________________________(STRING 100)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 23 (3-8-11)

E1 NE D OR R

E3a. Do you usually go to (FILL NAME FROM E1) directly from home?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

E1 NE D OR R

E3b. About how long does it take to go one way from home to (FILL NAME FROM 

E1)?

| | | NUMBER OF MINUTES ONE WAY (1 - 120)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

E1 NE D OR R

E3c. And approximately how many miles away is (FILL NAME FROM E1) from your 

home – one way?

| | | MILES ONE WAY (0 - 99)

INTERVIEWER: IF LESS THAN ONE MILE ENTER “0”

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 30 I just want to make sure I recorded your answer correctly. Did 

you say NUM?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 24 (3-8-11)

F. FOOD EXPENDITURES

These next questions are about all the places at which you bought food last week. (By 

last week I mean Sunday through Saturday. When answering these questions, please 

think about all food purchases, meaning those purchased with and without your[STATE 

NAME EBT CARD].

ALL 

you IF B1 = 0

anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

F1. First, did (you/anyone in your household) shop for food at a supermarket or 

grocery store last week

(PROBE IF INTERVIEWDATE = SATURDAY: By last week we don’t mean the week 

that ends today, but the week that ended last Saturday.)

?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

you IF B1 = 0

anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

F2. Think about other places where people buy food, such as meat markets, 

produce stands, bakeries, warehouse clubs, and convenience stores. Did 

(you/anyone in your household) buy food from any stores such as these 

last week

(PROBE IF INTERVIEWDATE = SATURDAY: By last week we don’t mean the week 

that ends today, but the week that ended last Saturday.)

?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 25 (3-8-11)

ALL

you IF B1 = 0

anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

include any children who may have bought food at the school cafeteria IF B3 = 5 TO 18 

F3. Last week

YES .............................................................................1

, did (you/anyone in your household) buy food at a restaurant, fast 

food place, cafeteria, or vending machine? (Include any children who may 

have bought food at the school cafeteria.)

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

you IF B1 = 0

anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

F4. Did (you/anyone in your household) buy food from any other kind of place 

last week

YES .............................................................................1

?

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

F1, F2, F3 OR F4 = 1

IF “NO” TO F1 AND F2 AND F3 AND F4, GO TO F10.

Now I’m going to ask you about the actual amount you spent on food last week in all the 

places where you bought food. Then, since last week may have been unusual for you, I 

will ask about the amount you usually spend.

F1 = 1

you IF B1 = 0

anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

including any purchases made with [STATE NAME EBT CARD] card or food stamp 

benefits IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT OR IF D1A = 1

STATE NAME EBT CARD FROM EBTstate_name

F5. How much did (you/anyone in your household) actually spend at supermarkets 

and grocery stores last week

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

(including any purchases made with [STATE 

NAME EBT CARD] card or food stamp benefits)?

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT LAST WEEK (1 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO F6
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 26 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO F6

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?

F5 GT 0 

F5a. How much of the [FILL AMOUNT FROM F5] was for non-food items, such as 

pet food, paper products, alcohol, detergents, or cleaning supplies?

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT ON NON-FOOD ITEMS (0 – 2,000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF AMOUNT GT AMOUNT COLLECTED AT F5 I’m sorry. I must have made a 

mistake. This amount is more than the total amount spent that you reported in the last 

question. Is there an error?

F2 = 1

you IF B1 = 0

your household IF B1 NE 0

including any purchases made with [STATE NAME EBT CARD] card or food stamp 

benefits IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT OR IF D1A = 1

STATE NAME EBT CARD FROM EBTstate_name

F6. How much did (you/your household) spend at stores such as meat markets, 

produce stands, bakeries, warehouse clubs, and convenience stores last week

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

(including any purchases made with your [STATE NAME EBT CARD] or food 

stamp benefits)?

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT LAST WEEK (1 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO F7

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO F7

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 27 (3-8-11)

F6 GT 0

F6a. How much of the [FILL AMOUNT FROM F6] was for nonfood items, such as pet 

food, paper products, alcohol, detergents, or cleaning supplies?

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT ON NON-FOOD ITEMS (0 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF AMOUNT GT AMOUNT COLLECTED AT F6 I’m sorry. I must have made a 

mistake. This amount is more than the total amount spent that you reported in the last 

question. Is there an error?

F3 = 1

you IF B1 = 0

your household IF B1 NE 0

F7. How much did (you/your household) spend for food at restaurants, fast food 

places, cafeterias, and vending machines last week

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

, not including alcohol 

purchases?

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT LAST WEEK (1 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 28 (3-8-11)

F4 = 1

you IF B1 = 0

your household IF B1 NE 0

F8. How much did (you/your household) spend for food at any other kind of place 

last week

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

?

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT LAST WEEK (1 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?

D1A NE 0 AND F1, F2, F3, OR F4 = 1

you IF B1 = 0

your household IF B1 NE 0

AMOUNT FROM SUM OF (F5-F5a)+(F6-F6a)+F7+F8

STATE NAME EBT CARD FROM EBTstate_name

F9. Let’s see, (you/your household) spent about [AMOUNT] on food last week. 

How much of that was bought using your [STATE NAME EBT CARD] card?

$ | | | | AMOUNT SPENT WITH EBT CARD (0 - 2000) GO TO F10

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF AMOUNT IS GT THAN AMOUNT RECORDED IN D3 I’m sorry. I may have 

made a mistake. This amount is more than the amount you said you used earlier. Is there 

an error?

SOFT CHECK: IF AMOUNT IS GT THAN SUM AMOUNT: I’m sorry. I may have made a 

mistake. This amount is more than the amount you said you spent on food last week.

F9 = D OR R

F9a. Would you say you spent...

CODE ONE ONLY

Less than half,............................................................1

About half,..................................................................2

Or more than half?.....................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 29 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

Let’s see, it seems that (you/your household) did not buy any food last week IF F1, F2, 

F3, AND F4 = 0

Again,(you/your household) spent about (FILL AMOUNT) on food last week. IF F1, F2, F3, 

OR F4 = 1 AND D1A NE 0

(You/Your household) spent about (FILL AMOUNT) on food last week. IF F1, F2, F3, OR F4 = 1 

AND D1A=0

you AND do you IF B1 = 0

your household AND does your household IF B1 NE 0

Please include any purchases made with your [STATE NAME EBT CARD] or food stamp 

benefits IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT OR IF D1A = 1

STATE NAME EBT CARD FROM EBTstate_name

FILL AMOUNT FROM SUM OF (F5-F5a)+(F6-F6a)+F7+F8

F10. [Let’s see, it seems that (you/your household) did not buy any food last

week./Again,(you/your household) spent about (FILL AMOUNT) on food last 

week / (You/Your household) spent about (FILL AMOUNT) on food last week.] 

Now think about how much (you/your household) usually (spend/spends). How 

much (do you/does your household) usually spend on food at all the different 

places we’ve been talking about in a week

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT IN A TYPICAL WEEK (1 – 3000.00)

? (Please include any purchases 

made with your [STATE NAME EBT CARD] or food stamp benefits). Do not 

include nonfood items such as pet food, paper products, detergent or cleaning 

supplies.

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?

ALL

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

That completes our questions about food purchased over the last week. Now we’re going 

to talk about things people sometimes do each month to save money when buying food.

F11. In the last 30 days, have you (or anyone in your household)...

YES NO

DON’T 

KNOW REFUSED

a. Used coupons when buying food?....... 1 0 d r

b. Bought food in large quantities to 

receive bulk discounts? ....................... 1 0 d r

c. Bought food items because they were 

on sale?............................................... 1 0 d r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 30 (3-8-11)

d. Bought food that was near or past its 

expiration date at a discount?.............. 1 0 d r

G. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

B3 = 0 – 18 YEARS (SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN PRESENT IN HH); OR B3 = 15-45 AND B3A = 

FEMALE (FEMALE AGE 15-45 IN HH); OR SAMPLE MEMBER IS RESPONDENT (A1=1 OR 

A2=1) AND GENDER IN LOAD FILE = FEMALE AND AGE IN LOAD FILE = 15-45; OR A1 

OR A2 NE TO 1 (SAMPLE MEMBER IS NOT RESPONDENT)

or someone in your household IF B1 NE 0

IF NO FEMALE AGE 15-45 IN HH OR B3 > 18 YEARS (NO SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 

PRESENT IN HH), GO TO SECTION H

The next questions are about programs you (or someone in your household) may be 

participating in.

B3 = 5 TO 18 YEARS (SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN PRESENT IN HH)

G1. During the past 30 days, did any children in the household (between 5 and 

18 years old) receive free or reduced-cost lunches at school?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

B3 = 5 TO 18 YEARS (SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN PRESENT IN HH

IF B3 = 5-18 YEARS (SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN PRESENT IN HH), ASK:

G2. During the past 30 days, did any children in the household (between 5 and 

18 years old) receive free or reduced-cost breakfasts at school?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 31 (3-8-11)

B3 LT 5 YEARS (PRE-SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN IN HH)

your child IF B3 LT 5 YEARS FOR ONE CHILD (ONE PRE-SCHOOL CHILD IN HH)

any children in the household IF B3 LT 5 YEARS FOR MORE THAN ONE CHILD 

G3. During the past 30 days, did (your child/any children in the household) receive 

free or reduced-cost food at a day-care or Head Start program?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

B3 LT 5 YEARS; OR B3 = 15-45 AND B3A = FEMALE (FEMALE AGE 15-45 IN HH) OR 

SAMPLE MEMBER IS RESPONDENT (A1=1 OR A2=1) AND AGE IN LOAD FILE = 15-45; OR 

A1 OR A2 NE TO 1 (SAMPLE MEMBER IS NOT RESPONDENT)

women IF B3 NE 4 OR LESS (NO CHILDREN 0-4 IN HH) 

women or children IF B3 LT 5 YEARS AND B3 = 15-45 AND B3a=FEMALE (FEMALE AGE 

15-45 IN HH)

children IF B3 LT 5 YEARS AND B3 NE 15-45 FOR ANY FEMALE IN HH

IF B3 <5, OR FEMALE AGE 15-45 IN HH, ASK:

G4. During the past 30 days, did any (women/women or children/children) in this 

household get food through the WIC program?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 32 (3-8-11)

H. FOOD SECURITY AND SUFFICIENCY

ALL

you AND I AND my IF B1 = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

your household AND we AND our IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN 

HH) OR B2=1 OR 2

Now, I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food 

situation. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement was often true, 

sometimes true, or never

H1. The first statement is, “(I/We) worried whether (my/our) food would run out 

before (I/we) got money to buy more.” Was that 

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days.

often true, sometimes true, 

or never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

I AND you IF B1 = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

we AND your household IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN HH) OR 

B2 = 1 OR 2

H2. “The food that (I/we) bought just didn’t last, and (I/we) didn’t have money to get 

more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in 

the last 30 days?

CODE ONE ONLY

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 33 (3-8-11)

ALL 

I AND you IF B1 = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

we AND your household IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN HH) OR 

B2 = 1 OR 2

H3. “(I/We) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or 

never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

INSERT CHECK: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (i.e., OFTEN TRUE OR SOMETIMES TRUE) 

TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS H1-H3, THEN CONTINUE, ELSE SKIP TO H10.

H1, H2, OR H3 = 1 OR 2

you IF B1 = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

you or other adults in your household IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE 

ADULT IN HH)

H4. In the last 30 days, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever cut the 

size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for 

food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO H5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO H5

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H5

H4 = 1

H4a. How many days did this happen in the last 30 days?

| | | NUMBER OF DAYS (1 – 30) GO TO H5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H5
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 34 (3-8-11)

H4A = D

H4b. Do you think it was more than one or two days?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H1, H2, OR H3 = 1 OR 2

H5. In the last 30 days, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because 

there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H1, H2, OR H3 = 1 OR 2

H6. In the last 30 days, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because there wasn’t 

enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H1, H2, OR H3 = 1 OR 2

H7. In the last 30 days, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money 

for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

INSERT CHECK: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (i.e., OFTEN TRUE OR SOMETIMES TRUE) 

TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS H4-H7, THEN CONTINUE, ELSE SKIP 

TO H10.
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 35 (3-8-11)

H4, H5, H6, OR H7 = 1 

you IF B1 = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

you or other adults in your household IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE 

ADULT IN HH)

H8. In the last 30 days, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever not eat 

for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO H10

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO H10

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H10

H8 = 1

H9. How many times did this happen in the last 30 days?

| | | NUMBER OF TIMES (1 – 30) GO TO H10

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H10

H9 = D

H9a. Do you think it was more than one or two days?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 36 (3-8-11)

B3 = 0 – 18 (CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD)

I AND my AND I was AND you IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER 

ADULT/PARTNER IN HH) AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 

we AND our AND we were AND your household IF B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN 

HH) OR B2 = 1 OR 2

the child in IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

the children IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE THAN 

ONE CHILD IN HH)

IF NO CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD, GO TO H17. ELSE ASK:

Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about the food 

situation of their children. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement 

was often true, sometimes true, or never true in the last 30 days for any child under 

18 years old living in the household.

H10. “(I/We) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (the child in (my/our) 

household/the children) because (I was/we were) running out of money to buy 

food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the 

last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

B3 = 0 – 18 (CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD)

I AND my household AND you IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER 

ADULT/PARTNER IN HH)

we AND our household AND your household IF B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN 

HH) OR B2 = 1 OR 2

the child in IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

the children IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE THAN 

ONE CHILD IN HH)

H11. “(I/We) couldn’t feed (the child in (my/our)household/ the children) a balanced 

meal, because (I/we) couldn’t afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 37 (3-8-11)

B3 = 0 – 18 (CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD)

The child in IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN 

HH)

the children were IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH) 

my AND I AND you IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS/PARTNER IN HH)

our AND we AND your household IF B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN HH) OR B2 = 1 

OR 2

H12. “(The child in (my/our) household was/The children were) not eating enough 

because (I/we) just couldn’t afford enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, 

or never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H10, H11, OR H12 = 1 OR 2 

the child’s IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

any of the children’s IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH)

INSERT CHECK: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (i.e., OFTEN TRUE OR SOMETIMES TRUE) 

TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS H10-H12, THEN CONTINUE, ELSE 

SKIP TO H17.

H13. In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of (the child’s/any of the 

children’s) meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H10, H11, OR H12 = 1 OR 2

the child’s IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

any of the children’s IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH)

H14. In the last 30 days, did (the child/any of the children) ever skip a meal because 

there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO H15

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO H15

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H15 
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 38 (3-8-11)

H14 = 1

H14a. How many days did this happen in the last 30 days?

| | | NUMBER OF DAYS (1 – 30) GO TO H15

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H15

H14A = D

H14b. Do you think it was more than one or two days?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H10, H11, OR H12 = 1 OR 2

was the child IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN 

HH)

were the children IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH)

H15. In the last 30 days, (was the child/were the children) ever hungry but you just 

couldn’t afford more food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H10, H11, OR H12 = 1 OR 2

the child IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

any of the children IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH)

H16. In the last 30 days, did (the child/any of the children) ever not eat for a whole 

day because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 39 (3-8-11)

ALL

or someone in your household IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

you IF B1 = 0

you or other adults in your household IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

H17. The next questions are about some community programs you (or someone in your 

household) may have participated in during the past 30 days.

In the last 30 days, did (you/ you or other adults in your household) ever get 

emergency food from a church, a food pantry or food bank?

PROBE: This includes all religious and charitable organizations.

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

you IF B1 = 0

anyone in this household IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

H18. During the past 30 days, did (you/anyone in this household) go to a community 

program or senior center to eat prepared meals?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

you IF B1 = 0

you or other adults in your household IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

H19. During the last 30 days, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever 

eat any meals at a soup kitchen or shelter?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 40 (3-8-11)

ALL 

you IF B1 = 0

anyone in this household IF B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

H20. During the past 30 days, did (you/anyone in this household) receive any meals 

from “Meals on Wheels” or any other program delivering meals to your home?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 41 (3-8-11)

I. HOUSEHOLD RESOURCES

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

LAST MONTH FROM MONTH PRIOR TO INTERVIEW DATE

STATE WELFARE NAME FROM StateWelfare_Name

The next questions are about sources of income. The answer to these and all other 

questions on this survey will be kept strictly confidential and will never be associated 

with your name.

I1a_a. During (LAST MONTH), did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...

TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (also known as [STATE 

WELFARE NAME])?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_b. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive...)

Other welfare such as General Assistance?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_c. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Social Security checks from the government for retirement, disability, or 

survivors’ benefits?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 42 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_d. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive...)

Other retirement benefits such as a government or private pension or annuity?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_e. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

SSI or Supplemental Security Income from the federal, state, or local 

government?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_f. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Veteran’s Benefits?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 43 (3-8-11)

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_g. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Unemployment Insurance or worker’s compensation benefits?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_h. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Child support payments?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_i. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Payments from roomers or boarders?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 44 (3-8-11)

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_j. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Financial support from friends or family?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I1a_k. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive ...)

Any other income besides earnings?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_K = 1 

I1a_k_Specify What is that other income?

______________________________________________

I1A_A = 1 

STATE WELFARE NAME FROM StateWelfare_Name

I1b_a. How much did you receive last month from TANF, Temporary Assistance to 

Needy Families (also known as [STATE WELFARE NAME])?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 45 (3-8-11)

I1A_A=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_a. How much did other people in your household receive from TANF last month 

altogether?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_A = 1 AND BOTH I1B_A AND I1C_A = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received TANF last month. 

Is there an error?

I1A_B = 1 

I1b_b. How much did you receive last month from Other welfare such as General 

Assistance?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_B=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_b. How much did other people in your household receive from Other welfare such 

as General Assistance?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_B = 1 AND BOTH I1B_B AND I1C_B = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Other welfare last 

month. Is there an error? 

I1A_C = 1 

I1b_c. How much did you receive last month from Social Security checks from the 

government for retirement, disability, or survivors’ benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 46 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_C=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_c. How much did other people in your household receive from Social Security 

checks from the government for retirement, disability, or survivors’ benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_C = 1 AND BOTH I1B_C AND I1C_C = 0: I must have made a 

mistake. I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Social 

Security checks last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_D = 1 

I1b_d. How much did you receive last month from Other retirement benefits such as a 

government or private pension or annuity?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_D=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_d. How much did other people in your household receive from Other retirement 

benefits such as a government or private pension or annuity?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_D = 1 AND BOTH I1B_D AND I1C_D = 0: I must have made a 

mistake. I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Other 

retirement benefits last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_E = 1 

I1b_e. How much did you receive last month from SSI or Supplemental Security 

Income from the federal, state, or local government?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 47 (3-8-11)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_E=1 AND B1 NE 0 

I1c_e. How much did other people in your household receive from SSI or 

Supplemental Security Income from the federal, state, or local government?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_E = 1 AND BOTH I1B_E AND I1C_E = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received SSI or 

Supplemental Security Income last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_F = 1 

I1b_f. How much did you receive last month from Veteran’s Benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_F=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_f. How much did other people in your household receive from Veteran’s 

Benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_F = 1 AND BOTH I1B_F AND I1C_F = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Veteran’s Benefits

last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_G = 1 

I1b_g. How much did you receive last month from Unemployment Insurance or 

worker’s compensation benefits?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 48 (3-8-11)

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_G=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_g. How much did other people in your household receive from Unemployment 

Insurance or worker’s compensation benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_G = 1 AND BOTH I1B_G AND I1C_G = 0: I must have made a 

mistake. I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received 

Unemployment Insurance or worker’s compensation benefits last month. Is there an 

error? 

I1A_H = 1 

I1b_h. How much did you receive last month from Child support payments?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_H=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_h. How much did other people in your household receive from Child support 

payments?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_H = 1 AND BOTH I1B_H AND I1C_H = 0: I must have made a 

mistake. I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Child 

support payments last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_I = 1 

I1b_i. How much did you receive last month from Payments from roomers or 

boarders?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 49 (3-8-11)

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_I=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_i. How much did other people in your household receive from Payments from 

roomers or boarders?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_I = 1 AND BOTH I1B_I AND I1C_I = 0: I must have made a mistake. I 

previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Payments from 

roomers or boarders last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_J = 1 

I1b_j. How much did you receive last month from Financial support from friends or 

family?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_J=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_j. How much did other people in your household receive from Financial support 

from friends or family?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_J = 1 AND BOTH I1B_J AND I1C_J = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Financial support 

from friends or family last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_K = 1 

I1b_k. How much did you receive last month from (FILL FROM I1a_k_Specify)?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 50 (3-8-11)

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_K=1 AND B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_k. How much did other people in your household receive from (FILL FROM 

I1a_k_Specify)?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_K = 1 AND BOTH I1B_K AND I1C_K = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received (FILL FROM 

I1a_k_Specify) last month. Is there an error? 

ALL

I2. Are you currently working at a job for pay? Include any self-employment.

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO I6

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO I6

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO I6

I2 = 1

I3. How many hours do you usually work per week on this job?

| | | NUMBER OF HOURS (1 – 80)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 60 I just want to make sure I recorded you answer correctly. Did you 

say NUM?

I2 = 1

I4. How much do you earn per hour on this job, before taxes and other 

deductions?

$ | | |.| | | HOURLY WAGE (1.00 – 40.99) GO TO I6

NOT PAID BY THE HOUR........................................... 0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO I6
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 51 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO I6

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 20 I just want to make sure I recorded your answer correctly. Did 

you say NUM?

I4 = 0

I5. ENTER AMOUNT

$ | | |,| | | | (1 - 99999)

ENTER PAY PERIOD

CODE ONE ONLY

WEEK..........................................................................1

DAY .............................................................................2

EVERY TWO WEEKS .................................................3

TWICE A MONTH........................................................4

MONTHLY ...................................................................5

YEARLY ......................................................................6

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................7

(STRING (NUM))

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT $2,000 / MONTH I just want to make sure I recorded your response 

correctly. Did you say NUM PER UNIT?

B1 NE 0 AND B3 GE15

else IF I2 = 1

IF R LIVES ALONE, GO TO I9 

I6. Does anyone (else) in your household work at a job for pay?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO I9

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO I9

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO I9
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 52 (3-8-11)

I6 = 1

other IF I2 = 1

I7. How many (other) people in your household work at a job for pay?

PROBE: Not including yourself.

| | | NUMBER OF WORKING HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (1 - 10)

NONE ..........................................................................0 GO TO I9

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF GT TOTAL HH MEMBERS COLLECTED AT B3 I’m sorry. Earlier in the 

interview, I recorded that there were less people living in your HH. Did I make an error? 

I7 GT 0

else IF I2 = 1

I7a. Who (else) in your household works at a job for pay?

[LIST ALL MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD AGE 15 AND OVER FROM B1]

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

NAME 1 .......................................................................2

NAME 2 .......................................................................3

NAME 3 .......................................................................4

NAME 4 .......................................................................5

I6 = 1

PERSON 1 FIRST NAME FOR FIRST PERSON SELECTED FROM I7a.

I8_1a. How many hours per week does (PERSON 1) person usually work?

| | | NUMBER OF HOURS (0 - 80)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 60 I just want to make sure I recorded you answer correctly. Did you 

say NUM? 
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 53 (3-8-11)

I8_1A > 0

PERSON 1 FIRST NAME FOR FIRST PERSON SELECTED FROM I7a.

I8_1b. How much does (PERSON 1) earn per hour on this job, before taxes and other 

deductions?

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

$ | | |.| | | HOURLY WAGE (1 – 40) GO TO LOOP

NOT PAID BY THE HOUR........................................... 0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO LOOP

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO LOOP

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 20 I just want to make sure I recorded your answer correctly. Did 

you say NUM?

I8_1B = 0

I8_1c. ENTER AMOUNT

$ | | |,| | | |.| | | (1 – 99999)

ENTER PAY PERIOD

CODE ONE ONLY

WEEK..........................................................................1

DAY .............................................................................2

EVERY TWO WEEKS .................................................3

TWICE A MONTH........................................................4

MONTHLY ...................................................................5

YEARLY ......................................................................6

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................7

(STRING (NUM))

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT $2,000 PER MONTH I just want to make sure I recorded your answer 

correctly. Did you say NUM PER UNIT?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 54 (3-8-11)

I8_1A > 0

PERSON 2 FIRST NAME FOR NEXT MEMBER OF HH SELECTED AT I7a.

I8_2a. How many hours per week does (PERSON 2) person usually work?

| | | NUMBER OF HOURS (0 - 80)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 60 I just want to make sure I recorded you answer correctly. Did you 

say NUM? 

I8_2a > 0

PERSON 2 FILL FIRST NAME FOR NEXT MEMBER OF HH SELECTED AT I7a.

I8_2b. How much does (PERSON 2) earn per hour on this job, before taxes and other 

deductions?

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

$ | | |.| | | HOURLY WAGE (1 – 40) GO TO LOOP

NOT PAID BY THE HOUR........................................... 0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO LOOP

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO LOOP

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 20 I just want to make sure I recorded your answer correctly. Did 

you say NUM?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 55 (3-8-11)

I8_2B = 0

I8_2c. ENTER AMOUNT

$ | | |,| | | |.| | | (1 – 99999)

ENTER PAY PERIOD

CODE ONE ONLY

WEEK..........................................................................1

DAY .............................................................................2

EVERY TWO WEEKS .................................................3

TWICE A MONTH........................................................4

MONTHLY ...................................................................5

YEARLY ......................................................................6

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................7

(STRING 80)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

CONTINUE LOOP UNTIL ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS SELECTED AT I7a ARE 

ACCOUNTED FOR

SOFT CHECK: IF GT $2,000 PER MONTH I just want to make sure I recorded your answer 

correctly. Did you say NUM PER UNIT? 

ALL

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I9. Do you (or anyone in your household) currently own a car, truck, or other type 

of vehicle?

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO I11

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I9 = 0, D OR R

I10. Do you have access to car, truck, or other type of vehicle when you need one?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 56 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

or anyone in your household IF B1 NE 0

I11. Do you (or anyone in your household) currently have a credit card that can be 

used to make purchases?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

I12. Now, I’d like to ask you some questions about where you live.

First, please tell me the kind of place where you now live?

CODE ONE ONLY

HOUSE, TOWNHOUSE, CONDO ............................... 1

MOBILE HOME/TRAILER............................................ 2

APARTMENT...............................................................3

ROOM .........................................................................4

MOTEL/HOTEL ...........................................................5 GO TO I14

HOMELESS, LIVING IN A SHELTER OR MISSION.... 6 GO TO I14

HOMELESS, LIVING ON THE STREET...................... 7 GO TO I14

CAR, VAN OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE................. 8 GO TO I14

ABANDONED BUILDING ............................................ 9 GO TO I14

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................10

(STRING 100)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I12 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, D, OR R

I13. Do you...

CODE ONE ONLY

Own the place you live, ............................................. 1 GO TO I15

Rent your own place or contribute to rent

at a friend or family’s place, or ................................. 2

Live rent free?............................................................3
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 57 (3-8-11)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I13 = 2, 3, D, OR R

I13a. Does your household receive Section 8 or Public Housing Assistance?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I14. Do you have access to a place where you can prepare a meal?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I12 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, D, OR R 

I15. Do you currently have the following items in your home in working condition...

YES NO

DON’T 

KNOW REFUSED

a. Refrigerator? .............................................. 1 0 d r

b. Stand alone food freezer? .......................... 1 0 d r

c. Gas or electric stove?................................. 1 0 d r

d. Microwave oven? ....................................... 1 0 d r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 58 (3-8-11)

J. MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

ALL

J1_a. Now I am going to ask you some questions about feelings you may have 

experienced over the past 30 days.

During the past 30 days

So sad that nothing could cheer you up?

, how often did you feel . . .

Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of the 

time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

J1_b. During the past 30 days

Nervous?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 59 (3-8-11)

ALL

J1_c. During the past 30 days

Restless or fidgety?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

J1_d. During the past 30 days

Hopeless?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

J1_e. During the past 30 days

That everything was an effort?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 60 (3-8-11)

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

J1_f. During the past 30 days

Worthless?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

you IF B1 = 0

your household IF B1 NE 0

J2. If (you/your household) had a problem with which you needed help, for 

example, sickness or moving, how much help would you expect to get from 

family living nearby?

CODE ONE ONLY

All of the help needed,............................................... 1

Most of the help needed, ........................................... 2

Very little of the help needed, or............................... 3

No help? .....................................................................4

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

you IF B1 = 0

your household IF B1 NE 0

J3. If (you/your household) had a problem with which you needed help, how much 

help would you expect to get from friends?

CODE ONE ONLY
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 61 (3-8-11)

All of the help needed,............................................... 1

Most of the help needed, ........................................... 2

Very little of the help needed, or............................... 3

No help? .....................................................................4

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

you IF B1 = 0

your household IF B1 NE 0

J4. If (you/your household) had a problem with which you needed help, how much 

help would you expect to get from other people in the community besides 

family and friends, such as a social service agency or a church?

CODE ONE ONLY

All of the help needed,............................................... 1

Most of the help needed, ........................................... 2

Very little of the help needed, or............................... 3

No help? .....................................................................4

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

The next question is about your neighborhood.

ALL

J5. Do you consider your neighborhood very safe from crime, somewhat safe, or 

very unsafe?

CODE ONE ONLY

VERY SAFE.................................................................1

SOMEWHAT SAFE .....................................................2

VERY UNSAFE ...........................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 62 (3-8-11)

K. RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS AND HEALTH STATUS

The last few questions are for classification purposes only.

ALL 

K1. What is your date of birth?

| | | / | | | / | | | | |

MONTH DAY YEAR

(1 – 12) (1 – 31) (1900 – 1995)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

K2. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

K3. I am going to read a list of five race categories. Please choose one or more 

races that you consider yourself to be. White; Black or African American; 

American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; or

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 

Islander?

WHITE.........................................................................1

BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN .............................. 2

AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE.................. 3

ASIAN..........................................................................4

NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR

OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER....................................... 5

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................6

 (STRING 100)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 63 (3-8-11)

ALL 

K4. What is the highest level of education you have completed so far?

Would you say...

CODE ONE ONLY

Less than 9th grade, ..................................................1

Some high school, but no diploma,.......................... 2

High school graduate (diploma or

equivalent diploma [GED]), ....................................... 3

Technical, trade or vocational degree, ..................... 4

Some college, but no degree, ................................... 5

Associate’s degree, ...................................................6

Bachelor’s degree,.....................................................7

Some graduate school but no degree, ..................... 8

Master’s degree, or....................................................9

Professional school or doctorate? ........................... 10

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

K5. ASK ONLY IF NEEDED: Are you male or female?

MALE...........................................................................1

FEMALE ......................................................................2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

K6. In general, would say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair or poor?

CODE ONE ONLY

EXCELLENT................................................................1

VERY GOOD...............................................................2

GOOD..........................................................................3

FAIR ............................................................................4

POOR..........................................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 64 (3-8-11)

ALL 

K7a. How tall are you without shoes?

ENTER UNIT

FEET/INCHES.............................................................1

METERS/CENTIMETERS ........................................... 2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

K7A=1 OR 2

FEET IF K7A=1

METERS IF K7A=2

K7b. ENTER (FEET/METERS)

| | | NUMBER (3 – 7 IF FEET; 1.0 - 2.50 IF METERS)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

K7A=1 OR 2

INCHES IF K7A=1

CENTIMETERS IF K7A=2

K7c. ENTER (INCHES/CENTIMETERS)

| | | NUMBER (1-12 IF INCHES; 100-220 IF CENTIMETERS)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GE 7 FEET OR GT 2 METERS I just want to make sure I recorded your 

answer correctly. Did you say 7 feet/2 meters?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 65 (3-8-11)

ALL

K8. How much do you weigh without shoes?

IF RESPONDENT SAYS SHE IS PREGNANT, SAY: How much did you weigh 

before your pregnancy?

ENTER UNIT

POUNDS .....................................................................1

KILOGRAMS ...............................................................2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

K8=1 OR 2

K8a. ENTER NUMBER

| | | | NUMBER (70 – 999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 66 (3-8-11)

L. RESPONDENT FOLLOW UP CONTACT INFORMATION

IF CURRENT PARTICIPANT, GO TO END. IF NEW PARTICIPANT, ASK L1.

NEW PARTICIPANT IF A3A=2 THEN USE A4A NAME; OTHERWISE USE A3A NAME. 

L1. I would like to thank you for participating in the survey. We would like to 

interview you again in 6 months and I would like to know how to get in touch 

with you. There will be a $20.00 gift card for completing that survey as well.

IFI12=5,6,7,8, 9, D,OR R, SAY

“Please give me an address at which you usually receive mail, or the name and 

address of a relative or friend who can receive mail for you.”

OTHERWISE:

COLLECT/CONFIRM CURRENT CONTACT INFO FOR RESPONDENT

(STRING 40)

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

MIDDLE INITIAL/NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 1

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 2

(STRING 100)

CITY

(STRING 40)

STATE/TERRITORY

| | | | | | - | | | | |

ZIP CODE (+ 4 IF NEEDED)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER - HOME

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER – CELLULAR

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER - OTHER

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

(STRING 80)

EMAIL

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF Exchange=555 I’m sorry. I must have made a mistake. The area code I 

recorded does not exist. Can you tell me the phone number again?

HARD CHECK: IF AREA CODE LT 200 I’m sorry. I must have made a mistake. The area 
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 67 (3-8-11)

code I recorded does not exist. Can you tell me the phone number again.

NEW PARTICIPANT

L2. Next, I would like to ask you for the name, address, and telephone number of 

3 close friends or relatives we can contact in case you move and we cannot 

easily locate you for your next interview. All information collected will be held 

in strictest confidence and will only be used to locate you if we cannot reach 

you at your current address.

CONTACT 1:

(STRING 40)

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

MIDDLE INITIAL/NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

_________________________________(STRING 100)

RELATIONSHIP TO RESPONDENT

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 1

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 2

(STRING 100)

CITY

(STRING 40)

STATE/TERRITORY

| | | | | | - | | | | |

ZIP CODE (+ 4 IF NEEDED)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER - HOME

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER – CELLULAR

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER - OTHER

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

....................................................................................(STRING 80)

EMAIL

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO L3

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO L3

SOFT CHECK: IF Exchange=555 I’m sorry. I must have made a mistake. The area code I 

recorded does not exist. Can you tell me the phone number again?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 68 (3-8-11)

HARD CHECK: IF AREA CODE LT 200 I’m sorry. I must have made a mistake. The area 

code I recorded does not exist. Can you tell me the phone number again.
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 69 (3-8-11)

NEW PARTICIPANT

CONTACT 2:

(STRING 40)

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

MIDDLE INITIAL/NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

_________________________________(STRING 100)

RELATIONSHIP TO RESPONDENT

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 1

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 2

(STRING 100)

CITY

(STRING 40)

STATE/TERRITORY

| | | | | | - | | | | |

ZIP CODE (+ 4 IF NEEDED)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER - HOME

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER – CELLULAR

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER - OTHER

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

(STRING 80)

EMAIL

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO L3

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO L3

SOFT CHECK: IF Exchange=555 I’m sorry. I must have made a mistake. The area code I 

recorded does not exist. Can you tell me the phone number again?

HARD CHECK: IF AREA CODE LT 200 I’m sorry. I must have made a mistake. The area 

code I recorded does not exist. Can you tell me the phone number again.
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 70 (3-8-11)

NEW PARTICIPANT

CONTACT 3:

(STRING 40)

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

MIDDLE INITIAL/NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

_________________________________(STRING 100)

RELATIONSHIP TO RESPONDENT

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 1

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 2

(STRING 100)

CITY

(STRING 40)

STATE/TERRITORY

| | | | | | - | | | | |

ZIP CODE (+ 4 IF NEEDED)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER - HOME

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER – CELLULAR

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

| | | | - | | | | - | | | | | PHONE NUMBER - OTHER

(200-999) (100-999) (0000-9999)

(STRING 80)

EMAIL

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d 

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF Exchange=555 I’m sorry. I must have made a mistake. The area code I 

recorded does not exist. Can you tell me the phone number again?

HARD CHECK: IF AREA CODE LT 200 I’m sorry. I must have made a mistake. The area 

code I recorded does not exist. Can you tell me the phone number again.
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 71 (3-8-11)

ALL

provide IF ADDRESS COLLECTED AT L1 

confirm IF NO ADDRESS COLLECTED AT L1

END. Those are all our questions. Thank you very much for your participation in the 

survey. Please (provide/confirm) the name and address where we should send 

the gift card.

RECORD NAME AND ADDRESS FOR CHECK

[IF ADDRESS COLLECTED AT L1, PRE-FILL HERE]

(STRING 40)

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

MIDDLE INITIAL/NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 1

(STRING1 00)

ADDRESS 2

(STRING 100)

CITY

(STRING 40)

STATE/TERRITORY

| | | | | | - | | | | |

ZIP CODE (+ 4 IF NEEDED)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
MPR Reference No.: 06801.602

SNAP Food Security

Telephone Survey

CATI SPECIFICATIONS 

Updated for the Follow-Up Data Collection Effort

April 4, 2012 
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 5 (3-8-11)

A. INTRODUCTION

ALL

SAMPLE MEMBER FROM SAMPMEM_NAME

Hello 

Hello, my name is [INTVNAME]. I am calling from Mathematica Policy 

Research on behalf of the US Department of Agriculture. May I please speak to 

[SAMPLE MEMBER]?

SAMPLE MEMBER COMES TO PHONE .................... 1 GO TO INTRO1

SAMPLE MEMBER UNAVAILABLE/BAD TIME........... 2 SCHEDULE CALL BACK

NO ONE ANSWERS....................................................3 GO TO NO ANSWER SCREEN

NO SUCH PERSON AT THIS NUMBER ..................... 4 GO TO LOCATING SCREEN

NEW RESPONDENT...................................................5 GO TO SCRN1a

INTERVIEWER: CODE 5 ONLY WITH SUPERVISOR PERMISSION AND WRITE 

NOTE DOCUMENTING CIRCUMSTANCES

HELLO = 1

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name

Intro1 Hello, my name is ______________ and I’m calling from Mathematica Policy 

Research. As you may recall from the letter we recently mailed you, we are 

once again conducting a survey on behalf of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture that funds the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or 

[STATE SNAP NAME], which is also known as food stamps.. The interview will 

take about 20-30 minutes, and your cooperation is completely voluntary. Your 

participation in the survey will not affect any government assistance you are 

receiving now or in the future. All answers you give will be confidential and no 

individual results will be presented. As a token of appreciation, we will once 

again be sending you a $20 gift card after this interview is complete.

BEGIN INTERVIEW.....................................................1

DID NOT RECEIVE OR DOES NOT RECALL 

LETTER.......................................................................2 GO TO LETTER SCREEN

WANTS MORE INFORMATION .................................. 3 GO TO MORE INFO SCREEN

NOT A GOOD TIME ....................................................4 GO TO APPOINTMENT SCREEN

HUNG UP DURING INTRODUCTION ......................... 5

SUPERVISOR REVIEW .............................................. 6
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 6 (3-8-11)

INTRO1 = 1 OR HELLO=5

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name 

EBT STATE NAME FROM EBTstate_name

SCRN1a. Based on the information from our last interview, your household began 

receiving [STATE SNAP NAME] benefits around 6 months ago. Is that correct?

PROBE: This program used to be called food stamps. It puts money on an 

[EBT STATE NAME] card that you can use to buy food.

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO SCRN1D

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO SCRN1D

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO Sup Review

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO Sup Review

SCRN1A = 1 OR 0

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name

SCRN1d. Are you now participating in [STATE SNAP NAME]?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO END

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO Sup Review

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO Sup Review

PROGRAMMER: IF SCRN1a=0 & SCRN1d=1, GO TO SCRN1e; IF SCRN1a=1 & 

SCRN1d=1, GO TO A1

SCRN1e. About how many months in a row have you been participating in [STATE SNAP 

NAME]?

| | | MONTHS (0 - 9)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO Sup Review

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO Sup Review

INTERVIEWER: ENTER 9 IF MORE THAN 9 MONTHS; ENTER 0 IF LESS THAN 

1 MONTH

PROGRAMMER: IF SCRN1e = 5-8 MONTHS 

GO TO A1; ELSE GO TO END
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 7 (3-8-11)

SCRN1D=0 OR; SCRN1E=0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 OR R

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name

END Those are all the questions I have. This survey is for people who are currently 

participating in [STATE SNAP NAME] and have been participating in [STATE 

SNAP NAME] for about 6 months. Thank you for your time. Good-bye. CODE 

AS SUP REVIEW

Sup Review Those are all the questions I have for now. I need to clarify some information with 

my supervisor. We will call you back if we have additional questions.

SCRN1A = 1 & SCRN1D = 1 OR SCRN1E=5-8 OR HELLO=5

A1. Are you the person who does most of the planning or preparing of meals in 

your family?

INTERVIEWER: IF R ANSWERS “SOMETIMES” OR “50/50,” ENTER YES.

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO A2

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO A2

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO A2

A1 = 0

A1a. Which adult in your household does most

(STRING 40)

of the planning or preparing of 

meals?

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SCRN1A = 1

A2. Are you the person who does most of the shopping for food

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO A3

in your family?

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO A3

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO A3
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 8 (3-8-11)

A2 = 0

A2a. Which adult in your household does most of the shopping for food?

ENTER 1 TO RECORD NAME .................................... 1

SAME AS MEAL PLANNER ........................................ 2 GO TO A3 CHECK

A2A = 1

A2a_NAME RECORD NAME

(STRING 40)

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

A3 PROGRAMMER CHECK

IS RESPONDENT THE MEAL PLANNER (A1=1) OR FOOD SHOPPER (A2=1)?

IF YES, GO TO B1, IF NO, GO TO A3a. IF NEITHER FOOD SHOPPER NOR MEAL PLANNER 

IS AVAILABLE, SCHEDULE CALL BACK.

A1 = 0 AND A2 = 0

A3a. May I please speak to [FILL NAME COLLECTED AT A2a]? COMES TO 

PHONE 1 GO TO INTRO2

FOOD SHOPPER UNAVAILABLE............................... 2

BAD TIME/CALL BACK ............................................... 3 SCHEDULE CALL BACK

A3A = 2 AND A2A NE TO 2

A4a. May I please speak to [FILL NAME COLLECTED AT A1a]?

COMES TO PHONE....................................................1 GO TO INTRO2

MEAL PLANNER UNAVAILABLE................................ 2 SCHEDULE CALL BACK

BAD TIME/CALL BACK ............................................... 3 SCHEDULE CALL BACK
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 9 (3-8-11)

A4A OR A3A = 1; OR HELLO=5

STATE SNAP NAME FROM SNAPstate_name

Hello, my name is_________and I’m calling from Mathematica Policy Research IF A4A

OR A3A=1

INTRO2 (Hello, my name is __________ and I’m calling from Mathematica Policy 

Research.) About six months ago, we conducted an interview with your 

household for a study we are conducting on behalf of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture that funds the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or 

[STATE SNAP NAME], which is also known as food stamps, to learn more 

about families and their food needs. We would like to conduct a follow-up 

interview with you. The interview will take about 20-30 minutes, and your 

cooperation is completely voluntary. Your participation in the survey will not 

affect any government assistance you are receiving now or in the future. All 

answers you give will be confidential and no individual results will be 

presented. As a token of appreciation, we will be sending you a $20 Wal-Mart 

gift card after the interview is complete.

PROCEED WITH INTERVIEW .................................... 1

BAD TIME/CALL BACK ............................................... 2 SCHEDULE CALL BACK

IF NEW RESPONDENT (A3A=1, A4A=1, OR HELLO=5)

A5. Are you at least 18 years old?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO SUP REVIEW

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO SUP REVIEW

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO SUP REVIEW

HELLO=5 AND A4A OR A3A NE 1

HELLO5_NAME What is your name?

RECORD NAME

(STRING 40)

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 10 (3-8-11)

B. HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

The first few questions are about the people you live with.

HH SIZE = 1 AT BASELINE AND SAME RESPONDENT

B1. During the last interview, we recorded that you live alone. Is this still correct?

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO B1b

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO B1c

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO B1c

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO B1c

HH SIZE >1 AT BASELINE AND SAME RESPONDENT

B1a. During the last interview, we recorded that the following people live in your 

household and share food with you. [READ NAMES] Is this still correct?

[BASELINE RESP]

[NAME 1]

[NAME 2]

[NAME 3]

[NAME 4]

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO B1b

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO B1c

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO B1c

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO B1c

B1 =1 OR B1A = 1 AND SAME RESPONDENT

B1b. Has anyone else joined your household since the last interview? 

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO B1c

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO B4

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO B4

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO B4
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 11 (3-8-11)

B1 OR B1A NE1; OR B1B = 1 OR NEW RESPONDENT

now lives in your household IF B1 OR B1a = 0, d, or r, OR NEW RESPONDENT

joined your household since the last interview IF B1b =1

B1c. Please tell me the first name of everyone who (now lives in your 

household/joined your household since the last interview which was about 6 

months ago). By household, I mean the people who live with you and share 

food with you. Please include babies, small children, and people who are not 

related to you.

RESPONDENT LIVES ALONE.................................... 0 GO TO B4

ENTER NAMES...........................................................1

(ALLOW UP TO 10 NAMES)

(STRING 40)

NAME 

B1c NE 0 

ASK B2 FOR ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS RECORDED IN B1c.

NAME 1 FILL FIRST NAME COLLECTED AT B1c

THEN FILL EACH SUBSEQUENT NAME (NAME 2 – NAME 10)

B2. And what is [NAME 1]’s relationship to you

INTERVIEWER: CODE COHABITEE’S CHILD AND OTHER CHILDREN WHO ARE 

NOT NATURAL, ADOPTED OR STEP, BUT FOR WHOM THE 

SAMPLE MEMBER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY, AS “OTHER 

CUSTODIAL CHILD.”

?

HUSBAND OR WIFE...................................................1

UNMARRIED PARTNER ............................................. 2

SON OR DAUGHTER (INCLUDING

BIOLOGICAL, STEP, OR ADOPTED CHILD).............. 3

OTHER CUSTODIAL OR FOSTER CHILD.................. 4

PARENT (MOTHER, FATHER,

INCLUDING STEPPARENTS AND IN-LAWS)............. 5

SIBLING (BROTHER OR SISTER

INCLUDING IN-LAWS)................................................6

GRANDCHILD .............................................................7

OTHER RELATIVE......................................................8

NON-RELATIVE (INCLUDING

ROOMER OR BOARDER)........................................... 9

OTHER SPECIFY........................................................10

________________________________(STRING 60)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 12 (3-8-11)

B1c NE 0

ASK B3 FOR ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS RECORDED IN B1c.

NAME 1 FILL FIRST NAME COLLECTED AT B1c

THEN FILL EACH SUBSEQUENT NAME (NAME 2 – NAME 10)

B3. What is [NAME 1]’s age?

| | | AGE (0 - 99)

INTERVIEWER: IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD ENTER “0”.

YEARS ........................................................................1

B3 GE 15 (HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS RECORDED IN B1c 15 OR OLDER).

NAME 1 FILL FIRST NAME COLLECTED AT B1c

THEN FILL EACH SUBSEQUENT NAME (NAME 2 – NAME 10)

B3a. ASK ONLY IF NEEDED: IS [NAME 1] male or female?

MALE...........................................................................1

FEMALE ......................................................................2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

Do you IF B1c = 0

Does anyone in your household IF B1c NE 0

you IF B1C = 0

anyone in the household IF B1c NE 0

B4. (Do you/Does anyone in your household) have a physical, mental, or other 

health condition that limits the kind or amount of work that (you/anyone in the 

household) can do?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 13 (3-8-11)

C. TRIGGER EVENTS

B1 OR B1A NE1; OR B1B = 1; 

C1a. I just recorded that there has been a change in the household since the last 

interview. What caused that change?

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

BIRTH OF CHILD ........................................................1

NEW STEP, FOSTER OR ADOPTED CHILD.............. 2

MARRIAGE/NEW PARTNER....................................... 3

SEPARATION OR DIVORCE ...................................... 4

DEATH OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBER........................... 5

FAMILY/BOARDER MOVING IN ................................. 6

FAMILY/BOARDER MOVING OUT.............................. 7

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................8

________________________________(STRING 500)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 14 (3-8-11)

ALL

Since we last interviewed you 6 month ago IF SAME RESPONDENT AS BASELINE

In the past 6 months IF NEW RESPONDENT 

Were you IF B1c=0

Was your household IF B1c NE 0

C2. At any time (since we last interviewed you 6 months ago/ in the past 6 months) 

(were you/was your household) evicted from your house or apartment?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

or anyone in your household IF B1c NE 0

in the past 6 months IF NEW RESPONDENT

since our last interview IF SAME RESPONDENT AS BASELINE

C3. Have you (or anyone in your household) had a change in employment or a 

change in pay or hours worked from a job (in the past 6 months/since our last 

interview)?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO D1

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO D1

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO D1

B1C NE 0

in the past 6 months IF NEW RESPONDENT

since our last interview IF SAME RESPONDENT AS BASELINE

C3a. Who in your household had a change in employment or a change in pay or 

hours worked from a job (in the past 6 months/since our last interview)?

[LIST ALL MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD AGE 15 AND OVER FROM B1c]

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

RESPONDENT............................................................1

NAME 1 .......................................................................2

NAME 2 .......................................................................3

NAME 3 .......................................................................4

NAME 4 .......................................................................5
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 15 (3-8-11)

C3 = 1

you IF B1c = 0 OR C3A = 1

NAME FILL FROM C3A

in the past 6 months IF NEW RESPONDENT

since our last interview IF SAME RESPONDENT AS BASELINE

C3b. What was that change in employment or a change in pay or hours worked from 

a job that (you/[NAME]) experienced (in the past 6 months/since our last 

interview)?

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

OBTAINED A JOB .......................................................1

LOST JOB ...................................................................2

INCREASE IN PAY OR HOURS.................................. 3

DECREASE IN PAY OR HOURS ................................ 4

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................5

________________________________(STRING 500)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

[REPEAT FOR EACH PERSON RECORDED IN C3a]
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 16 (3-8-11)

D. SNAP PARTICIPATION

ALL

D1. Next, we’re going to ask you about your participation in SNAP.

ALL

you IF B1c = 0

your household IF B1c NE 0

D1b. On what date did (you/your household) receive your most recent SNAP 

benefits? That is, when was money most recently put on your [EBT/STATE 

NAME] card?

| | | / | | | / | | | | |

MONTH DAY YEAR

(1 - 12) (1 - 31) (2011-2012)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF DATE IS MORE THAN 1 MONTH PRIOR TO INTERVIEW DATE I just want 

to be sure I recorded the date correctly. Did you say DATE? 

HARD CHECK: IF DATE IN FUTURE I’m sorry. I must have recorded the date incorrectly. 

Can you please give me that date again?

household’s IF B1c NE 0

EBT/STATE NAME FROM EBTstate_name

D2. How many dollars were put on your (household’s) [EBT/STATE NAME] card 

this most recent time?

$ | | | | AMOUNT ISSUED ON EBT CARD (1 – 2,000)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO D5

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO D5

SOFT CHECK: IF HH MEMBERS LISTED IN B1c LT 8 AND D2 IS GT 1,000 I just want to be 

sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?

D2 NE D OR R

D3. How much of the [FILL AMOUNT IN D2] that you most recently received have 

you used so far?

NONE - HAVE NOT USED YET .................................. 0

ENTER AMOUNT SPENT SO FAR ............................. 1
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 17 (3-8-11)

ENTER BALANCE REMAINING.................................. 2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO D4

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO D4

D3 = 1 OR 2

D3a.

$ | | | | AMOUNT (1 – 2,000) GO TO D5

HARD CHECK: IF AMOUNT RECORDED IN D3A GT AMOUNT IN D2 I’m sorry. I must have 

made a mistake. The (amount spent/balance remaining) is more than the amount you 

received. Is there an error?

D3 OR D3A = D OR R

D4. Would you say as of now you have used...

CODE ONE ONLY

Less than half,............................................................1

About half,..................................................................2

Or more than half of your monthly

SNAP benefits?..........................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 18 (3-8-11)

ALL

D5. How many weeks do your SNAP benefits usually last? Do they last...

CODE ONE ONLY

1 week or less, ...........................................................1

2 weeks,......................................................................2

3 weeks,......................................................................3

4 weeks, or .................................................................4

more than 4 weeks?...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 19 (3-8-11)

E. FOOD PURCHASE BEHAVIOR

IF NEW RESPONDENT GO TO E1, ELSE READ INTRO

In this next section I will be asking you many of the same questions we asked you 6 

months ago because things can change over time.

ALL

E1. Where do you buy most of your groceries?

ENTER NAME OF ONE STORE.................................. 1 GO TO E1_NAME

MULTIPLE STORES NAMED...................................... 2 GO TO E1_NAME2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO F1

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO F1

E1 = 1

E1_NAME

INTERVIEWER: RECORD NAME OF STORE

________________________________(STRING 60) GO TO E1a

E1=2

E1_NAME2 If you had to choose just one of these stores, which one would you say you 

shop at most often?

INTERVIEWER: RECORD NAME OF STORE

________________________________(STRING 60)
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 20 (3-8-11)

E1 NE D OR R

E1a. What kind of store is that?

INTERVIEWER: CODE TYPE OF STORE 

CODE ONE ONLY

SUPERMARKETS/GROCERY STORES..................... 1

DISCOUNT STORES SUCH AS WAL-MART,

TARGET, OR KMART .................................................2

WAREHOUSE CLUBS, SUCH AS PRICE CLUB, 

COSTCO, PACE, SAM’S CLUB, BJ’S ......................... 3

CONVENIENCE STORES SUCH AS 7-11,

QUICK CHECK, QUICK STOP, WAWA....................... 4

ETHNIC FOOD STORES SUCH AS

BODEGA’S ASIAN FOOD MARKETS, OR

CARIBBEAN MARKETS.............................................. 5

FARMER’S MARKET...................................................6

DOLLAR STORES.......................................................7

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................8

________________________________(STRING 100)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 21 (3-8-11)

E1 NE D OR R

E2. What is the main

CODE ONE ONLY

reason you shop at (FILL NAME FROM E1)?

LOW PRICES ..............................................................01

SALES.........................................................................02

QUALITY OF FOOD ....................................................03

VARIETY OF FOODS (GENERAL).............................. 04

VARIETY OF SPECIAL FOODS

(SUCH AS GLUTEN FREE)......................................... 05

CLOSE TO HOME/CONVENIENT............................... 06

EASY TO GET TO.......................................................07

PRODUCE SELECTION.............................................. 08

MEAT DEPARTMENT ................................................. 09

LOYALTY/FREQUENT SHOPPER PROGRAM........... 10

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................11

________________________________(STRING 200)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

E1 NE D OR R

E3. How do you usually get to (FILL NAME FROM E1)?

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

DRIVE OWN CAR........................................................1

DRIVE SOMEONE ELSE’S CAR ................................. 2

SOMEONE ELSE DRIVES ME.................................... 3

WALK ..........................................................................4

BUS ............................................................................5

TAXI ............................................................................6

RIDE BICYCLE............................................................7

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................8

________________________________(STRING 100)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 22 (3-8-11)

E1 NE D OR R

E3a. Do you usually go to (FILL NAME FROM E1) directly from home?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

E1 NE D OR R

E3b. About how long does it take to go one way from home to (FILL NAME FROM 

E1)?

| | | NUMBER OF MINUTES ONE WAY (1 - 120)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

E1 NE D OR R

E3c. And approximately how many miles away is (FILL NAME FROM E1) from your 

home – one way?

| | | MILES ONE WAY (0 - 99)

INTERVIEWER: IF LESS THAN ONE MILE ENTER “0”

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 30 I just want to make sure I recorded your answer correctly. Did 

you say NUM?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 23 (3-8-11)

F. FOOD EXPENDITURES

These next questions are about all the places at which you bought food last week. (By 

last week I mean Sunday through Saturday. When answering these questions, please 

think about all food purchases, meaning those purchased with and without your[STATE 

NAME EBT CARD].

ALL 

you IF B1c = 0

anyone in your household IF B1c NE 0

F1. First, did (you/anyone in your household) shop for food at a supermarket or 

grocery store last week

(PROBE IF INTERVIEWDATE = SATURDAY: By last week we don’t mean the week 

that ends today, but the week that ended last Saturday.)

?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

you IF B1c = 0

anyone in your household IF B1c NE 0

F2. Think about other places where people buy food, such as meat markets, 

produce stands, bakeries, warehouse clubs, and convenience stores. Did 

(you/anyone in your household) buy food from any stores such as these 

last week

(PROBE IF INTERVIEWDATE = SATURDAY: By last week we don’t mean the week 

that ends today, but the week that ended last Saturday.)

?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 24 (3-8-11)

ALL

you IF B1c = 0

anyone in your household IF B1c NE 0

include any children who may have bought food at the school cafeteria IF B3 = 5 TO 18 

F3. Last week

YES .............................................................................1

, did (you/anyone in your household) buy food at a restaurant, fast 

food place, cafeteria, or vending machine? (Include any children who may 

have bought food at the school cafeteria.)

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

you IF B1c = 0

anyone in your household IF B1c NE 0

F4. Did (you/anyone in your household) buy food from any other kind of place 

last week

YES .............................................................................1

?

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

F1, F2, F3 OR F4 = 1

IF “NO” TO F1 AND F2 AND F3 AND F4, GO TO F10.

Now I’m going to ask you about the actual amount you spent on food last week in all the 

places where you bought food. Then, since last week may have been unusual for you, I 

will ask about the amount you usually spend.

F1 = 1

you IF B1c = 0

anyone in your household IF B1c NE 0

STATE NAME EBT CARD FROM EBTstate_name

F5. How much did (you/anyone in your household) actually spend at supermarkets 

and grocery stores last week

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

including any purchases made with [STATE 

NAME EBT CARD] card or food stamp benefits?

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT LAST WEEK (1 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO F6

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO F6
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 25 (3-8-11)

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?

F5 GT 0 

F5a. How much of the [FILL AMOUNT FROM F5] was for non-food items, such as 

pet food, paper products, alcohol, detergents, or cleaning supplies?

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT ON NON-FOOD ITEMS (0 – 2,000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF AMOUNT GT AMOUNT COLLECTED AT F5 I’m sorry. I must have made a 

mistake. This amount is more than the total amount spent that you reported in the last 

question. Is there an error?

F2 = 1

you IF B1c = 0

your household IF B1c NE 0

STATE NAME EBT CARD FROM EBTstate_name

F6. How much did (you/your household) spend at stores such as meat markets, 

produce stands, bakeries, warehouse clubs, and convenience stores last week

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

including any purchases made with your [STATE NAME EBT CARD] or food 

stamp benefits?

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT LAST WEEK (1 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO F7

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO F7

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 26 (3-8-11)

F6 GT 0

F6a. How much of the [FILL AMOUNT FROM F6] was for nonfood items, such as pet 

food, paper products, alcohol, detergents, or cleaning supplies?

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT ON NON-FOOD ITEMS (0 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF AMOUNT GT AMOUNT COLLECTED AT F6 I’m sorry. I must have made a 

mistake. This amount is more than the total amount spent that you reported in the last 

question. Is there an error?

F3 = 1

you IF B1c = 0

your household IF B1c NE 0

F7. How much did (you/your household) spend for food at restaurants, fast food 

places, cafeterias, and vending machines last week

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

, not including alcohol 

purchases?

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT LAST WEEK (1 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 27 (3-8-11)

F4 = 1

you IF B1c = 0

your household IF B1c NE 0

F8. How much did (you/your household) spend for food at any other kind of place 

last week

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

?

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT LAST WEEK (1 – 2000.00)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?

F1, F2, F3, OR F4 = 1

you IF B1c = 0

your household IF B1c NE 0

AMOUNT FROM SUM OF (F5-F5a)+(F6-F6a)+F7+F8

STATE NAME EBT CARD FROM EBTstate_name

F9. Let’s see, (you/your household) spent about [AMOUNT] on food last week. 

How much of that was bought using your [STATE NAME EBT CARD] card?

$ | | | | AMOUNT SPENT WITH EBT CARD (0 - 2000) GO TO F10

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF AMOUNT IS GT THAN AMOUNT RECORDED IN D3 I’m sorry. I may have 

made a mistake. This amount is more than the amount you said you used earlier. Is there 

an error?

SOFT CHECK: IF AMOUNT IS GT THAN SUM AMOUNT: I’m sorry. I may have made a 

mistake. This amount is more than the amount you said you spent on food last week.

F9 = D OR R

F9a. Would you say you spent...

CODE ONE ONLY

Less than half,............................................................1

About half,..................................................................2

Or more than half?.....................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 28 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

Let’s see, it seems that (you/your household) did not buy any food last week IF F1, F2, 

F3, AND F4 = 0

Again,(you/your household) spent about (FILL AMOUNT) on food last week. IF F1, F2, F3, 

OR F4 = 1 

(You/Your household) spent about (FILL AMOUNT) on food last week. IF F1, F2, F3, OR F4 = 1 

you AND do you IF B1c = 0

your household AND does your household IF B1c NE 0

STATE NAME EBT CARD FROM EBTstate_name

FILL AMOUNT FROM SUM OF (F5-F5a)+(F6-F6a)+F7+F8

F10. [Let’s see, it seems that (you/your household) did not buy any food last

week./Again,(you/your household) spent about (FILL AMOUNT) on food last 

week / (You/Your household) spent about (FILL AMOUNT) on food last week.] 

Now think about how much (you/your household) usually (spend/spends). How 

much (do you/does your household) usually spend on food at all the different 

places we’ve been talking about in a week

$ | | | |.| | | AMOUNT SPENT IN A TYPICAL WEEK (1 – 3000.00)

? Please include any purchases 

made with your [STATE NAME EBT CARD] or food stamp benefits. Do not 

include nonfood items such as pet food, paper products, detergent or cleaning 

supplies.

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF NUMBER OF HH MEMBERS IS LT 8 AND AMOUNT REPORTED HERE GT 

999.99 I just want to make sure I recorded your response correctly. Did you say NUM?

ALL

or anyone in your household IF B1c NE 0

That completes our questions about food purchased over the last week. Now we’re going 

to talk about things people sometimes do each month to save money when buying food.

F11. In the last 30 days, have you (or anyone in your household)...

YES NO

DON’T 

KNOW REFUSED

a. Used coupons when buying food?....... 1 0 d r

b. Bought food in large quantities to 

receive bulk discounts? ....................... 1 0 d r

c. Bought food items because they were 

on sale?............................................... 1 0 d r

d. Bought food that was near or past its 

expiration date at a discount?.............. 1 0 d r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 29 (3-8-11)

G. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

B3 = 0 – 18 YEARS (SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN PRESENT IN HH); OR B3 = 15-45 AND B3A = 

FEMALE (FEMALE AGE 15-45 IN HH); OR SAMPLE MEMBER IS RESPONDENT (A1=1 OR 

A2=1) AND GENDER IN LOAD FILE = FEMALE AND AGE IN LOAD FILE = 15-45; OR A1 

OR A2 NE TO 1 (SAMPLE MEMBER IS NOT RESPONDENT)

or someone in your household IF B1c NE 0

IF NO FEMALE AGE 15-45 IN HH OR B3 > 18 YEARS (NO SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 

PRESENT IN HH), GO TO SECTION H

The next questions are about programs you (or someone in your household) may be 

participating in.

B3 = 5 TO 18 YEARS (SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN PRESENT IN HH)

G1. During the past 30 days, did any children in the household (between 5 and 

18 years old) receive free or reduced-cost lunches at school?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

B3 = 5 TO 18 YEARS (SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN PRESENT IN HH

IF B3 = 5-18 YEARS (SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN PRESENT IN HH), ASK:

G2. During the past 30 days, did any children in the household (between 5 and 

18 years old) receive free or reduced-cost breakfasts at school?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 30 (3-8-11)

B3 LT 5 YEARS (PRE-SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN IN HH)

your child IF B3 LT 5 YEARS FOR ONE CHILD (ONE PRE-SCHOOL CHILD IN HH)

any children in the household IF B3 LT 5 YEARS FOR MORE THAN ONE CHILD 

G3. During the past 30 days, did (your child/any children in the household) receive 

free or reduced-cost food at a day-care or Head Start program?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

B3 LT 5 YEARS; OR B3 = 15-45 AND B3A = FEMALE (FEMALE AGE 15-45 IN HH) OR 

SAMPLE MEMBER IS RESPONDENT (A1=1 OR A2=1) AND AGE IN LOAD FILE = 15-45; OR 

A1 OR A2 NE TO 1 (SAMPLE MEMBER IS NOT RESPONDENT)

women IF B3 NE 4 OR LESS (NO CHILDREN 0-4 IN HH) 

women or children IF B3 LT 5 YEARS AND B3 = 15-45 AND B3a=FEMALE (FEMALE AGE 

15-45 IN HH)

children IF B3 LT 5 YEARS AND B3 NE 15-45 FOR ANY FEMALE IN HH

IF B3 <5, OR FEMALE AGE 15-45 IN HH, ASK:

G4. During the past 30 days, did any (women/women or children/children) in this 

household get food through the WIC program?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 31 (3-8-11)

H. FOOD SECURITY AND SUFFICIENCY

ALL

you AND I AND my IF B1c = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

your household AND we AND our IF B1c NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN 

HH) OR B2=1 OR 2

Now, I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food 

situation. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement was often true, 

sometimes true, or never

H1. The first statement is, “(I/We) worried whether (my/our) food would run out 

before (I/we) got money to buy more.” Was that 

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days.

often true, sometimes true, 

or never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

I AND you IF B1c = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

we AND your household IF B1c NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN HH) OR 

B2 = 1 OR 2

H2. “The food that (I/we) bought just didn’t last, and (I/we) didn’t have money to get 

more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in 

the last 30 days?

CODE ONE ONLY

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 32 (3-8-11)

ALL 

I AND you IF B1c = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

we AND your household IF B1c NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN HH) OR 

B2 = 1 OR 2

H3. “(I/We) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or 

never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

INSERT CHECK: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (i.e., OFTEN TRUE OR SOMETIMES TRUE) 

TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS H1-H3, THEN CONTINUE, ELSE SKIP TO H10.

H1, H2, OR H3 = 1 OR 2

you IF B1c = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

you or other adults in your household IF B1c NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE 

ADULT IN HH)

H4. In the last 30 days, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever cut the 

size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for 

food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO H5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO H5

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H5

H4 = 1

H4a. How many days did this happen in the last 30 days?

| | | NUMBER OF DAYS (1 – 30) GO TO H5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H5
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 33 (3-8-11)

H4A = D

H4b. Do you think it was more than one or two days?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H1, H2, OR H3 = 1 OR 2

H5. In the last 30 days, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because 

there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H1, H2, OR H3 = 1 OR 2

H6. In the last 30 days, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because there wasn’t 

enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H1, H2, OR H3 = 1 OR 2

H7. In the last 30 days, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money 

for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

INSERT CHECK: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (i.e., OFTEN TRUE OR SOMETIMES TRUE) 

TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS H4-H7, THEN CONTINUE, ELSE SKIP 

TO H10.
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 34 (3-8-11)

H4, H5, H6, OR H7 = 1 

you IF B1c = 0 OR B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS IN HH)

you or other adults in your household IF B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE 

ADULT IN HH)

H8. In the last 30 days, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever not eat 

for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO H10

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO H10

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H10

H8 = 1

H9. How many times did this happen in the last 30 days?

| | | NUMBER OF TIMES (1 – 30) GO TO H10

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H10

H9 = D

H9a. Do you think it was more than one or two days?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 35 (3-8-11)

B3 = 0 – 18 (CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD)

I AND my AND I was AND you IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER 

ADULT/PARTNER IN HH) AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 

we AND our AND we were AND your household IF B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN 

HH) OR B2 = 1 OR 2

the child in IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

the children IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE THAN 

ONE CHILD IN HH)

IF NO CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD, GO TO H17. ELSE ASK:

Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about the food 

situation of their children. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement 

was often true, sometimes true, or never true in the last 30 days for any child under 

18 years old living in the household.

H10. “(I/We) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (the child in (my/our) 

household/the children) because (I was/we were) running out of money to buy 

food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the 

last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

B3 = 0 – 18 (CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD)

I AND my household AND you IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER 

ADULT/PARTNER IN HH)

we AND our household AND your household IF B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN 

HH) OR B2 = 1 OR 2

the child in IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

the children IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE THAN 

ONE CHILD IN HH)

H11. “(I/We) couldn’t feed (the child in (my/our)household/ the children) a balanced 

meal, because (I/we) couldn’t afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 36 (3-8-11)

B3 = 0 – 18 (CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD)

The child in IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN 

HH)

the children were IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH) 

my AND I AND you IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 (NO OTHER ADULTS/PARTNER IN HH)

our AND we AND your household IF B3 GE 18 (MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN HH) OR B2 = 1 

OR 2

H12. “(The child in (my/our) household was/The children were) not eating enough 

because (I/we) just couldn’t afford enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, 

or never

CODE ONE ONLY

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

OFTEN TRUE..............................................................1

SOMETIMES TRUE.....................................................2

NEVER TRUE..............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H10, H11, OR H12 = 1 OR 2 

the child’s IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

any of the children’s IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH)

INSERT CHECK: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (i.e., OFTEN TRUE OR SOMETIMES TRUE) 

TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS H10-H12, THEN CONTINUE, ELSE 

SKIP TO H17.

H13. In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of (the child’s/any of the 

children’s) meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H10, H11, OR H12 = 1 OR 2

the child IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

any of the children IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH)

H14. In the last 30 days, did (the child/any of the children) ever skip a meal because 

there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO H15

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO H15

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H15 
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 37 (3-8-11)

H14 = 1

H14a. How many days did this happen in the last 30 days?

| | | NUMBER OF DAYS (1 – 30) GO TO H15

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO H15

H14A = D

H14b. Do you think it was more than one or two days?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H10, H11, OR H12 = 1 OR 2

was the child IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN 

HH)

were the children IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH)

H15. In the last 30 days, (was the child/were the children) ever hungry but you just 

couldn’t afford more food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

H10, H11, OR H12 = 1 OR 2

the child IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR JUST ONE INSTANCE (ONE CHILD IN HH)

any of the children IF B3 LE 17 AND B2 NE 1 OR 2 FOR MULTIPLE INSTANCES (MORE 

THAN ONE CHILD IN HH)

H16. In the last 30 days, did (the child/any of the children) ever not eat for a whole 

day because there wasn’t enough money for food?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 38 (3-8-11)

ALL

or someone in your household IF B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

you IF B1C = 0

you or other adults in your household IF B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

H17. The next questions are about some community programs you (or someone in your 

household) may have participated in during the past 30 days.

In the last 30 days, did (you/ you or other adults in your household) ever get 

emergency food from a church, a food pantry or food bank?

PROBE: This includes all religious and charitable organizations.

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

you IF B1C = 0

anyone in this household IF B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

H18. During the past 30 days, did (you/anyone in this household) go to a community 

program or senior center to eat prepared meals?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

you IF B1C = 0

you or other adults in your household IF B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

H19. During the last 30 days, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever 

eat any meals at a soup kitchen or shelter?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 39 (3-8-11)

ALL 

you IF B1C = 0

anyone in this household IF B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

H20. During the past 30 days, did (you/anyone in this household) receive any meals 

from “Meals on Wheels” or any other program delivering meals to your home?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 40 (3-8-11)

I. HOUSEHOLD RESOURCES

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

LAST MONTH FROM MONTH PRIOR TO INTERVIEW DATE

STATE WELFARE NAME FROM StateWelfare_Name

The next questions are about sources of income. The answer to these and all other 

questions on this survey will be kept strictly confidential and will never be associated 

with your name.

I1a_a. During (LAST MONTH), did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...

TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (also known as [STATE 

WELFARE NAME])?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_b. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive...)

Other welfare such as General Assistance?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_c. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Social Security checks from the government for retirement, disability, or 

survivors’ benefits?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 41 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_d. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive...)

Other retirement benefits such as a government or private pension or annuity?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_e. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

SSI or Supplemental Security Income from the federal, state, or local 

government?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_f. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Veteran’s Benefits?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 42 (3-8-11)

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_g. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Unemployment Insurance or worker’s compensation benefits?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_h. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Child support payments?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_i. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Payments from roomers or boarders?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 43 (3-8-11)

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_j. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive any...)

Financial support from friends or family?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I1a_k. (During [LAST MONTH], did you (or anyone in your household) receive ...)

Any other income besides earnings?

YES .............................................................................1 

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_K = 1 

I1a_k_Specify What is that other income?

______________________________________________

I1A_A = 1 

STATE WELFARE NAME FROM StateWelfare_Name

I1b_a. How much did you receive last month from TANF, Temporary Assistance to 

Needy Families (also known as [STATE WELFARE NAME])?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 44 (3-8-11)

I1A_A=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_a. How much did other people in your household receive from TANF last month 

altogether?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_A = 1 AND BOTH I1B_A AND I1C_A = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received TANF last month. 

Is there an error?

I1A_B = 1 

I1b_b. How much did you receive last month from Other welfare such as General 

Assistance?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_B=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_b. How much did other people in your household receive from Other welfare such 

as General Assistance?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_B = 1 AND BOTH I1B_B AND I1C_B = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Other welfare last 

month. Is there an error? 

I1A_C = 1 

I1b_c. How much did you receive last month from Social Security checks from the 

government for retirement, disability, or survivors’ benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 45 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_C=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_c. How much did other people in your household receive from Social Security 

checks from the government for retirement, disability, or survivors’ benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_C = 1 AND BOTH I1B_C AND I1C_C = 0: I must have made a 

mistake. I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Social 

Security checks last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_D = 1 

I1b_d. How much did you receive last month from Other retirement benefits such as a 

government or private pension or annuity?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_D=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_d. How much did other people in your household receive from Other retirement 

benefits such as a government or private pension or annuity?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_D = 1 AND BOTH I1B_D AND I1C_D = 0: I must have made a 

mistake. I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Other 

retirement benefits last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_E = 1 

I1b_e. How much did you receive last month from SSI or Supplemental Security 

Income from the federal, state, or local government?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 46 (3-8-11)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_E=1 AND B1C NE 0

I1c_e. How much did other people in your household receive from SSI or 

Supplemental Security Income from the federal, state, or local government?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_E = 1 AND BOTH I1B_E AND I1C_E = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received SSI or 

Supplemental Security Income last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_F = 1 

I1b_f. How much did you receive last month from Veteran’s Benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_F=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_f. How much did other people in your household receive from Veteran’s 

Benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_F = 1 AND BOTH I1B_F AND I1C_F = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Veteran’s Benefits

last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_G = 1 

I1b_g. How much did you receive last month from Unemployment Insurance or 

worker’s compensation benefits?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 47 (3-8-11)

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_G=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_g. How much did other people in your household receive from Unemployment 

Insurance or worker’s compensation benefits?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_G = 1 AND BOTH I1B_G AND I1C_G = 0: I must have made a 

mistake. I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received 

Unemployment Insurance or worker’s compensation benefits last month. Is there an 

error? 

I1A_H = 1 

I1b_h. How much did you receive last month from Child support payments?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_H=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_h. How much did other people in your household receive from Child support 

payments?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_H = 1 AND BOTH I1B_H AND I1C_H = 0: I must have made a 

mistake. I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Child 

support payments last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_I = 1 

I1b_i. How much did you receive last month from Payments from roomers or 

boarders?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 48 (3-8-11)

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_I=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_i. How much did other people in your household receive from Payments from 

roomers or boarders?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_I = 1 AND BOTH I1B_I AND I1C_I = 0: I must have made a mistake. I 

previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Payments from 

roomers or boarders last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_J = 1 

I1b_j. How much did you receive last month from Financial support from friends or 

family?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_J=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_j. How much did other people in your household receive from Financial support 

from friends or family?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_J = 1 AND BOTH I1B_J AND I1C_J = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received Financial support 

from friends or family last month. Is there an error? 

I1A_K = 1 

I1b_k. How much did you receive last month from (FILL FROM I1a_k_Specify)?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 49 (3-8-11)

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I1A_K=1 AND B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE 18

I1c_k. How much did other people in your household receive from (FILL FROM 

I1a_k_Specify)?

$| | | | | ENTER AMOUNT (0 – 9999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF I1A_K = 1 AND BOTH I1B_K AND I1C_K = 0: I must have made a mistake. 

I previously recorded that you or someone in your household received (FILL FROM 

I1a_k_Specify) last month. Is there an error? 

ALL

I2. Are you currently working at a job for pay? Include any self-employment.

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO I6

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO I6

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO I6

I2 = 1

I3. How many hours do you usually work per week on this job?

| | | NUMBER OF HOURS (1 – 80)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 60 I just want to make sure I recorded you answer correctly. Did you 

say NUM?

I2 = 1

I4. How much do you earn per hour on this job, before taxes and other 

deductions?

$ | | |.| | | HOURLY WAGE (1.00 – 40.99) GO TO I6

NOT PAID BY THE HOUR........................................... 0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO I6
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 50 (3-8-11)

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO I6

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 20 I just want to make sure I recorded your answer correctly. Did 

you say NUM?

I4 = 0

I5. ENTER AMOUNT

$ | | |,| | | | (1 - 99999)

ENTER PAY PERIOD

CODE ONE ONLY

WEEK..........................................................................1

DAY .............................................................................2

EVERY TWO WEEKS .................................................3

TWICE A MONTH........................................................4

MONTHLY ...................................................................5

YEARLY ......................................................................6

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................7

(STRING (NUM))

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT $2,000 / MONTH I just want to make sure I recorded your response 

correctly. Did you say NUM PER UNIT?

B1C NE 0 AND B3 GE15

else IF I2 = 1

IF R LIVES ALONE, GO TO I9 

I6. Does anyone (else) in your household work at a job for pay?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0 GO TO I9

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO I9

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO I9
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 51 (3-8-11)

I6 = 1

other IF I2 = 1

I7. How many (other) people in your household work at a job for pay?

PROBE: Not including yourself.

| | | NUMBER OF WORKING HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (1 - 10)

NONE ..........................................................................0 GO TO I9

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

HARD CHECK: IF GT TOTAL HH MEMBERS COLLECTED AT B3 I’m sorry. Earlier in the 

interview, I recorded that there were less people living in your HH. Did I make an error? 

I7 GT 0

else IF I2 = 1

I7a. Who (else) in your household works at a job for pay?

[LIST ALL MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD AGE 15 AND OVER FROM B1C]

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

NAME 1 .......................................................................2

NAME 2 .......................................................................3

NAME 3 .......................................................................4

NAME 4 .......................................................................5

I6 = 1

PERSON 1 FIRST NAME FOR FIRST PERSON SELECTED FROM I7a.

I8_1a. How many hours per week does (PERSON 1) person usually work?

| | | NUMBER OF HOURS (0 - 80)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 60 I just want to make sure I recorded you answer correctly. Did you 

say NUM? 
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 52 (3-8-11)

I8_1A > 0

PERSON 1 FIRST NAME FOR FIRST PERSON SELECTED FROM I7a.

I8_1b. How much does (PERSON 1) earn per hour on this job, before taxes and other 

deductions?

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

$ | | |.| | | HOURLY WAGE (1 – 40) GO TO LOOP

NOT PAID BY THE HOUR........................................... 0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO LOOP

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO LOOP

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 20 I just want to make sure I recorded your answer correctly. Did 

you say NUM?

I8_1B = 0

I8_1c. ENTER AMOUNT

$ | | |,| | | |.| | | (1 – 99999)

ENTER PAY PERIOD

CODE ONE ONLY

WEEK..........................................................................1

DAY .............................................................................2

EVERY TWO WEEKS .................................................3

TWICE A MONTH........................................................4

MONTHLY ...................................................................5

YEARLY ......................................................................6

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................7

(STRING (NUM))

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT $2,000 PER MONTH I just want to make sure I recorded your answer 

correctly. Did you say NUM PER UNIT?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 53 (3-8-11)

I8_1A > 0

PERSON 2 FIRST NAME FOR NEXT MEMBER OF HH SELECTED AT I7a.

I8_2a. How many hours per week does (PERSON 2) person usually work?

| | | NUMBER OF HOURS (0 - 80)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 60 I just want to make sure I recorded you answer correctly. Did you 

say NUM? 

I8_2a > 0

PERSON 2 FILL FIRST NAME FOR NEXT MEMBER OF HH SELECTED AT I7a.

I8_2b. How much does (PERSON 2) earn per hour on this job, before taxes and other 

deductions?

PROBE: Your best estimate is fine.

$ | | |.| | | HOURLY WAGE (1 – 40) GO TO LOOP

NOT PAID BY THE HOUR........................................... 0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d GO TO LOOP

REFUSED....................................................................r GO TO LOOP

SOFT CHECK: IF GT 20 I just want to make sure I recorded your answer correctly. Did 

you say NUM?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 54 (3-8-11)

I8_2B = 0

I8_2c. ENTER AMOUNT

$ | | |,| | | |.| | | (1 – 99999)

ENTER PAY PERIOD

CODE ONE ONLY

WEEK..........................................................................1

DAY .............................................................................2

EVERY TWO WEEKS .................................................3

TWICE A MONTH........................................................4

MONTHLY ...................................................................5

YEARLY ......................................................................6

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................7

(STRING 80)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

CONTINUE LOOP UNTIL ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS SELECTED AT I7a ARE 

ACCOUNTED FOR

SOFT CHECK: IF GT $2,000 PER MONTH I just want to make sure I recorded your answer 

correctly. Did you say NUM PER UNIT? 

IF SAME RESPONDENT ASK I9INTRO; OTHERWISE GO TO I9.

I9INTRO Once again, I am going to ask some questions we asked in your last interview 

because things can change over time.

ALL

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I9. Do you (or anyone in your household) currently own a car, truck, or other type 

of vehicle?

YES .............................................................................1 GO TO I11

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I9 = 0, D OR R
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 55 (3-8-11)

I10. Do you have access to car, truck, or other type of vehicle when you need one?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

or anyone in your household IF B1C NE 0

I11. Do you (or anyone in your household) currently have a credit card that can be 

used to make purchases?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

I12. Next some questions about where you live.

First, please tell me the kind of place where you now live?

CODE ONE ONLY

HOUSE, TOWNHOUSE, CONDO ............................... 1

MOBILE HOME/TRAILER............................................ 2

APARTMENT...............................................................3

ROOM .........................................................................4

MOTEL/HOTEL ...........................................................5 GO TO I14

HOMELESS, LIVING IN A SHELTER OR MISSION.... 6 GO TO I14

HOMELESS, LIVING ON THE STREET...................... 7 GO TO I14

CAR, VAN OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE................. 8 GO TO I14

ABANDONED BUILDING ............................................ 9 GO TO I14

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................10

(STRING 100)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I12 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, D, OR R

I13. Do you...

CODE ONE ONLY
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 56 (3-8-11)

Own the place you live, ............................................. 1 GO TO I15

Rent your own place or contribute to rent

at a friend or family’s place, or ................................. 2

Live rent free?............................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I13 = 2, 3, D, OR R

I13a. Does your household receive Section 8 or Public Housing Assistance?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I14. Do you have access to a place where you can prepare a meal?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

I12 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, D, OR R 

I15. Do you currently have the following items in your home in working condition...

YES NO

DON’T 

KNOW REFUSED

a. Refrigerator? .............................................. 1 0 d r

b. Stand alone food freezer? .......................... 1 0 d r

c. Gas or electric stove?................................. 1 0 d r

d. Microwave oven? ....................................... 1 0 d r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 57 (3-8-11)

J. MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

ALL

J1_a. Now I am going to ask you some questions about feelings you may have 

experienced over the past 30 days.

During the past 30 days

So sad that nothing could cheer you up?

, how often did you feel . . .

Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of the 

time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

J1_b. During the past 30 days

Nervous?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 58 (3-8-11)

ALL

J1_c. During the past 30 days

Restless or fidgety?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

J1_d. During the past 30 days

Hopeless?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

J1_e. During the past 30 days

That everything was an effort?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 59 (3-8-11)

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

J1_f. During the past 30 days

Worthless?

, how often did you feel . . .

PROBE: Would you say: All of the time, most of the time, some of the time, a little of 

the time, or none

CODE ONE ONLY

of the time?

ALL OF THE TIME.......................................................1

MOST OF THE TIME...................................................2

SOME OF THE TIME...................................................3

A LITTLE OF THE TIME .............................................. 4

NONE OF THE TIME...................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

you IF B1C = 0

your household IF B1C NE 0

J2. If (you/your household) had a problem with which you needed help, for 

example, sickness or moving, how much help would you expect to get from 

family living nearby?

CODE ONE ONLY

All of the help needed,............................................... 1

Most of the help needed, ........................................... 2

Very little of the help needed, or............................... 3

No help? .....................................................................4

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

you IF B1C = 0

your household IF B1C NE 0

J3. If (you/your household) had a problem with which you needed help, how much 

help would you expect to get from friends?

CODE ONE ONLY
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 60 (3-8-11)

All of the help needed,............................................... 1

Most of the help needed, ........................................... 2

Very little of the help needed, or............................... 3

No help? .....................................................................4

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL

you IF B1C = 0

your household IF B1C NE 0

J4. If (you/your household) had a problem with which you needed help, how much 

help would you expect to get from other people in the community besides 

family and friends, such as a social service agency or a church?

CODE ONE ONLY

All of the help needed,............................................... 1

Most of the help needed, ........................................... 2

Very little of the help needed, or............................... 3

No help? .....................................................................4

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

The next question is about your neighborhood.

ALL

J5. Do you consider your neighborhood very safe from crime, somewhat safe, or 

very unsafe?

CODE ONE ONLY

VERY SAFE.................................................................1

SOMEWHAT SAFE .....................................................2

VERY UNSAFE ...........................................................3

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 61 (3-8-11)

K. RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS AND HEALTH STATUS

The last few questions are for classification purposes only.

IF NEW RESPONDENT, ELSE GO TO K6

K1. What is your date of birth?

| | | / | | | / | | | | |

MONTH DAY YEAR

(1 – 12) (1 – 31) (1900 – 1995)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

IF NEW RESPONDENT

K2. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?

YES .............................................................................1

NO ...............................................................................0

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

IF NEW RESPONDENT

K3. I am going to read a list of five race categories. Please choose one or more 

races that you consider yourself to be. White; Black or African American; 

American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; or

CODE ALL THAT APPLY

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 

Islander?

WHITE.........................................................................1

BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN .............................. 2

AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE.................. 3

ASIAN..........................................................................4

NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR

OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER....................................... 5

OTHER (SPECIFY)......................................................6

 (STRING 100)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 62 (3-8-11)

IF NEW RESPONDENT

K4. What is the highest level of education you have completed so far?

Would you say...

CODE ONE ONLY

Less than 9th grade, ..................................................1

Some high school, but no diploma,.......................... 2

High school graduate (diploma or

equivalent diploma [GED]), ....................................... 3

Technical, trade or vocational degree, ..................... 4

Some college, but no degree, ................................... 5

Associate’s degree, ...................................................6

Bachelor’s degree,.....................................................7

Some graduate school but no degree, ..................... 8

Master’s degree, or....................................................9

Professional school or doctorate? ........................... 10

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

IF NEW RESPONDENT 

K5. ASK ONLY IF NEEDED: Are you male or female?

MALE...........................................................................1

FEMALE ......................................................................2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

ALL 

K6. In general, would say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair or poor?

CODE ONE ONLY

EXCELLENT................................................................1

VERY GOOD...............................................................2

GOOD..........................................................................3

FAIR ............................................................................4

POOR..........................................................................5

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 63 (3-8-11)

ALL (NOTE: ASKING K7A&K7B AGAIN SO K8 IS NOT SO SENSITIVE

K7a. How tall are you without shoes?

ENTER UNIT

FEET/INCHES.............................................................1

METERS/CENTIMETERS ........................................... 2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

K7A=1 OR 2

FEET IF K7A=1

METERS IF K7A=2

K7b. ENTER (FEET/METERS)

| | | NUMBER (3 – 7 IF FEET; 1.0 - 2.50 IF METERS)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

K7A=1 OR 2

INCHES IF K7A=1

CENTIMETERS IF K7A=2

K7c. ENTER (INCHES/CENTIMETERS)

| | | NUMBER (1-12 IF INCHES; 100-220 IF CENTIMETERS)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

SOFT CHECK: IF GE 7 FEET OR GT 2 METERS I just want to make sure I recorded your 

answer correctly. Did you say 7 feet/2 meters?
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 64 (3-8-11)

ALL

K8. How much do you weigh without shoes?

IF RESPONDENT SAYS SHE IS PREGNANT, SAY: How much did you weigh 

before your pregnancy?

ENTER UNIT

POUNDS .....................................................................1

KILOGRAMS ...............................................................2

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r

K8=1 OR 2

K8a. ENTER NUMBER

| | | | NUMBER (70 – 999)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research 65 (3-8-11)

L. RESPONDENT FOLLOW UP CONTACT INFORMATION

ALL

END. Those are all our questions. Thank you very much for your participation in the 

survey. Please confirm the name and address where we should send the gift 

card.

RECORD NAME AND ADDRESS FOR CHECK

[IF ADDRESS COLLECTED AT L1, PRE-FILL HERE]

(STRING 40)

FIRST NAME

(STRING 40)

MIDDLE INITIAL/NAME

(STRING 40)

LAST NAME

(STRING 100)

ADDRESS 1

(STRING1 00)

ADDRESS 2

(STRING 100)

CITY

(STRING 40)

STATE/TERRITORY

| | | | | | - | | | | |

ZIP CODE (+ 4 IF NEEDED)

DON’T KNOW..............................................................d

REFUSED....................................................................r