=f__ CurrentPerspectiveson FoodStampProgramParticipation

e'o'FoodStampProgram

ParticipationRates:

January 1992
Current Perspectives on Food Stamp Program Participation

Titles in this series:

FoodStampProgramParticipationRates:

January1992

(October1994) CaroteTrippeandJulieSykes

Dynamics of the Food Stamp Program as

Reportedin the Surveyof IncomeandProgramParticipation

(January1993) NancyR. Burstein

FoodStampProgramParticipationRates:

January1989

(July1992) CaroleTdppeandPatDoyle

Trendsin FoodStampProgram

ParticipationRates: 1976 to 1990

(July1992) CaroleTrippe,PatDoyleandAndrewAsher

Participationin the FoodStampProgram:

A MultivariateAnalysis

(March1992) AlbertoMartini

FoodStampProgramParticipationRates:

January1988

(February1992) CaroleTrippeandPatDoyle

The Effectsof FoodStampson FoodConsumption:

A Reviewof the Literature

(October1990) ThomasM. Fraker

FoodStampProgramParticipationRates:

August1985

(April1990) PatDoyle

EstimatingRatesof Participationin the FoodStampProgram:

A Reviewof the Literature

(November1989) CaroleTdppe

Determinantsof Participationin the FoodStampProgram:

A Reviewof the Literature

(Novembe1989 r ) SusanAllinandHaroldBeebout

Food Stamp Program Participation Rates Among the Poverty

Population,1980-1987

(Novembe1r988) CaroleTdppeandHaroldBeebout

FoodStampProgramParticipationRates

(Novembe1r 988) PatDoyleandHaroldBeebout
CONTENTS

Chapter Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................... xi

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

A. ESTIMATING PARTICIPATION RATES ....................... 2

1. Participants............................................. 2

2. Eligibles............................................... 2

3. ParticipationRates ....................................... 3

B. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT .......................... 4

II JANUARY 1992 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES ..................... 5

A. AGGREGATE FSP PARTICIPATION RATES ................... 5

B. FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC

SUBGROUPS ............................................. 6

1. Children Participate at the Highest Rates, Elderly

Participate at the Lowest Rates ............................. 7

2. Men and Women Participate At the Same Rate ................. 8

3. African Americans Participate At Higher

Rates than Other Racial/Ethnic Groups ....................... 8

C. FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD

COMPOSITION AND SIZE ................................. 8

1. Single-Parent Households Were More Likely

to Participate than Other Households With

Children ............................................... 9

2. Large Households Were More Likely to

Participate Than Small Households ........................... 10

D. PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME AMOUNTS AND

SOURCES ................................................ 10

1. Those Most in Need Participate at the Highest

Rates ................................................. 10

2. Participation Rates Were Highest for Welfare

Recipients and Lowest for Earners or Unemployed ............... 12

°°.

111
CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

E. PARTICIPATION RATES BY BENEFIT LEVELS ................ 12

1. Participation Rates Were Highest for Households

With the Highest Potential Benefit ........................... 12

2. Benefit Levels Do Not Influence Participation

Decision for Most Individual Subgroups ........................ 14

III TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES ........................ 25

A_ TRENDS IN AGGREGATE PARTICIPATION RATES ............ 26

1. Comparison of Participation Rates From 1985

to 1992 ................................................ 27

2. Similar Trends in Rates Found In CPS-based

Study ................................................. 28

B. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION ........ 28

1. Participation Rates Increased the Most For Children,

And The Least For Elderly ................................ 28

2. Participation Rates for Households Headed by Single

Parents and African Americans Rose More Than

Rates of Other Groups .................................... 29

3. Participation Rates for Large Households Increased

More Than Rates For Small Households ...................... 30

C. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME

AMOUNTS AND SOURCES, AND POTENTIAL BENEFIT

AMOUNTS ............................................... 30

1. Participation Rates Increased the Most For Those in

Greatest Need .......................................... 31

2. Participation Rates Increased More for Households

with Earnings Than For Households With Other Sources

of Income .............................................. 32

3. Participation Rates Increased More For Households

Eligible for High Benefits Than For Households

Eligible For Low Benefits .................................. 32

iv
CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

IV CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING

HOUSEHOLDS IN JANUARY 1992 .............................. 39

A. Demographic Characteristics of Eligible

Nonparticipating Households ............................... 39

B. Economic Characteristics of Eligible

Nonparticipating Households ............................... 40

REFERENCES ............................................... 45

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES USED

TO ESTIMATE FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

IN JANUARY 1992 ............................... 47

APPENDIX B: SPREADSHEET SHOWING THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE

IN PARTICIPANTS AND ELIGIBLES BETWEEN

JANUARY 1989 AND JANUARY 1992 ............... 75

APPENDIX C: UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE IQCS AND SIPP

DATA USED TO ESTIMATE PARTICIPATION

RATES ......................................... 85
TABLES

Table Page

II.1 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR PERSONS, HOUSEHOLDS,

AND BENEFITS JANUARY 1992 ............................. 15

II.2 INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR PERSONS

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 16

II.3 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY

SELEC'I_D DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 17

II.4 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD

SIZE JANUARY 1992 ....................................... 18

II.5 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY

GROSS INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 19

II.6 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR PERSONS BY

GROSS INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 20

II.7 HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

SOURCES OF INCOME JANUARY 1992 ....................... 21

II.8 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY

MONTHLY BENEFITS JANUARY 1992 ........................ 22

II.9 BENEFIT RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

OF THE HOUSEHOLD JANUARY 1992 ....................... 23

II.10 FSP BENEFIT RATES BY GROSS INCOME

RELATIVE TO POVERTY JANUARY 1992 ..................... 24

III.1 COMPARISON OF FSP PARTICIPATION RATES: 1985-1992 ....... 34

111.2 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BASED ON THE MARCH CPS

AND FOOD STAMP PROGRAM OPERATIONS DATA ........... 35

111.3 INDIVIDUAL FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY INDIVIDUAL

CHARACTERISTICS: 1985-1992 .............................. 36

III.4 HOUSEHOLD FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS: 1985-1992 ................ 37

vii
TABLES (continued)

III.5 HOUSEHOLD FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME AND

BENEFIT CHARACTERISTICS: 1985 - 1992 ..................... 38

IV.1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 41

IV.2 DISTRIBUTION OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING

HOUSEHOLDS ABOVE AND BELOW POVERTY

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 42

IV.3 DISTRIBUTION OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING

HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY THAT ARE ELIGIBLE

FOR THE MAXIMUM FOOD STAMP BENEFIT

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 43

viii
FIGURES

Figures Page

II.1 FSP PARTICIPATION RATE JANUARY 1992 ................... 6

II.2 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY INDIVIDUAL

CHARACTERISTICS JANUARY 1992 .......................... 7

II.3 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD

CHARACTERISTICS JANUARY 1992 .......................... 9

II.4 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME

CHARACTERISTICS JANUARY 1992 .......................... 11

II.5 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY POTENTIAL

BENEFIT AMOUNT JANUARY 1992 .......................... 13

III.1 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES ................................ 25

III.2 TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES 1985-1992 ............. 27

III.3 CHANGE IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY

INDMDUAL CHARACTERISTICS JANUARY 1989 -

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 29

III.4 CHANGE IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION JANUARY 1989 -

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 30

III.5 CHANGE IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY

INCOME CHARACTERISTICS JANUARY 1989 -

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 31

III.6 CHANGE IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY

POTENTIAL BENEFIT AMOUNT JANUARY 1989 -

JANUARY 1992 ........................................... 33

ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the January 1992 Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation rates. It is part of a series

of reports providing consistent estimates of FSP participation rates using Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP) data for eligibles and FSP administrative data for participants.

The participation rate measures the proportion of those eligible for food stamps who actually apply for and

receive food stamps. In addition to providing a measure of how well the program is reaching its intended

population_ the participation rate can provide information on which groups of the eligible population participate

at higher or lower rates than other groups. Furthermore, a comparison of rates over time can identify trends in

participation rates.

In January 1992, the FSP provided benefits to 74 percent, or 24 million, of the 33 million persons eligible

for benefits, as shown in the table below. FSP participants received $1.6 billion or 82 percent of the total

potential food stamp benefits, and lived in 9.6 million households or 69 percent of total eligible households.

JANUARY 1992 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

Participants Eligibles Participation

(thousands) (thousands) Rate

Persons 24,291 32,931 74%

Households 9,631 13.983 69

Benefits $1,615,320 $1,981,717 82

JANUARY 1992 PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC AND INCOME SUBGROUPS

Some groups ofehgibles participated at a higher or lower rate than others and received a greater or smaller

proportion of potential food stamp benefits Highlights of the Januars. 1992 participation rates across subgroups

include the following:

· Almost all Eligible Children Participated. The FSP sen'ed almost every eligible child

under age 5 (95 percent) and most children under age 18 (86 percent)

· One in Three Eligible Elderly Persons Participated Only one-third (33 percent) of

eligible elderly persons participated in the FSP The majori_ of nonparticipating eligible

elderly lived alone

· Single-parent Households Participated More Than Other Types of Households. If

children lived with a single adult, their households were more likely to participate (100

percent) than if they lived with two or more adults (78 percent)

xi
· African Americans Participated at Higher Rates than Other Racial/Ethnic Groups.

Eligible households headed by African Americans were more likely to participate (92

percent) than households headed by Hispanics (61 percent) or white non-Hispanics (59

percent)

· The Lower the Income, the Higher the Participation Rate. The FSP participation rate

for households with monthly incomes below the poverty line was 86 percent, compared with

21 percent for households with incomes above the poverty line. As income increases,

households were less likely to participate.

· The Higher the Benefit, The Higher the Participation Rate. The participation rate for

those eligible for $150 or less was 55 percent, compared with 89 percent for those eligible

for over $150. The average benefit for eligible households was $142 in January 1992.

· Households With Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Were More Likely

to Participate than those With Earnings or Unemployment Compensation. When

adjusted for known levels of underreporting AFDC program participation in SIPP, the

participation rate for households with AFDC was 88 percent Only 41 percent of households

with earnings and 48 percent of households with unemployment compensation participated

TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

Between Janua_.,1989 and January. 1992, the FSP participation rate for eligible persons increased from 59

percent to 74 percent, an increase of 15 points. The rate increased in 1992 because of a surge in new participants

(32 percent) and a modest increase in new eligibles (6 percent). FSP participation rates reached the highest point

in January 1992 since the beginning of the series in August 1985, as shown in the following figure. Between

August 1985 and January 1988,the individual participation rate declined slightly, from 64 percent to 59 percent,

and then remained constant between 1988 and 1989 at 59 percent. The rate then rose to 74 percent in January'

1992.

Plutlc_Dabon TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

Rate 1985-1992

_00

8O

aeaer_s

k Psrsor_

6o

4o

August 1985 _ 1988 ,Jam_ry 1989 January 1992

xii
The surge in participants between January 1989 and January 1992 was driven largely by a higher

partia_on rate among those already eligible rather than an increase in eligibles. Applying the January

1992 participation rate to the January 1989 number of eligibles increases the number of participants by 4.6

million persons, or 77 percent of the total increase in participants between 1989 and 1992. Thus, assuming no

other behavioral changes among eligibles, the change in the participation rate alone may have accounted for 77

percent of the increase in participants. The remaining increase was due to an increase in eligibles combined with

higher participation among the additional eligibles.

CHANGES IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BETWEEN 1989 AND 1992 FOR SUBGROUPS

Participation rates for some subgroups of the population increased by more or less than those for other

subgroups between January 1989 and January 1992. Highlights of the changes m participation rates for

subgroups during this time period include:

· The Participation Rate for Children Increased More Than for Elderly. The

participation rate increased by 18 points for all children and increased more for children

under age 5 (21 points) than for children age 5 to 17 ( 15 points) The participation rate for

elderly persons increased by only five points.

· The Participation Rate Increased More For Single-Parent Households Than For

Multi-Adult Households. The participation rate for single-adult households with children

increased by 24 points compared with a 17-point increase for multi-adult households with

children.

· The Participation Rate Increased More for Households with Earners than for

Households with AFDC or other Public Assistance. The participation rate for households

with earners increased by 16 points compared with no change in the rate for households with

AFDC and a six-point increase for households with SSI

· The Participation Rate Increased More For Households in Poverty Than Other

Households. The participation rate increased by 14 points for households in poven3,,

compared with a six-point increase for households not in povens'

CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPANTS

Although 24 million persons participated in the FSP m January 1992, 8.6 million (26 percent of all eligible

persons) did not participate. In January 1992, eligibles with the largest percentage of nonparticipants included:

1) elderly persons, 2) households headed by a white non-Hispanic, 3) households with the highest incomes and

thus the lowest food stamp benefits, and 4) households with earnings.

xiii
I. INTRODUCTION

The Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the largest food assistance program in the country, serving 27 million

persons and distributing $22 billion in benefits in fiscal year 1993. No other public assistance program reaches

more poor individuals over the course of a year. Because the FSP does not limit eligibility to persons meeting

certain categorical restrictions, such as the disabled, elderly, or families with children, food stamp benefits reach

a much wider universe of persons than other programs and provide assistance to some who may "fall through the

cracks" of other programs.

Since food stamp benefits are available to any low-income persons who meet the eligibilit?' criteria, policymakers want to know how wellthe program is reaching its intended population. The participation rate measures

the proportion of those eligible for food stamps who actually apply for and receive food stamps, in addition to

providing a measure of how well the program is reaching the total eligible population, the participation rate can

provide information on how well the program is reaching certain subgroups of the eligible population, such as

children, the elderly, or the working poor.

This report provides estimates of FSP participation rates for January 1992. It is part of a series of reports

providing consistent estimates of FSP participation rates using Survev of Income and Program Participation

(SIPP) data for eligibles and FSP administrative data for participants? Past reports in the series have provided

participation rates for 1985, 1988, and 1989. This 1992 participation rate report addresses three questions:

1. What proportion of the eligible population did the FSP serve in January 1992? Did some

groups of eligibles participate at higher rates than others?

2. How did the January 1992 participation rates compare to the January 1989 and earlier rates

in the series?

3. Which groups of the eligible population participated least in the FSP?

:See the front inside cover for a list of other reports in the series.

1
A. ESTIMATING PARTICIPATION RATES

Conceptually, determining participation rates is very simple: the number of participants is divided by the

number ofehgibles. Deriving the number of eligibles is less straightforward, however, because the number must

be approximated using household survey data and a simulation designed to replicate the eligibility process.

1. Participants

We know how many persons and households participated in the FSP, as well as their benefits and

characteristics, because food stamp offices collect and track this information. The number of participants and

total food stamp benefits issued in January 1992 is based on a census of benefit issuance, called the Food Stamp

Program Statistical Summary. of Operations data, hereafter called Program Operations data. The Program

Operations data contain the total caseload and dollar value of benefits issued, but do not provide information on

the characteristics of FSP participants. The characteristics of the participants reported here are based on a sample

of food stamp case records for January, and February 1992 from the FSP Integrated Qualit}, Control System,

hereafter called IQCS data. We used the IQCS data to distribute the total number of participants and their

benefits across various demographic and economic characteristics.

2. Eligibles

We do not know explicitly how many persons and households were eligible for food stamps or what the

potential benefits were. No record is made of eligible persons unless the)' apply for food stamps. Therefore, we

replicated the eligibility process using household survey data that represent the U.S. population to estimate how

many were eligible for food stamps.

We used SIPP data and a microsimulation model to simulate FSP eligibility and potential benefits. We

simulated eligibility for all households that were in the SIPP universe in January 1992 based on Wave 7 of the

1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel. Much of the effort required m estimating the number of eligibles was

spent in preparing a SIPP file that contained all the information needed to closely replicate the FSP eligibili_.

criteria.
Once the necessary data were merged, the model applied theFSP eligibili.tycriteria m effect in January 1992

to each household on the file to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the household was eligible for food

stamps. For households that were eligible, the model determined the value of the food stamp benefit for which

it qualified. Appendix A contains a detailed description of the methodology, used to estimate eligibles.

3. Participation Rates

The participation rate is the number of participants (based on January. 1992 Program Operations caseload

data) divided by the number of eligibles m January 1992 (based on a stmulation of eligibles using SIPP household

survey data).

We estimated three different measures of participation rates:

· Person Participation Rate: This is the ratio of the number of persons participating

compared to the number of persons eligible for food stamps The person rate is particularly

useful when discussing participation rates by the characteristics of the target population, such

as age or sex. For example, the person rate was used to compare the participation rate for

elderly persons to the rate of children.

· Household Participation Rate: This is the ratio of the number of food stamp units, or

households, compared with the number of households eligible for the program. Because the

FSP determines eligibility and benefits based on household income and assets, the household

is considered the decision-making unit. The household rate was particularly useful when

discussing participation rates by income, source of income, or potential benefit amount The

household rate was also important when comparing rates by household composition, such

as single parents versus multiple adult households

· Benefit Participation Rate: This is the ratio of the benefits paid to program participants

compared to the total potential benefits payable if all program eligibles participated. A

comparison of the benefit rate to the household and person rates can show if the benefits paid

are evenly distributed across households and whether mostly high-benefit or low-benefit

households participate. The participation rate results confirmed that high-benefit households

were more likely to participate than low-benefit households, indicating that the neediest

households participated at the highest rates.
B. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

This report presents and examines January 1992 FSP participation rates and contains the following

information:

· Chapter II presents the January. 1992 participation rates and identifies which groups of the

eligible population participated at higher (or lower) rates than other groups in 1992

· Chapter III examines lxends in participation rates, focusing on the major increase m rates

between 1989 and 1992. It analyzes whether the increase in participation was driven largely

by an increase in eligibles or higher participation rates among those already eligible, and

examines changes in rates for subgroups

· Chapter IV discusses which groups of eligibles were least likely to participate in the FSP

· Appendix A describes the methodology, and data used to estimate participation rates and

describes the creation of the SIPP analysis file

· Appendix B shows the percent change in the number of participants and eligibles between

January 1989 and January 1992 This information is referenced several times in Chapter III

· Appendix C lists the unweighted sample sizes for the IQCS and SIPP data used in the

analysis

Tables for each chapter are located at the end of that chapter

4
II. JANUARY 1992 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

In January 1992, 74 percent of all eligible persons and 69 percent of all eligible households participated in

theFSP. The program distributed 82 percent of total potential benefits. This chapter presents the January, 1992

FSP participation rates and highlights the differences in participation rates across selected demographic and

income subgroups of the eligible population. In summary, the differences across subgroups include the following:

· Most eligible children participated in the FSP while only about a third of elderly persons

participated. Children living with a single parent were more likely to participate than

children living with multiple adults.

· Eligible households headed by African Americans were more likely to participate than

households headed by other racial/ethnic groups.

· The poorest households and those eligible for the highest benefits participated at the highest

rates.

· Eligible households with AFDC or other public assistance were much more likely to

participate than households with earnings or tmemplos_nent compensation.

A. AGGREGATE FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

In January 1992, 33 million persons were eligible for the FSP and 24 million persons, or 74 percent,

participated, as shown in Figure II. 1 and Table II. 1. About 69 percent, or 9.6 million households, participated

during this month, and FSP participants received 82 percent or $1.6 billion of the total potential food stamp

benefits. Given the total U.S. population of 252 million, 13 out of ever5' 100 persons were eligible for food

stamps, and 10 out of every 100 persons received food stamp benefits in January 1992.

5
FIGURE I1.1

FSP PARTICIPATION RATE

January 1992

TotalEligibles:32,930,654

SOURCE: January. 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error.

Janua_' 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of thc 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP

In January 1992, as in previous years, the benefit rate was higher than the person rate, which in turn was

higher than the household rate. The higher benefit rate implies that the decision to participate was influenced by

the potential benefit. Households eligible for the highest benefits were more likely to participate than those

eligible for the lowest benefits. Similarly, the higher person rate implies that large households were more likely

to participate than small households.

B. FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUPS

Although overall participation rates in January 1992 were 74 percent for eligible persons, 69 percent for

eligible households, and the program distributed 82 percent of all potential benefits, all eligible persons and

households did not participate at the same rate. Some groups participated at a much higher (or lower) rate than

others and received a greater (or smaller) proportion of total food stamp benefits. In this section we discuss how

participation rates varied by age, race, and sex of the eligible population.

6
1. Children Participated at the Highest Rates, Elderly Participated at the Lowest Rates

Figure II.2 shows that the younger a person was, the more likely that person would participate in the FSP.

In January 1992, the FSP served almost every eligible preschool child (95 percent), most children (86 percent),

three-quarters ofnonelderly adults (77 percent), and only one-third (33 percent) of elderly persons. Children and

nonelderly adults participated at a higher rate than the average of 74 percent, but elderly and disabled persons

participated at a much lower rate.

FIGURE11.2

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

JANUARY 1992

Participation //I',

Rate

./t

100% ·

F_tmlion

I_la for

is 7[_ 75%

5O%

j- /

0% '

Age60+ UnderAge60 Age 18-59 Under Age Under

Age18 5-17 Age5

ELDERLY DISABLED ADULTS CHILDREN

{Including Disabled)

SOURCE:January1992FoodStampProgramOperationsdataadjustedforissuanceerror.SpecialtabulationsfromIQCSdatafor

JanuaryandFebruary1992.

January1992FOSTERSmodel,Wave7 ofthe 1990PanelandWave4 ofthe 1991Panelof SIPP.

Other research supports the finding that elderly persons participate at much-lower-than-average rates. For

example, participation rates using Current Population Survey data found that in August 1992, elderly persons

participated at less than half the rate of total persons (Trippe 1994). Multivariate analyses conducted by Martini

7
(1992) found that the predicted participation rate for households that contained elderly persons was about twothirds the rate of total households after controlling for other factors.

2. Men and Women Participated At the Same Rate

Men and women participated at almost the same rate (74 percent and 73 percent, respectively), as shown

in Table II.2.

3. African Americans Participated At Higher Rates than Other Racial/Ethnic Groups

Figure 11.3shows that eligible households headed by African Americans were more likely to participate in

the FSP (92 percent) than households headed by Hispanics (61 percent) or white non-Hispamcs (59 percent)

Martini (1992) found a similar gap between households headed by African Americans and whites in his univariate

analysis of participation rates. However, when Martini held other household characteristics constant in his

mullivariate analysis, he found a much smaller gap between predicted participation rates of households headed

by African Americans and whites (only 5 percentage points). Furthermore, for female-headed households with

chil&_n, Martini found almost no difference (less than one percentage point) in the predicted participation rates

of households headed by African Americans and whites. This small gap suggests that most of the difference in

participation rates of African Americans and whites found in the univariate analysis is due to factors that are

correlated with race, rather than to race per se.

C. FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND SIZE

Participation rates also varied by household composition and size, as discussed below.

_Marfini (1992) used the August 1985 SIPP to perform a multivariate analysis of the relationship

between household characteristics and FSP participation. Martini compared "predicted" participation rates

based on the multivariate analysis with "observed" participation rates based on the ratio of participants

to eligibles (tmivariate analysis). The household characteristics (explanatory variables) for Martini's

multivariate analysis were age, race/ethnicity, and education of the reference person, household size,

presence of children, income relative to poverty, receipt of public assistance, and presence of assets and

earnings.

8
1. Single-Parent Households Were More Likely to Participate than Other Households With Children

Most eligible households with children (89 IXxccn0participated m the FSP. However, if children lived with

only one adulk their households were more likely to participate (100 percent) than if they. lived with two or more

adults (78 percent), as shown in Figure II.3 and Table II.3. This higher participation rate for single-adult

households is like.lydue to the fact that single-adult households tended to have lower incomes, were more likely

to receive AFDC, and were less likely to have earnings than multiple-adult households. Average gross income

for eligible single-adult households was $854 compared with $1,066 for multiple-adult households with children.

Sixty-two percent of eligible single-parent households received AFDC compared with 21 percent of multipleadult households, and only 26 percent of eligible single-parent households had earnings, compared with 68

percent of multiple-adult households. Participation rates by income amounts and sources are discussed in Section

D.

FIGUREII .3

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

JANUARY 1992

Participation Rate /-'_

100% _'

Av_age

Participation

2'd'd;,.,

75%

: iii?iiii;i: :

0%

TO!_ W_ None TOtal Sin01e Mu_ White H_pan_c /_,l_c_n OneOf Three or

Others PInmt Adult Non- At_e_can Two More

Hisl3_anic PersonsPorr_ons

WITH WITH RACE(3: HCUSI_I_

13.DI_LY CHILDREN HEAD SIZE

SOURCE: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuancc error. Special tabulations from IQCS data for

January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP.

9
2. Large Households Were More Likely to Participate Than Small Households

Large households (with 3 or mom persons) participated at a higher rate (80 percent) than small households

(62 percent), as shown in Figure II.3. These large households were more likely to contain children and less likely

to contain elderly persons than were small households.

There is variation in the general pattern of higher participation rates for large households. As shown in

Table 11.4,participation rates peaked (at 87 percent) for households that contained three persons, then declined

as household size increased. Therefore, households with four or more persons were less likely to participate than

households with three persons, but were more likely to participate than households with only one person. The

probable reason for this is that three-person households were more likely to contain single parents (who

participate at very.high rates) than were larger households. About 69 percent of eligible three-person households

contained a single parent compared with only 38 percent of eligible households with four or more persons.

D. PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME AMOUNTS AND SOURCES

Participation rates also varied by income relative to the poverty level and income source. Households with

the lowestincomes and those receiving AFDC or other public assistance income were most likely to participate

in the FSP.

1. Those Most in Need Participated at the Highest Rates

Figure II.4 shows that eligible households with the lowest incomes were more likely to participate than

households with the highest incomes. In January 1992, the participation rate for households whose gross incomes

were lower than the poverty level was 86 percent; the participation rate for households whose gross incomes were

greater than the poverty level was 21 percent?

For households inpoverty, those with the lowestincomes were most likely to participate, as shown in Table

II.5. In January 1992, the participation rate for households with zero income or income less than 50 percent of

2Households in poverty are defined as households with gross incomes less than the federal poverty

level by household size.

10
the poverty level slightly exceeded 100 pcrcont. 3 As mc,omc mcrcased to 51 to 100 percent of the poverty, level,

the pardcipat/on rate feU to 76 percent.

FIGURE 11.4

FSPPARTICIPATIONRATESBYINCOME CHARACTERISTICS

JANUARY1992

Pamcipabon

Rate

100%

Av_l_

PIfttelpmtton

Rite for 75% --

Hou#hoIcl_

80_ -

I

//

Total _ U.L Eeermgs SSI AFDC

BELOWPOVERTY ABOVEPOVERTY INCOMESOURCE

SOURCE: January 1992 FoodStamp Prosnun Opera/OhSdataadjusted for issuance error. Special tabuiabonsfrom IQCS data for

January.and Febnau_ 1992.

Janua_ 1992 FOSTERS mo(icl,Wave ? of thc 1990Panel andWave 4 ofthc 1991 Panel of SIPP.

NOTE: P&rt/cipauonrates exceeding i00 pement amdue torepollangand measurement eh,orsin SIPP (sec Appendix A).

Table H.6 shows that participation rates forpersons by their household income relative to the poverty level

wc_ vcry similar to rates for households by th_ income relative to the poverty level. This implies that within

income categoric, _ld size had little inthmace on the decision to participate. This small difference in rates

is probably because household size docs not vary as much for households with similar incomes as it does for total

households.

SThe unrealistically high participation rates for eligible households with incomes under 50 percent of

the poverty level is likely due to underreporling and other sampling problems of the lowest income

households (particularly those with AFDC), as discussed in Appendix A.

11
2. Participation Rates Were Highest for Welfare Recipients nd Lowest for Households with Earnings

or Unemployment Compensation

Homdmlds receiving welfare, such as AFDC or Suppkmmtal Secm4tyIncome (SSI), were much more likely

to participate than households re_ving earnings or unemployment compensation. Figure II.4 shows that in

January 1992, the FSP participation rate for households with AFDC exceeded 100 percent, and the rate for

households with SSIwas 73 percent.' However, only 48 percent of households with earnings and 41 percent of

households with unemployment compensation participate_ These results are also shown in Table II.7.

FSP-eligible households receiving AFDC or SSI are likely to participate at a higher rate than other

households because they tend to have the lowest incomes and are in the welfare system already. Households

already receiving some form of pubhc assistance are more likely to apply for food stamps because: 1) joint

apphcafion procedures for AFDC and food stamps are o._,,,..on, and 2) the decision to apply for food stamps may

be part of a larger decision to apply for any available welfare benefits.

Martini (1992) found that FSP-eligl_lehouseholds with public assistan_ are much more likely to apply for

food stamps than households not receivingpubhc assistance, regardless of their income, household size, or other

characteristics.

E. PARTICIPATION RATES BY BENEFIT LEVELS

Participation rates also varied by the potential benefit level to which an eligible household is entitled.

1. Participation Rates Were Highest for Households With the Highest Potential Benefit

Households most likelyto participate were those eligiblcfor the highest bencfit level. Figure H.5 shows that

participation rates rose as potential FSP benefits increased. In January 1992, the participation rate for those

*rbe unrealistically high rates for households with AFDC are due primarily to the underreporting and

other sampling problems of AFDC recipients in SIPP, as discussed in Appendix A. The number of

families with AFDC in the SIPP data is only 73 percent of the number based on AFDC administrative

data. If the number of AFDC recipients on SIPP is adjusted for underreporting, the participation rate

for eligible households with AFDC is 87.5 percent in January 1992. This more realistic rate for AFDC

recipients is still much higher than for other groups of eligibles. Furthermore, studies using multivariate

analysis have found a strong positive relationship between participation in the FSP and participation in

public assistance programs (see Allin and Beebout 1989, and Martini 1992).

12
only 19 percent. Participation rates increased as potential benefits rose, reaching 89 percent for households

eligible for more than $150.

FIGURE11.5

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY POTENTIAL BENEFIT AMOUNT

JANUARY 1992

ParticipationRateff

P 100% /,N'tJcil:_l_n

Rar_ for 75%

I-Iousehok_

50% _ii_ =....._._..

25%0%[

< =$10 $11-75 $76-150 $151+

FSP POTENTIAL BENEFIT AMOUNT

SOURCE:January.1992FoodStampProgramOperationsdataadjustedforissuanccerror.Spoeiatabulation l sfromIQCSdatafor

January. and February 1992.

January.1992FOSTERSmodel.Wave7 ofthe 1990PanelandWave4 ofthc 1991PanelofSIPP.

As shown in Table II. 8, participation rates also rose with benefits as a percentage of the maximum benefit

amount. The only exception to this pattern is a decline in the rate for households entitled to the maximum benefit

(the maximum benefit for a three-person household in January 1992 was $292). Those entitled to the maximum

benefit are those with zero net income. Those with zero gross income participated at very high rates, as would

be expected (see Table 11.5). However, it appears that those entitled to the maximum benefit were not those with

zero gross income, but were households with positive gross income and high expenses that reduced their net

income to zero. Over 73 percent of the households ehgible for the maximum benefit in January 1992 had positive

gross income but expenses high enough to lower their net income to zero.

13
2. Benefit Levels Did Not Influence Participation Decision for Most Individual Subgroups

The overall benefit participation rate is almost 13 points higher than the household participation rate,

implying that the potential benefit amount influenced a household's participation decision. Households eligible

for the highest benefits were most likely to participate.

However, for many subgroups of the population, the potential benefit amount seemed to have had little

influence on the likelihood of participation as indicated by the similar benefit and household rates for these

groups. For instance,the benefit participation rates shown in Table II.9 are within two percentage points of the

household participation rates shown in Table II.3 for households with elderly, children, single parents, multiple

adults with children, and those headed by a Hispamc. Similarly, the benefit participation rates for households

with incomes below and above the poverty, level shown in Table II. 10 are within four percentage points of the

household participation rates for corresponding income groups in Table II.5

Martini (1992) suggests that much of the variation in participation rates by benefit level found in observed

rates is due to a household-size effect and to characteristics of the individual groups rather than to the benefit

amount. Overall, Martini found a posihve but small correlation between benefit level and FSP participation rates.

14
TABLE II. 1

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR PERSONS, HOUSEHOLDS, AND BENEFITS

JANUARY 1992

Participation

Participants Eligibles Rate

Persons(1,000s) 24,291 32,931 73.8%

Households(1,000s) 9,631 13,983 68.9

Benefits (1,000s) $1,615,320 $1,981,717 81.5

Average Household Size 2.5 2.4 NA

Average per-Capita Benefit $66.5 $60.2 NA

SOURCES: Food Stamp Program Statistical Summary of Operations (Food Stamp Program

Operations data) for January 1992, adjusted for issuance error.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991

Panel of SIPP.

15
TABLE II.2

INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR PERSONS

JANUARY 1992

Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Person

Persons Persons Participation

(in Thousands) (in Thousands) Rate

ElderlyAge60or Older 1,707 5,137 33.2%

Livingalone 1,129 3,113 36.3

Livingwithothers 578 2,023 28.6

DisabledunderAge60 951 1,419 67.0

Livingalone 446 380 117.5

Livingwithothers 504 1,039 48.5

ChildrenunderAge18 12,357 14,455 85.5

Preschool(underAge5) 4,695 4,954 94.8

School-age(Age5 to 17) 7,662 9,500 80.6

AdultsAges18to 59 10,214 13,340 76.6

Livingalone (not disabled) 1,527 1,358 112.4

Gender

Male 10,014 13,475 74.3

Female 14,276 19,456 73.4

Total 24,291 32,931 73.8

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error.

Special tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991

Panel of SIPP.

NOTE: Participation rates exceeding 100 percent are due to reporting and measurement errors

in SIPP (see Appendix A).

16
TABLE II.3

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

JANUARY 1992

Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Household

Households Households Participation

(in Thousands) (in Thousands) Rate

Household Contains:

Elderly Age 60 or Older 1,533 4,579 33.5

DisabledunderAge60 910 1,351 67.4

ChildrenunderAge18 5,872 6,580 89.2

Children Ages 5 to 17 4,070 4,988 81.6

SingleParentwithChildrena 3,997 3,997 100.0

SingleFemaleAdult 3,833 3,789 101.2

Single Male Adult 164 208 78.8

Two or More Adults with 1,874 2,417 77.5

Children b

Whitenon-HispanicHead 4,570 7,803 58.6

AfricanAmericanHead 3,334 3,612 92.3

Hispanic Head 1,300 2,117 61.4

Total c 9,631 13,983 68.9

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data ad)usted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of

SIPP.

aHousholds containing a single parent with children are defined as households with only one nonelderly adult

(age 18 to 59) and children.

bIncludes both households in which the gender of the household head is unknown and femaleheaded households that contain two or more adults.

cCategories do not sum to total because households may exhibit more than one of the characteristics listed.

NOTE: Participation rates exceeding 100 percent are due to reporting and measurement errors in SIPP

(see Appendix A).

17
TABLE II.4

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

JANUARY 1992

Number of Numberof Household

Household Size Participating Households Eligible Households Participation

(numberof persons) (in Thousands) (in Thousands) Rate

1 3,215 5,973 53.8 %

2 2,275 2,857 79.5

3 1,853 2,133 86.9

4 1,207 1,476 81.8

5 646 842 76.7

6+ 435 702 62.(I

Total 9,631 13,983 68.9

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error.

Special tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991

Panel of SIPP.

18
TABLE II.5

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY

GROSS INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY

JANUARY 1992

Number of Number of

Incomeas a Participating Eligible Household

Percentageof Households Households Participation

Poverty (inThousands) (inThousands) Rate

Total< 100 8,870 10.288 86.2%

0 924 880 104.9

1-50 3,091 3,029 102.0

51-100 4,856 6,379 76.1

Total > 100 761 3,695 20.6

Total 9,631 13,983 68.9

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error.

Special tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991

Panel of SIPP.

NOTE: Participation rates exceeding 100 percent are due to reporting and measurement errors

in SIPP (see Appendix A).

19
TABLE II.6

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR PERSONS BY

GROSS INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY

JANUARY 1992

Number of Number of

Incomeas a Participating Eligible Individual

Percentage of Individuals Individuals Participation

Poverty (inThousands) (inThousands) Rate

Total< 100 22,328 25,154 88.8%

0 1,573 1,578 99.7

1-50 9,129 9,095 100.4

51-100 11,626 14,481 80.3

Total> 100 1,963 7,777 25.2

Total 24,291 32,931 73.8

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error.

Special tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of thc 1991

Panel of SIPP.

NOTE: Participation rates exceeding 100 percent are due to reporting and measurement errors

in SIPP (,see Appendix A).

20
TABLE II.7

HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED SOURCES OF INCOME

JANUARY 1992

Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Household

Households Households Participation

Source of Income (inThousands) (inThousands) Rate

EarnedIncome 1,910 3,959 48.2%

SSI 1,755 2,393 73.4

Elderlyintheunit 876 1.372 63.8

No elderly in the unit 879 1.020 86.2

PublicAssistancea 4,574 3,783 120.9

AFDC 3,754 3,129 120.0

Otherwelfare 885 744 118.8

UnemploymentCompensation 267 648 41.2

Total 9,631 13,983 68.9

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error.

Special tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991

Panel of SIPP.

NOTE: Participation rates exceeding 100 percent are due to reporting and measurement errors

in SIPP (see Appendix A).

aPublic assistance refers to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), General Assistance

(GA), and local means-tested programs, such as Emergency Assistance.

21
TABLE II.8

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY MONTHLY BENEFITS

JANUARY 1992

Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Household

Households Households Participation

MonthlyBenefit Levela (in Thousands) (in Thousands) Rate

Benefit Amount

$10 or less 353 1,828 19.3 %

$11 - 75 1,606 2,973 54.0

$76- 150 2,942 3.856 76.3

$151ormore 4,729 5,326 88.8

Total 9,631 13,983 68.9

Benefit as a Percentage of

Maximum

1-25% 1,092 3,254 33.6%

26-50 1,667 2,482 67.2

51-75 2,159 2,668 80.9

76-99 2,518 2.316 108.7

100 2,194 3,263 67.2

Total 9,631 13,983 68.9

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error.

Special tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991

Panel of SIPP.

NOTE: Participation rates exceeding 100 percent are due to reporting and measurement errors

in SIPP (see Appendix A).

aThe maximum allotment varies by household size. The maximum allotment for a family of 3 in

January 1992 was $292.

22
TABLE II.9

BENEFIT RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD

JANUARY 1992

Benefits Paid to Potential Benefits

Participating for Eligible

Households Households Benefit

(in Millions) (in Millions) Rate

Household Contains:

ElderlyAge60 or Older $99.3 $286.8 34.6%

DisabledunderAge60 102.9 138.6 74.2

ChildrenunderAge 18 1,314.2 1,478.1 88.9

Children Ages 5 to 17 983.8 1A80.9 83.3

Single Parent with Children 855.6 864.6 99.0

SingleFemaleAdult 822.3 826.3 99.5

SingleMaleAdult 33.3 38.3 86.9

Twoor MoreAdultswith 458.6 588.8 77.9

Children a

Whitenon-HispanicHead 737.4 949.3 77.7

AfricanAmerican 596.0 570.2 104.5

HispanicHead 222.7 377.4 59.0

Total 1,615.3 1,981.7 81.5

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of

SIPP.

NOTE: Participation rates exceeding 100 percent are due to reporting and measurement errors in SIPP

(see Appendix A).

aIncludes both households in which the gender of the household head is unknown and female-headed

households that contain two or more adults.

23
TABLE II.10

FSP BENEFIT RATES BY GROSS INCOME

RELATIVE TO POVERTY

JANUARY 1992

Benefits Paid to Potential Benefits

Incomeas a Participating forEligible

Percentageof Households Households Benefit

Poverty (inMillions) (inMillions) Rate

Total_<100 $1,563.8 $1,769.5 88.4%

0 159.5 159.0 100.3

1-50 764.6 791.7 96.6

51-100 639.6 818.8 78.1

Total> 100 51.6 212.2 24.3

Total 1,615.3 1,981.7 81.5

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error.

Special tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991

Panel of SIPP.

24
III. TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

The FSP participation rate increased dramatically between January 1989 and January 1992. In January

1992, 74 percent of all eligible persons participated, compared with 59 percent of those eligible m January. 1989,

as shown in Figure III. 1. The rates increased in 1992 because of a surge in new participants and a modest

increase in new eligibles. This surge in new participants was likely due to hardships imposed by the economic

recession of the early 1990s, oulxeachefforts and increased accessibilit3' to the FSP, and other factors such as thc

legalization of large numbers of illegal immigrants)

FIGUREII1.1

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

January 1989 January 1992

Total Eligibles: 31,040,688 Total Eligibles: 32,930,654

SOURCE: January. 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special tabulations from IQCS data for

January. and February 1992.

January. 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP

_Likelycauses of the substantialincrease in FSP participants since 1989 are discussed in McConnell (1991),

Martini and Allin (1993), and Trippe (1994).

25
This chapter compares the January 1992 participation rates to January. 1989 and previous rates, and

examines whether the increase in participation was driven largely by a higher participation rate among those

already eligible or by an increase in eligibles. It also identifies which subgroups of the eligible population had

the largest and smallest increases in participation rates between 1989 and 1992. Highlights of the change in

participation rates for subgroups between January 1989 and 1992 include:

· Participation rates for children, especially for children under age 5, increased more than for

elderly persons. Rates increased more for single-parent households than for multi-adult

households with children

· Participation rates for households headed by African Americans rose more than those of

other racial/ethmc groups.

· Participation rates for the neediest households (households with the lowest incomes and

eligible for the highest benefits) rose more than rates for less needy households

· Participation rates for households with earners rose more than average, and rates for

households with AFDC, SSI, or unemplosanent rose less than average or declined.

A. TRENDS IN AGGREGATE PARTICIPATION RATES

Participation rates rose in January 1992 because of the dramatic rise in participants compared with eligibles

Between January 1989 and January 1992, the number of participants increased by 32 percent, or 6 million

persons, while the number of eligibles rose by only 6 percent, or 2 million persons, as shovm in Table Ill 1

The increase inparticipants between 1989 and 1992 was driven largely by a higher participation rate

among those already eligible rather than an increase in eligibles. Applying the January 1992 participation

rate to the January 1989 number of eligibles increases the number of participants by 4 6 million persons, or 77

percent of the total increase in participants between 1989 and 1992. Thus. assuming no other behavioral changes

among eligibles, the change in the participation rate alone ma), have accounted for 77 percent of the increase in

participants. The remaining increase was due to an increase in eligibles combined with higher participation

among additional eligibles.

26
1. Comparison of Participation Rates From 1985 to 1992

FSP participation rates m January 1992 were at their highest point since the beginning of the series in 1985

(shown in Figure III.2). Between August 1985 and January 1988, the individual participation rate declined

slightly, from 64 percent to 59 percent, and then remained constant between 1988 and 1989 at 59 percent The

rate then rose to 74 percent in January 1992

FIGURE111.2

TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

Pa_,_ 1985-1992

Rate l 0O

i

I

.ot

August 1985 Janualy 11_8 January 1989 January 1992

SOURCE: January. 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special tabulations t¥om IQCS data for

Janua_ and Februa_ 1992.

January. 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP

The decline m the rates between 1985 and 1988 largely was due to legislative changes authorized under thc

1985 Food Security Act, which expanded the number of persons eligible to receive food stamps. This change

is discussed in Trippe and Doyle (1990). Since most of the newly eligible persons did not participate in the FSP

in 1988, the rate declined. There was very, little change in the rates between 1988 and 1989 because participants

and eligibles grew in the same increments.

27
2. Similar Trends in Rates Found In CPS-based Study

The recent rise in participation rates and other trends in the rates were also identified in a recent study on

trends in participation rates using CPS-based estimates of eligibles, shown in Table III.2. Thc CPS-based

estimates show a 4-point drop in the individual participation rate between 1984 and 1986, no change in the rate

(less than I percent) between 1986 and 1988, and an 11-point rise in the rate between 1988 and 1992.

Although the two studies use two diff_t data so_ and cover a slightly different time period, the change

in rates over time is remarkably similar. The SIPP-based rates shoval in Table III. 1 are considered more accurate

than the CPS-based rates because the SIPP data contain more of the information needed to estimate food stamp

eligibility and the methodology more closely replicates the actual eligibility determination process. But the CPSbased study supports the substantial increase in participation rates since 1988.

B. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Most subgroups of the population had large increases in participation rates between Januar).' 1989 and

January 1992, similar to the 15-point increase for total persons and 13-point increase for total households.

However, participation rates for some groups increased bv more (or less) than for total eligibles, as discussed

below.

1. Participation Rates Increased the Most For Children And The Least For Elderly

Between January, 1989 and Januar'3'1992, participation rates increased by 18 points for children, rising more

for preschool children (21 points) than for school-age children (15 points), as shown in Figure III.3 and Table

III.3.

On the other hand, participation rates for elderly persons increased by only 5 points. The much lower rise

in participation rates for elderlypersons than for children may reflect that the income of elderly persons tends to

be relatively constant m real terms. Participation rates for adults also increased substantially (by l 7 points), and

participation rates for single (nondisabled and nonelderly) adults increased by a dramatic 28 points, as shown in

Table III. 3.

28
FIGURE111.3

CHANGE IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

January 1989 - January 1992

/

Percentage /

Points ,-/

3o -_/

,s -_ ii:i::'iiiill

./

i //

// ̧ 0 '/'

ROe CO+ Uficll_ ROe 60 Age 18-59 Under Age Unde_

TOTAL A0ele 5-17 ,,_e5

PERSONS ELDERLY DISABLED ADULTS CHILDREN

SOURCE: January, 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations da_ adjusted for issuance error. Special tabulations from IQCS data for

January. and February. 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP.

2. Participation Rates for Households Headed by Single Parents and African Americans Rose More

Than Rates of Other Groups

Between January 1989 and January 1992, participation rates for single-parent households with children rose

more (24 points) than participation rates of multi-adult households with children ( 17 points), as shown in Figurc

III.4 and Table I]].4. However, participation rates for both single-parent and multi-adult households with children

rose more than rates of total households ( 15 points).

Participation rates for households headed by African Americans increased slightly more than rates for other

racial/ethnicgroups between January 1989 and January 1992, by 15 points compared with 13 points for whites

and 11 points for Hispanics. Although households headed by Hispanics had the lowest increase in participation

rates, Hispanic households had a larger-than-average increase in the number of participants (46 percent) and

eligibles (20 percent), as shown in Appendix B. This large increase in Hispanic participants without a substantial

increase in the participation rate may reflect an increase in Hispam¢ immigrants.

29
FIGURE111.4

CHANGE IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

January 1989 - January 1992

// I

Percentage Points/

i

I 30 -- i

i

[

i

15 -- "':'--- /'" _ ..

::ii:ii!i! l l :::!

:::5:::: I ::::

i

o

Total Single MuPpie White I-_DC Alncan One or Three or

Parent Adul! Nor'. American Two More

H,sDan_ PersonsPersons

TOTAL WITH RACE CF HOJSEHO. D

HOUSEHOLDS CHILDREN HEAD SIZE

SOURCE: Januar,,' 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special tabulations from IQCS data for

January and February 1992. JanuaD_ 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of

SIPP.

3. Participation Rates for Large Households Increased More Than Rates For Small Households

Participationrates for households with three or more persons increased more than rates for households with

one or two persons. Rates for large households increased by 16 points, compared with 12 points for small

households, as shown in Figure II1.4. The major reason for the lower increase in rates for small households is

that small households are more likely to contain elderly persons.

C. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME AMOUNTS AND SOURCES, AND

POTENTIAL BENEFIT AMOUNTS

Changes in participation rates betxveen January 1989 and Januarx' 1992 also varied bx,household income

amounts and sources and their potential benefit amount.

3O
1. Participation Rates Increased the Most For Those in Greatest Need

Participation rates increased the most for those with the lowest incomes and the highest potential benefits,

which are households with the greatest need. Participation rates increased by 14 points for households in poverty,

compared with 6 points for households not in poverty, as shown in Figure III.5.

For households in poverty, participation rates for households with zero gross income grew the most, by 23

points, as shown in Table III.5. As household gross income rose, the growth in the participation rate declined.

Rates for households with gross income less than 50 percent of poverty grew by 16 points, and rates for

households with income between 50 and 100 percent of poverty grew by 11 points.

FIGURE 111.5

CHANGE IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME CHARACTERISTICS

January 1989 - January 1992

Percentage/'i

Points //

/

/

I0 -- imm ,

/'/'_ /

0 --

/ Below Abov_ '

_/ poveny Poverty /'

/ U.I. Earnings SSI AFDC /

// //J

TOTAL POVERTYLEVEL INCOMESOURCE

HOUSEHOLDS

SOURCE: JanuaD' 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special tabulations from IQCS data for

January. and February. 1992. Janua_ 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of

S1PP.

31
2. Participation Rates Increased More for Households with Earnings Than For Households With Other

Sources of Income

The participation rate for households with earnings increased by 16 points between January 1989 and

January 1992, as shown in Figure III.5, The participation rate increase for households with earnings was due to

a 7 percent decline m the number of eligible households with earnings compared with a 38 percent increase m

the number of participating households with earnings, as shown in Appendix B.

While the participation rate for households with earnings increased by 16 points, the participation rate for

households receiving unemployment congna_ation declined by 4 points. The decline m the participation rate for

households receiving unemployment compensation is due to an 89 percent increase in eligible households with

unemployment compensation compared with a 70 percent increase in participating households with

unemployment compensation.

The participation rate of households with AFDC stayed about the same in 1992 as it had been in 1989

because the number of eligibles increased at almost the same rate as the number of participants (31 percent and

30 percent, respectively). Participation rates for households with SSI increased by only 6 points.

3. Participation Rates Increased More For Households Eligible For High Benefits Than For Low

Benefits

FSP participation rates increased more for households eligible for high benefits (17 points) than for

households eligible for low benefits (8 points), as shown in Figure III.6. Households eligible for high benefits

are those with the lowest incomes and the most need. Participation rates for households eligible for the maximum

benefit increased slightly less than the rates for those eligible for 51 to 99 percent of the maximum. As discussed

m Chapter II, households eligible for the maximum benefit seem to behave differently than other households

eligible for high benefits.

32
FIGURE 111.6

CHANGE IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY POTENTIAL BENEFIT AMOUNT

January 1989 - January 1992

Percentage

Points

20

×///

0 '_

I -50%of 51 -99%of Maximum

Maximum Maximum Benefit

LOWBENEFITS HIGH BENEFITS MAXIMUMBENEFIT

SOURCE: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operationsdata adjusted for issuance error. Special tabulationsfrom IQCS data for

Januaryand February 1992. January1992 FOSTERS model,Wave 7 of the 1990Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991Panel of

SIPP.

33
TABLE III. 1

COMPARISON OF FSP PARTICIPATION RATES OVER TIME

1985-1992

Thousands

Percent Change

August 1985 January 1988 January 1989 January 1992 (1989 to 1992)

- Thousands -

Eligibles

Persons 28,884 30,973 31,041 32,931 6.1%

Households 11,604 12,292 12,689 13,983 10.2 %

Benefits $1,072,262 1,334,779 1,405,636 1,981,717 41.0 %

Participants

Persons 18,560 18,286 18,344 24,291 32.4 %

Households 6,894 6,882 7,037 9,631 36.9 %

Benefits $807,265 890,158 927,391 1,615,320 74.2%

Difference

- Percent - (1989 to 1992)

Participation Rates

Persons 64.3 59.0 59.1 73.8 14.7points

Households 59.4 56.0 55.5 68.9 13.4 points

Benefits 75.3 66.7 66.0 81.5 15.5points

SOURCE: Participant numbers are from the Food Stamp Program Operations data, adjusted for issuance errors.

Estimates for eligibles are from the FOSTERS model, using data from the Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP).

34
TABLE III.2

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

BASED ON THE MARCH CPS AND FOOD STAMP PROGRAM OPERATIONS DATA

1984-1992

Difference

Aug. 1984 Aug. 1986 Aug. 1988 Aug. 1990 Aug. 1992 (1988 to 1992)

- Percent -

Individuals 53.0 48.8 49.3 55.4 60.5 11.2 points

Households 52.4 47.3 47.9 55.7 62,4 14.5 points

Benefits 62.4 57.4 56.8 64.1 71,9 15.1 points

SOURCE: Participant numbers came from the Food Stamp Program Statistical Summary of Operations, adjusted for

issuance errors.

Estimates for eligibles came from simulations using data from the March Current Population Survey.

35
TABLE 111.3

INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES

BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS FOR PERSONS

1985-1992

August January January January Difference

1985 1988 1989 1992 (1989 to 1992)

Elderly Age 60 or Older 36.6 % 33.5 % 28.5 % 33.2 % 4.7 points

Livingalone 41.3 38.4 31.5 36.3 4.8

Living with others 30.4 26.7 24.0 28.6 4.6

Disabled Under Age 60 47.4 55.3 57.3 67.0 9.7

Livingalone 52.4 68.6 89.9 117.5 27.6

Livingwithothers 44.8 49.4 44.4 48.5 4.1

ChildrenunderAge 18 73.5 69.5 68.0 85.5 17.5

Preschool(UnderAge5) 75.3 74.8 73.4 94.8 21.4

School age (Age 5-17) 72.7 67.1 65.6 80.6 15.0

Adults Ages 18 to 59 65.0 65.9 59.5 76.6 17.1

Livingalone(not disabled) NA 67.5 84.1 112.4 28.3

Gender

Male NA 58.1 57.3 74.3 17.0

Female NA 59.6 60.4 73.4 13.0

Total 64.3 59.0 59.1 73.8 14.7

SOURCES: 1992 rates are from Table I1.3 of this report, 1985 rates are from Doyle (1990), 1988 rates are from Trippe

and Doyle (1992), and 1989 rates are from Trippe and Doyle (1992).

36
TABLE III.4

HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS:

1985-1992

Difference

August January January January (1989 to

Demographic Characteristics 1985 1988 1989 1992 1992)

Household Contains:

Elderly age 60 or Older 37.3 % 35.0 % 29.0 % 33.5 % 4.5 points

Disabledunderage60 46.7 55.2 57.4 67.4 10.0

Childrenunderage 18 73.9 71.3 70.1 89.2 19.1

Childrenages5 to 17 74.7 68.3 68.2 81.6 13.4

Single person 49.8 45.0 44.7 53.8 9.1

SingleParent with childrena 73.1 74.9 76.4 100.0 23.6

Singlefemaleadult 94.2 74.8 77.5 101.2 24.2

Single male adult 62.7 45.9 56.7 78.8 22.1

Two or more adults with 75.3 66.8 60.5 77.5 17.0

children b

Whitenon-Hispanichead 48.9 46.9 45.9 58.6 12.7

AfricanAmericanhead 77.1 76.0 76.9 92.3 15.4

Hispanichead 54.8 54.2 50.5 61.4 10.9

Total 59.4 56.0 55.5 68.9 13.4

SOURCES: 1992 rates are from Table II.3 of this report, 1985 rates are from Doyle (1990), 1988 rates are

from Trippe and Doyle (1992), and 1989 rates are from Trippe and Doyle (1992).

din January 1992, the SIPP-based definition of households containing a single parent with children was changed

slightly in order to be consistent with the QC-based definition which is households with only one nonelderly

adult (age 18 to 59) and children. The change increased the participation rate over what it would have been

in 1992, resulting in a 24 point increase in the 1992 rate over the 1989 rate, rather than an 18 point increase.

bThis category includes both households in which the gender of the household head is unknown and femaleheaded households that contain two or more adults.

37
TABLE 111.5

HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES

BY INCOME AND BENEFIT CHARACTERISTICS:

1985 - 1992

August January January January Difference

Economic Characteristic 1985 1988 1989 1992 (1989 to 1992)

Monthly Benefit Level as a

Percentage of Maximum

Allotment

1-25% 30.0 % 29.9 % 31.9 % 33.6 % 1.7 points

26-50% 58.3 61.5 51.1 67.2 16.1

51-75% 86.0 68.7 72.8 80.9 8.1

76-99% 89.1 91.0 83.4 108.7 25.3

100% 64.3 50.5 52.8 67.2 14.4

Income as a Percentage of Poverty

Total < 100% 74.6 70.2 72.2 86.2 14.0

0 69.0 70.0 82.2 104.9 22.7

1-50 92.7 78.5 86.5 102.0 15.5

51-100 67.2 66.5 64.8 76.1 11.3

Total > 100 14.8 16.8 14.2 20.6 6.4

Source of Income

Earned income 36.8 33.9 32.3 48.2 15.9

SSI: 65.7 75.0 67.0 73.4 6.4

Elderly in the unit 66.6 70.3 58.4 63.8 5.4

No elderly in the unit 64.1 82.6 82.6 86.2 3.6

Publicassistance: 115.5 110.5 121.0 120.9 -0.1

AFDC 118.5 112.5 121.7 120.0 -1.7

Otherwelfare 97.4 98.9 105.7 118.8 13.1

Unemploymentcompensation 75.6 46.4 45.6 41.2 -4.4

Total 59.4 56.0 55.5 68.9 13.4

SOURCES: 1992 rates are from Tables II.5, II.7, and II.8 of this report. 1985 rates are from Doyle (1990),

1988 rates are from Trippe and Doyle (1992), and 1992 rates are from Trippe and Doyle (1992).

38
IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS

IN JANUARY 1992

Although 24 million persons participated in the FSP in January 1992, 8.6 million (26 percent of all eligible

persons) did not participate. These eligible nonparticipants lived m 4.3 million households and were eligible for

$36 million in benefits. The literature on eligible nonparticipants (Allm and Beebout 1989) suggests various

reasons for nonparticipation. Some may be unaware of the program. Others may presume that they are not

eligible for benefits. Others may be aware of the program and their eligibility, but feel that the benefits are not

worth the effort required to obtain and use them Still others may not participate due to the stigma they associate

with using food stamps.

This chapter examines the characteristics of the eligible nonparticipants in January 1992 and identifies which

groups of eligibles had the largest proportion of nonparticipants. In sununary, m January 1992, eligibles with

the largest percentage of nonparticipants included:

· elderly persons and households headed by a white non-Hispanic,

· households with the highest gross incomes and eligible for the lowest food stamp benefits,

and

· households with earnings.

A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING

HOUSEHOLDS

Table IV. 1 shows that 70 percent of eligible nonparticipating households contained elderly persons, 74

percent were headed by a white non-Hispanic, and 63 percent consisted of a person living alone. These groups

generally had lower-than-average participation rates (34 percent for households with elderly, 57 percent for

households headed by a white non-Hispanic, and 40 percent for single person households, compared with 69

percent for total households).

39
The proportion of nonparticipating households containing elderly persons increased substantially in 1992

over 1989 (from 56 percent to 70 percent), while the proportion of nonparticipating households containing

children declined substantially (from 32 percent to 16 percent).

Table IV.2 shows that most nonparticipating households contained either an elderly member (two-thirds of

whom lived alone) or a working member (most of whom had children) in January 1989.

B. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS

Table IV.1 shows that more than two-thirds of total eligible nonparticipating households had gross incomes

above the poverty, level and almost half received earnings.

Half of the eligible nonparticipating households were eligible for the lowest benefits (1 to 25 percent of the

maximum benefit) in January 1992, as shown in Table IV.2. Most of these households had income above the

poverty level. However, a quarter of the eligible nonparticipating households were eligible for the maximum

benefit. This is not surprising since, as discussed in Chapter II, households eligible for the maximum benefit

(those with zero net income) are less likely,to participate than other households eligible for large benefits. Table

IV.3 shows that about 51 percent of nonparticipating households that were eligible for the maximum benefit

contained elderly persons (most of whom lived alone), and 49 percent did not. Most of those without elderly

persons did not receive earnings but contained children.

_Althoughthe number of nonparticipating households with elderly persons did not change much between 1989

and 1992, the number represents a much larger proportion of the total number of nonparticipating households,

which declined by 1.3 million between 1989 and 1992.

40
TABLE IV. 1

DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE

NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS: JANUARY 1992

Population Distribution

(in Thousands) of Households

Household Size

1 2,758 63.4%

2 582 13.4

3 280 6.4

4 268 6.2

5 196 4.5

6+ 267 6.1

Household Contains:

Elderly 3,046 70.0

Disabled 440 10.1

Childrenunderage18 708 16.3

Childrenunderage5 103 2.4

Childrenages5 to17 917 21.1

Singleparentwithchildren 0 0.0

Two or more adults with children 543 12.4

Whitenon-Hispanichead 3,233 74.3

Blacknon-Hispanichead 278 6.4

Hispanichead 817 18.8

Income as a Percentage of Poverty

Total _ 100% 1,428 32.8

Total > 100% 2,933 67.4

Household Income Includes:

Earnings 2,049 47.1

SSI 637 14.6

Unemployment compensation 381 8.8

Total Households 4,352 100.0

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special tabulations fro IQCS

data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP.

NOTE: Eligible nonparticipants are computed as the difference between eligibles and participants.

41
TABLE IV.2

DISTRIBUTION OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS

ABOVE AND BELOW POVERTY

JANUARY 1992

Percent Distribution of Eligible Nonparticipating

Households

Below Poverty Above Poverty Total

Benefit Level as a Percentage of

Maximum Allotment

1-25% 7.8 % 41.9 % 49.7 %

26-50 2.3 16.4 18.7

51-99 2.2 4.8 7.1

100 20.2 4.3 24.6

Composition

Elderly Present 32.9 37.1 70.0

Livingalone 21.7 23.9 45.5

Living with others 11.3 13.2 24.5

Nonelderly Households with Earnings 16.6 23.3 39.8

Withchildren 10.5 15.2 25.7

Withoutchildren 6.1 8.1 14.1

Total 32.6 67.4 100.0

Eligible Nonparticipating

Persons (in thousands) 2,826 5,814 8,640

Households (in thousands) 1,418 2,933 4,352

Benefits(inmillions) $206 $161 $366

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of

SIPP.

NOTE: Eligible nonparticipants are computed as the difference between eligibles and participants.

Column entries may not sum to 100 percent due to reporting and measurement errors in SIPP.

42
TABLE IV.3

DISTRIBUTION OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING

HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR

THE MAXIMUM FOOD STAMP BENEFIT

JANUARY 1992

Eligible Nonparticipating Households Below Poverty

that are Eligible for Maximum FSP Benefit

Population Distribution

(in Thousands) of Households

Composition

Elderly Present 415 50.6 %

Living alone 275 33.6

Livingwithothers 139 17.0

Nonelderly Households with Earnings 122 15.0

With children 105 12.8

Withoutchildren 18 2.1

Nonelderly Households without Earnings 282 34.4

Withchildren 238 29.1

Without children 43 5.3

Income as a Percentage of Poverty

0 (43) -5.3

1-50 518 63.2

51-100 344 42.1

TotalHouseholds 819 100.0

SOURCES: January 1992 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations fro IQCS data for January and February 1992.

January 1992 FOSTERS model, Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991

Panel of SIPP.

NOTE: Eligible nonparticipants are computed as the difference between eligibles and

participants. Negative entries are due to reporting and measurement errors in SIPP.

43
REFERENCES

Allin, Susan, and Harold Beebout. "Deuaininants of Participation in the Food Stamp Program: A Review of the

Literature" In CurrentPerspecaves on Food Stamp Program Parttcipatton. Alexandria, VA: Food and

Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989.

Doyle,Pat. "Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: August 1985." In Current Perspectives on FoodStamp

Program Participation. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

1990,

Doyle,Pat, and Harold Beebout. "Food Stamp Program Participation Rates." In Current Perspectives on Food

Stamp Program Participation. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 1988.

Doyle,Pat, John Czajka, Paul Boldin, Harold Beebout, and Sharon Hirabayashi. "Conceptual Studies of SIPPBased Simulation of the Food Stamp Program." Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, 1987.

Doyle, Pat, and Robert Dalrymple. "The Impact of Imputation Procedures on Distributional Characteristics of

the Low Income Population." In Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census Annual Research Conference

III. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987.

Landa, Cady. "Implications of Food Stamp Program Unit Rules: Evidence from SIPP." Report prepared for the

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc., 1987.

Martini, Alberto, and Susan Allin. "Did the Characteristics of Food Stamp Program Entrants Change During the

1990-91 Recession?" Report Prepared for the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1993.

Martini, Alberto. "Participation in the Food Stamp Program: A Multivariate Analysis. In Current Perspective

on Food Stamp Program Part_cipatton. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, 1992.

McConneil, Sheena. "The Increase in Food Stamp Participation Between 1989 and 1990: A Report to

Congress." Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1991.

Sykes, Julie. "Creation of the January 1992 FOSTERS Microsimulation Model and Database: Technical

Working Paper". Report prepared for the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1994.

Trippe, Carole. "Trends in FSP Participation Rates: Focus on August 1992." Report prepared for the Food and

Nutrition Service, U.S. D_artment of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,

1994.

Trippe, Carole. "Estimating Rates of Participation in the Food Stamp Program: A Review of the Literature."

In Current Perspectives on Food StampProgram Participation. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989.

45
Trippe, Carole, and Pat Doyle. "Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: January 1989." In Current

Perspectives on FoodStarnpProgram Participatt'on. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Services, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1992.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Data User Services Division, Bureau of the Census. Survey of Income and

Program Par#cipation 1991 Panel Wave4 Core Microdata File, Technical Documentation. Washington,

DC: The Bureau, 1993.

46
APPENDIX A

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES USED TO

ESTIMATE FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

IN JANUARY 1992
This appendix describes the methodology used to construct the January 1992 FSP participation rates. First,

it describes the FSP adminh_r_ve d_ataand the methodology used to estimate the number of participants. Then,

it describes the creation of the SIPP-based eligibility file used by the FOSTERS model, and describes the FSP

eligibility simulation. It also presents an assessment of the simulation. Most of the discussion m this appendix

is from the report "Creation of the January 1992FOSTERS Microsimulation Model and Database" (Sykes 1994).

A. USING ADMINISTRATIVE DATA TO ESTIMATE TIlE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

Because FSP participation is underreported m the SIPP data (as in all national household surveys),

participation rates m this report use the actual number of FSP participants based on FSP Program Operations

dAt_for the numerator of the ratio? Program Operations data contain information on the number of persons and

households that were issued FSP benefits and the total dollar value of the coupons issued for January 1992.

The Program Operations data on the number of food stamp participants and the value of their benefits in

January 1992 were adjusted to exclude Guam and the Virgin Islands, which SIPP does not include. The Program

Operations information was then further adjusted to account for benefits issued to ineligible households and in

error. The FSP caseload m January 1992 was adjusted downward by 3 percent and FSP benefits were adjusted

downward by 5.7 percent to adjust for these errors. The adjusted number of FSP participants in January 1992

was 9.6 million units and 24.3 million persons. Total benefits paid to these participants was $1.6 billion.

Because we wanted to estimate participation rates for different subgroups of the FSP population--such as

for elderly, children, single parents, or workers--we needed information on the distribution of the FSP caseload

across demographic and income characteristics. The Program Operations data contain only the total caseload

count and total dollar value of benefits issued, and thus do not provide this information. Therefore, we used a

sample of food stamp case records from the FSP IQCS to calculate the distribution of persons, households, and

benefits across demographic and income characteristics. The IQCS data contain one record for each participating

_FSP participafon was underreported in SIPP by 22 percent in January 1992. Only 7.5 million units

reported participating in the FSP in SIPP in January 1992, compared to 9.6 million units that were

actually issued benefits based on Program Operations data.

49
unit in a given month, as selected randomly from the national caseload. For this analysis, we combined the

January and February 1992 IQCS samples to increase the sample size.

B. USING SIPP DATA TO ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLES

Estimates of food stamp eligibles and potential benefits m January 1992 were based on SIPP data and a

microsimulation model, called FOSTERS. Much of the effort in estimating the number of eligibles was in

preparing a SIPP file that contained all the information needed to closely replicate the FSP eligibility criteria. A

series of 30 programs was used to gather information from various SIPP data products to simulate FSP eligibility.

Once the necessary data were merged, the FOSTERS model applied the FSP eligibility criteria in effect m January

1992 to each household on the file to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the household was eligible for

food stamps. For households that were eligible, the model determined the value of the food stamp benefit for

which it qualified. Below, we discuss the creation of the SIPP data file and the simulation of FSP eligibles.

1, Whatis SIPP?

SIPP provides monthly information on household composition, income, and participation in various

government programs, as well as periodic information on asset holdings and households expenses. Since the

determination of FSP eligibility is based on this information, SIPP is an ideal starting point for simulating

eligibility.

SIPP is a nationally representative longitudinal survey providing detailed monthly information on household

compositiom income, labor force activity, and participation in various government programs, such as Medicaid,

AFDC, SSI, and the FSP. The interviewed population is based on a multistage slxatified sample of the

noninstitutionalized resident population of the United States. This includes persons living in households, as well

as those persons living in group quarters such as college dormitories and rooming houses. Inmates of institutions,

such as homes for the aged, and persons living abroad are not included. Persons residing in military, barracks,

although part of the noninstitutionalized population, are also excluded. Other armed forces personnel are

included, as long as they, are living in a housing unit on or offbase (U.S. Department of Commeme 1993).

50
units are allowed in the FSP, but we did not previously model them for two reasons. First, earlier research

concluded_that it would be too difficult to accurately assess which families and individuals in a household could

legitimately apply as separate food stamp units if no food stamps were reported (Landa 1987). Second, we found

that_ multiple food stamp units in SIPP were more an artifact of double reporting (the husband and wife

reported the same information) and of the Census Bureau's imputation routines than actual cases (Doyle and

Dalrymple 1987). We continue to be guided by the first reason for those households not reporting food stamps.

However, newer d_t_show that almost all of the reported multiple food stamp units in SIPP seem plausible and

only one-quarter were imputed by the Census Bureau. The net result of our change is that 1.6 percent of the food

stamp households report multiple food stamps. This increased the total number of eligible food stamp umts by

273,000 units, or by 2 percent, based on a simulation conducted using the FOSTERS 1992 model.

b. Simulating FSP Eligibility and Potential Benefits

The FOSTERS model replicates the FSP eligibilitycriteria in effect in January 1992. 4 In a sense, the model

acted as an FSP caseworker. On a case by case basis, it determined whether the food stamp unit was eligible for

food stamps, a function of both available cash income and assets. If the unit was income and asset eligible, the

model then determined the value of the food stamp benefit for which the trait was eligible. This section

summarizes the FSP eligibility rules as simulated in the model, and Table A.4 summarizes the values of the

January 1992 FSP eligibility rules.

Determining Asset Eligibility. The food stamp umt could have no more than $2,000 in countable assets. If

the food stamp unit contained an elderly person, the limit increased to $3,000. If the food stamp unit contained

only persons on public assistance (SSI, AFDC, or GA), the unit was automatically identified as asset eligible

regardless of the amount of its countable assets. Presumably, umts that contained only persons on public

4A number of regulations were officially changed by the FSP in February 1992 and, therefore, were

not implemented in our model.

55
assistance were akeady be asset eligible for the FSP, since those programs have more restrictive asset guidelines

than does the FSP.

Countable assets included financial and vehicular assets. Most financial and nonfmancial assets were

considered countable. For example, countable financial assets included money in savings accounts, money

markets, certificates of deposit, interest-earning chocking accounts, stock and mutual funds, and money in interest

refin_ent accounts and KEOGH accounts (less an early withdrawal penalty fee). In contrast, selected pieces of

property such as the principal home, adjacent land, and most household goods were not included.

In most instances, assets were counted at their equity value (i.e., value minus debt). One principal exception

was the treatment of vehicular assets. First, vehicles used for producing income or transporting disabled

individuals were not counted. Second. vehicles required for work-related travel are valued at the current Blue

Book listing less $4,500. Since we cannot tell from SIPP which vehicles were used for work-related travel, we

assumed that at most one vehicle per unit was used for this purpose, and we assumed it would be the newest one.

Therefore, we counted as an asset the value in excess of $4,500 of the newest vehicle not used to produce income

or transport disabled persons. Any remaining vehicles owned by members of the umt had the larger of either the

vehicle's value in excess of $4,500 or the equity value counted as an asset.

Determining Income Eligibility. To be income eligible, the unit's gross income could not exceed 130 percent

of the federal poverty guideline, and the umcs net income (gross income less certain deductions) could not exceed

100 percent of the federal poverty guideline. 5 There were two exceptions to these rules. First, if the unit

contained an elderly or disabled person, it was exempt from the gross income screen. Second, if the unit

contained only persons on public assistance (SSI, AFDC, or GA), the umt was automatically income eligible

regardless of the amount of its income. Assistance programs have more restrictive eligibility guidelines than the

FSP, so presumably they would already be income eligible.

SI'he poverty guidelines are based on the official monthly poverty guidelines published by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, which are adjusted each year to account for inflation. These

guidelines and other FSP parameters are generally the same for the 48 contiguous states and the District

of Columbia and vary slightly for Alaska and Hawaii and the territories.

56
Almost every year the Census Bureau selects a new sample, or panel, of approximately 20,000 households,

and follows them for approximately two and a haft years. Panels are staggered so that one panel overlaps

another. In this way,two panels can be combined, thereby doubling the sample size for a given calendar month.

The topical modules administered in Waves 4 and 7, also known as the eligibility modules, focus on issues

pertinent to the determination of FSP eligibility. In particular, these modules include questions on vehicle

ownership, asset holdings, dependent care expenses, medical expenses, and shelter expenses. As shown in

Table A. 1,the 1990 Panel Wave 7 and the 1991 Panel Wave 4 overlap in January 1992. The combined panels

represent a total of 33,731 interviewed households.

By focusing on January 1992, there were two shortcomings. First, the topical module questions are asked

with respect to the household composition in the interview month and not for each of the retrospective four

months. So, some persons who were present in January but not in the interview month did not have any

information on vehicles, assets, or expenses. We overcame this omission by imputing the information using a

statistical matching technique. Second, questions on reasons for receiving government transfers, which are

needed to determine food stamp disability status, are admimstered when the person initially enters the SIPP

universe, not every month. We overcame this problem by augmenting our data with disability data taken from

Wave 1, the initial interview for most persons in our sample.

As shown in Table A.2, there were 20,350 and 13,381 interviewed households in January 1992 based on

the 1990 Panel Wave 7 and the 1991 Panel Wave 4, respectively. By applying the combined panel adjustments

to the weights, this translates into 95.6 million households and 251.2 million persons living in the Umted States.:

SIPP, like most household surveys, underreports the number of households participating in government

programs in general and the FSP in particular. Unfortunately, in January 1992, the extent to which FSP

households were underreported increased considerably compared with earlier SIPP estimates. As shown in Table

A.3, SIPP reported only 7.5 million households receiving food stamps in January 1992, while the Program

2All weighted counts from the 1990 Panel are multiplied by 0.613, while weighted counts from the

1991 Panel are multiplied by 0,387 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1993).

51
Operations data reported 9.6 million. This reflects an underreporting of 22 percent, which is much higher than

the 14and 12 percent underteported in January 1988 and January 1989, respectively. So this FOSTERS model

relied more heavily on selecting eligible nonreporters to participate than ever before.

2. Creating the SIPP-based Model Database

The core questionnaire of SIPP provided most of the information needed to model FSP eligibility. The

topical module questionnaire and the initial Wave 1 questionnaire provided the rest. Since the Census Bureau

distributes this information as separate data products, we had to combine the files before using the data in the

FOSTERS model. This process involved a series of 30 programs.

Since each wave contains four months worth of data, we began our process by selecting all households that

were present in January 1992 from Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel. From that we

extracted all of the data necessary for our simulahon: household composition, earned and unearned income, asset

income, and participation in the various government programs. This data formed the bulk of the data elements

for our simulation; only six critical data elements remained to be gathered:

1. Determination of Disability Status: The first important element not readily available from the

core questionnaire was the determination of who is disabled. The FSP considers persons under

age 60 to be disabled if they. received SSI or if they received certain types of other unearned

income due to a disability. Households containing disabled persons are then subject to different

FSP eligibility rules. This usually makes the household eligible for more benefits than it would

have been if it did not contain a disabled person.

2. Append Financial Asset Balances: The next important element we gathered is the mount of

financial assets owned by each person. This information is critical in determining FSP eligibility. The

topical modules of Waves 4 and 7 asked each working-age person (age 15 or older) how much money

he or she held in various financial accounts (e.g.,savings accounts, money markets, stocks, bonds, etc,),

We extracted this information and merged it to the appropriate person in our January 1992 database.

Some persons in the topical module may report owning assets with someone else in the household. In

those cases, SIPPreports the information once and identifies the co-owner. We used this information

and equally distributed the asset holdings among the joint owners.

3. Append Medical Expenses: Another question asked of working-age persons is how much they spend

out-of-pocket on medical bills. Since these expenses are included in the FSP eligibility criteria, we

extracted and appended them to the appropriate persons in our January 1992 umverse.

4. Append Shelter and Dependent Care Expenses: Unlike questions about medical expenses and

financial assets, which were asked of each working-age person, questions about shelter and dependent

52
care were presented in the topical module questionnaire only to the household reference person. Since

the FSP eligibility guidelines use these expenses, we extracted and merged them to the appropriate

households in January 1992.

5. Append Nonfinancial Assets (Vehicle Ownership): Similar to the shelter and dependent care

expenses, data on vehicle ownership are collected in the topical module questionnaire only from the

household refaeag:e person. The referea_ pexson reports who owns which vehicle, whether the vehicle

is used for work or to transport disabled persons, and how much is owed on the vehicle. Since FSP

eligibility relies on this data, we extracted and merged them to the appropriate owner in our January

1992 universe.

6. Impute Missing Shelter and Dependent Care Expenses and Missing Vehicular Assets: In

households where shelter and dependent care expenses were not available, we imputed these expenses

using a statistical matching technique known as the hot-deck imputation method. We also used this

technique to impute vehicle data to those working-age persons not present in the interview month.

More detailed information on the creation of the model database is in Sykes (1994).

3. Simulating FSP Eligibility

Once the data n_____satyfor determining FSP eligibility were gathered, we can used these data to determine

which households require government assistance to meet their food consumption needs. This section discusses

how the FOSTERS model made this deteaminatioa, presents the estimated number of eligibles for January, 1992,

and includes various statistics on the characteristics about this special population?

a. Identifying Household Members Who Belong in the Food Stamp Unit

Since the FSP eligibility rides apply only to persons in the food stamp umt, deciding who belongs in the unit

is of utmost importance. In general, individuals who live in a residential umt and customarily purchase and

prepare food together constitute a household (or food stamp uni0 as defined by the FSP. Special provisions allow

elderly and other persons who, because of substantial disability, cannot prepare and purchase food to apply as

a separate unit as long as the total monthly income of the other members of the households does not exceed 165

percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Some groups of individuals are not permitted to apply separately even

3The discussion that follows is an overview of how we modeled the regulations that govern FSP

eligibility and benefits. We omit from this discussion aspects of the FSP that were not modeled. The

complete regulations appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (FCR, parts 270-273).

53
if they have differentfood purchasing and preparation arrangements. These include married couples, parents and

their minor chil&-en,childless nonelderly indivieh,alsliving with their nonelderly parents, and childless nonelderly

individuals living with their childless noneldefiy siblings.

FSP rules also often cause certain individuals to be excluded from the food stamp mt even if they

customarily share food arrangements with other household members. For example, the FSP excludes all SSI

recipients living in California from the food stamp mdt because California's SSI program includes a special

monetary supplement that is paid in lieu of food stamps. The FSP also excludes persons enrolled half time or

more in postsecondary education programs unless they work 20 or more hours a week, receive AFDC, or are a

parent of a young child. The FSP also excludes persons in group quarters if they meet certain criteria.

Like most surveys, the SIPP is not entirely suitable for determining the food stamp unit, since the survey

does not capture food purchasing and preparation information. However, we can infer which persons would

probably be in the food stamp unit based on other information in SIPP. Our inference was based on the following

rules of thumb:

· If the household reported receipt of food stamps, those persons reporting being covered by

food stamps were in the food stamp unit Everyone else was excluded. Multiple food stamp

units in a household were allowed only if they were reported in SIPP as such.

· If the household did not receive food stamps but reported receipt of some other form of

public assistance (SSI, AFDC, means-tested veteran's benefits, or other welfare like GA),

those persons reporting being covered by that program, in addition to their spouse and

children under age 18, were included in the milt. This assumed that this group of people had

been exposed to the welfare system and would continue to represent themselves as one unit,

even though they may have purchased and prepared food with other persons in the household.

· If the household did not report food stamps or public assistance, everyone in the household

was included in the food stamp unit.

· SSI persons living in California, postsecondary students meeting certain criteria, and all

persons in group quarters were excluded.

These roles of thumb were formulated in earlier research and have evolved over time (Doyle and Post 1988,

Doyle et al. 1987). In this analysis, we made one change to these rules that was not caused by a legislative

mandate: We allowed multiple food stamp units in households reporting such an event. Multiple food stamp

54
Gross income was all cash income, including all earned cash income and most sources of unearned income,

such as AFDC, SSI, GA, and SocialSecurity. Earned 'mctanetax credits, energy assistance, education assistance,

and the income of high school students are examples of the kinds of income not included.

Net income was gross income less the following five deductions:

· Standard deduction of $122 (continental U.S.), $209 (Alaska), or $173 (Hawaii).

· Earnings deduction equaling 20 percent of earnings, in recognition of taxes and work-related

expenses.

· Dependent care expense deduction of no more than $160 per dependent.

· Medical expense deduction equaling the unit's total medical expenses in excess of $35, as

long as these expenses were incurred by elderly or disabled persons.

· Excess shelter deduction equaling the unit's shelter expense in excess of 50 percent of the

unit's income after the previous four deductions are taken. For those umts without an elderly

or disabled person, this deduction is subject to a cap of $194 (continental U.S.), $337

(Alaska), or $276 (Hawaii). The shelter expense includes the unit's reported utility expenses

or the standard utility allowance, whichever is larger. These utility allowances vary by state

and are listed in Tables A.5 and A.6.

Determining Food Stamp Benefit Amount. If the unit was income and asset eligible, it must also have been

eligible for a food stamp benefit to be officially considered eligible for the FSP. The food stamp benefit equals

the maximum food stamp benefit less 30 percent of the unit's net income. The maximum benefit was 103 percent

of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which represents the United States Department of Agriculture's lowest-cost food

plan. Since eligibility is based on federal poverty guidelines and not the TFP, there are circumstances where the

unit may be eligible for zero benefits. In this case, umts containing one or two persons were guaranteed a

minimum $10 benefit. Larger units were not guaranteed a minimum benefit, so these units may have qualified

for zero benefits. When this happened, we considered these umts to be technically ineligible for food stamps,

since they could not possibly participate in the FSP.

57
c. Examining Simulation Results

As shown in Table A.7, there were 94.9 million potentially eligible food stamp units in January 1992. We

excluded from this count all households in which no one was allowed to participate in the FSP (e.g., households

in California containing only SSI recipients, households containing only postsecondary students that met the set

of criteria described earlier, and group quarters). We included in this count the multiple food stamp units as

reported in SIPP.

This table also shows that 80 percent of the potentially eligible units had too much income and were

therefore ineligible for the FSP. Another 5 percent had income that was low enough to be eligible, but theft assets

were too high; therefore, they too were ineligible. A small fraction were units containing three or more persons

with an income low enough to be classified as income eligible but high enough to be eligible for zero benefits.

These too were ineligible for the FSP. Only the remaining 15 percent (14 million) were eligible for the FSP.

Table A. 8 shows this information in a slightly different way. This table distributes the outcome of the

income and asset tests by the units' gross income relative to poverty. It shows that almost 75 percent of the

eligible units (10.3 million) lived in poverty. Almost 95 percent of the eligible units had income below 130

percent of poverty. The table also shows that 18 percent of the units in poverty (income eligible) were ineligible

for the FSP because of their asset holdings.

Table A.9 shows the 14 million eligible units distributed by mt size and gross income relative to poverty.

As can be seen from this table, 33 million persons were eligible. If all of these eligibles participated, the FNS

would need to pay $2 billion in food stamps.

As expected, the results of this simulation are both similar to and different from the results of prior

FOSTERS models. For example, we expected the number of eligibles in January 1992 to be larger than the

number estimated for January 1989 because the 1990-1991 recession should have made more persons poor and

more likely eligible for the FSP. As Table A. 10 demonstrates, the percentage of potentially eligible units who

were eligible for food stamps increased from 13.7 percent to 14.7 percent. Most of the 1.4 million increase (92

percent) came from households living at or near the poverty line. This table also shows that the percentage of

58
units eligible for zero benefit, ineligible due to assets, and ineligible due to income remained relatively constant

over the years.

This table also makes it quite apparent that not all reporters were eligible. In 1992, 11 percent of the units

reporting food stamps were seemingly ineligible. For these cases, there was an apparent inconsistency between

reported income, assets, and receiving food stamps. Moreover, not all of the households reporting AFDC were

eligible for the FSP. In fact 7.5 percent were ineligible. Besides an apparent reporting inconsistency, these cases

may have also included AFDC households in which the broader food stamp unit included persons with sufficient

income or assets to render the household ineligible for food stamps. The same holds true for SSI and GA, with

23.5 and 21.4 percent, respectively, ineligible for the FSP.

In Table A. 11, we compare various characteristics of the eligible population across time. This table shows

the result of recent changes in the economy. For example, the percentage of units with earners was lower than

that of previous years, reflecting the lingering effect of the 1990-1991 recession. The percentage of units with

AFDC has risen, which is also partly a function of the lingering recession.

d. Impact of Changes in FSP Legislation

We implemented the following changes in the FOSTERS model to correspond to program changes that

occurred between January 1989 and January 19926:

· Expansion of Automatic Eligibility. Expanded the definition of pure public assistance

units to include households with GA forthe purpose of determining whether a household can

automatically be income and asset eligible for the FSP (authorized under the Food,

Conservation, and Trade Act (FACTA) of 1991).

· Decrease in the Number of SSI Cashout States. Removed Wisconsin from the list of

states that preclude persons receiving Supplemental Security.Income (SSI) from the FSP

(based on a state rule change).

6We also updated the income eligibility screens, updated the standard deduction, and updated the

maximum excess shelter deduction allowed to households with elderly or disabled persons. These

eligibility parameters are updated every year to account for inflation.

59
These legisl_ve changes had little impact on the estimate of FSP eligibles. We simulated the number of eligibles

in January 1992 under the old law and the new law to estimate the impact of the changes on the number of FSP

eligibles. As shown in Table A. 12, allowing households that receive GA to be considered when determining

automatic eligibility increased the number of food stamp umts by about 93,000, and excluding Wisconsin from

the list of cashout states increased the number of eligible units by about 16,000. The combined impact of these

two changes increased total eligible units by 109,000, or 0.8 percent over what they would have been without the

changes.

C. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ELIGIBILITY SIMULATION

The procedure used to estimate the eligible population was designed to replicate the eligibility determination

process for each household on the SIPP analysis file as closely as possible. In other words, we applied the

program eligibility and benefit criteria outlined earlier to each household as if it had actually applied for food

stamps.

The SIPP eligibility module contains most of the information necessary for determining FSP eligibility and

benefits. However, some problems remain. All the simulation procedures described earlier cannot perfectly

replicate the eligibility and benefit detemfinafion process mandated in the legislation, and despite the adjustments

and enhancements that we made to the data. The specific discrepancies are as follows.

· Unit definition. Because SIPP does not measure the complete set of characteristics that are

used to de_ndne a food stamp unit (especially information on which dwelling-unit members

customarily purchase and prepare food together), the simulated food stamp household was

not the same as the umt determined by the food stamp caseworker. For this study, we used

the reported program umt composition in Census households that reported FSP benefits to

simulate the food stamp unit. Multiple food stamp units were allowed only if they are

reported in SIPP. In other dwelling units with cash assistance, the food stamp household was

equal to the cash assistance unit plus any spouses or related children under age 18 in the

dwelling. In all other dwelling units, the simulated food stamp household was the same as

the Census household. Landa (1987) and Doyle and Dalrymple (1987) discuss using SIPP

to construct food stamp households.

· Countable assets. We used the financial, nonfinancial, and vehicular assets reported in SIPP

to estimate countable assets according to program rules. However, SIPP does not explicitly

provide all the measures necessary for this purpose, such as cash on hand and vehicular

equity.

60
· Gross income. The measure of gross income used in this study was close to, but not

precisely the same as, gross income reported to the food stamp caseworker. First, surv_

data on income and program participation, such as the data collected in SIPP, tend to be

underreported. For example, the number of AFDC families in SIPP in January 1992 was

only 73 percent of the total number of AFIX2 families based on AFDC administrative data.

Second, the definition of income for purposes of food stamp eligibility is not precisely the

same as income measured in SIPP. For _ample, the Food Stamp Program counts net selfemployment earnings averaged over aperiod of up to one year, whereas SIPP measures selfemployment draw. Third, as noted earlier, unit composition simulated with SIPP data differs

from the caseworker's determination of the food stamp household, and, hence, aggregated

income for the food stamp household may differ as well.

· Net income. The measure of net income for this file was not exactly the same as net income

measured by the caseworker because the SIPP definitions of shelter and dependent-care

expenses differ slightly from the FSP definitions. For example, utility expenses were not

disaggregated by use (heating, cooling, telephone) which affects the application of the

standard utility allowance.

· Disability status. We relied on reported disability and reported income receipt as specified

under the program to determine disability. Reporting and measurement errors in SIPP may

somewhat distort the number of disabled individuals identified in this manner.

· Measurement error. Several forms ofnonsampling errors affect the eligibility simulation,

including the underreporting of income and program participation noted earlier, and the

misclassification of benefit and income types. Of particular concern is the existence of

persons who report participation in SSI or public assistance programs at the same time that

they report income or assets in excess of the eligibility limits for those programs (that is,

"seemingly ineligible" participants).

Table A. 13shows the possible bias due to each of these measurement and reporting errors. The net result

on estimates of the number of eligibles is uncertain. Underreporting of gross income will bias the estimates of

eligible households upward, since more households will appear to have met the income limits than actually did.

Also, under the automatic eligibility provision of the Food Security Act of 1985, households comprised entirely

of"seemingly-inehgible" SSI or public assistance participants are treated as eligible for food stamps even though

their income and assets exceed food stamp eligibility limits. To the extent that the income or asset measure of

these seemingly ineligibles (as opposed to the participation measure) is correct, the number of food stamp eligible

households is overstated.

On the other hand, the imprecise measures of some types of expenses may bias the measurement of net

income upward, thus reducing the estimate of the number of eligible households. Finally, the underrepresentation

61
of some groups of individuals biases the estimates of eligibles downward. As illusu'ated earlier, the SIPP data

seem to significantly underrepresent households that receive public assistance and that have very low incomes.

These households form a large portion of the eligible and participating populations. Thus, some of the

participation-rate estimates for these households exceed I00 percent. Doyle (1990) analyzes the impact of

selected measurement and reporting errors on measures of food stamp eligibility.

62
TABLE A.1

REFERENCE MONTHS AND INTERVIEW MONTHS OF

WAVE 7 OF THE 1990 PANEL

AND

WAVE 4 OF THE 1991 PANEL

Reference Months

Interview Sep Oct Nov Dec Jma Feb Mar Apr May

Month Rotation Group 91 91 91 91 92 92 92 92 92

Feb 2 X X X X

Mat 3 X X X X

Apr 4 X X X X

May 1 X X X X

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce 1993.

63
TABLE .4.2

WEIGHTED AND UNWEIGH'IF__ SAMPLE SITI_S

1N JANUARY 1992

Unweighted Weighted

Households

1990 Panel 20,350 95,494,161

1991 Panel 13,381 95,858,470

Combined Panels 33,731 95,635,149

Persons

1990 Panel 54,159 251,172,577

1991 Panel 35,306 251,269,734

Combined Panels 89,467 251,210,177

SOURCE: Tabulations on Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP.

64
TABLE A.3

REPORTED FOOD STAMP PARTICIPANTS COMPARED TO ACTUAL CASELOAD

January 1988 January 1989 January 1992

Participating Units (Pgm Ops) 6,882,360 7,036,631 9,631,195

Reporting Units (SIPP) 5,908,670 6,175,277 7,485,424

SIPPUnderreporfing 14% 12% 22%

SOURCE: FSP Programs Operations Data of January 1988, 1989, and 1992 respectively.

Wave 7 of the 1986 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1987 Panel, Wave 7 of the 1987 Panel and Wave 4 of Ihe 1988 Panel, and Wave

7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1990 Panel of SIPP for January 1988, 1989, and 1992 respectively.

65
TABLE/'*-4

JANUARY 1992 FSP ELIGIBILITY PARAMETERS

Maximum Food Stamp Benefits Net Income Screen'

Household Minimum

Size 48 + D.C. Alaska Hawaii 48 + D.C. Alaska Hawaii Bonus

1 $111 $142 $181 $552 $691 $635 $10

2 203 261 333 740 926 851 10

3 292 374 477 929 1,161 1.068 0

4 370 475 606 1,117 1,396 1,285 0

5 440 564 720 1,305 1.631 1.50 i 0

6 528 677 864 1,494 1,866 1.718 0

7 584 748 955 1.682 2,101 1.935 0

8 667 855 1.091 1.870 2,336 2,151 0

+ 83 107 136 189 235 217 0

48 + D.C. Alaska Hawaii

Standard Deduction $122 $209 I;173

Eareeas Shelter Deduction Cap 194 337 276

Child Care Deduction Cap 160 160 160

Medical Threshold 35 35 35

Asset Limits

No Elderly in Unit 2,000 2,000 2,000

Elder_ in Unit 3.000 3.000 3.000

SOURCE: Unpublished data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

aTho gross income screen is 130 percent of the net income screen, which is the federal poverty guideline.

66
TABLE A.5

STANDARD UTILITY ALLOWANCE FOR STATES THAT DO NOT

VARY THE AI..LOWANCE BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

JANUARY 1992

StateorMSAName StateCode MSACode SUA

Connec6cut 09 260

Massachusetts 25 310

New Hampshire 33 276

New York

New York City 36 0070 402

Albany, NY* 36 0160 311

Rochester. NY* 36 6840 298

Other, NY* 36 293

Rhode Island 44 258

Delaware 10 253

DC 11 228

Masajland 24 170

New Jersey 34 216

Pennsylvania 42 272

West Virginia 54 190

Alabama 01 182

Florida 12 166

Georgia 13 188

Kentucky 21 202

Mississippi 28 18-t

North Carolina 37 176

South Carolina 45 176

Tennessee 47 140

Illinois 17 217

Indiana 18 162

Michigan 26 221

Minnesota 27 245

Ohio 39 222

WtSCOmin 55 208,

Arkansas 05 153

Louisiana 22 210

New Mexioo 35 164

Oklahoma 40 176

Texas 48 142

Colorado 08 198

Kansas 20 196

Missouri 29 184

Nebraska 31 199

Utah 49 170

Arizona 04 198

Cahfomia 06 155

Hawaii 15 142

Nevada 32 188

Washington 53 172

MaineNermont 61 335

Iowa/ND/SD 62 271

Alaska/ID/MT/WY 63 240

SOURCE: Unpublished data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutxition Service.

67
TABLE A.6

STANDARD UTILITY ALLOWANCE FOR STATES THAT VARY

THE AMOUNT BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

JANUARY 1992

Household Size

Slate

Slate Name Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

Virginia 51 163 163 163 201 201 201 201 201 201 201

Oregon 41 235 235 247 247 248 248 387 387 387 387

SOURCE: Unpublished data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

68
TABLE A.7

NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOOD STAMP UNITS

IN JANUARY 1992

Number

Total Households 95,635,149

Less Excluded Households (Group Quarters, SSI Ca. shout

Households, Postseeondary Students) - 99:5,001

Plus Multiple Food Stamp Units + 270,329

Potentially. Eligible Food Stamp Units 94,912,477

Number Percent

Potentially Eligible Food Stamp Units 94,912.477 100.0

lnoome Ineligible 921,668 80.0

Inoome Eligible/Asset Ineligible 4,887,311 5.1

Eligible for $0 130,567 0.1

Eligible for Food Stamps 13,982,931 1,1.7

SOURCE: Tabulations on the outoome of the January 1992 FOSTERS Model which uses data from Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel and

Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP.

69
TABLE A.8

JANUARY 1992 FOSTERS MODEL RESUL'IS

GROSS INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY RATIO

<--- 0.0 >0 - 0.5 >0.5 - 1.0 >1.0 - 1.3 >1.3 - 2.0 >2.0 - 2.5 >2.5 TOTAL

Pass An_t Test

Pass Gross Income Test

Pass Net Income Test 880,274 3,029,279 6,378,764 2,893,748 705,564 106,133 119,737 14,113,498

Fail Net Income Test 220,321 1,493,794 830,397 1,317,276 3,861,788

Fail Gross Income Test

Pass Net Income Test 1,188,340 1,188,340

Fail Net income Test 2338,608 2,186,497 6,558,878 11,083,983

Fail Asset Test

Pass Gross Income Test

Pass Net Income Test 164,544 693,316 1,438,336 1,642,846 790,848 92,548 54,872 4,877,311

Fail Net Income Test 234,327 2,699,986 2,665,773 13,141,551 18,741,637

Fail Gross Income Test

Pass Net Income Test 717,046 717,046

Fail Net Income Test 2,482,282 3,085,114 34,761,477 41321,874

Total 1.044,818 3,722,595 7,817,100 4,991,242 12,416,467 8,966,462 55,953,791 94,912,477

Eligible (w/ben) 880,274 3,029,279 6378,764 2,884,730 640,799 85398 83,688 13,982,931

% Eligible 84.3 81.4 81.6 57.8 5.2 1.0 0.1 14.7

SOURCE: Tabulations on the outcome of the January 1992 FOSTERS Model, which uses data from Wave 7 of the 1990 Panel

and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP.

70
TABLE A.9

JANUARY 1992 ELIGIBLE FOOD STAMP UNITS

BY SIZE AND GROSS INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY

Gross Income Unit Size

Relative To Total Percent of

Poverty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ Units Total TotalBenefits

<= 0 534,979 126,408 142,005 42,553 21,081 4,582 8,666 0 880,274 63.00 $159,009,338

>0-0.50 631,787 699,778 704,420 472,119 273,623 130,338 64,371 52,842 3,029,279 21.66 791,693,716

0.51-1.00 3,053,700 1,128,865 874,011 625,702 369,598 185,043 81,891 59,954 6378,764 45.62 818,805,540

1.01-1.30 1,311,157 618,628 357,409 325,409 163,330 75,168 19,217 14,413 2,884,730 20.63 179,328,077

1.31-2.00 364,915 204,030 45,057 7,153 14,269 5375 0 0 640,799 4.58 27,661,537

2.01-2.50 38367 35,168 9,135 2,729 0 0 0 0 85,398 0.61 4,046,626

-.a > 2.50 38,427 44,430 831 0 0 0 0 83,688 0.60 1,172,547

0

TOTAL UNITS 5,973,331 2,857,307 2,132,868 1,475,666 841,901 4(10,505 174,144 127,209 13,982,931 100.0 1,981,717,382

% OF TOTAL 42.73 20.40 15.26 10.56 6.03 2.87 1.25 1'}.91 100.0%

TOTAL

PERSONS 5,973,331 5,714,613 6,398,603 5,902,665 4,209,504 2,403,(132 1,219,L_9 1,109,897 32,930,654

SOURCE: January 1992 FOSTERS Model, which uses data from Wave 7 of the 1900 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP.
TABLE A.10

ELIGIBILITY STATUS ACROSS TIME OF ALL UNITS AND

UNITS REPORTING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Income Eligible Income

Total Eligible Eligible for $0 Asset Ineligible Ineligible

All Units

1988 91,001,831 13.5 % 0.1% 5.6 % 80.8 %

1989 91,820,742 13.7 0.1 5.3 80.9

1992 94,912,477 14.7 0.2 5.1 80.0

With Food Stamps (Reporter)

1988 5,908,670 90.0/%. 1.1 /% 2.6 /% 6.4/%

1989 6,175,277 90.7 1.0 3.2 5.2

1992 7,485,424 88.7 0.9 2.9 7.6

With AFDC

1988 2,771,945 87.2 % 2.8 % 1.9 % 8.2 %

1989 2,696,280 88.7 2.5 1.2 7.6

1992 3,384,472 92.5 3.1 0.9 3.6

With SSI

1988 2,602,572 73.4% 1.1% 3.4% 22.1%

1989 2,766,639 75.6 1.1 1.5 21.8

1992 3,129,053 76.5 0.9 2.2 20.5

With GA

1988 1,008.250 76.5 % 0.7 % 3.3 % 19.5 %

1989 912,608 79.3 1.1 3.6 16.0

1992 947,618 78.6 3.5 1.1 16.8

SOURCE: Tabulations on the outcome of the January 1992 FOSTERS Model, which uses data from Wave

7 of the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP.

72
TABLE A. 11

COMPARISON ACROSS TIME

OF CHARACTERISTICS OF FSP ELIGIBLES

Jan. 1988 Jan. 1989 Jan. 1992

--Dollars --

Average Deductions

Earnings $42 $43 $41

Medical 8 18 25

Dependent Care 3 4 4

Shelter 83 89 98

-- Percents --

Percent with Deductions

Earnings 33% 33% 28°k

Medical 8 14 15

Dependent Care 3 4 4

Shelter 67 67 67

-- Percents --

Multiple Program Participation

None 62% 62% 58%

AFDC 20 19 22

SSI 16 17 17

GA 6 6 5

-- Percents --

Other Characteristics

WithEarners 34% 34% 28%

WithElderly 32 35 33

WithElderlyorDisabled 41 43 42

WithChildren 48 48 47

WithChildren(15-17years) 38 37 36

WithZeroNetIncome 21 20 22

WithMinimumBenefit 15 15 13

-- Dollars --

Average Gross Income $516 $537 $598

Average Net Income 285 284 317

SOURCE: Tabulations on the outcome of the January 1992 FOSTERS Model, which uses data from Wave 7 of

the 1990 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1991 Panel of SIPP.

73
TABLE A.12

EFFECTS ON FSP ELIGIBLES OF TWO LEGISLATIVE CHANGES IMPLEMENTED BETWEEN

JANUARY 1989 AND JANUARY 1992

Persons Units

(in Thousands) (in Thousands)

Total Under Old Law 32,767 13,874

Wise is a cashout state

Pure PA = AFDC, SSI

1. Old Lawbut excludeWisc as cashoutstate 32,773 13,890

Impactonnumberofeligibles 6 16

2. Old Lawbut expandPure PA definition 32,925 13,967

Pure PA = AFDC, SSI, GA

Impactonnumberofeligibles 158 93

TotalUnderNewLaw 32.931 13,983

Wisc is NOT a cashout state

PURE PA = AFDC, SSI. GA

Net Impact

Numberincrease 164 109

Percent increase 0.5 % 0.8 %

SOURCE: Special tabulation from FOSTERS 1992 model.

74
APPENDIX B

SPREADSHEET SHOWING THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE

IN PARTICIPANTS AND ELIGIBLES BETWEEN JANUARY 1989 AND JANUARY 1992
January 1989 January 1992

Number of Number of Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible % Change in % Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Participation Rate

(1,000) (1,000) Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992

TABLE 1

Individuals(1,000) 18,344 31,041 59.1% 24,291 32,931 73.8% 32.4% 6.1% 14.7

Households(1,000) 7,037 12,689 55.5% 9,631 13,983 68.9% 36.9% 10.2% 13.4

Benefits(1,0OO) 927,391 1,405,636 66,0% 1,815,320 1,981,717 81.5% 74.2% 41.0% 15.5

TABLE 2 HOUSEHOLDS

Household Size

(number of persons)

1 2,298 5,144 44.7% 3,215 5,973 53.8% 39.9% 16.1% 9.1

2 1,591 2,660 59.8% 2,275 2,857 79.6% 43.0% 7,4% 19.8

3 1,336 1,901 70.3% 1,853 2,133 86.9% 38.7% 12.2% 16.6

4 937 1,361 68.8% 1,207 1,476 81.8% 28.8% 8.4% 13

5 486 834 58.2% 646 842 76.7% 32.9% 1.0% 18.5

6 + 388 788 49.3% 435 702 62.0% 12.1% - 10,9% 12.7

-,..I

TOTAL 7,037 12,689 55.5% 9,631 13,983 68.9% 36.9% 10.2% 13.4
January 1969 January 1992

Numb_ of Number of Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible % Change in % Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Participation Rate

(1,000) (1,000) Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992

TABLE 3 INDIVIDUALS

Living Alone

Elderly 948 3,004 31.5% 1,129 3,113 36.3% 19.1% 3.6% 4.8

Disabled 302 336 89.9% 446 380 117.5% 47.7% 13.1% 27.6

Living with Others

Elderly 480 ! ,996 24.0% 578 2,023 28.6% 20.4% 1.4% 4.6

Disabled 378 852 44.4% 504 1,039 48.5% 33.3% 21.9% 4.1

Total Elderly 1,427 5,000 28.5% 1,707 5,137 33.2% 19.6% 2.7% 4.7

Total Disabled 680 1,187 57.3% 951 1,419 67.0% 39.9% 19.5% 9.7

Children Unde_ Age 18 9,098 13,372 68.0% 12,357 14,455 85.5% 35.8% 8.1% 17.5

Preschool 3,065 4,176 73.4% 4,695 4,954 94.8% 53.2% 18.6% 21.4

--_ School-age 6,032 9,196 65.6% 7,662 9,500 80.6% 27.0% 3.3% 15

- o0

Adults Age 18 to 59 7,539 12,668 59.5% 10,214 13,340 76.6% 35.5% 5.3% 17.1

Single Non-disabled AduJts 1,028 1,222 84,1% 1,527 1,358 112.4% 48.5% 11,1% 28.3

Employment Status of Adults

Employed i ,257 4,620 27.2% 1,768 4,307 41.0% 40.7% -6.8% 13.8

Unemployed 2,316 1,603 144.5% 1,216 2,171 56.0% -47.5% 35.4% -88.5

Not in the Labor Force 3,966 6,445 61 5% 7,229 6,861 105.4% 82.3% 6.5% 43.9

Gender

Male 7,342 12,823 57.3% 10,014 13,475 74.3% 36.4% 5.1% 17

Female 11,002 18,218 60.4% 14,276 19,456 73.4% 29.8% 6.8% 13

Education of Adults 0

More than 12 years 371 1,986 18.7% 561 2,244 25.0% 51 2% 13.0% 6.3

12 years or less 7,169 10,683 67.1% 4,318 11,095 38.9% - 39.8% 3.9% - 28.2
Jenuary 1989 January 1992

Number of Number of Numbe_ of Number o1

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible % Change in % Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Participation Rate

(1,000) (1,000) Rate (1,00{3) (1,000) Rate 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992

TABLE 4 HOUSEHOLDS

Household

Contained: 4.5

Elderly 1,291 4,451 29,0% 1,533 4,579 33,5% 18.7% 2.9%

Disabled 640 1,115 57.4% 910 1,351 67.4% 42,2% 21.2% 10

Children Under Age 18 4,216 6,010 70.1% 5,872 6,580 89.2% 39.3% 9.5% 19,1

Children Ages 5 to 17 3,165 4,644 68.2% 4,070 4,988 81.6% 28.6% 7.4% 13.4

Single Female Adult 23,7

With Children 2,718 3,507 77.5% 3,833 3,789 101.2% 41,0% 8.0%

Single Male Adult 6.3% 22.1

With Children 109 192 56.7% 164 208 78.8% 50.5%

Two or more Adults 5.3% 17

,-.3 With Children 1,389 2,296 60,5% 1,874 2,417 77.5% 34.9%

,,D 12.7

White Nonhispanic Head 3,283 7,146 45.9% 4,570 7,803 58.6% 39.2% 9.2%

Black Nonhispanic Head 2,653 3,452 76.9% 3.334 3.612 92.3% 25.7% 4.6% 15.4

Hispanic Head 890 1,763 50,5% 1,300 2,117 61.4% 46.1% 20.1% 10.9

Employed Head 925 3,557 26.0% 1,305 3,423 38 1% 41.1% -3.8% 12.1

Unemployed Head 1,728 1.083 159,7% 927 1,556 59.6% -46.4% 43.7% - 108.1

Not in Labor Force Head 4,305 8,050 53,5% 6,892 9,004 76.5% 60,1% 11.9% 23

Head with More than 12 Years 310 1,846 16.8% 504 2,121 23.8% 62.6% 14.9% 7

Head with 12 Years or Less Education 2,515 10,843 23.2% 3,809 11,862 32.1% 51.5% 9.4% 8.9
January 1989 January 1992

Number of Number of Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible % Change in % Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Par_cipation Rate

(1,000) (1,000) Rate (1,0OO) (1,000) Rate 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992

TABLE 5 BENEFITS ($1,000,OOOs)

Household

Contained

Elderly 66 214 30.8% 99 287 34,6% 50.5% 34.0% 3.8

Disabled 55 104 52.8% 103 139 74.2% 88.1% 33.9% 21.4

Children Under Age 18 750 1,048 71,6% 1,314 1,478 88.9% 75.2% 41.0% 17.3

Children Ages 5 to 17 596 849 70.2% 984 1,181 83.3% 65.2% 39.2% 13.1

Single Female Adult

With Children 453 586 77.3% 822 826 99.5% 81.7% 41.1% 22.2

Single Male Adult

With Children 18 26 67.0% 33 38 86.9% 89.2% 45.6% 19,9

Two or more Adults

- oo With Children 280 434 64.6% 459 589 77.9% 63.7% 35.8% 13.28

White Nonhispenic Head 398 668 59.5% 737 g49 77.7% 85.4% 42.1% 18.2

Black Nonhispanic Head 366 443 82,6% 596 570 104.5% 63.0% 28.7% 21.9

Hispanic Head 131 245 53.4% 223 377 59.0% 70.4% 54.1% 5.6

Other 59 85 69.8%

Employed Head 134 42g 3 t .3% 233 524 44.5% 73.7% 22.1% 13.2

Unemployed Head 263 178 148,3% 171 286 59.9% - 35.0% 60.7% -88.4

Not in Labor Force Head 521 799 65.2% 1,149 1,172 98.0% 120.5% 46.7% 32.8

Head with More than 12 Years 44 197 22.4% 90 301 30.0% 104.5% 52.8% 7.6

Head with 12 Years or Less Education 352 1,208 29.1% 689 1,680 41.0% 95.7% 39.1% 11.9
January 1989 January 1992

Number of Number of Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible % Change in % Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Participation Rate

(1,000) (1,000) Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992

TABLE 6 HOUSEHOLDS

Monthly

Benefit Level

< =$10 478 1,928 24.8% 353 1,828 19.3% -26.2% - 5.2% -5.5

$11-25 345 821 42.1% 425 738 57.5% 23,2% - 10.1% 15.4

$26- 50 580 1,309 44.3% 628 1,172 53.6% 8.3% - 10.5% 9.3

$51-75 711 1,359 52.3% 553 1,063 52.1% -22.2% -21.8% -0.2

$76 - 100 1,251 2,172 57.6% 803 979 82.1% - 35.8% - 54.9% 24.5

$101 - 150 1,011 1,273 79.4% 2,139 2,877 74,4% 111.6% 126.0% - 5

$151-200 1,160 1,643 70.6% 1,229 1,234 99.6% 5.9% - 24.9% 29

$201 + 1,501 2,186 68.7% 3,500 4,092 85.5% 133.2% 87.2% 16.8

< =$10 478 1,928 24.8% 353 1,828 19,3% -26.2% -5.2% -5.5

$11-75 1,836 3,489 46.9% 1,606 2,973 54.0% - 1,8% - 14.8% 7,1

$76-150 2,262 3,445 65.7% 2,942 3,856 76.0% 30.1% 11.9% 10.3

$151 + 2,661 3,829 69.5% 4,729 5,326 89.0% 77.7% 39.1% 19.5

oo

Monthly Benefit Level as % of Maximum Benefit

1%-25% 1,032 3,232 319% 1,092 3,254 33.6% 5.8% 0.7% 1.7

26% - 50% 1,315 2,573 51.1% 1,667 2,482 67.2% 26.8% - 3.5% 16.1

51% - 75% 1,835 2,520 72.8% 2,159 2,668 80.9% 17.7% 5.9% 8.1

76% -99% 1,501 1.800 83.4% 2,518 2.316 108,7% 67.8% 28.7% 25.3

100% 1,353 2,564 52.8% 2,194 3.263 67.2% 62.2% 27.3% 14.4

Low (1-75%) 4,182 8,325 50.3% 4,918 8,404 58.5% 17.6% 0.9% 8.2

High (76-100%) 2,854 4,364 65.4% 4,712 5.579 84.5% 65.1% 27.8% 19.1
January 1989 January 1992

Numb_ of Number of Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible % Change in % Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Participation Pate

(1,000) (1,000) Rate (1,000) (1,000) Pate 1989to 1992 1989to 1992 1989to 1992

TABLE 7 INDIVIDUALS

Income as a

Percentage of Poverty

Total < = 100 17,032 23,167 73.5% 22,328 25,154 88,8% 31,1% 8.6% 15,3

0 1,084 1,230 88.1% 1,573 1,578 99.7% 45.1% 28,3% 11.6

1- 50 6,618 8,219 80.5% 9,129 9,095 100.4% 37,9% 10.7% 19,9

51 - 100 9,331 13,718 68,0% 11,626 14,481 80.3% 24.6% 5.6% 12.3

Total > 100 1,311 7,873 16.7% 1,963 7,777 25.2% 49.7% - 1.2% 8,5

101 - 130 1,242 6,804 18.2% 1,895 6,460 29.3% 52,6% - 5.1% 11,1

130+ 70 1,069 6.5% 68 1,317 5,1% -2.9% 23.2% - 1,4

TABLE 8 HOUSEHOLDS

Income as a

Percentage of Poverty

Total < = 100 6,519 9,030 72.2% 8,870 10,288 86.2% 36.1% 13.9% 14

0 532 647 82.2% 924 880 104.9% 73.7% 36.0% 22.7

1 -50 2,224 2,573 865% 3,091 3,029 102.0% 39.0% 17.7% 15.5

51 - 100 3,763 5,811 64.8% 4,856 6,379 76.1% 29.0% 9.8% 11.3

Total > 100 518 3,659 14.2% 761 3,695 20.6% 46.9% 1.0% 6.4

101- 130 474 2,973 16.0% 716 2,885 24.8% 51.1% -3.0% 8.8

130+ 44 686 6,4% 45 810 5.6% 2.3% 18.1% -0.8
January 1989 January 1992

Number of Number of Number of Number of

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible % Change in % Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Participation Rate

(1,000) (1,000) Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992 1989 to 1992

TABLE 9 BENEFITS

Income as a

Percentage of Poverty

Total <= 100 903 1,251 72.2% t,564 1,770 88.4% 73,2% 41.4% 16.2

0 88 100 88.1% 160 159 100.3% 81.9% 59.6% 12.2

I - 50 439 559 78.6% 765 792 96.6% 74.2% 41.7% 18

51 - 100 376 593 63.5% 640 819 78.1% 69.9% 38.1% 14.6

Total > 100 24 154 15,7% 52 212 24.3% 113.2% 37.6% 8.6

101 - 130 23 135 17.3% 51 179 28.4% 118.5% 33.0% 11.1

130+ 1 20 4.7% 1 33 2.0% -22.2% 68.7% -2.7

oo

L_o

TABLE 10 HOUSEHOLDS

Source of

Income

Earned Income 1,383 4,277 32,3% 1,910 3,959 48.2% 38.1% -7.4% 15.9

SSI 1,401 2,093 67.0% 1,755 2.393 73.4% 25.3% 14.3% 6.4

Elderly in the Unit 789 1,351 58.4% 876 1,372 63.8% 11.0% 1.6% 5.4

No Elderly in the Unit 612 741 82.6% 879 1,020 86.2% 43.6% 37.7% 3.6

I

Public Assistance 3,640 3,009 121.0% 4,574 3,783 1209% -0.1

AFDC 2,899 2,381 121.7% 3,754 3,129 120.0% 295% 31.4% - 1.7

Other Welfare 791 748 105.7% 885 744 118.8% 119% - 0.5% 13.1

Unemployment

Compensation 157 343 45,6% 267 648 41.2% 70.1% 88.9% -4,4
APPENDIX C

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE IQCS AND SIPP

DATA USED TO ESTIMATE PARTICIPATION RATES
APPENDIX C

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES

FOR THE IQCS CASE RECORDS

Month/Ye. ar IQCS Case Records

July/August 1985 6,894

January/February 1988 11,012

January/February 1989 10,514

January/February 1992 9,826

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES

FOR SIPP

Month/Year Eligible Households All Households

August1985 3,559 27_600

January1988 2,431 18,870

January 1989 2,843 22,040

January1992 5,035 33,849

87