Food Stamp Program 

Participation Rates:

January 1994

Current Perspectives on Food Stamp Program

Participation

 

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Food and

Consumer

Service

Office of 

Analysis and

Evaluation
Current Perspectives on Food Stamp Program Participation 

Titles in this series:

Food Stamp Program Participation Rates

(November 1988) Pat Doyle and Harold Beebout

Food Stamp Program Participation Rates Among the Poverty

Population, 1980-1987

(November 1988) Carole Trippe and Harold Beebout

Determinants of Participation in the Food Stamp Program:

A Review of the Literature

(November 1988) Susan Allin and Harold Beebout

Estimating Rates of participation in the Food Stamp Program:

A Review of the Literature

(November 1989) Carole Trippe

Food Stamp Program Participation Rates:

August 1985

(April 1990) Pat Doyle

The Effects of Food Stamps on Food Consumption:

A Review of the Literature

(October 1990) Thomas M. Fraker

Participation in the Food Stamp Program:

A Multivariate Analysis

(March 1992) Alberto Martini

Food Stamp Program Participation Rates:

January 1988

(July 1992) Carole Trippe and Pat Doyle

Trends in Food Stamp Program

Participation Rates: 1976 to 1990

(July 1992) Carole Trippe, Pat Doyle and Andrew Asher

Food Stamp Program Participation Rates:

January 1989

(July 1992) Carole Trippe and Pat Doyle

Dynamics of the Food Stamp Program as

Reported in the Survey of Income and Program Participation

(January 1993) Nancy R. Burstein

Food Stamp Program Participation Rates:

January 1992

(October 1994) Carole Trippe and Julie Sykes

Food Stamp Program Participation Rates:

January 1994

(March 1997) Michael Stavrianos
United States Food and 3101 Park Center Drive

Department Consumer Second Floor

of Agriculture Service Alexandria, VA 22302

Food Stamp Program 

Participation Rates:

January 1994

Michael Stavrianos

A product of 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

600 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Suite 550

Washington, DC 20024

March 1997
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank the many people who contributed to this report. Alana Landey,

Bob Dalrymple, and Steven Carlson of the Food and Consumer Service provided valuable comments

on the draft version of the report. From Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Julie Sykes and Bruce

Schechter created the January 1994 SIPP-based eligibility file used to simulate FSP eligibles, and Nora

Gordon prepared hundreds of tabulations of the eligibility and participant files and computed all the

participation rates. Harold Beebout provided helpful comments and technical assistance on the draft

report. Sharon Maccini prepared the graphics, and Micki Morris typed and formatted the many drafts.

MPR Project Number: 8156-039

FNS Contract Number: 53-3198-3-038

FNS Project Officer: Alana Landey

This work was prepared as one task of a competitively awarded contract; the total amount of the

contract is $4,275,801.
iii

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

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

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

A. BACKGROUND ................................................. 1

B. ESTIMATING PARTICIPATION RATES ............................ 2

II JANUARY 1994 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES .......................... 5

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

B. FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP ....... 7

1. Children Participated at the Highest Rate, Elderly Participated 

at the Lowest Rate ............................................. 7

2. African Americans Participated at Higher Rates Than Other 

Racial/Ethnic Groups .......................................... 9

3. Persons Not in the Labor Force Participated at a Higher Rate Than

Employed and Unemployed Persons ............................. 10

C. FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 

AND SIZE ..................................................... 10

1. Single-Parent Households Participated at a Higher Rate Than 

Multiple-Adult Households with Children ........................ 10

2. Households with Two to Four Persons Were More Likely 

Than Other Households to Participate ............................ 12

D. PARTICIPATION RATES BY AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF 

INCOME ...................................................... 12

1. Those Most in Need Participated at the Highest Rates ............... 12

2. Households Receiving Cash Assistance Participated at a Higher 

Rate Than Households with Income from Other Sources ............. 15

E. PARTICIPATION RATES BY BENEFIT LEVEL ..................... 16

1. Participation Rates Were Highest for Households with the 

Highest Potential Benefit ...................................... 16
CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

iv

2. Benefit Levels Did Not Influence Participation Decisions 

for Most Subgroups ........................................... 19

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

A. TRENDS IN AGGREGATE PARTICIPATION RATES ................ 27

1. Comparison of Participation Rates from 1985 to 1994 ............... 27

2. Similar Trends in Rates Found in a CPS-Based Study ............... 30

B. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION ............ 35

1. Participation Rates Decreased Among Children .................... 35

2. The Participation Rate for One-Person Households 

Increased, While the Rate for Larger Households Declined ........... 39

C. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY AMOUNT 

AND SOURCE OF INCOME, AND BY POTENTIAL 

BENEFIT AMOUNT ............................................ 39

1. Trends in Participation Rates Were Similar for Households 

Above and Below the Poverty Level ............................. 39

2. Participation Rates Increased for Households Receiving SSI or

Unemployment Compensation .................................. 44

3. Participation Rates Increased Among the Lowest-Benefit and 

the Highest-Benefit Households ................................. 44

IV CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING 

HOUSEHOLDS IN JANUARY 1994 ................................... 51

A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE

NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS ............................. 51

B. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE 

NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS ............................. 53

REFERENCES .................................................... 57
CONTENTS (continued) Page

v

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES USED 

 TO ESTIMATE FSP PARTICIPATION RATES IN 

 JANUARY 1994 ..................................... 59

APPENDIX B: PERCENT CHANGE IN PARTICIPANTS AND 

 ELIGIBLES BETWEEN JANUARY 1989 AND 

 JANUARY 1994 ..................................... 71

APPENDIX C: UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE IQCS 

 AND SIPP DATA USED TO ESTIMATE 

 PARTICIPATION RATES ............................. 85

APPENDIX D: SAMPLING ERROR OF PARTICIPATION 

 RATE ESTIMATES .................................. 89
vii

TABLES

Table Page

II.1 PERSON, HOUSEHOLD, AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES, 

JANUARY 1994 ................................................ 6

II.2 INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR PERSONS, 

JANUARY 1994 ................................................ 8

II.3 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, 

JANUARY 1994 ............................................... 11

II.4 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD

SIZE, JANUARY 1994 .......................................... 13

II.5 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY

GROSS INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY, JANUARY 1994 ........ 14

II.6 HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED 

SOURCES OF INCOME, JANUARY 1994 .......................... 17

II.7 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY

MONTHLY BENEFIT, JANUARY 1994 ........................... 18

II.8 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR PERSONS BY GROSS

INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY, JANUARY 1994 ............... 20

II.9 BENEFIT RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

OF THE HOUSEHOLD, JANUARY 1994 .......................... 22

II.10 BENEFIT RATES BY GROSS INCOME RELATIVE

TO POVERTY, JANUARY 1994 .................................. 23

III.1 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES OVER TIME, 1985-1994 .............. 26

III.2 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BASED ON THE MARCH CPS

AND FOOD STAMP PROGRAM OPERATIONS DATA, 

1985-1994 .................................................... 31

III.3 TRENDS IN SIPP- AND CPS-BASED PARTICIPATION 

RATES, 1984-1994 ............................................. 32
TABLES (continued) Page

viii

III.4 PERSON PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, 

1985-1994 .................................................... 38

III.5 HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED 

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, 1985-194 .................. 40

III.6 HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME AND 

BENEFIT CHARACTERISTICS, 1985-1994 ........................ 41

III.7 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN FSP 

PARTICIPATION RATES BETWEEN JANUARY 1992 

AND JANUARY 1994 ........................................... 50

IV.1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 

OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS, 

JANUARY 1994 ................................................ 52

IV.2 DISTRIBUTION OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING

HOUSEHOLDS ABOVE AND BELOW POVERTY, 

JANUARY 1994 ............................................... 54

IV.3 DISTRIBUTION OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING

HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY THAT ARE ELIGIBLE

FOR THE MAXIMUM FOOD STAMP BENEFIT, 

JANUARY 1994 ............................................... 55
ix

FIGURES

Figures Page

III.1a TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES, 1985-1994 .............. 28

III.1b TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS, 1985-1994 .......... 29

III.2a TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES FOR CHILDREN, 

ELDERLY, AND NONELDERLY DISABLED PERSONS, 

1985-1994 .................................................... 36

III.2b TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS FOR 

CHILDREN, ELDERLY, AND NONELDERLY DISABLED 

PERSONS, 1985-1994 .......................................... 37

III.3a TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED 

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, 1985-1994 ..................... 42

III.3b TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS BY 

SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 

HOUSEHOLD, 1985-1994 ....................................... 43

III.4a TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME SOURCE

OF THE HOUSEHOLD, 1985-1994 ............................... 46

III.4b TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS BY INCOME 

SOURCE OF THE HOUSEHOLD, 1985-1994 ....................... 47

III.5a TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY FSP BENEFIT 

LEVEL AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE MAXIMUM 

BENEFIT, 1985-1994 ........................................... 48

III.5b TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS BY FSP 

BENEFIT LEVEL AS A PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM 

BENEFIT, 1985-1994 ........................................... 49
xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the January 1994 Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation rates. It is part

of a series of reports that provide estimates of FSP participation rates. The estimates are based on

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data for eligibles and FSP administrative data for

participants.

The participation rate expresses the proportion of those eligible for food stamps who actually

apply for and receive benefits. It is a measure of how well the program is reaching its intended

population and provides information on which groups of the eligible population participate at higher

or lower rates than other groups. Furthermore, a comparison of rates over time shows trends in

participation rates.

As shown in the table below, 38 million persons were eligible for the FSP in January 1994, and

27 million persons (71 percent) participated. Of the 15.7 million eligible households in January 1994,

10.8 million (69 percent) participated. These participating households received $1.8 billion in

benefits--81 percent of total potential food stamp benefits.

JANUARY 1994 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

Participants Eligibles Participation 

(in Thousands) (in Thousands) Rate

Persons 26,872 37,866 71%

Households 10,840 15,749 69

Benefits $1,824,471 $2,247,535 81

JANUARY 1994 PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP AND INCOME

SOURCE

Some groups of eligibles participated at a higher or lower rate than others and received a greater

or smaller proportion of food stamp benefits. Highlights of the January 1994 participation rates by

subgroup include the following:

C Almost All Eligible Children Participated, but Only One in Three Eligible Elderly

Persons Participated. The FSP served almost every eligible child under age 5 (93

percent) and most children under age 18 (80 percent), but it served only 35 percent of

eligible elderly persons. 
xii

C 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).

C Nearly All Eligible Persons Not in the Labor Force Participated. The FSP served

virtually all eligible persons who were not in the labor force (100 percent), more than

half of all eligible unemployed persons who were in the labor force (56 percent), but

only 39 percent of eligible employed persons.

C Single-Parent Households Participated at a Higher Rate Than Other Types of

Households. Households containing a single parent with children were more likely to

participate (97 percent) than households containing multiple adults and children (73

percent).

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

for households with a monthly income below the poverty line was 87 percent, compared

with 21 percent for households with an income above the poverty line.

C The Higher the Benefit, the Higher the Participation Rate. Only 23 percent of

households eligible for the minimum ($10) benefit participated, compared with 89

percent of those eligible for more than $150.

C Households Receiving 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 in SIPP, the participation rate for

households with AFDC was 84 percent. Only 46 percent of households with earnings

and 52 percent of households with unemployment compensation participated. 

TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

Between January 1992 and January 1994, equal percentage increases in the number of eligible

and participating FSP households caused the household participation rate to hold at 69 percent.

Although the overall household participation rate did not change, the participation rate for one-person

households increased while the rate for larger households fell. Consequently, the person participation

rate declined slightly, from 74 percent in 1992 to 71 percent in 1994.

Participation rates in January 1994 remained at or near their highest point since the beginning of

the series in August 1985. Between August 1985 and January 1988, the person participation rate

declined slightly, from 64 percent to 59 percent, then remained constant between 1988 and 1989
xiii

before rising to 74 percent in January 1992. Between 1992 and 1994, the participation rate decreased

to 71 percent.

The trends in participation rates observed in this SIPP-based report are generally consistent with

trends in participation rates based on the Current Population Survey (CPS). SIPP-based rates are more

accurate than CPS-based rates because the SIPP data contain more of the information needed to

estimate food stamp eligibility, but CPS-based rates provide insight into the trends in rates over a

longer period of time than the SIPP covers. CPS-based rates indicate that, between 1992 and 1994,

the participation rate among eligible households increased by 3 percentage points and the rate among

eligible persons increased by 2 percentage points.

CHANGES IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BETWEEN 1992 AND 1994 FOR SUBGROUPS

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

other subgroups between January 1992 and January 1994. Highlights of the changes in participation

rates for subgroups during this time period include the following: 

C The Participation Rate Decreased for Children. Between 1992 and 1994, the

participation rate decreased by 5 percentage points among children.

C The Participation Rate Increased for Households Receiving Supplemental Security

Income (SSI) or Unemployment Compensation. Between 1992 and 1994, the

participation rate increased for households receiving SSI (+8 percentage points) and

households receiving unemployment compensation (+11 percentage points).

C The Participation Rate Increased for Households Eligible for the Lowest and the

Highest Benefits. The participation rate increased among households eligible for less

than 25 percent of the maximum benefit (+3 percentage points) and among households

eligible for the maximum benefit (+8 percentage points). The rate increase among lowbenefit households was caused in part by a higher rate of participation among minimumbenefit households.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPANTS

Although 27 million people participated in the FSP in January 1994, 11 million eligible people

(29 percent of all eligibles) did not participate. In January 1994, eligible nonparticipants were most

likely to be elderly persons, households headed by a white non-Hispanic person, households with an

income above the poverty level, and households eligible for the lowest food stamp benefits. The

working poor also represented a large proportion of eligible nonparticipants. Over half (56 percent)

of eligible, nonparticipating households had earned income compared with only 21 percent of

participating households.
1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

The Food Stamp Program (FSP), administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and

Consumer Service (FCS), is the largest food assistance program in the country, serving 25.5 million

persons and distributing $22.5 billion in benefits in fiscal year 1996. No other public assistance

program reaches more poor individuals over the course of a year. Unlike many other public assistance

programs, the FSP has few categorical requirements for eligibility, such as the presence of children,

elderly, or disabled individuals in a household. As a result, the program offers assistance to a large

and diverse population of needy persons, many of whom are not eligible for other forms of assistance.

The size of the population eligible for food stamps is influenced by many factors, including

changes in program rules, the economy, and demographics. At any given time, some percentage of

all eligible households will participate in the FSP. The ratio of participants to eligibles, or the

participation rate, is a useful way to measure the program’s success in reaching its target population.

Participation rates can reveal other useful information as well. For example, not all subgroups

of the eligible population participate at the same rate because demographic and economic factors can

influence a household’s decision to participate. Therefore, a comparison of participation rates across

subgroups can help policymakers identify unmet needs and more effectively focus program outreach

efforts. Participation rates vary not only by subgroup but also over time. Trends in rates over time

offer insight into the impact of outreach efforts and into the effects of changes in program rules and

the economy on FSP participation.

This report presents estimates of FSP participation rates for January 1994 and sets them in the

context of past participation rates, thus revealing trends in rates over time. It is part of a series of

reports on estimates of FSP participation rates based on Survey of Income and Program Participation
See the front inside cover for a list of other reports in the series. 1

2

(SIPP) data for eligibles and FSP administrative data for participants. This introductory chapter

1

explains how the participation rate is derived, and Chapters II through IV address the following

questions:

• What proportion of the eligible population did the FSP serve in January 1994? Did some

groups of eligibles participate at higher rates than others?

• How do the January 1994 participation rates compare to the January 1992 and other previous

rates in the series? How do trends in SIPP-based participation rates compare with trends in

CPS-based participation rates?

• What are the characteristics of households that were eligible for, but did not participate in,

the FSP in January 1994?

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

creation of the SIPP analysis file. Appendix B shows the percent change in the number of participants

and eligibles between January 1992 and January 1994. This information is referred to several times

in Chapter III. Appendix C lists the unweighted sample sizes for the IQCS and SIPP data used in the

analysis, and Appendix D describes the methods used to calculate standard errors for selected

participation rate estimates.

B. ESTIMATING PARTICIPATION RATES

The participation rate is the ratio of the number of participants to the number of eligibles.

Measuring the number of participants is a simple task, as food stamp offices collect and track this

information. Measuring the number of eligibles is less straightforward, since the count must be

estimated from household survey data and a simulation that determines program eligibility. The

discussion that follows describes the data sources and methodology used to estimate the number of

participants and eligibles, and defines three types of participation rates.
Participation rates are estimated for January 1994 because Wave 4 of the 1993 SIPP Panel and 2

Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel overlap in January 1994. The topical modules administered in Waves 4 and

7 focus on characteristics needed to determine FSP eligibility. When the reference period of two

panels overlap, the panels can be combined, thereby doubling the sample size for a given month.

3

Information on FSP participants comes from two administrative data sources: FSP operations data

and the Integrated Quality Control System (IQCS). Program operations data, derived from a monthly

census of FSP participation and benefit issuance, provide an accurate measure of aggregate

participation. These data do not, however, reflect the characteristics of FSP participants, information

that is needed to calculate participation rates for demographic and economic subgroups. This detailed

information comes from a two-month sample (January and February 1994) of food stamp case records

from IQCS data.

Information on FSP eligibles is not explicitly reported in any data source, as no record is kept of

eligible people unless they apply for and receive food stamps. However, estimates of the size and

characteristics of the eligible population can be derived from a representative sample of households

in the U.S. and a microsimulation model that determines whether each household in this sample is

eligible to receive food stamps. The sample for this report consists of households in the SIPP universe

in January 1994.2

Much of the effort required to estimate the number of eligibles involves preparing a SIPP file that

contains all the information needed to determine FSP eligibility. Once this file is developed, the

microsimulation model applies the FSP eligibility criteria in effect in January 1994 to each household

on the file to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the household is eligible for food stamps.

For households that are eligible, the model then determines the value of the food stamp benefit for

which it qualifies.

Three participation rates are examined in this report:
4

C Person Participation Rate. This is the ratio of the number of persons participating to

the number of persons eligible for food stamps. The person rate is particularly useful in

exploring participation of subgroups defined by person-level characteristics, such as age

or sex. For example, the person rate is used to compare the participation rate among

elderly persons to the rate among children.

C Household Participation Rate. This is the ratio of the number of households

participating to the number of households eligible for food stamps. The household rate

is particularly useful in exploring the participation of subgroups defined by householdlevel characteristics, such as income sources, potential benefit amount, or household

size. The household rate is also used to compare rates by household composition, such

as single-parent versus multiple-adult households.

C Benefit Participation Rate. This is the ratio of benefits paid to participants to benefits

that would be payed if all eligibles participated. The benefit rate relative to the

household and person rates can show whether high-benefit or low-benefit households

are more likely to participate.

The next chapter presents the January 1994 participation rates and compares rates across selected

demographic and economic subgroups.
 Participation rates in this report represent the ratio of participants to eligibles. Participant counts 1

are based on FSP operations data and a two-month sample of IQCS data; eligible counts are based on

January 1994 SIPP data. Both counts are subject to statistical sampling error, as are the resulting

participation rate estimates. Appendix D describes the methods used to calculate standard errors and

confidence intervals associated with selected participation rate estimates. The aggregate rates for

persons, households, and benefits are subject to a sampling error of less than ±2 percentage points (80

percent confidence interval).

5

II. JANUARY 1994 FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

In January 1994, food stamp benefits reached 71 percent of all eligible persons and 69 percent

of all eligible households. The FSP provided 81 percent of total potential benefits. This chapter

presents the January 1994 aggregate FSP participation rates and highlights the differences in

participation rates across selected subgroups of the eligible population. In summary, the subgroups 1

differ as follows:

C Most eligible children participated in the FSP, while only about one-third of elderly

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

than children living with multiple adults.

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

households headed by other racial/ethnic groups.

C Eligible persons who were either employed or unemployed were less likely to

participate than persons who were not in the labor force.

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

highest rates.

C Eligible households receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or

other public assistance were much more likely to participate than households with

earnings or unemployment compensation.

A. AGGREGATE FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

In January 1994, 37.9 million persons in the 50 states and the District of Columbia were eligible

for the FSP, and 26.9 million persons (71 percent) participated (Table II.1). Of the 15.7 million
6

TABLE II.1

PERSON, HOUSEHOLD, AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES,

JANUARY 1994

Participants Eligibles Rate

Participation

Persons (1,000s) 26,872 37,866 71.0%

 

Households (1,000s) 10,840 15,749 68.8%

Benefits (1,000s) $1,824,471 $2,247,535 81.2%

Average Household Size 2.5 2.4 n.a.

Average Per-Capita Benefit $67.9 $59.4 n.a.

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

Operations data) for January 1994, adjusted for issuance error. 

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993 ®

Panel of SIPP.

n.a. = not applicable.
7

eligible households in January 1994, 10.8 million (69 percent) participated, and they received $1.8

billion in benefits--81 percent of total potential food stamp benefits. Based on an estimated national

population of 253 million persons, 15 percent were eligible for food stamps, and nearly 11 percent

received food stamp benefits in January 1994.

As in previous years, the benefit rate in January 1994 was substantially higher than the person

rate, which in turn was slightly higher than the household rate. The higher benefit rate indicates that

households eligible for large benefits were more likely to participate than those eligible for small

benefits. Similarly, the higher person rate implies that large households were more likely than small

households to participate.

B. FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUP 

Although overall participation rates in January 1994 were 71 percent for eligible persons and 69

percent for eligible households, the rates varied across subgroups of the eligible population. This

section examines how FSP participation rates varied by age, race, and employment status of the

eligible population.

1. Children Participated at the Highest Rate, Elderly Participated at the Lowest Rate

In January 1994, participation rates were highest among preschool-age children and lowest among

elderly persons. The FSP served almost every eligible preschool child (93 percent), about threequarters of both eligible school-age children (74 percent) and nonelderly adults (73 percent), but only

35 percent of eligible elderly persons (Table II.2). Elderly persons may be less likely than others to

participate because they generally qualify for only small benefits, as they tend to live alone and have

relatively high incomes.

Other research supports the finding that elderly persons participate at rates far below average.

For example, participation rates calculated on the basis of Current Population Survey data show that
8

TABLE II.2

INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR PERSONS,

JANUARY 1994

Number of Number of Person

Participating Eligible Participation

Persons Persons Rate

(in Thousands) (in Thousands) (Percentage)

Elderly Age 60 or Older 1,908 5,414 35.2

Living alone 1,245 3,202 38.9

Living with others 662 2,213 29.9

Disabled Under Age 60 1,454 2,050 70.9

Living alone 611 657 93.0

Living with others 843 1,393 60.5

Children (Under Age 18) 13,652 17,013 80.2

Preschool (under age 5) 5,349 5,779 92.6

School-age (age 5 to 17) 8,302 11,234 73.9

Adults Ages 18 to 59 11,264 15,438 73.0

Living alone (not disabled) 1,689 1,439 117.4

Gender

Male 10,854 15,665 69.3

Female 16,018 22,201 72.2

Employment Status

Employed 2,079 5,308 39.2

Unemployed 1,238 2,208 56.1

 Not in labor force 7,947 7,921 100.3

Total 26,872 37,866 71.0

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993

Panel of SIPP.

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

in SIPP (see Appendix A).
 Martini (1992) used the August 1985 SIPP to perform a multivariate analysis of the relationship 2

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

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

to eligibles (univariate analysis). The household characteristics (explanatory variables) for the

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.

9

in August 1993, elderly persons participated at less than half the rate of all other persons (Trippe

1995). Using multivariate analyses, Martini (1992) found that the predicted participation rate for

households that contain elderly persons was about two-thirds the rate of all households after

controlling for other factors.2

2. African Americans Participated at Higher Rates Than Other Racial/Ethnic Groups

Eligible households headed by African Americans were more likely to participate in the FSP (94

percent) than households headed by Hispanics (63 percent) or white non-Hispanics (60 percent)

(Table II.3). Martini (1992) found a similar gap between households headed by African Americans

and whites in his univariate analysis of participation rates. However, when other household

characteristics were held constant, the gap between predicted participation rates of households headed

by African Americans and whites was much smaller (only 5 percentage points). Furthermore, for

female-headed households with children, Martini found almost no difference (less than 1 percentage

point) in the predicted participation rates of households headed by African Americans and whites. The

results of this multivariate analysis suggest that most of the difference between participation rates of

African Americans and whites revealed in the univariate analysis is due not to race per se, but to

factors that are correlated with race.
 A person is outside the labor force if he or she is unemployed and not actively looking for work. 3

 Participation rates that equal or exceed 100 percent should be interpreted with caution. These

4

unrealistically high rates are caused by underreporting and other sampling problems on the SIPP--

problems that are particularly acute among low-income households. See Appendix A for a more

detailed discussion of underreporting in SIPP.

10

3. Persons Not in the Labor Force Participated at a Higher Rate Than Employed and

Unemployed Persons

In January 1994, participation rates were highest among persons outside the labor force and

lowest among employed persons (Table II.2). The FSP served virtually all eligible persons outside 3

the labor force (100 percent), more than half of eligible unemployed persons who were in the labor

force (56 percent), but only 39 percent of eligible employed persons.4

C. FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND SIZE

This section examines how FSP participation rates in January 1994 varied across subgroups

defined by household composition and size.

1. Single-Parent Households Participated at a Higher Rate Than Multiple-Adult Households

with Children 

Most eligible households with children (86 percent) participated in the FSP in January 1994.

However, single-parent households participated at a rate of 97 percent, while multiple-adult

households with children participated at a rate of 73 percent (Table II.3). Single-parent households

probably participated at a higher rate because they had less income, were less likely to have earnings,

and were more likely to receive AFDC than were multiple-adult households. In January 1994, the

average gross income for eligible single-parent households was $324, compared with $724 for

multiple-adult households with children. Only 35 percent of eligible single-parent households had

earnings, compared with 64 percent of multiple-adult households, and 62 percent of eligible singleparent households received AFDC, compared with 26 percent of multiple-adult households. All three
11

TABLE II.3

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS,

JANUARY 1994

Household Contains (in Thousands) (in Thousands) (Percentage)

Number of Number of Household

Participating Eligible Participation

Households Households Rate

Elderly Age 60 or Older 1,722 4,805 35.8

Disabled Under Age 60 1,378 1,944 70.9

Children (Under Age 18) 6,527 7,631 85.5

Preschool (under age 5) 3,820 4,116 92.8

School-age (age 5 to 17) 4,544 5,824 78.0

Single Parent with Children 4,513 4,663 96.8 a

Single female adult 4,215 4,402 95.8

Single male adult 298 261 114.1

Two or More Adults with Children 2,014 2,776 72.5 b

White non-Hispanic Head 5,127 8,533 60.1

African American Head 3,753 4,016 93.5

Hispanic Head 1,631 2,612 62.5

Total 10,840 15,749 68.8 c

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993

Panel of SIPP.

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

SIPP (see Appendix A).

Households containing a single parent with children are defined as households with only one

a

nonelderly adult (age 18 to 59) and children.

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

b

households that contain two or more adults.

Categories do not sum to total because households may exhibit more than one of the characteristics c

listed.
 Households in poverty are defined as households with gross income below the Department of

5

Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) 1993 Poverty Guideline, which is identical to the FSP’s Fiscal

Year 1994 Net Income Screen. The DHHS Poverty Guideline varies according to household size and

geographic location.

12

of these characteristics (low income, no earnings, and AFDC receipt) are associated with high

participation rates, as discussed in Section D.

2. Households with Two to Four Persons Were More Likely Than Other Households to

Participate

Three-person households were the most likely to participate (86 percent), while one-person

households (57 percent) and households with six or more persons (61 percent) were the least likely

to participate (Table II.4). Overall, households with two to four persons participated at a substantially

higher rate (80 percent) than other households (66 percent). This pattern may occur because two-to

four-person households are more likely than very small or very large households to contain single

parents, who participate at very high rates. About 73 percent of eligible two- to four-person

households contained a single parent, compared with only 37 percent of eligible households with five

or more persons.

D. PARTICIPATION RATES BY AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF INCOME

This section examines how FSP participation rates in January 1994 varied across subgroups

defined by income relative to the poverty level and by receipt of selected income sources.

1. Those Most in Need Participated at the Highest Rates

Low-income eligible households were more likely to participate than higher-income households.

In January 1994, households with a gross income below the poverty level participated at a rate of 87

percent, while households above the poverty level participated at a rate of 21 percent. Among

5

households in poverty, those with the lowest incomes were most likely to participate (Table II.5).
13

TABLE II.4

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE,

JANUARY 1994

Household Size Participating Households Eligible Households Rate

(Number of persons) (in Thousands) (in Thousands) (Percentage)

Number of Number of Participation

Household

1 3,703 6,462 57.3

2 2,568 3,325 77.2

3 1,965 2,298 85.5

4 1,401 1,836 76.3

5 700 997 70.2

6+ 503 831 60.5

Total 10,840 15,749 68.8

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993

Panel of SIPP.
14

TABLE II.5

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY

GROSS INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY,

JANUARY 1994

Income as a Participating Eligible Participation

Percentage of Households Households Rate

Poverty (in Thousands) (in Thousands) (Percentage)

Number of Number of Household

Total # 100 9,905 11,356 87.2

0 1,105 773 142.9

1-50 3,300 3,310 99.7

51-100 5,500 7,273 75.6

Total > 100 935 4,393 21.3

101-130 873 3,370 25.9

131+ 62 1,023 6.0

Total 10,840 15,749 68.8

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993

Panel of SIPP.

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

in SIPP (see Appendix A).
 The 143 percent rate among households with zero gross income is probably caused by

6

misreporting and other sampling problems on IQCS and SIPP. For example, the IQCS may fail to

capture small amounts of income, thus overstating the number of participating units that have zero

income. Alternatively, SIPP may undersample zero-income households, and thus understate the

number of zero-income eligibles. Both errors would upwardly bias the participation rate of zeroincome households.

 For more on participation rate trends among zero-income households, see Wemmerus and Porter 7

(forthcoming).

15

Households with incomes below half the poverty level participated at a rate estimated to exceed 100

percent, while households between 51 and 100 percent of the poverty level participated at a rate of

76 percent.6

Several past studies of FSP participation report that eligible households with zero income

participate at a lower rate than do eligible households with low but positive income. For example,

using 1988 SIPP data, Trippe and Doyle (1992a) found that 70 percent of eligible zero-income

households participated in the FSP, compared with 79 percent of eligible households with incomes

between 1 and 50 percent of the poverty level. However, SIPP data show that this gap has closed over

time and that in 1992, the participation rate of zero-income households surpassed the participation rate

of low-income households.7

2. Households Receiving Cash Assistance Participated at a Higher Rate Than Households with

Income from Other Sources

Households receiving cash assistance, such as AFDC or Supplemental Security Income (SSI),

participated at a higher rate than households with earnings or unemployment compensation. In

January 1994, households with AFDC income participated at a rate estimated to exceed 100 percent;
 The unrealistically high rate for AFDC households is caused by underreporting of AFDC receipt 8

on the SIPP, as discussed in Appendix A. The number of AFDC households in SIPP is only 72

percent of the number based on AFDC administrative data. If the SIPP figure is adjusted for

underreporting, the participation rate for eligible households with AFDC is 84 percent in January

1994. 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). 

16

the rate for households with SSI was 81 percent. In comparison, only 46 percent of households with 8

earnings and 52 percent of households with unemployment compensation participated (Table II.6).

Households receiving AFDC participate in the FSP at a high rate, probably because they tend to

be eligible for large benefits. In addition, households that already receive some form of public

assistance are more likely to apply for food stamps because (1) states are required to offer joint

application procedures for AFDC and food stamps, (2) households in which all members receive

AFDC are categorically eligible for food stamp benefits, and (3) a household’s decision to apply for

food stamps may be part of a larger decision to apply for any available public assistance benefits.

Martini (1992) found that FSP-eligible households receiving public assistance are much more likely

to apply for food stamps than households not receiving public assistance regardless of their income,

household size, or other characteristics.

E. PARTICIPATION RATES BY BENEFIT LEVEL

This section examines how FSP participation rates in January 1994 varied according to the

benefit level to which an eligible household is entitled.

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

Households were more likely to participate if they were eligible for a large food stamp benefit.

Only 23 percent of households eligible for the minimum ($10) benefit participated, compared with

89 percent of those eligible for $151 or more (Table II.7). Participation rates also rose in conjunction
17

TABLE II.6

HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED SOURCES OF INCOME, 

JANUARY 1994

Household Receives (in Thousands) (in Thousands) (Percentage)

Number of Number of Household

Participating Eligible Participation

Households Households Rate

Earned Income 2,301 5,026 45.8

SSI 2,251 2,767 81.4

Elderly in the unit 926 1,314 70.5

No elderly in the unit 1,325 1,453 91.2

Public Assistance 4,979 4,277 116.4 a

AFDC 4,234 3,642 116.3

Other welfare 770 702 109.7

Unemployment Compensation 256 496 51.7

Total 10,840 15,749 68.8

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993

Panel of SIPP.

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

in SIPP (see Appendix A).

Public assistance refers to AFDC, General Assistance, and local means-tested programs, such as

a

Emergency Assistance.
18

TABLE II.7

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR HOUSEHOLDS BY MONTHLY BENEFIT,

JANUARY 1994

Monthly Benefit Level (in Thousands) (in Thousands) (Percentage) a

 Number of Number of Household

Participating Eligible Participation

Households Households Rate

Benefit Amount

$10 or less 499 2,184 22.9

$11 - 75 1,751 3,222 54.3

$76 - 150 3,234 4,302 75.2

$151 or more 5,356 6,042 88.6

Benefit as a Percentage of Maximum

1-25% 1,391 3,818 36.4

26-50 1,676 2,829 59.2

51-75 2,459 2,974 82.7

76-99 2,665 2,622 101.6

100 2,649 3,505 75.6

 No gross income 1,105 773 142.9

 No net income (gross > $0) 1,544 2,732 56.5

Total 10,840 15,749 68.8

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993

Panel of SIPP.

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

in SIPP (see Appendix A).

aThe maximum FSP benefit varies by household size and region. In January 1994, the maximum

allotment for a family of 3 in the contiguous U.S. was $295.
 The substantial disparity in these two participation rates (households with no gross income and 9

other households eligible for the maximum benefit) may also be attributable to misreporting and other

sampling problems on IQCS and SIPP. For example, households that have very small amounts of

gross income may be coded as having zero gross income on IQCS. This would upwardly bias the

participation rate among households with no gross income and downwardly bias the participation rate

among other households eligible for the maximum benefit. Similarly, undersampling of zero-income

households on SIPP could exaggerate the participation rate among that group.

19

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 threeperson household in the contiguous U.S. in January 1994 was $295).

A household is entitled to the maximum FSP benefit if it has no net income (gross income minus

allowable deductions). Of the 3.5 million households eligible for the maximum benefit in January

1994, 773 thousand (22 percent) had no gross income. The rest (78 percent) had gross income greater

than zero, but allowable deductions reduced their net income to zero. As shown in Table II.7,

households with no gross income participated at a rate estimated to exceed 100 percent. Thus, the

unexpectedly low participation rate among households entitled to the maximum FSP benefit is caused

by a low rate (57 percent) among households that have gross income but still receive the maximum

benefit. The lower rate among these households is consistent with the finding that participation rates

decline as gross income increases, though the difference between the two rates is surprisingly large.9

2. Benefit Levels Did Not Influence Participation Decisions for Most Subgroups

In January 1994, the benefit participation rate was 12 points higher than the household

participation rate, suggesting that households were more likely to participate if they were eligible for

a large benefit. This tendency (see Table II.8) is further supported by the high participation rates

among high-benefit subgroups (such as low-income households and households with children) and

low participation rates among low-benefit subgroups (such as higher-income and one-person

households). But within these subgroups, the potential benefit amount seems to have had a much
20

TABLE II.8

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES FOR PERSONS BY 

GROSS INCOME RELATIVE TO POVERTY,

JANUARY 1994

Income as a Participating Eligible Participation

Percentage of Individuals Individuals Rate

Poverty (in Thousands) (in Thousands) (Percentage)

Number of Number of Individual

Total # 100 24,575 28,598 85.9

0 1,715 1,522 112.6

1-50 9,476 9,888 95.8

51-100 13,383 17,188 77.9

Total > 100 2,298 9,267 24.8

101-130 2,192 7,738 28.3

131+ 106 1,529 6.9

Total 26,872 37,866 71.0

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993

Panel of SIPP.

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

in SIPP (see Appendix A).
21

smaller effect on the likelihood of participation, as indicated by the similar benefit and household rates

for these groups. For instance, the benefit participation rates (Table II.9) were within four percentage

points of the household participation rates (Table II.3) for households with elderly, disabled, children,

single parents, multiple adults with children, and households headed by a Hispanic person. Similarly,

the benefit participation rates for households with incomes below and above the poverty level (Table

II.10) were within four percentage points of the corresponding household participation rates (Table

II.5).

Martini (1992) suggested that much of the variation in participation rates by benefit level, as

reflected in observed rates, is due to the effect of household size and characteristics of the individual

groups rather than to the benefit amount. Overall, Martini found a positive but small correlation

between benefit level and FSP participation rates.
22

TABLE II.9

BENEFIT RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD,

JANUARY 1994

Household Contains (in Thousands) (in Thousands) (Percentage)

Benefits Paid to Potential Benefits

Participating for Eligible Benefit

Households Households Rate

Elderly Age 60 or Older $117,285 $292,770 40.1

Disabled Under Age 60 152,754 214,520 71.2

Children (Under Age 18) 1,467,571 1,703,821 86.1

Preschool (under age 5) 903,332 1,007,793 89.6

School-age (age 5 to 17) 1,076,092 1,351,339 79.6

Single Parent with Children 972,393 1,045,191 93.0

 Single Female Adult 915,075 989,584 92.5

 Single Male Adult 57,318 55,607 103.1

Two or More Adults with Children 495,178 658,630 75.2 a

White non-Hispanic Head 803,159 1,015,128 79.1

African American Head 645,475 639,279 101.0

Hispanic Head 305,212 488,517 62.5

Total 1,824,471 2,247,535 81.2

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993

Panel of SIPP.

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

in SIPP (see Appendix A).

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

a

households that contain two or more adults.
23

TABLE II.10

BENEFIT RATES BY GROSS INCOME

RELATIVE TO POVERTY,

JANUARY 1994

Income as a Participating for Eligible Benefit

Percentage of Households Households Rate

Poverty (in Thousands) (in Thousands) (Percentage)

Benefits Paid to Potential Benefits

Total # 100 $1,765,281 $1,997,977 88.4

0 181,735 152,692 119.0

1-50 830,006 871,671 95.2

51-100 753,540 973,614 77.4

Total > 100 59,190 239,557 24.7

101-130 56,937 212,243 26.8

131+ 2,253 37,314 8.2

Total 1,824,471 2,247,535 81.2

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993

Panel of SIPP.

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

in SIPP (see Appendix A).
25

III. TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

The FSP participation rate was virtually unchanged between January 1992 and January 1994. In

both years, 69 percent of eligible households participated in the FSP, and those households received

just over 81 percent of potential benefits (Table III.1). Although the overall household participation

rate did not change, the participation rate for one-person households increased while the rate for larger

households fell. Consequently, the person participation rate declined slightly, from 74 percent in 1992

to 71 percent in 1994.

The relative stability of FSP participation rates between 1992 and 1994 masks a substantial

increase in the size of the eligible and participation populations. Between 1992 and 1994, the number

of eligible and participating households both increased by 13 percent, as did total potential benefits

and benefits received.

This chapter compares the January 1994 participation rates to those in January 1992 and before,

and examines trends in participation rates among selected subgroups of the eligible population.

Highlights of the change in participation rates for subgroups between January 1992 and 1994 include

the following:

C Participation rates decreased for children.

C Participation rates increased for one-person households.

C Participation rates increased for households with SSI or unemployment compensation.

C Participation rates increased for households eligible for the highest and lowest benefits.
26

TABLE III.1

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES OVER TIME

1985-1994

August January January January January Percent Change

1985 1988 1989 1992 1994 (1992 to 1994)

Thousands

Eligibles

Persons 28,884 30,973 31,041 32,931 37,866 15.0 %

Households 11,604 12,292 12,689 13,983 15,749 12.6 %

Benefits $1,072,262 1,334,779 1,405,636 1,981,717 2,247,535 13.4 %

Participants

Persons 18,560 18,286 18,344 24,291 26,872 10.6 %

Households 6,894 6,882 7,037 9,631 10,840 12.5 %

Benefits $807,265 890,158 927,391 1,615,320 1,824,471 12.9 %

Percent (1992 to 1994)

Difference

Participation Rates

Persons 64.3 59.0 59.1 73.8 71.0 -2.8 points 

Households 59.4 56.0 55.5 68.9 68.8 -0.0 points 

Benefits 75.3 66.7 66.0 81.5 81.2 -0.3 points 

SOURCE: Participant numbers are from the FSP Statistical Summary of Operations, adjusted for issuance

errors.

Estimates for eligibles are from the MATHSIPP model.
27

A. TRENDS IN AGGREGATE PARTICIPATION RATES

Participation rates held steady between 1992 and 1994 because of roughly equivalent increases

in the number of eligibles and participants (Table III.1). This trend suggests that the 13 percent

increase in the number of food stamp participants between 1992 and 1994 was driven by participation

among new eligibles. In contrast, the surge in participants between January 1989 and January 1992

was driven largely by a higher participation rate among those already eligible (see Trippe 1994).

1. Comparison of Participation Rates from 1985 to 1994

FSP participation rates in January 1994 remained at or near their highest point since the beginning

of the series in 1985 (Table III.1, Figure III.la). Between 1985 and 1988, the household participation

rate declined from 59 percent to 56 percent, then remained constant between 1988 and 1989 before

rising to 69 percent in 1992. Between 1992 and 1994, the household rate did not change, though the

person rate declined from 74 percent to 71 percent due to the increased participation rate of oneperson households.

Legislative changes authorized by the 1985 Food Security Act were largely responsible for the

decline in rates between 1985 and 1988. Although the act expanded the number of households

eligible to receive food stamps, most of the newly eligible households did not participate in the FSP

in 1988. Rates changed little between 1988 and 1989 but surged between 1989 and 1992. This

dramatic upswing was caused by a combination of factors, including a worsening economy,

expansions in Medicaid, increased access to FSP offices, and program outreach efforts. Finally,

between 1992 and 1994, equal increases in the number of eligibles and participants caused

participation rates to remain relatively stable (Figure III.1b).
August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FIGURE III.1a

TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES,

1985-1994

Source: Food Stamp Program Operations data, SIPP data for the years shown.

Participation Rate

Month/Year

Persons

Households

Benefits
FIGURE III.1b

TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS,

 1985-1994

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 

Month/Year

Source: Food Stamp Program Operations data, SIPP data for the years shown.

Eligibles

Participants

Millions
CPS participant counts are slightly higher than SIPP participant count, as SIPP counts exclude 1

households that received benefits in error. The FSP caseload in January 1994 was reduced by 2.83

percent.

30

2. Similar Trends in Rates Found in a CPS-Based Study

The trends in participation rates observed in this SIPP-based report are consistent with the trends

in participation rates based on the Current Population Survey (CPS) (Table III.2). The CPS-based

estimates show that the household participation rate declined by 5 percentage points between 1984

and 1986, then held steady for two years before rising 14 points between 1988 and 1992. Between

1992 and 1994, the CPS-based rate increased by about 3 percentage points.

Although the two studies use different data sources and cover a slightly different period, they

reveal a change in rates over time that is similar. The SIPP-based rates shown 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 study methodology more closely

replicates the actual eligibility determination process. Participation rates are estimated from the CPS

to provide insight into the trends in rates over a longer period of time than the SIPP covers. While

trends in CPS-based rates generally mirror the trends observed in SIPP-based rates, there are two

notable differences between the two sets of estimates. First, SIPP-based rates are consistently higher

than the corresponding CPS-based rates, and second, the two sets of rates have converged slightly over

the past ten years.

Since both sets of rates use participant counts derived from the same source (Food Stamp Program

Operations data), differences between SIPP- and CPS-based participation rates are driven almost

exclusively by differences in the estimated number of eligibles. For example, the number of CPS

1

participants in August 1988 was nearly identical to the number of SIPP participants in January 1989,

but the CPS showed nearly 2 million more eligibles than SIPP (Table III.3). Consequently, the CPS
31

TABLE III.2

FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

BASED ON THE MARCH CPS AND FOOD STAMP PROGRAM OPERATIONS DATA,

1984-1994

Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. (1992 to 

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992(o) 1992(r) 1994 1994) a a

Difference

Individuals 53.0% 48.8% 49.3% 55.4% 60.5% 59.3% 61.4% +2.1 points 

Households 52.4 47.3 47.9 55.7 62.4 61.6 64.6 +3.0 points 

Benefits 62.4 57.4 56.8 64.1 71.9 70.2 75.8 +5.6 points 

SOURCES: Participant numbers are from the Food Stamp Program Operations data.

Estimates for eligibles are from simulations using data from the March CPS.

There are two estimates for August 1992 due to the revised weighting process introduced by the

a

Bureau of the Census in the March 1993 CPS. The original estimate (o) uses 1980 census population

controls, and the revised estimate (r) uses 1990 census population controls and includes an adjustment

for the census undercount.
TABLE III.3

TRENDS IN SIPP- AND CPS-BASED PARTICIPATION RATES, 1984 - 1994

(all numbers in thousands, except for percentages)

Aug 84 Aug 85 Aug 86 Jan 88 Aug 88 Jan 89 Aug 90 Aug 91 Jan 92 Aug 92(o) Aug92(r) Aug 93 Jan 94 Aug 94

Households

Participating - SIPP 6,894 6,882 7,037 9,631 10,840

Participating - CPS 7,324 7,102 7,016 7,973 9,204 10,238 10,900 10,953

Eligible - SIPP 11,604 12,292 12,689 13,983 15,749

Eligible - CPS 13,987 15,032 14,640 14,309 15,354 16,412 16,627 17,031 17,036

Participation Rate - SIPP 59.4% 56.0% 55.5% 68.9% 68.8%

Participation Rate - CPS 52.4% 47.2% 47.9% 55.7% 59.9% 62.4% 64.0% 64.3%

Households That Pass Eligibility Tests

Gross Income - SIPP 38,402 39,424 39,819 41,594 43,825

Gross Income - CPS 24,881 25,246 25,296 25,554 26,818 27,972 28,097 28,766 29,015

Gross and Net Income - SIPP 17,513 17,475 17,519 18,991 21,967

Gross and Net Income - CPS 17,216 17,909 17,367 17,058 18,152 19,178 19,381 19,903 19,883

Gross, Net, and Asset - SIPP 11,802 12,390 12,656 14,113 15,913

Gross, Net, and Asset - CPS 14,048 15,179 14,752 14,418 15,440 16,502 16,719 17,201 17,243

Net Income Eligibles As A Percentage

of Gross Income Eligibles

SIPP 45.6% 44.3% 44.0% 45.7% 50.1%

CPS 69.2% 70.9% 68.7% 66.8% 67.7% 68.6% 69.0% 69.2% 68.5%

Asset Eligibles As A Percentage

of Income Eligibles

SIPP 67.4% 70.9% 72.2% 74.3% 72.4%

CPS 81.6% 84.8% 84.9% 84.5% 85.1% 86.0% 86.3% 86.4% 86.7%

SOURCE: Participant numbers are from the Food Stamp Program Operations data (SIPP participants adjusted for issuance errors).

Estimates for SIPP eligibles are from the MATH SIPP model. Estimates for CPS eligibles are from simulations using data from the March CPS

NOTE: There are two estimates for August 1992 due to the revised weighting process introduced by the Bureau of the Census in the March 1993 CPS.

The original estimate (o) uses 1980 census population controls and the revised estimate (r) uses 1990 census population controls.
The CPS and SIPP files are remarkably similar in terms of the number of income-eligible

2

households--households that pass the gross and net income tests.

CPS asset balances are estimated by dividing financial asset income by a rate of return (6.5

3

percent). Using this method, only 30 percent of August 1988 CPS households have positive asset

balances compared with 60 percent of January 1989 SIPP households.

These differences are based on the number of SIPP eligibles in January of a given year and the 4

number of CPS eligibles in August of the preceding year. The August 1992 CPS figures cited in this

section are the original estimates, based on the 1980 census population controls. Revised estimates,

based on 1990 census population controls, are also presented in Tables III.2 and III.3. We cite

original CPS figures so that changes in CPS rates between 1992 and 1994 are comparable with

changes in SIPP rates over that period. SIPP weights were adjusted between 1992 and 1994 to

reflect the change from 1980 to 1990 census population controls, but the data needed to measure the

impact of the adjusted SIPP weights are not available, as they were with CPS. Assuming the SIPP

adjustment had the same impact on eligibles as did the CPS adjustment (an increase of 1.3 percent

in eligible households), the adjusted 1992 SIPP household rate would be 68.0 percent. Based on this

estimate, the change in the SIPP-based household rate between 1992 and 1994 is +0.8 percentage

points, compared with +3.0 points on CPS.

33

household participation rate (47.9 percent) was about 8 points lower than the SIPP rate (55.5 percent).

The CPS consistently overestimates the number of eligibles, and underestimates participation rates,

because too many CPS households are simulated to pass the asset test. This occurs because the CPS 2

does not contain information on household asset balances, and the method used to estimate asset

balances results in too few CPS households having assets. Unpublished statistics from Doyle (1990) 3

indicate that if reported asset balances on SIPP were replaced with estimates based on the CPS

method, the number of SIPP eligibles would increase by roughly 15 percent.

Although CPS-based counts of eligible households consistently exceed SIPP-based counts, the

difference between the two has decreased over time. Comparing August 1984 CPS figures with

August 1985 SIPP figures, there were 2.4 million more eligible households on CPS. This difference

decreased to 2.0 million in 1989, 1.4 million in 1992, and 1.3 million in l994. The converging

4

number of eligibles can be attributed to two factors. First, by virtue of its superior asset data, SIPP is

better able to capture changes in the number of asset-eligible households. For example, between 1984

and 1992, both the passage of the Food Security Act--which raised the FSP asset limit--and the
For a description of the FSP’s asset eligibility test, see Appendix A. 5

lncome-eligible households are those that pass both the gross and net income tests. 6

The increase in SIPP income eligibles was caused by a decrease in household income relative 7

to the gross and net income screens. Between 1992 and 1994, the average gross income of

households that pass the gross income test decreased by 3.8 percent, and their average net income

declined by 4.8 percent. Over that same period, the net and gross income screens for a family of four

in the contiguous United States increased by 7.1 percent.

34

economic recession of the early 1990s increased the number of households that pass the FSP’s asset

test. SIPP captured these expansive effects, showing a 6.9 point increase in the percentage of income- 5

eligible households that pass the asset test, from 67.4 percent in August 1985 to 74.3 percent in

January 1992 (Table III.3). The corresponding CPS counts show only a 3.5 point increase, from 81.6 6

percent in August 1984 to 85.1 percent in August 1991. Because the SIPP captured more of the

expansive effect of asset changes over that period, the number of SIPP eligibles moved closer to the

number of CPS eligibles.

A second factor that contributed to the convergence of SIPP and CPS counts of eligibles was a

jump in the number of income eligibles on SIPP between 1992 and 1994. Between 1984 and 1992,

CPS and SIPP were remarkably similar in terms of the number of income-eligible households (Table

III.3). But between 1992 and 1994, the number of income-eligible households on SIPP increased by

3.0 million while the number on CPS increased by only 0.7 million. SIPP’s higher rate of growth

among income eligibles is the primary reason that the SIPP-based household rate did not change

between 1992 and 1994 while the CPS-based rates increased modestly.7

Finally, sampling error may explain a portion of the convergence of SIPP and CPS counts of

eligibles. Future participation rate reports will reveal whether the observed convergence is permanent.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. Overview of Entitlement

8

Programs: 1994 Green Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.

35

B. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Although aggregate participation rates were basically unchanged between January 1992 and

January 1994, rates increased among some subgroups of the population and decreased among others.

This section examines trends in participation rates among selected demographic subgroups.

1. Participation Rates Decreased Among Children

Between 1992 and 1994, the participation rate decreased by 5 percentage points among children

(Table III.4, Figures III.2a and III.2b). Rates increased among elderly persons (+2 points) and

nonelderly disabled persons (+4 points) but these increases were within the bounds of sampling error

(Table III.7). Trends among most groups, however, mirrored the aggregate trends, with equal

increases in participants and eligibles producing little or no change in participation rates. Even the

modest increase in the rate for nonelderly disabled persons obscures substantial growth in the number

of disabled eligibles (45 percent) and participants (53 percent) (Appendix C).

The primary method of identifying disabled persons on the SIPP and IQCS databases is through

receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The surge in the number of disabled eligibles and

participants was driven by an increase in the number of nonelderly persons receiving SSI. Liberalized

SSI eligibility requirements caused participation in the program to increase by 28 percent between

September 1991 and September 1993. This increase in SSI participation occurred primarily among 8

children, which may explain the substantial growth in the FSP participation rate of nonelderly disabled

persons living with others.
FIGURE III.2a

TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES FOR CHILDREN, ELDERLY, AND NONELDERLY DISABLED 

PERSONS, 1985-1994

Source: Food Stamp Program Operations data, SIPP data for the years shown.

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Participation Rate

Children

Disabled

Elderly

Month/Year

Total
August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

FIGURE III.2b

TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS FOR CHILDREN, ELDERLY, AND NONELDERLY DISABLED 

PERSONS, 1985-1994

Millions Total Children

Millions Disabled Elderly

Millions

Month/Year Month/Year

Month/Year Month/Year

Millions

Eligibles

Participants

Eligibles

Participants

Eligibles

Participants

Eligibles

Participants
38

TABLE III.4

PERSON PARTICIPATION RATES

BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS,

1985-1994

 August January January January January Difference

 1985 1988 1989 1992 1994 (1992 to 1994)

Elderly Age 60 or Older 36.6% 33.5% 28.5% 33.2% 35.2% +2.0 points

Living alone 41.3 38.4 31.5 36.3 38.9 +2.6

Living with others 30.4 26.7 24.0 28.6 29.9 +1.4

Disabled Under Age 60 47.4 55.3 57.3 67.0 70.9 +3.9

Living alone 52.4 68.6 89.9 117.5 93.0 -24.3

Living with others 44.8 49.4 44.4 48.5 60.5 +12.0

Children (Under Age 18) 73.5 69.5 68.0 85.5 80.2 -5.2

Preschool (under age 5) 75.3 74.8 73.4 94.8 92.6 -2.2

School-age (age 5-17) 72.7 67.1 65.6 80.6 73.9 -6.8

Adults Age 18 to 59 65.0 65.9 59.5 76.6 73.0 -3.6

Living alone (not disabled) NA 67.5 84.1 112.4 117.4 +4.9

Gender

Male NA 58.1 57.3 74.3 69.3 -5.0

Female NA 59.6 60.4 73.4 72.2 -1.2

Total 64.3 59.0 59.1 73.8 71.0 -2.8

SOURCES: 1994 rates are from Table II.3 of this report, 1985 rates are from Doyle (1990), 1988 rates are

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

from Trippe (1994).

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

(see Appendix A).
39

2. The Participation Rate for One-Person Households lncreased, While the Rate for Larger

Households Declined

The participation rate among households with one person increased by four percentage points

(Table III.5), while rates for households of all other sizes decreased by between one and seven points

(Appendix B). Note, however, that the participation rate for nonelderly disabled persons living alone

decreased between 1992 and 1994. Thus, the increased participation rate of one-person households

was driven by higher rates of participation among elderly persons living alone and nonelderly nondisabled persons living alone.

C. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF INCOME,

AND BY POTENTIAL BENEFIT AMOUNT

This section examines how trends in participation rates between January 1992 and January 1994

varied by household income amount, income sources, and potential benefit amount.

1. Trends in Participation Rates Were Similar for Households Above and Below the Poverty

Level

Between 1992 and 1994, participation rates were nearly unchanged for households above and

below the poverty level. Rates for both groups increased by about one percentage point (Table III.6,

Figures III.3a and III.3b). In contrast, between 1989 and 1992, the participation rate of poor

households increased by substantially more (+14 percent) than did the rate of nonpoor households (+6

percent). The apparent leap in the participation rate of households with no gross income--from 105

percent in 1992 to 143 percent in 1994--reflects an increase in the number of participating households

with no gross income along with a decrease in the number of eligible households with no gross
40

TABLE III.5

HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS,

1985-1994

Household Contains 1985 1988 1989 1992 1994 (1992 to 1994)

August January January January January Difference

Elderly Age 60 or Older 37.3% 35.0% 29.0% 33.5% 35.8% +2.4 points

Disabled under Age 60 46.7 55.2 57.4 67.4 70.9 +3.6

Children under Age 18 73.9 71.3 70.1 89.2 85.5 -3.7

Preschool (under age 5)

School-age (age 5-17)

NA NA 74.9 97.1 92.8 -4.3

74.7 68.3 68.2 81.6 78.0 -3.6

Single Parent with Children 73.1 74.9 76.4 100.0 96.8 -3.2 a

Single female adult 94.2 74.8 77.5 101.2 95.8 -5.4

Single male adult 62.7 45.9 56.7 78.8 114.1 +35.3

Two or More Adults 75.3 66.8 60.5 77.5 72.5 -5.3

w/Childrenb

One Person 49.8 45.0 44.7 53.8 57.3 +3.5

White non-Hispanic Head 48.9 46.9 45.9 58.6 60.1 +1.5

African American Head 77.1 76.0 76.9 92.3 93.5 +1.1

Hispanic Head 54.8 54.2 50.5 61.4 62.5 +1.1

Total 59.4 56.0 55.5 68.9 68.8 -0.0

SOURCES: 1994 rates are from Table II.3 of this report, 1985 rates are from Doyle (1990), 1988 rates are from

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

(1994).

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

(see Appendix A).

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

a

slightly in order to be consistent with the IQCS-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.

This category includes households in which the gender of the household head is unknown and female-headed

b

households that contain two or more adults.

NA = not available
41

TABLE III.6

HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES

BY INCOME AND BENEFIT CHARACTERISTICS,

1985 - 1994

Economic Characteristic 1985 1988 1989 1992 1994 (1992 to 1994)

August January January January January Difference

Monthly Benefit Level as a Percentage of the Maximum Benefit

1-25% 30.0% 29.9% 31.9% 33.6% 36.4% +2.9 points

26-50% 58.3 61.5 51.1 67.2 59.2 -7.9 

51-75% 86.0 68.7 72.8 80.9 82.7 +1.7 

76-99% 89.1 91.0 83.4 108.7 101.6 -7.1 

100% 64.3 50.5 52.8 67.2 75.6 +8.3 

Income as a Percentage of Poverty

Total < 100% 74.6 70.2 72.2 86.2 87.2 +1.0

0 69.0 70.0 82.2 104.9 142.9 +37.9

1-50 92.7 78.5 86.5 102.0 99.7 -2.4

51-100 67.2 66.5 64.8 76.1 75.6 -0.5

Total > 100% 14.8 16.8 14.2 20.6 21.3 +0.7

100-130 NA NA 15.9 24.8 25.9 +1.1

131+ NA NA 6.4 5.6 6.0 +0.4

Source of Income

Earned Income 36.8 33.9 32.3 48.2 45.8 -2.5

SSI 65.7 75.0 67.0 73.4 81.4 +8.0

Elderly in the unit 66.6 70.3 58.4 63.8 70.5 +6.6

No elderly in the unit 64.1 82.6 82.6 86.2 91.2 +5.0

Public Assistance 115.5 110.5 121.0 120.9 116.4 -4.5

AFDC 118.5 112.5 121.7 120.0 116.3 -3.7

Other welfare 97.4 98.9 105.7 118.8 109.7 -9.3

Unemployment Compensation 75.6 46.4 45.6 41.2 51.7 +10.5

Total 59.4 56.0 55.5 68.9 68.8 -0.0

SOURCES: 1994 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), 1990 rates are from Trippe and Doyle (1992), and 1992 rates 

are from Trippe (1994).

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

Appendix A).

NA = not available
FIGURE III.3a

TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, 1985-1994

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Participation Rate

Month/Year

Source: Food Stamp Program Operations data, SIPP data for the years shown.

Households in 

Poverty

Total

Households

Not in Poverty
August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

FIGURE III.3b

TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 

HOUSEHOLD, 1985-1994

Millions Total Millions

Month/Year Month/Year

Month/Year

Millions

In Poverty

 Not in Poverty

Eligibles

Participants Eligibles

Participants

Eligibles

Participants
For example, the IQCS database may fail to capture small amounts of income, and hence

9

overstate the number of participating households with zero income. Alternatively, SIPP may

undersample zero-income households, and thus understate the number of zero-income eligibles. Both

errors would upwardly bias the participation rate among zero-income households.

44

income. That the resulting participation rate exceeds 100 percent may be attributable to sampling

problems on the SIPP and IQCS data files.9

2. Participation Rates Increased for Households Receiving SSI or Unemployment

Compensation

Between 1992 and 1994, the participation rate for households with SSI income increased (+8

percentage points), as did the rate among households receiving unemployment compensation (+11

percentage points) (Table III.6, Figures III.4a and III.4b). The upward trend among SSI households

is consistent with the increased participation rate among households with disabled persons, while the

trend among households with unemployment compensation was driven primarily by a substantial

decrease in the number of eligible households receiving unemployment compensation (Appendix B).

The participation rate for households with earnings decreased slightly (-3 percentage points) between

1992 and 1994, but this change was not statistically significant (Table III.7). Although many more

households with earnings participated in the FSP (+21 percent), growth in the eligible population (+27

percent) was even more substantial, yielding a net decrease in the participation rate.

The participation rate for households receiving public assistance appears to have declined by five

percentage points (from 121 percent to 116 percent), though this decrease may be due to more

accurate reporting of public assistance receipt on SIPP, which would increase the number of eligibles.

3. Participation Rates Increased Among the Lowest-Benefit and the Highest-Benefit

Households

Between 1992 and 1994, participation rates increased among households eligible for 1 to 25

percent of the maximum benefit (+3 points) (Table III.6, Figures III.5a and III.5b). Rates also
45

increased among households eligible for the maximum benefit (+8 points). Households eligible for

benefits between 26 and 99 percent of the maximum benefit participated at a lower rate in 1994 (-4

points). The rate increase among low-benefit households is directly correlated with the rate increase

among minimum-benefit households, which in turn is linked to higher rates of participation among

one-person households (Appendix B).
FIGURE III.4a

TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY INCOME SOURCE OF THE HOUSEHOLD, 1985-1994

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Participation Rate

Month/Year

Source: Food Stamp Program Operations data, SIPP data for the years shown.

Total

Earnings

Unemployment

Compensation

SSI
August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

FIGURE III.4b

TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS BY INCOME SOURCE OF THE HOUSEHOLD, 1985-1994

Millions Total

With Earnings Millions

Millions

Month/Year Month/Year

Month/Year

With SSI

Eligibles

Participants

Eligibles

Participants

Eligibles

Participants

Note: For trends in the number of eligible and participating households receiving unemployment compensation, see Appendix B.
FIGURE III.5a

TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY BENEFIT LEVEL AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE MAXIMUM 

BENEFIT, 1985-1994

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Participation Rate

Month/Year

Source: Food Stamp Program Operations data, SIPP data for the years shown.

Total

26-99%

100%

1-25%

Benefit Level as a %

of Maximum Benefit
August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

August

1985

January

1988

January

1989

January

1992

January

1994

0

5

10

15

20

FIGURE III.5b

TRENDS IN ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS BY BENEFIT LEVEL AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE MAXIMUM 

BENEFIT, 1985-1994

Millions Total

Millions

Millions

Month/Year

Month/Year

Month/Year Month/Year

Millions

1-25%

26-99% 100%

Eligibles

Participants

Eligibles

Participants

Eligibles

Participants

Eligibles

Participants
50

TABLE III.7

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

BETWEEN JANUARY 1992 AND JANUARY 1994

Population Subgroup (1992 to 1994) Change

Participation Rate Change in 80 Percent

Participation Confidence

Rate Interval of Rate

a

1992 1994

Total Households 68.9% 68.8% -0.1 points ±1.8 points

Total Participants 73.8 71.0 -2.8 ±2.6

Total Benefits 81.5 81.2 -0.3 ±3.2

Children (Under Age 18) 85.5 80.2 -5.2 ±4.0

Non-Elderly Adults 76.6 73.0 -3.6 ±2.9

Elderly Age 60 or Older 33.2 35.2 2.0 ±2.9

Disabled Under Age 60 67.0 70.9 3.9 ±8.0

Single-Parent Households With Kids 100.0 96.8 -3.2 ±6.2 b

Households with Minimum Benefit 19.4 23.2 3.8 ±3.1

Households with Maximum Benefit 69.9 77.2 7.3 ±5.6

Households with Earnings 49.0 46.2 -2.8 ±3.5

Households with SSI 73.4 84.2 10.8 ±6.5

Households with Public Assistance 78.8 78.2 -0.6 ±4.0

Households with Unemployment Insurance 41.2 53.5 12.3 ±10.8

SOURCES: January 1992 and 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1992 and 1994

January 1992 and 1994 MATH SIPP model

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

Appendix A).

If the change in the participation rate falls outside the 80 percent confidence interval, we can be 80 percent certain a

that the observed change is statistically significant.

Households containing a single parent with children are defined as households with only one nonelderly adult (age b

18 to 59) and children.
51

IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING 

HOUSEHOLDS IN JANUARY 1994

Although 27 million people participated in the FSP in January 1994, 11 million eligible people

(29 percent of all eligibles) did not participate. These eligible nonparticipants accounted for 5 million

households and were eligible for $423 million in monthly benefits. The literature on eligible

nonparticipants (Allin 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 because of the perceived stigma associated

with using food stamps.

This chapter examines the demographic and economic characteristics of eligible nonparticipants

in January 1994 and identifies which groups of eligibles had the largest proportion of nonparticipants.

In summary, eligibles with the largest percentage of nonparticipants included:

• Elderly persons

• Households headed by a white non-Hispanic person

• Households with income above the poverty level and those with earned income

• Households eligible for the lowest food stamp benefits

A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING 

HOUSEHOLDS

In January 1994, most eligible nonparticipating households contained an elderly person (63

percent), most were headed by a white non-Hispanic (69 percent), and most consisted of only one

person (56 percent) (Table IV.1). These groups generally had below-average participation rates (36

percent for households with elderly, 60 percent for households headed by a white non-Hispanic, and
52

TABLE IV.1

DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE

NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS, JANUARY 1994

Population of Households

(in Thousands) (Percentage)

Distribution

Household Size

1 2,759 56.2

2 758 15.4

3 333 6.8

4 434 8.8

5 297 6.1

6+ 328 6.7

Household Composition

Elderly 3,083 62.8

Disabled 565 11.5

Children (Under Age 18) 1,104 22.5

Preschool children (under age 5) 296 6.0

School-age children (age 5 to 17) 1,280 26.1

Single Parent with Children 150 3.1

Two or More Adults with Children 762 15.5

White non-Hispanic Head 3,406 69.4

Black non-Hispanic Head 263 5.4

Hispanic Head 980 20.0

Income as a Percentage of Poverty

Total # 100% 1,451 29.6

Total > 100% 3,458 70.4

Household Income

Earnings 2,725 55.5

SSI 516 10.5

AFDC -592 -12.1

Unemployment Compensation 239 4.9

Total Households 4,909 100.0

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data, adjusted for issuance error. Special tabulations

from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993 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, which cause the number of eligibles to be

less than the number of participants.
53

57 percent for single-person households, compared with 69 percent for all households). Only 23

percent of all eligible nonparticipating households contained children, and virtually none contained

a single parent with children. Only 5 percent had an African American head of household. 

B. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING

HOUSEHOLDS

Compared with participating households, eligible nonparticipating households tend to have

higher income and be eligible for smaller benefits. More than 70 percent of eligible nonparticipating

households had a gross income above the poverty level, and 56 percent had earned income (Table

IV.1). Moreover, 49 percent of eligible nonparticipating households were eligible for less than 25

percent of the maximum benefit (Table IV.2). It is not surprising that these households make up the

bulk of eligible nonparticipants, given their low participation rates (21 percent for households below

poverty, 46 percent for households with earnings, and 36 percent for low-benefit households).

Not all eligible nonparticipating households were high-income, low-benefit households. A

sizable minority (30 percent) had income below the poverty level, and these households accounted

for 55 percent of total potential benefits to eligible nonparticipating households. Also, 17 percent of

eligible nonparticipating households were eligible for the maximum benefit. As discussed in Chapter

II, however, households eligible for the maximum benefit participate at an unexpectedly low rate. Of

the nonparticipating households that were eligible for the maximum benefit, 61 percent contained

elderly persons, most of whom lived alone (Table IV.3). Both of these characteristics are associated

with low participation rates.
54

TABLE IV.2

DISTRIBUTION OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLDS

ABOVE AND BELOW POVERTY,

JANUARY 1994

Below Poverty Above Poverty Total

Benefit Level as a Percentage of

Maximum Allotment

1-25% 6.6% 42.8% 49.4%

26-50 6.7 16.9 23.5

51-99 2.5 7.1 9.6

100 13.8 3.6 17.4

Household Composition

Elderly Present 27.1 35.7 62.8

Living alone 16.2 23.3 39.5

Living with others 10.9 12.4 23.3

Nonelderly Households with Earnings

With children 12.0 18.4 30.4

Without children 8.0 9.7 17.7

20.0 28.1 48.1

Total 29.6 70.4 100.0

Eligible Nonparticipating

Persons (in thousands) 4,024 6,970 10,993 

Households (in thousands) 1,451 3,458 4,909

Benefits (in thousands) $232,696 $190,367 $423,064 

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data, adjusted for issuance error. Special tabulations from

IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1994 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993 Panel of SIPP.

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

measurement errors in SIPP can cause the number of eligibles to be less than the number of participants,

resulting in a negative number of eligible nonparticipants. For example, elderly households and

nonelderly households with earnings comprise 62.8 percent and 48.1 percent of eligible nonparticipants,

respectively. The omitted group, nonelderly households without earnings, comprises -10.9 percent of

eligible nonparticipating households.
55

TABLE IV.3

DISTRIBUTION OF ELIGIBLE NONPARTICIPATING

HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR

THE MAXIMUM FOOD STAMP BENEFIT,

JANUARY 1994

Household Composition (in Thousands) (Percentage)

Population of Households

Distribution

Elderly Present 421 61.1

Living alone 303 43.9

Living with others 118 17.2

Nonelderly Households with Earnings 174 25.3

With children 43 6.3

Without children 131 19.0

Nonelderly Households without Earnings 93 13.6

Income as a Percentage of Poverty

0-50 279 40.3

51-100 409 59.4

Total Households 689 100.0

SOURCES: January 1994 Food Stamp Program Operations data, adjusted for issuance error. Special

tabulations from IQCS data for January and February 1994.

January 1992 MATH SIPP model, Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993 Panel of

SIPP.

NOTE: Eligible nonparticipants are computed as the difference between eligibles and participants. 
57

REFERENCES

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

Review of the Literature." In Current Perspectives on Food Stamp Program Participation.

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

Food Stamp 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 SIPP-Based 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, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1987.

Landa, Cady. "Implications of Food Stamp Program Unit Rules: Evidence from SIPP." Washington,

DC: Mathematica Policy Research, 1987.

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

During the 1990-91 Recession?" Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, 1993.

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

Perspective on Food Stamp Program Participation. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992.

McConnell, 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.

Rao, J.N.K., C.F.J. Wu, and K. Yue. “Some Recent Work on Resampling Methods for Complex

Surveys,” Survey Methodology, vol. 18 no. 2, 1992, pp. 209-217.

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

Technical Working Paper". Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, 1994.

Trippe, Carole. "Trends in FSP Participation Rates: Focus on August 1993." Alexandria, VA: Food

and Consumer Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994.
58

Trippe, Carole. "Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: January 1992." In Current Perspectives

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

Department of Agriculture, 1994.

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

Literature." In Current Perspectives on Food Stamp Program Participation. Alexandria, VA:

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

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

Perspectives on Food Stamp Program Participation. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, July 1992.

Trippe, Carole, and Pat Doyle. "Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: January 1988." In Current

Perspectives on Food Stamp Program Participation. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 1992.

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

and Program Participation 1991 Panel Wave 4 Core Microdata File, Technical Documentation.

Washington, DC: The Census Bureau, 1993.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. Overview of Entitlement Programs:

1994 Green Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.

Wemmerus, Nancy and Kristin Porter. “An Ethnographic Analysis of Zero-Income Households in the

Survey of Income and Program Participation.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research,

Inc., 1996.

Wolter, Kirk M. Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1985.
APPENDIX A

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES USED TO 

ESTIMATE FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

IN JANUARY 1994
The methods used to estimate the SIPP-based participation rates in this report are nearly identical 1

to the methods used in earlier reports in this series.

For a more detailed discussion of the methodology used to estimate the number of food stamp 2

eligibles, see the report "Creation of the January 1992 FOSTERS Microsimulation Model and

Database" (Sykes 1994).

FSP participation was underreported in SIPP by 28 percent in January 1994. Only 8.0 million 3

units reported participating in the FSP in SIPP in January 1994, compared to 11.2 million units that

were actually issued benefits based on Program Operations data. The 28 percent discrepancy between

SIPP-based and Program Operations-based counts of FSP participants is higher than past

discrepancies: 22 percent in January 1992, 12 percent in January 1989, and 14 percent in January

1988.

61

In this appendix, we describe the data and methodology used to construct the January 1994 FSP

participation rates. First, we describe the data and methodology used to estimate the number of

1

participants. Then, we describe the creation of the SIPP-based eligibility file and explain how the

MATH-SIPP model uses this data file to simulate FSP eligibility. Finally, we assess the deficiencies

of the eligibility simulation.2

A. USING ADMINISTRATIVE DATA TO ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

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

participant counts in this report are based on FSP Program Operations data, which are derived from

a monthly census of actual FSP participation and benefit issuance. These data were adjusted to

3

exclude Guam and the Virgin Islands, which SIPP does not include, then further adjusted to exclude

benefits issued to ineligible households and benefits issued in error. The FSP caseload in January

1994 was reduced by 2.83 percent and FSP benefits were reduced by 4.98 percent to adjust for these

payment errors. The adjusted number of FSP participants in January 1994 was 10.8 million

households and 15.7 million persons. Total benefits paid to these participants was $1.8 billion.

To estimate the distribution of participants and benefits across subgroups of the FSP population--

such as households with children, single parents, or workers--we needed information on the
The IQCS database is a representative sample of the national food stamp caseload. Using IQCS 4

cases from January and February, rather than just January, doubles the sample size and increases the

accuracy of the resulting estimates.

62

distribution of the FSP caseload by demographic and income characteristics. Since Program

Operations data do not provide this information, we used a two-month (January/February 1994)

sample of food stamp case records from the FSP Integrated Quality Control System, or IQCS. Based 4

on this sample, we estimated the percentage of participants or benefits in selected subgroups, then

applied those percentages to Program Operations totals.

B. USING SIPP DATA TO ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLES

Estimates of food stamp eligibles and potential benefits in January 1994 are derived using a

representative sample of households in the U.S. and a microsimulation model (MATH SIPP) that

determines whether each household is eligible to receive food stamps. The household sample used

for this report consists of households in the SIPP universe in January 1994, including both Wave 7 of

the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993 Panel. 

Much of the effort in estimating the number of eligibles was spent preparing a SIPP file that

contained all the information needed to simulate FSP eligibility. A series of 30 programs was used

to merge information from various SIPP data products into a single data file. Then the MATH SIPP

model determined whether each household on the file was eligible to receive food stamps based on

eligibility criteria in effect in January 1994. Finally, the model calculated the benefit amount for

which each eligible household qualified.

1. What is SIPP?

SIPP is a nationally representative longitudinal survey providing detailed monthly information

on household composition, income, assets, labor force activity, and participation in various
The interviewed population is based on a multistage stratified sample of the noninstitutionalized 5

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

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 off base (U.S.

Department of Commerce 1993).

63

government programs, such as Medicaid, AFDC, SSI, and the FSP. Since the determination of FSP

eligibility is based on this information, SIPP is an ideal starting point for simulating eligibility. 

Almost every year, the Census Bureau selects a new SIPP sample, or panel, of approximately

20,000 households, and follows them for approximately two and a half years, interviewing persons in

the household every four months. In each round of interviewing (or “wave”), a core questionnaire 5

is administered, yielding information on each of the four months preceding the interview date. In most

waves, the core questions are supplemented with questions on a variety of topical issues that vary from

wave to wave. Because the interviewing process is staggered, the reference period covered in any

given wave is not the same for all sample members. When the reference periods of two panels

overlap, the panels can be combined, thereby doubling the sample size for a given calendar month.

Wave 4 of the 1993 panel and Wave 7 of the 1992 panel overlapped in January 1994. The topical

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

characteristics pertinent to the determination of FSP eligibility, such as vehicle ownership, asset

holdings, dependent care expenses, medical expenses, and shelter expenses. Combining these two

panels yields a total of 36,812 interviewed households. This sample represents an estimated U.S.

population of 253 million persons and 98 million households.

2. Creating the MATH SIPP 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
The discussion that follows is an overview of how we modeled the regulations that govern FSP 6

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 (CFR, parts 270-273).

64

Census Bureau distributes this information as separate data products, we had to combine the files to

create the MATH SIPP database.

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

present in January 1994 from Wave 7 of the 1992 Panel and Wave 4 of the 1993 Panel. From that, we

extracted most of the data needed for our simulation. Data elements not contained in the core

questionnaire were either extracted from other SIPP products, or imputed using a statistical matching

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

3. Simulating FSP Eligibility

Having gathered the data needed to determine FSP eligibility, we used the MATH-SIPP

microsimulation model to determine whether each household was eligible to receive food stamps in

January 1994. In this section we describe how the MATH-SIPP model made this determination.6

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

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

in the unit is very important. Generally, individuals who live in a residential unit and customarily

purchase and prepare food together constitute a household (or food stamp unit) as defined by the FSP,

though there are exceptions to this rule. The SIPP is not entirely suitable for identifying who is in 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:
65

C If the household reports receipt of food stamps, persons who report being covered by

food stamps are in the food stamp unit. Everyone else is excluded. Multiple food stamp

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

C If the household does not report receipt of food stamps but reports receipt of some other

form of public assistance (SSI, AFDC, means-tested veteran's benefits, or other welfare

like General Assistance), the unit includes those persons covered by the program, in

addition to their spouses and children under age 18. This assumes that the reported

public assistance unit would continue to represent themselves as one unit in the FSP,

even though they may purchase and prepare food with other persons in the household.

C If the household does not report receipt of food stamps or public assistance, everyone

in the household is included in the food stamp unit.

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

persons in group quarters are excluded.

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

Doyle et al. 1987).

b. Simulating FSP Eligibility and Potential Benefits

The MATH SIPP model acts as an FSP caseworker. Based on the FSP eligibility criteria in effect

in January 1994, it determines whether a unit is eligible to receive food stamps—a function of the

unit’s income and assets. If the unit is income- and asset-eligible, the model then calculates the food

stamp benefit for which the unit is eligible. This section summarizes the FSP eligibility rules as

simulated in the model (see Table A.1 at the end of this appendix for selected January 1994 FSP

eligibility parameters).

Determining Asset Eligibility. To be eligible for the FSP in January 1994, a food stamp unit

could have no more than $2,000 in countable assets, or $3,000 if the food stamp unit contained an

elderly person. Units composed entirely of persons on public assistance (SSI, AFDC, or GA) were

considered categorically eligible based on the Food Stamp Act.
For example, countable financial assets included money in savings accounts, money markets,

7

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

interest retirement accounts and KEOGH accounts (less an early withdrawal penalty fee).

The poverty guidelines are published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and 8

are adjusted each year to account for inflation. These poverty guidelines, and other FSP parameters,

are generally the same for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, with separate values

for Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories.

66

Countable assets included financial and vehicular assets. Most financial and nonfinancial assets

were considered countable, although 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 7

equity value (i.e., value minus debt). One principal exception was the treatment of vehicular assets.

Vehicles used for producing income or transporting disabled individuals were not counted, and

vehicles required for work-related transportation were valued at the current Blue Book listing less

$4,500. Using SIPP data, we can determine which vehicles to disregard entirely, but we cannot

determine which vehicles were used for work-related transportation. Hence, we assumed that at most

one vehicle per unit (the newest one) was used for this purpose. All remaining vehicles owned by

members of the unit were valued at the larger of either the vehicle's equity value or the vehicle’s

market value in excess of $4,500.

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

exceed 130 percent of the federal poverty guideline, and the unit's net income could not exceed 100

percent of the federal poverty guideline. There were two exceptions to these rules. First, units that 8

contained an elderly or disabled person were exempt from the gross income test. Second, units

composed entirely of persons on public assistance (SSI, AFDC, or GA) were exempt from both income

tests. Net income was computed by subtracting, from gross income, the following five deductions:

C Standard deduction of $131 (continental U.S.), $223 (Alaska), or $185 (Hawaii).
67

C Earnings deduction equal to 20 percent of earnings, in recognition of taxes and workrelated expenses.

C Dependent care expense deduction of no more than $160 per dependent.

C Medical expense deduction equal to the unit's total medical expenses in excess of $35,

as long as these expenses were incurred by elderly or disabled persons.

C Excess shelter expense deduction equal to the unit's shelter expense in excess of 50

percent of the unit's income after the previous four deductions are taken. For those units

without an elderly or disabled person, this deduction is subject to a cap of $207

(continental U.S.), $359 (Alaska), or $295 (Hawaii). The shelter expense includes the

unit's reported utility expenses or the standard utility allowance, whichever is larger.

Determining Food Stamp Benefit Amount. A unit’s potential benefit was computed by

subtracting 30 percent of the unit's net income from the unit’s maximum benefit level. Eligible oneand two-person units received a minimum benefit of $10. Units that passed the income and asset tests,

but qualified for a benefit of $0 were considered to be ineligible for the food stamp program (unless

eligible for the minimum benefit).

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 needed to determine FSP eligibility

and benefits, but some problems remain. All the simulation procedures described earlier cannot
68

perfectly replicate the eligibility and benefit determination process mandated in the legislation. The

specific discrepancies are as follows.

C Unit definition. Because SIPP does not measure the complete set of characteristics that

are used to determine who is in a food stamp unit (especially information on which

dwelling-unit members customarily purchase and prepare food together), the simulated

food stamp unit could differ from the actual food stamp unit. To determine who was in

the food stamp unit, we followed several rules. If a SIPP household reported receipt of

FSP benefits, the simulated unit was identical to the reported unit. Multiple food stamp

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

reported receipt of cash assistance, but not food stamps, the simulated unit included the

cash assistance unit plus any spouses or related children under age 18. In all other cases,

the simulated food stamp unit included the entire SIPP household. Landa (1987) and

Doyle and Dalrymple (1987) discuss using SIPP to construct food stamp households.

C Countable assets. We used the financial, nonfinancial, and vehicular assets reported in

SIPP to estimate countable assets according to FSP rules. However, SIPP does not

explicitly provide all the measures necessary for this purpose, such as cash on hand and

vehicular equity. 

C 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, survey

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 1994 was

only 72 percent of the total number of AFDC 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 example, the Food Stamp Program

counts net self-employment earnings averaged over a period of up to one year, whereas

SIPP measures self-employment draw. Third, as noted earlier, unit composition

simulated with SIPP data can differ from the FSP caseworker's determination of unit

composition. In these cases, aggregated income for the food stamp unit may differ as

well.

C 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. 
See Doyle (1990) for a more detailed discussion of the impact of measurement and reporting

9

errors on measures of food stamp eligibility.

69

C 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 distort the number of disabled individuals identified in this manner.

C Measurement error. Several forms of nonsampling 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).

The net effect these discrepancies have on the estimated number of FSP eligibles is uncertain.

Underreporting of gross income will bias the estimates of eligible households upward, since more

households will appear to pass the income tests. Also, under the automatic eligibility provision of the

Food Security Act of 1985, households comprised entirely of "seemingly-ineligible" 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 data of these seemingly

ineligible households is correct (and the reported participation data is incorrect), 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 estimated number of eligible households. Finally, the

underrepresentation of some groups of individuals may downwardly bias the estimated number of

eligibles. As illustrated earlier, the SIPP data seem to significantly underrepresent households that

receive public assistance and those that have very low incomes. These households form a large

portion of the eligible and participating populations, and the underrepresentation of these households

on SIPP causes some of the corresponding participation-rate estimates to exceed 100 percent.9
70

TABLE A.1

JANUARY 1994 FSP ELIGIBILITY PARAMETERS

Household Minimum

Size Benefit

Maximum Food Stamp Benefits Net Income Screena

48 + D.C. Alaska Hawaii 48 + D.C. Alaska Hawaii

1 $112 $147 $188 $581 $725 $670 $10

2 206 271 345 786 982 905 10

3 295 388 495 991 1,239 1,140 0

4 375 492 628 1,196 1,495 1,375 0

5 446 585 746 1,401 1,752 1,610 0

6 525 702 895 1,606 2,009 1,845 0

7 591 776 990 1,811 2,265 2,080 0

8 676 887 1,131 2,016 2,522 2,315 0

+ 85 111 141 205 257 235 0

48 + D.C. Alaska Hawaii

Standard Deduction $131 $223 $185

Excess Shelter Deduction Cap 207 359 295

Child Care Deduction Cap 160 160 160

Medical Threshold 35 35 35

Asset Limits

No Elderly in Unit 2,000 2,000 2,000

Elderly in Unit 3,000 3,000 3,000

SOURCE: Unpublished data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service.

The gross income screen is 130 percent of the net income screen, which is the federal poverty guideline. a
APPENDIX B

PERCENT CHANGE IN PARTICIPANTS AND ELIGIBLES BETWEEN

JANUARY 1989 AND JANUARY 1994
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

TABLE 1 POPULATION COUNTS

Individuals(1,000) 18,344 31,041 59.1% 24,291 32,931 73.8% 26,872 37,866 71.0% 32.4% 6.1% 14.7 10.6% 15.0% -2.8

Households(1,000) 7,037 12,689 55.5% 9,631 13,983 68.9% 10,840 15,749 68.8% 36.9% 10.2% 13.4 12.5% 12.6% -0.0

Benefits(1,000) 927,391 1,405,636 66.0% 1,615,320 1,981,717 81.5% 1,824,471 2,247,535 81.2% 74.2% 41.0% 15.5 12.9% 13.4% -0.3

Revised Individuals 18,344 30,722 59.7% 7.2% 14.1

Revised Households 7,037 12,574 56.0% 11.2% 12.9

Revised Benefits 927,391 1,391,547 66.6% 42.4% 14.9

TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS, BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

Household Size (number of persons)

1 2,298 5,144 44.7% 3,215 5,973 53.8% 3,703 6,462 57.3% 39.9% 16.1% 9.2 15.2% 8.2% 3.5

2 1,591 2,660 59.8% 2,275 2,857 79.6% 2,568 3,325 77.2% 43.0% 7.4% 19.8 12.9% 16.4% -2.4

3 1,336 1,901 70.3% 1,853 2,133 86.9% 1,965 2,298 85.5% 38.7% 12.2% 16.6 6.1% 7.8% -1.4

4 937 1,361 68.8% 1,207 1,476 81.8% 1,401 1,836 76.3% 28.8% 8.4% 12.9 16.1% 24.4% -5.4

5 486 834 58.3% 646 842 76.7% 700 997 70.2% 32.9% 1.0% 18.4 8.3% 18.4% -6.5

6+ 388 788 49.2% 435 702 62.0% 503 831 60.5% 12.1% -10.9% 12.7 15.6% 18.3% -1.4

Small (1-2) 3,889 7,804 49.8% 5,490 8,830 62.2% 6,270 9,787 64.1% 41.2% 13.1% 12.3 14.2% 10.8% 1.9

Large (3+) 3,147 4,884 64.4% 4,141 5,153 80.4% 4,569 5,962 76.6% 31.6% 5.5% 15.9 10.3% 15.7% -3.7

TOTAL 7,037 12,689 55.5% 9,631 13,983 68.9% 10,840 15,749 68.8% 36.9% 10.2% 13.4 12.5% 12.6% -0.0
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

TABLE 3 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONS

Living Alone

 Elderly 948 3,004 31.6% 1,129 3,113 36.3% 1,245 3,202 38.9% 19.1% 3.6% 4.7 10.3% 2.9% 2.6

 Disabled 302 336 89.9% 446 380 117.4% 611 657 93.0% 47.7% 13.1% 27.5 37.1% 73.0% -24.3

Living with Others

 Elderly 480 1,996 24.0% 578 2,023 28.6% 662 2,213 29.9% 20.4% 1.4% 4.5 14.6% 9.4% 1.4

 Disabled 378 852 44.4% 504 1,039 48.5% 843 1,393 60.5% 33.3% 21.9% 4.1 67.2% 34.1% 12.0

Total Elderly 1,427 5,000 28.5% 1,707 5,137 33.2% 1,908 5,414 35.2% 19.6% 2.7% 4.7 11.8% 5.4% 2.0

Total Disabled 680 1,187 57.3% 951 1,419 67.0% 1,454 2,050 70.9% 39.9% 19.5% 9.7 52.9% 44.5% 3.9

Children Under Age 18 9,098 13,372 68.0% 12,357 14,455 85.5% 13,652 17,013 80.2% 35.8% 8.1% 17.4 10.5% 17.7% -5.2

 Preschool 3,065 4,176 73.4% 4,695 4,954 94.8% 5,349 5,779 92.6% 53.2% 18.6% 21.4 13.9% 16.7% -2.2

 School-age 6,032 9,196 65.6% 7,662 9,500 80.7% 8,302 11,234 73.9% 27.0% 3.3% 15.1 8.4% 18.3% -6.8

Adults Age 18 to 59 7,539 12,668 59.5% 10,214 13,340 76.6% 11,264 15,438 73.0% 35.5% 5.3% 17.1 10.3% 15.7% -3.6

Single Non-disabled Adults 1,028 1,222 84.1% 1,527 1,358 112.4% 1,689 1,439 117.4% 48.5% 11.1% 28.3 10.6% 6.0% 4.9

Employment Status of Adults

 Employed 1,257 4,620 27.2% 1,768 4,307 41.0% 2,079 5,308 39.2% 40.7% -6.8% 13.8 17.6% 23.3% -1.9

 Unemployed 2,316 1,603 144.5% 1,216 2,171 56.0% 1,238 2,208 56.1% -47.5% 35.4% -88.5 1.8% 1.7% 0.1

 Not in the Labor Force 3,966 6,445 61.5% 7,229 6,861 105.4% 7,947 7,921 100.3% 82.3% 6.5% 43.8 9.9% 15.5% -5.0

Gender

 Male 7,342 12,823 57.3% 10,014 13,475 74.3% 10,854 15,665 69.3% 36.4% 5.1% 17.1 8.4% 16.3% -5.0

 Female 11,002 18,218 60.4% 14,276 19,456 73.4% 16,018 22,201 72.2% 29.8% 6.8% 13.0 12.2% 14.1% -1.2

Education of Adults 0.0 0.0

 More than 12 years 371 1,986 18.7% 561 2,244 25.0% 764 2,753 27.7% 51.2% 13.0% 6.3 36.1% 22.7% 2.7

 12 years or less 7,169 10,683 67.1% 4,318 11,095 38.9% 4,857 12,685 38.3% -39.8% 3.9% -28.2 12.5% 14.3% -0.6

No Children

Inside Metropolitan Area 13,162 21,866 60.2% NA 23,058 NA NA 27,787 NA NA 5.5% NA NA 20.5% NA

Outside Metropolitan Area 5,182 9,175 56.5% NA 9,639 NA NA 10,701 NA NA 5.1% NA NA 11.0% NA

Missing metro area status
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

TABLE 4 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Household Contains:

Elderly 1,291 4,451 29.0% 1,533 4,579 33.5% 1,722 4,805 35.8% 18.7% 2.9% 4.5 12.3% 4.9% 2.4

Disabled 640 1,115 57.4% 910 1,351 67.4% 1,378 1,944 70.9% 42.2% 21.2% 10.0 51.4% 43.9% 3.6

Children Under Age 18 4,216 6,010 70.1% 5,872 6,580 89.2% 6,527 7,631 85.5% 39.3% 9.5% 19.1 11.1% 16.0% -3.7

Children Ages 5 to 17 3,165 4,644 68.2% 4,070 4,988 81.6% 4,544 5,824 78.0% 28.6% 7.4% 13.4 11.6% 16.8% -3.6

Single Female Adult

 With Children 2,718 3,507 77.5% 3,833 3,789 101.2% 4,215 4,402 95.8% 41.0% 8.0% 23.7 10.0% 16.2% -5.4

Single Male Adult

 With Children 109 192 56.8% 164 208 78.8% 298 261 114.1% 50.5% 8.3% 22.1 81.5% 25.4% 35.3

Two or more Adults

 With Children 1,389 2,296 60.5% 1,874 2,417 77.5% 2,014 2,776 72.5% 34.9% 5.3% 17.0 7.5% 14.9% -5.0

White Nonhispanic Head 3,283 7,146 45.9% 4,570 7,803 58.6% 5,127 8,533 60.1% 39.2% 9.2% 12.6 12.2% 9.4% 1.5

Black Nonhispanic Head 2,653 3,452 76.9% 3,334 3,612 92.3% 3,753 4,016 93.5% 25.7% 4.6% 15.4 12.6% 11.2% 1.1

Hispanic Head 890 1,763 50.5% 1,300 2,117 61.4% 1,631 2,612 62.5% 46.1% 20.1% 10.9 25.5% 23.4% 1.1

Other 0 0 NA 427 451 94.7% 329 589 55.8% NA NA NA -23.0% 30.5% -38.9

Employed Head 925 3,557 26.0% 1,305 3,423 38.1% 1,601 4,272 37.5% 41.1% -3.8% 12.1 22.7% 24.8% -0.7

Unemployed Head 1,728 1,083 159.6% 927 1,556 59.6% 1,017 1,493 68.1% -46.4% 43.7% -100.0 9.8% -4.0% 8.6

Not in Labor Force Head 4,305 8,050 53.5% 6,892 9,004 76.5% 8,221 9,983 82.4% 60.1% 11.9% 23.1 19.3% 10.9% 5.8

Education of Household Head

 Over 12 years 310 1,846 16.8% 504 2,121 23.8% 692 2,712 25.5% 62.6% 14.9% 7.0 37.2% 27.9% 1.7

 12 years or fewer 2,515 10,843 23.2% 3,809 11,862 32.1% 4,185 13,037 32.1% 51.5% 9.4% 8.9 9.9% 9.9% -0.0

Inside Metropolitan Area 5,122 9,051 56.6% NA 9,834 NA NA 11,484 NA NA 8.7% NA NA 16.8% NA

Outside Metropolitan Area 1,915 3,639 52.6% NA 4,132 NA NA 4,548 NA NA 13.5% NA NA 10.1% NA

Metro status missing

HHs w/kids w/earnings NA NA NA 1,542 2,702 57.1% 1,907 3,455 55.2% NA NA NA 23.7% 27.9% -1.9

Single parent NA NA NA 758 1,270 59.7% 1,006 1,705 59.0% NA NA NA 32.7% 34.2% -0.7

Multiple parent NA NA NA 784 1,432 54.7% 901 1,750 51.5% NA NA NA 14.9% 22.2% -3.3

No Children NA NA NA 3,759 7,403 50.8%
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

TABLE 5 BENEFITS TO HOUSEHOLDS, BY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

(benefits in thousands of dollars)

Household Contains:

Elderly 66 214 30.8% 99 287 34.6% $117 $293 40.1% 50.5% 34.0% 3.8 18.1% 2.1% 5.4

Disabled 55 104 52.9% 103 139 74.2% $153 $215 71.2% 88.1% 33.9% 21.4 48.4% 54.8% -3.0

Children Under Age 18 750 1,048 71.6% 1,314 1,478 88.9% $1,468 $1,704 86.1% 75.2% 41.0% 17.3 11.7% 15.3% -2.8

Children Ages 5 to 17 596 849 70.2% 984 1,181 83.3% $1,076 $1,351 79.6% 65.2% 39.2% 13.1 9.4% 14.4% -3.7

Single Female Adult

 With Children 453 586 77.3% 822 826 99.6% $915 $990 92.5% 81.7% 41.1% 22.3 11.3% 19.8% -7.1

Single Male Adult

 With Children 18 26 66.9% 33 38 87.6% $57 $56 103.1% 89.2% 44.5% 20.7 72.1% 46.3% 15.4

Two or more Adults

 With Children 280 434 64.6% 459 589 77.9% $495 $659 75.2% 63.7% 35.9% 13.2 8.0% 11.8% -2.7

White Nonhispanic Head 398 668 59.5% 737 949 77.7% $803 $1,015 79.1% 85.4% 42.1% 18.2 8.9% 6.9% 1.4

Black Nonhispanic Head 366 443 82.6% 596 570 104.5% $645 $639 101.0% 63.0% 28.7% 22.0 8.3% 12.1% -3.6

Hispanic Head 131 245 53.4% 223 377 59.0% $305 $489 62.5% 70.4% 54.1% 5.6 37.1% 29.4% 3.5

Other NA NA NA 59 85 69.8% $71 $105 67.5% NA NA NA 19.1% 23.2% -2.3

Employed Head 134 429 31.2% 233 524 44.4% $285 $629 45.2% 73.7% 22.1% 13.2 22.3% 20.1% 0.8

Unemployed Head 263 178 147.8% 171 286 59.8% $182 $286 63.6% -35.0% 60.7% -88.0 6.4% -0.0% 3.8

Not in Labor Force Head 521 799 65.2% 1,149 1,172 98.0% $1,358 $1,332 101.9% 120.5% 46.7% 32.8 18.2% 13.7% 3.9

Education of Household Head

 Over 12 years 44 197 22.3% 90 301 29.9% $122 $386 31.7% 104.5% 52.8% 7.6 35.9% 28.2% 1.8

 12 years or fewer 352 1,208 29.1% 689 1,680 41.0% $737 $1,862 39.6% 95.7% 39.1% 11.9 7.0% 10.8% -1.4

Inside Metropolitan Area 669 1,011 66.2% NA 1,423 NA NA $1,678 NA NA 40.8% NA NA 17.9% NA

Outside Metropolitan Area 258 395 65.3% NA 559 NA NA $603 NA NA 41.5% NA NA 7.9% NA

Metro status missing
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS

Monthly Benefit Level:

<=$10 478 1,928 24.8% 353 1,828 19.3% 499 2,184 22.9% -26.2% -5.2% -5.5 41.5% 19.5% 3.6

$11-25 345 821 42.0% 425 738 57.6% 494 778 63.5% 23.2% -10.1% 15.6 16.2% 5.4% 5.9

$26-50 580 1,309 44.3% 628 1,172 53.6% 639 1,261 50.7% 8.3% -10.5% 9.3 1.8% 7.6% -2.9

$51-75 711 1,359 52.3% 553 1,063 52.0% 618 1,183 52.2% -22.2% -21.8% -0.3 11.7% 11.3% 0.2

$76-100 1,251 2,172 57.6% 803 979 82.0% 712 1,136 62.6% -35.8% -54.9% 24.4 -11.3% 16.1% -19.4

$101-150 1,011 1,273 79.4% 2,139 2,877 74.3% 2,522 3,165 79.7% 111.6% 126.0% -5.1 17.9% 10.0% 5.3

$151-200 1,160 1,643 70.6% 1,229 1,234 99.6% 1,479 1,399 105.7% 5.9% -24.9% 29.0 20.3% 13.4% 6.1

$201+ 1,501 2,186 68.7% 3,500 4,092 85.5% 3,877 4,643 83.5% 133.2% 87.2% 16.9 10.8% 13.5% -2.0

<=$10 478 1,928 24.8% 353 1,828 19.3% 499 2,184 22.9% -26.2% -5.2% -5.5 41.5% 19.5% 3.6

$11-75 1,636 3,489 46.9% 1,606 2,973 54.0% 1,751 3,222 54.3% -1.8% -14.8% 7.1 9.0% 8.4% 0.3

$76-150 2,262 3,445 65.7% 2,942 3,856 76.3% 3,234 4,302 75.2% 30.1% 11.9% 10.6 9.9% 11.6% -1.1

$151+ 2,661 3,829 69.5% 4,729 5,326 88.8% 5,356 6,042 88.6% 77.7% 39.1% 19.3 13.3% 13.4% -0.1

Monthly Benefit Level as % of Maximum Benefit:

1%-25% 1,032 3,232 31.9% 1,092 3,254 33.6% 1,391 3,818 36.4% 5.8% 0.7% 1.6 27.4% 17.3% 2.9

26%-50% 1,315 2,573 51.1% 1,667 2,482 67.2% 1,676 2,829 59.2% 26.8% -3.5% 16.1 0.5% 14.0% -7.9

51%-75% 1,835 2,520 72.8% 2,159 2,668 80.9% 2,459 2,974 82.7% 17.7% 5.9% 8.1 13.9% 11.5% 1.7

76%-99% 1,501 1,800 83.4% 2,518 2,316 108.7% 2,665 2,622 101.6% 67.8% 28.7% 25.3 5.8% 13.2% -7.1

100% 1,353 2,564 52.8% 2,194 3,263 67.2% 2,649 3,505 75.6% 62.2% 27.3% 14.5 20.7% 7.4% 8.3

Low (1-75%) 4,182 8,325 50.2% 4,918 8,404 58.5% 5,526 9,621 57.4% 17.6% 0.9% 8.3 12.4% 14.5% -1.1

High (76-100%%) 2,854 4,364 65.4% 4,712 5,579 84.5% 5,314 6,128 86.7% 65.1% 27.8% 19.1 12.8% 9.8% 2.3
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

TABLE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS

Income as a Percentage of Poverty:

Total <= 100 17,032 23,167 73.5% 22,328 25,154 88.8% 24,575 28,598 85.9% 31.1% 8.6% 15.2 10.1% 13.7% -2.8

0 1,084 1,230 88.1% 1,573 1,578 99.7% 1,715 1,522 112.6% 45.1% 28.3% 11.6 9.0% -3.5% 13.0

1-50 6,618 8,219 80.5% 9,129 9,095 100.4% 9,476 9,888 95.8% 37.9% 10.7% 19.9 3.8% 8.7% -4.5

51-100 9,331 13,718 68.0% 11,626 14,481 80.3% 13,383 17,188 77.9% 24.6% 5.6% 12.3 15.1% 18.7% -2.4

Total > 100 1,311 7,873 16.7% 1,963 7,777 25.2% 2,298 9,267 24.8% 49.7% -1.2% 8.6 17.0% 19.2% -0.4

101-130 1,242 6,804 18.3% 1,895 6,460 29.3% 2,192 7,738 28.3% 52.6% -5.1% 11.1 15.7% 19.8% -1.0

130+ 70 1,069 6.5% 68 1,317 5.2% 106 1,529 6.9% -2.9% 23.2% -1.4 55.9% 16.1% 1.8

TABLE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS

Income as a Percentage of Poverty:

Total <= 100 6,519 9,030 72.2% 8,870 10,288 86.2% 9,905 11,356 87.2% 36.1% 13.9% 14.0 11.7% 10.4% 1.0

0 532 647 82.2% 924 880 105.0% 1,105 773 142.9% 73.7% 36.0% 22.8 19.5% -12.2% 37.9

1-50 2,224 2,573 86.4% 3,091 3,029 102.0% 3,300 3,310 99.7% 39.0% 17.7% 15.6 6.8% 9.3% -2.4

51-100 3,763 5,811 64.8% 4,856 6,379 76.1% 5,500 7,273 75.6% 29.0% 9.8% 11.4 13.3% 14.0% -0.5

Total > 100 518 3,659 14.2% 761 3,695 20.6% 935 4,393 21.3% 46.9% 1.0% 6.4 22.8% 18.9% 0.7

101-130 474 2,973 15.9% 716 2,885 24.8% 873 3,370 25.9% 51.1% -3.0% 8.9 21.9% 16.8% 1.1

130+ 44 686 6.4% 45 810 5.6% 62 1,023 6.0% 2.3% 18.1% -0.9 37.2% 26.3% 0.5

TABLE 9 BENEFITS TO HOUSEHOLDS (in millions of dollars)

Income as a Percentage of Poverty:

Total <= 100 903 1,251 72.2% 1,564 1,770 88.4% 1,765 1,998 88.4% 73.2% 41.4% 16.2 12.9% 12.9% -0.0

0 88 100 88.1% 160 159 100.3% 182 153 119.0% 81.9% 59.6% 12.3 13.9% -4.0% 18.7

1-50 439 559 78.6% 765 792 96.6% 830 872 95.2% 74.2% 41.7% 18.0 8.6% 10.1% -1.4

51-100 376 593 63.5% 640 819 78.1% 754 974 77.4% 69.9% 38.1% 14.6 17.8% 18.9% -0.7

Total > 100 24 154 15.7% 52 212 24.3% 59 250 23.7% 113.2% 37.6% 8.6 14.7% 17.6% -0.6

101-130 23 135 17.3% 51 179 28.4% 57 212 26.8% 118.5% 33.0% 11.1 11.9% 18.4% -1.6

130+ 1 20 4.6% 1 33 2.1% 2 37 6.0% -22.2% 68.7% -2.5 221.8% 13.4% 3.9
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

TABLE 10 HOUSEHOLDS

Source of Income:

Earned Income 1,383 4,277 32.3% 1,910 3,959 48.2% 2,301 5,026 45.8% 38.1% -7.4% 15.9 20.5% 26.9% -2.5

SSI 1,401 2,093 66.9% 1,755 2,393 73.3% 2,251 2,767 81.4% 25.3% 14.3% 6.4 25.3% 14.3% 8.0

 Elderly in the Unit 789 1,351 58.4% 876 1,372 63.8% 926 1,314 70.5% 11.0% 1.6% 5.4 5.7% -4.2% 6.6

 No Elderly in the Unit 612 741 82.6% 879 1,020 86.2% 1,325 1,453 91.2% 43.6% 37.7% 3.6 50.7% 42.4% 5.0

Public Assistance 3,640 3,009 121.0% 4,574 3,783 120.9% 4,979 4,277 116.4% 25.7% 25.7% -0.1 8.8% 13.1% -4.5

 AFDC 2,899 2,381 121.8% 3,754 3,129 120.0% 4,234 3,642 116.3% 29.5% 31.4% -1.8 12.8% 16.4% -3.7

 Other Welfare 791 748 105.7% 885 744 119.0% 770 702 109.7% 11.9% -0.5% 13.2 -13.0% -5.7% -9.3

Unemployment

 Compensation 157 343 45.8% 267 648 41.2% 256 496 51.7% 70.1% 88.9% -4.6 -4.0% -23.5% 10.5
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

Table 11a HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY

Benefit Level as a % of Maximum Benefit:

 1%-25% 692 890 77.7% 672 1,010 66.5% 850 1,175 72.3% -2.8% 13.5% -11.2 26.4% 16.3% 5.8

 26%-50% 1,174 1,632 71.9% 1,405 1,507 93.3% 1,370 1,698 80.7% 19.8% -7.6% 21.3 -2.5% 12.6% -12.6

 51%-75% 1,808 2,308 78.3% 2,097 2,450 85.6% 2,397 2,639 90.9% 16.0% 6.2% 7.2 14.3% 7.7% 5.3

 76%-99% 1,496 1,747 85.6% 2,508 2,253 111.3% 2,653 2,536 104.6% 67.7% 28.9% 25.7 5.8% 12.6% -6.7

 100% 1,350 2,453 55.0% 2,187 3,067 71.3% 2,635 3,315 79.5% 62.1% 25.0% 16.3 20.5% 8.1% 8.2

Household Composition

 Elderly Present 1,131 2,574 43.9% 1,312 2,745 47.8% 1,446 2,776 52.1% 16.0% 6.6% 3.9 10.2% 1.1% 4.3

 Living Alone 848 1,723 49.2% 981 1,924 51.0% 1,059 1,856 57.1% 15.8% 11.7% 1.8 7.9% -3.5% 6.0

 Living with others 283 851 33.3% 331 821 40.2% 387 919 42.1% 16.8% -3.5% 7.0 17.0% 12.0% 1.8

 Nonelderly Households

 With Earnings 1,043 2,377 43.9% 1,407 2,129 66.1% 1,747 2,729 64.0% 35.0% -10.4% 22.2 24.1% 28.2% -2.1

 With Children 845 1,825 46.3% 1,154 1,613 71.6% 1,461 2,049 71.3% 36.6% -11.6% 25.3 26.6% 27.1% -0.3

 Without Children 198 552 35.8% 253 517 49.0% 286 679 42.1% 27.9% -6.5% 13.2 13.0% 31.5% -6.9

All HHs w/kids w/earnings NA NA NA 1,178 1,648 71.5% 1,477 2,080 71.0% NA NA NA 25.4% 26.2% -0.5

 Single parent NA NA NA 568 780 72.7% 762 1,022 74.6% NA NA NA 34.3% 31.0% 1.8

 Multiple parent NA NA NA 611 868 70.4% 714 1,058 67.6% NA NA NA 17.0% 21.9% -2.8

 Other 4,345 4,079 106.5% 6,151 5,414 113.6% 6,712 5,852 114.7% 41.6% 32.7% 7.1 9.1% 8.1% 1.1

Total 6,519 9,030 72.2% 8,870 10,288 86.2% 9,905 11,356 87.2% 36.1% 13.9% 14.0 11.7% 10.4% 1.0

Inside Metropolitan Area 4,774 6,336 75.4% NA 7,254 NA NA 8,240 NA NA 14.5% NA NA 13.6% NA

Outside Metropolitan Area 1,744 2,694 64.7% NA 3,034 NA NA 3,307 NA NA 12.6% NA NA 9.0% NA

Metro status missing 4 427 0.9%

Population Counts

 Persons (thousands) 17,032 23,167 73.5% 22,328 25,154 88.8% 24,575 28,598 85.9% 31.1% 8.6% 15.2 10.1% 13.7% -2.8

 Households (thousands) 6,519 9,030 72.2% 8,870 10,288 86.2% 9,905 11,356 87.2% 36.1% 13.9% 14.0 11.7% 10.4% 1.0

 Benefits (millions) 903 1,251 72.2% 1,564 1,770 88.4% 1,765 1,998 88.4% 73.1% 41.4% 16.2 12.9% 12.9% -0.0
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

Table 11b HOUSEHOLDS ABOVE POVERTY

Benefit Level as a % of Maximum Benefit

 1%-25% 341 2,342 14.5% 420 2,244 18.7% 541 2,643 20.5% 23.4% -4.2% 4.2 28.8% 17.8% 1.7

 26%-50% 142 942 15.0% 262 975 26.9% 306 1,138 26.9% 85.1% 3.6% 11.8 16.9% 16.7% 0.1

 51%-75% 26 212 12.4% 62 217 28.7% 62 336 18.4% 136.9% 2.6% 16.3 -1.3% 54.3% -10.3

 76%-99% 6 52 10.6% 10 63 15.7% 12 86 13.8% 77.1% 20.2% 5.0 20.6% 36.6% -1.8

 100% 4 111 3.4% 7 195 3.4% 14 191 7.2% 76.0% 75.9% 0.0 107.1% -2.4% 3.8

Composition

 Elderly Present 161 1,877 8.6% 221 1,834 12.0% 276 2,029 13.6% 37.4% -2.3% 3.5 25.0% 10.6% 1.6

 Living Alone 97 1,281 7.6% 151 1,190 12.7% 201 1,346 15.0% 55.5% -7.2% 5.1 33.5% 13.1% 2.3

 Living with others 64 596 10.7% 70 644 10.9% 75 683 10.9% 9.8% 8.1% 0.2 6.6% 6.0% 0.1

 Nonelderly Households

 With Earnings 271 1,460 18.6% 423 1,435 29.5% 489 1,869 26.2% 56.0% -1.7% 10.9 15.6% 30.3% -3.3

 With Children 233 1,025 22.7% 360 1,021 35.2% 425 1,329 32.0% 54.4% -0.4% 12.5 18.0% 30.1% -3.3

 Without Children 38 435 8.7% 63 414 15.2% 64 541 11.9% 66.2% -4.8% 6.5 2.1% 30.6% -3.3

All HHs w/kids w/earnings NA NA NA 363 1,054 34.5% 430 1,375 31.3% NA NA NA 18.3% 30.4% -3.2

Single parent NA NA NA 190 490 38.8% 243 683 35.7% NA NA NA 28.1% 39.4% -3.1

Multiple parent NA NA NA 173 564 30.7% 187 692 27.0% NA NA NA 7.6% 22.6% -3.8

 Other 86 322 26.8% 118 425 27.6% 170 495 34.3% 36.4% 32.2% 0.9 44.6% 16.3% 6.7

Total 518 3,659 14.2% 761 3,695 20.6% 935 4,393 21.3% 47.0% 1.0% 6.4 22.8% 18.9% 0.7

Inside Metropolitan Area 347 2,713 12.8% NA 2,580 NA NA 3,244 NA NA -4.9% NA NA 25.8% NA

Outside Metropolitan Area 171 946 18.0% NA 1,115 NA NA 1,241 NA NA 17.8% NA NA 11.3% NA

Metro status missing 2 79 2.4%

Population Counts

 Persons (thousands) 1,311 7,873 16.7% 1,963 7,777 25.2% 2,298 9,267 24.8% 49.7% -1.2% 8.6 17.1% 19.2% -0.4

 Households (thousands) 518 3,659 14.2% 761 3,695 20.6% 935 4,393 21.3% 47.0% 1.0% 6.4 22.8% 18.9% 0.7

 Benefits (millions) 24 154 15.7% 52 212 24.3% 59 250 23.7% 112.7% 37.6% 8.6 14.8% 17.6% -0.6
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

Table 11c HOUSEHOLDS TOTAL

Benefit Level as a % of Maximum Benefit

 1%-25% 1,032 3,232 31.9% 1,092 3,254 33.6% 1,391 3,818 36.4% 5.8% 0.7% 1.6 27.3% 17.3% 2.9

 26%-50% 1,315 2,573 51.1% 1,667 2,482 67.2% 1,676 2,829 59.2% 26.8% -3.5% 16.1 0.5% 14.0% -7.9

 51%-75% 1,835 2,520 72.8% 2,159 2,668 80.9% 2,459 2,974 82.7% 17.7% 5.9% 8.1 13.9% 11.5% 1.7

 76%-99% 1,501 1,800 83.4% 2,518 2,316 108.7% 2,665 2,622 101.6% 67.8% 28.7% 25.3 5.8% 13.2% -7.1

 100% 1,353 2,564 52.8% 2,194 3,263 67.2% 2,649 3,505 75.6% 62.1% 27.2% 14.5 20.7% 7.4% 8.3

Composition

 Elderly Present 1,291 4,451 29.0% 1,533 4,579 33.5% 1,722 4,805 35.8% 18.7% 2.9% 4.5 12.3% 4.9% 2.4

 Living Alone 945 3,004 31.4% 1,132 3,113 36.4% 1,260 3,202 39.4% 19.8% 3.6% 4.9 11.3% 2.8% 3.0

 Living with others 347 1,447 24.0% 401 1,466 27.3% 461 1,603 28.8% 15.5% 1.3% 3.4 15.2% 9.4% 1.5

 Nonelderly Households

 With Earnings 1,314 3,837 34.2% 1,830 3,564 51.3% 2,236 4,598 48.6% 39.3% -7.1% 17.1 22.2% 29.0% -2.7

 With Children 1,078 2,850 37.8% 1,514 2,634 57.5% 1,886 3,378 55.8% 40.4% -7.6% 19.7 24.5% 28.3% -1.7

 Without Children 236 987 23.9% 316 931 34.0% 350 1,220 28.7% 34.0% -5.7% 10.1 10.8% 31.1% -5.2

All HHs w/kids w/earnings NA NA NA 1,542 2,702 57.1% 1,907 3,455 55.2% NA NA NA 23.7% 27.9% -1.9

Single parent NA NA NA 758 1,270 59.6% 1,006 1,705 59.0% NA NA NA 32.8% 34.2% -0.7

Multiple parent NA NA NA 784 1,432 54.8% 901 1,750 51.5% NA NA NA 14.9% 22.2% -3.3

 Other 4,431 4,401 100.7% 6,269 5,840 107.3% 6,882 6,346 108.4% 41.5% 32.7% 6.6 9.8% 8.7% 1.1

Total 7,037 12,689 55.5% 9,631 13,983 68.9% 10,840 15,749 68.8% 36.9% 10.2% 13.4 12.5% 12.6% -0.1

Inside Metropolitan Area 5,122 9,049 56.6% NA 9,834 NA NA 11,484 0.0% NA 8.7% NA NA 16.8% NA

Outside Metropolitan Area 1,915 3,641 52.6% NA 4,149 NA NA 4,548 0.0% NA 14.0% NA NA 9.6% NA

Metro status missing 6 506 1.2%

Population Counts

 Persons (thousands) 18,344 31,041 59.1% 24,291 32,931 73.8% 26,872 37,866 71.0% 32.4% 6.1% 14.7 10.6% 15.0% -2.8

 Households (thousands) 7,037 12,689 55.5% 9,631 13,983 68.9% 10,840 15,749 68.8% 36.9% 10.2% 13.4 12.5% 12.6% -0.1

 Benefits (millions) 927 1,406 66.0% 1,615 1,982 81.5% 1,824 2,248 81.2% 74.2% 41.0% 15.5 12.9% 13.4% -0.3
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

Table 12 HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY AT THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT

Elderly 100 509 19.7% 130 544 23.8% 164 585 28.1% 29.0% 6.8% 4.1 27.0% 7.6% 4.3

 living alone 75 340 22.2% 104 379 27.4% 122 425 28.8% 37.7% 11.7% 5.2 18.0% 12.1% 1.5

 living with others 25 170 14.7% 26 165 15.6% 42 160 26.2% 3.0% -3.0% 0.9 62.9% -2.8% 10.6

Nonelderly households w/earnings 155 389 39.8% 201 323 62.1% 244 418 58.3% 29.6% -16.9% 22.3 21.5% 29.5% -3.8

 with children 70 173 40.8% 74 179 41.3% 118 161 73.0% 4.9% 3.5% 0.5 59.4% -9.9% 31.8

 without children 84 216 39.0% 127 144 87.8% 126 257 49.0% 50.2% -33.2% 48.8 -0.5% 78.2% -38.8

Nonelderly HHs w/out earnings 1,077 1,515 71.1% 1,798 2,079 86.4% 2152 2,245 95.8% 66.9% 37.3% 15.4 19.7% 8.0% 9.4

 with children 484 852 56.7% 795 1,033 76.9% 879 1,224 71.8% 64.3% 21.2% 20.2 10.6% 18.5% -5.1

 without children 593 662 89.5% 1,003 1,046 95.9% 1273 1,021 124.6% 69.1% 57.9% 6.3 26.9% -2.4% 28.8

All HHs w/kids w/earnings NA NA NA 75 181 41.3% 119 165 72.1% NA NA NA 59.3% -8.7% 30.8

Single parent NA NA NA 28 108 25.6% 82 101 81.0% NA NA NA 194.4% -6.9% 55.4

Multiple parent NA NA NA 47 73 64.7% 37 64 58.0% NA NA NA -20.7% -11.5% -6.7

Income as percent of poverty

 0 532 647 82.2% 924 880 104.9% 1105 773 142.9% 73.7% 36.1% 22.7 19.6% -12.2% 38.0

 1-50 694 1,295 53.6% 1,043 1,561 66.8% 1206 1,818 66.4% 50.2% 20.5% 13.2 15.6% 16.5% -0.5

 51-100 106 471 22.5% 161 505 31.8% 249 658 37.9% 51.9% 7.3% 9.4 54.8% 30.2% 6.0

Inside Metropolitan Area 960 1,707 56.2% NA 2,175 NA NA 2,417 NA NA 27.4% NA NA 11.1% NA

Outside Metropolitan Area 372 706 52.7% NA 771 NA NA 899 NA NA 9.2% NA NA 16.5% NA

Metro status missing 2 136 1.5%

Total Households 1,332 2,413 55.2% 2,128 2,946 72.2% 2560 3,249 78.8% 59.7% 22.1% 17.0 20.3% 10.3% 6.6
January 1989 January 1992 January 1994 January 1989 - January 1992 January 1992 - January 1994

Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Participating Eligible Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Households Households Participation Participants Eligibles Part. Rate Participants Eligibles Part. Rate

(000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (000s) (000s) Rate (percent) (percent) (% points) (percent) (percent) (% points)

Table 13 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS

Household Size

 1 2,298 5,144 44.7% 3,215 5,973 53.8% 3,703 6,462 57.3% 39.9% 16.1% 9.2 15.2% 8.2% 3.5

 2 1,591 2,660 59.8% 2,275 2,857 79.6% 2,568 3,325 77.2% 43.0% 7.4% 19.8 12.8% 16.4% -2.4

 3 1,336 1,901 70.3% 1,853 2,133 86.9% 1,965 2,298 85.5% 38.7% 12.2% 16.6 6.0% 7.8% -1.4

 4 937 1,361 68.8% 1,207 1,476 81.8% 1,401 1,836 76.3% 28.8% 8.4% 13.0 16.1% 24.4% -5.5

 5 486 834 58.2% 646 842 76.7% 700 997 70.2% 32.9% 0.9% 18.5 8.4% 18.4% -6.5

 6+ 388 788 49.3% 435 702 62.0% 503 831 60.5% 12.0% -10.9% 12.7 15.7% 18.4% -1.4

Households contain

 Elderly 1,291 4,451 29.0% 1,533 4,579 33.5% 1,722 4,805 35.8% 18.7% 2.9% 4.5 12.3% 4.9% 2.4

 Elderly Living alone 945 3,004 31.4% 1,132 3,113 36.4% 1,260 3,202 39.4% 19.8% 3.6% 4.9 11.3% 2.8% 3.0

 Disabled 640 1,115 57.4% 910 1,351 67.4% 1,378 1,944 70.9% 42.3% 21.1% 10.0 51.4% 43.9% 3.5

 Disabled living alone 301 336 89.6% 448 380 117.8% 619 657 94.1% 48.7% 13.1% 28.2 38.2% 73.0% -23.7

 Children under age 18 4,216 6,010 70.1% 5,872 6,580 89.2% 6,527 7,631 85.5% 39.3% 9.5% 19.1 11.2% 16.0% -3.7

 Children under age 5 2,262 3,020 74.9% 3,430 3,533 97.1% 3,820 4,116 92.8% 51.6% 17.0% 22.2 11.4% 16.5% -4.3

 Children ages 5 to 17 3,165 4,644 68.2% 4,070 4,988 81.6% 4,544 5,824 78.0% 28.6% 7.4% 13.4 11.6% 16.8% -3.6

 Single-female with children 2,718 3,507 77.5% 3,833 3,789 101.2% 4,215 4,402 95.8% 41.0% 8.0% 23.7 10.0% 16.2% -5.4

 Single male with children 109 192 56.7% 164 208 79.0% 298 261 114.1% 50.9% 8.2% 22.4 81.5% 25.7% 35.1

 Two or more adults w/children 1,389 2,296 60.5% 1,874 2,417 77.5% 2,014 2,776 72.5% 34.9% 5.3% 17.0 7.4% 14.8% -5.0

 Single able-bodied adult

 (nonelderly, nondisabled) 1,024 1,222 83.8% 1,531 1,358 112.7% 1,710 1,439 118.8% 49.4% 11.1% 28.9 11.7% 6.0% 6.1

 White nonhispanic head 3,236 7,146 45.3% 4,570 7,803 58.6% 5,127 8,533 60.1% 41.2% 9.2% 13.3 12.2% 9.4% 1.5

 Black nonhispanic head 2,615 3,452 75.8% 3,334 3,612 92.3% 3,753 4,016 93.5% 27.5% 4.6% 16.6 12.6% 11.2% 1.1

 Hispanic Head 878 1,763 49.8% 1,300 2,117 61.4% 1,631 2,612 62.5% 48.2% 20.1% 11.6 25.5% 23.4% 1.1

Household income includes:

 Earnings 1,383 4,277 32.3% 1,910 3,959 48.2% 2,301 5,026 45.8% 38.2% -7.4% 15.9 20.4% 26.9% -2.5

 SSI 1,401 2,093 67.0% 1,755 2,393 73.4% 2,251 2,767 81.4% 25.3% 14.3% 6.4 28.2% 15.6% 8.0

 Unemployment compensation 157 343 45.6% 267 648 41.2% 256 496 51.7% 70.6% 88.8% -4.4 -4.0% -23.5% 10.5

Population Counts

 Persons (thousands) 18,344 31,041 59.1% 24,291 32,931 73.8% 26,872 37,866 71.0% 32.4% 6.1% 14.7 10.6% 15.0% -2.8

 Households (thousands) 7,037 12,689 55.5% 9,631 13,983 68.9% 10,840 15,749 68.8% 36.9% 10.2% 13.4 12.5% 12.6% -0.1

 Benefits (millions) 927 1,406 66.0% 1,615 1,982 81.5% 1,824 2,248 81.2% 74.2% 41.0% 15.5 12.9% 13.4% -0.3

Pov Ratio

 0 532 647 82.2% 924 880 104.9% 1,105 773 142.9% 73.7% 36.1% 22.7 19.6% -12.2% 38.0

 1-50 2,224 2,573 86.5% 3,091 3,029 102.0% 3,300 3,310 99.7% 39.0% 17.8% 15.6 6.8% 9.3% -2.3

 51-100 3,763 5,811 64.8% 4,856 6,379 76.1% 5,500 7,273 75.6% 29.0% 9.8% 11.4 13.3% 14.0% -0.5

 Total > 100 518 3,659 14.2% 761 3,695 20.6% 935 4,393 21.3% 47.0% 1.0% 6.4 22.8% 18.9% 0.7
APPENDIX C

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE IQCS AND SIPP

DATA USED TO ESTIMATE PARTICIPATION RATES
87

APPENDIX C

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES

FOR THE IQCS CASE RECORDS

Month/Year IQCS Case Records

July/August 1985 6,894

January/February 1988 11,012

January/February 1989 10,514

January/February 1992 9,826

January/February 1994 9,144

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES

FOR SIPP

Month/Year Eligible Households All Households

August 1985 3,559 27,600

January 1988 2,431 18,870

January 1989 2,843 22,040

January 1992 5,035 33,849

January 1994 5,732 36,593
APPENDIX D

SAMPLING ERROR OF PARTICIPATION RATE ESTIMATES
For a discussion of this method, see Wolter (1985). 1

91

Sampling Error

The participation rates contained in this report represent the ratio of food stamp participants to

food stamp eligibles. Participant counts are based on Food Stamp Program Operations data and a

two-month sample from the Integrated Quality Control System (IQCS). Eligible counts are based on

SIPP data from January 1994. Since both counts are derived from samples, both are subject to

statistical sampling error, as are the resulting participation rate estimates.

One indicator of the magnitude of the sampling error associated with a given estimate is its

standard error. Standard errors measure the variation in estimated values that would be observed if

multiple replications of the sample were drawn. The magnitude of the standard errors depends on: (1)

the degree of variation in the variable within the population from which the sample is drawn; (2) the

design of the sample, including such issues as stratification and sampling probabilities; and (3) the size

of the sample on which the estimate is based. This appendix presents estimates of the standard errors

associated with selected participation rates.

Standard Errors of Participation Rates

Generally, the variance of a nonlinear variable, such as a participation rate, can not be estimated

directly. Rather, one must estimate the variance of a linear approximation of the nonlinear variable.

To estimate the variance of participation rates contained in this report, we first use a Taylor series

expansion to produce a linear approximation of the participation rate. Then, the variance of the

1

participation rate--var(r)--can be expressed as a function of the number of participants (p), the number

of eligibles (e), and their respective variances (equation 1). The standard error of the participation rate

is simply the square root of the variance.

(1) var(r) = var(p/e) = (1/e) var(p) + p var(1/e) 

2 2
(2) var(r

94&r92) ' var(r94) % var(r92)

A confidence interval is a range of values that will contain the true value of an estimated

2

variable with a known probability. For instance, an 80 percent confidence interval extends

approximately 1.28 standard errors above and below the estimated value for a characteristic, and 80

percent of all confidence intervals will contain the true value.

92

Because the IQCS sample design is relatively simple, we directly calculated the variance of the

number of participants. The SIPP, however, has a complex sample design. Therefore, we estimated

the variance of the number of eligibles using a "jackknife" estimator (Rao, Wu, and Yue, 1992). Using

the jackknife method involves calculating alternative estimates of the number of eligible households

based on subsamples of the SIPP, then obtaining a variance by measuring the variability in the

alternative estimates. Estimates of the variance of participation rates for 1994 and 1992, and

confidence intervals for those rates, are presented in Tables D.1 and D.2.2

Standard Errors of Changes in Participation Rates

The variance of the change in participation rate between two years, in this case 1992 and 1994, is

equal to the sum of the individual variances.

Table D.3 presents estimated variances and confidence intervals for the change in participation rates

between 1992 and 1994 among selected subgroups.
TABLE D.1

SAMPLING ERROR ASSOCIATED WITH JANUARY 1994 SIPP-BASED FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

Eligibles Participants Confidence

Number Variance of Number Adjusted Variance of Participation Interval

Variable (000s) (1/eligibles) (000s) (000s) Participants Rate 80 Percent

Units 15,749 6.57E-19 11,217 10,840 0 68.8% +/- 1.2%

Participants 37,866 1.71E-19 28,131 26,872 0 71.0% +/- 1.5%

Benefits 2,247,535 5.87E-23 1,873,681 1,824,471 0 81.2% +/- 1.8%

Children 17,013 1.68E-18 14,297 13,652 5.73E+10 80.2% +/- 3.0%

Non-Elderly Adults 15,438 1.16E-18 11,797 11,264 1.45E+10 73.0% +/- 1.9%

Elderly Persons 5,414 2.06E-17 1,998 1,908 6.18E+09 35.2% +/- 2.2%

Disabled Persons 2,050 3.88E-16 1,523 1,454 2.86E+09 70.9% +/- 5.1%

Households With

Single parent & kids 4,663 2.94E-17 4,671 4,513 7.58E+09 96.8% +/- 4.0%

Minimum benefit 2,155 2.77E-16 512 499 1.16E+09 23.2% +/- 2.3%

Maximum benefit 3,432 7.40E-17 2,663 2,649 5.47E+09 77.2% +/- 4.0%

Earnings 4,975 2.35E-17 2,381 2,301 4.67E+09 46.2% +/- 2.3%

SSI 2,767 1.40E-16 2,329 2,251 3.57E+09 84.2% +/- 4.5%

PA income 6,587 1.03E-17 5,152 4,979 6.75E+09 78.2% +/- 2.7%

Unemp. Insurance 496 2.47E-14 265 256 8.29E+08 53.5% +/- 9.2%

SOURCE: January 1994 MATH SIPP database and Winter 1994 IQCS database.

93
TABLE D.2

SAMPLING ERROR ASSOCIATED WITH JANUARY 1992 SIPP-BASED FSP PARTICIPATION RATES

Eligibles Participants Confidence

Number Variance of Number Adjusted Variance of Participation Interval

Variable (000s) (1/eligibles) 000s (000s) Participants Rate (80 Percent)

Units 13,983 1.15E-18 9,977 9,631 0 68.9% +/- 1.4%

Participants 32,931 2.89E-19 25,521 24,291 0 73.8% +/- 1.8%

Benefits 1,981,717 9.58E-23 1,698,726 1,615,320 0 81.5% +/- 2.1%

Children 14,455 1.37E-18 13,126 12,357 4.31E+10 85.5% +/- 2.7%

Non-Elderly Adults 13,340 2.10E-18 10,652 10,214 1.05E+10 76.6% +/- 2.2%

Elderly Persons 5,137 3.04E-17 1,741 1,707 3.55E+09 33.2% +/- 1.9%

Disabled Persons 1,419 1.54E-15 979 951 1.71E+09 67.0% +/- 6.2%

Households With

Single parent & kids 3,998 5.55E-17 4,256 3,997 5.60E+09 100.0% +/- 4.7%

Minimum benefit 1,823 5.98E-16 351 353 6.58E+08 19.4% +/- 2.1%

Maximum benefit 3,139 1.17E-16 2,155 2,194 3.52E+09 69.9% +/- 3.8%

Earnings 3,896 5.70E-17 1,976 1,910 3.20E+09 49.0% +/- 2.7%

SSI 2,393 2.62E-16 1,786 1,755 2.74E+09 73.4% +/- 4.7%

PA income 5,805 1.76E-17 4,867 4,574 4.80E+09 78.8% +/- 3.0%

Unemp. Insurance 648 1.27E-14 273 267 4.57E+08 41.2% +/- 5.8%

SOURCE: January 1992 MATH SIPP database and Winter 1992 IQCS database.

94
TABLE D.3

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES BETWEEN 1992 AND 1994

Participation Rate Rate Change (1992-1994)

Confidence

1992 1994 Interval Variance of Std. Error of

(% points) (80 Percent) Rate Change Rate Change

Units 68.9% 68.8% -0.1% +/- 1.8% 1.97E-04 1.4%

Participants 73.8% 71.0% -2.8% +/- 2.3% 3.23E-04 1.8%

Benefits 81.5% 81.2% -0.3% +/- 2.8% 4.82E-04 2.2%

Children 85.5% 80.2% -5.2% +/- 4.0% 9.85E-04 3.1%

Non-Elderly Adults 76.6% 73.0% -3.6% +/- 2.9% 5.20E-04 2.3%

Elderly Persons 33.2% 35.2% 2.0% +/- 2.9% 5.20E-04 2.3%

Disabled Persons 67.0% 70.9% 3.9% +/- 8.0% 3.91E-03 6.3%

Households With

Single parent & kids 100.0% 96.8% -3.2% +/- 6.2% 2.35E-03 4.8%

Minimum benefit 19.4% 23.2% 3.8% +/- 3.1% 5.95E-04 2.4%

Maximum benefit 69.9% 77.2% 7.3% +/- 5.6% 1.89E-03 4.3%

Earnings 49.0% 46.2% -2.8% +/- 3.5% 7.56E-04 2.7%

SSI 73.4% 84.2% 10.8% +/- 6.5% 2.54E-03 5.0%

PA income 78.8% 78.2% -0.6% +/- 4.0% 9.90E-04 3.1%

Unemp. Insurance 41.2% 53.5% 12.3% +/- 10.8% 7.14E-03 8.5%

SOURCE: January 1992 and January 1994 MATH SIPP database; Winter 1992 and Winter 1994 IQCS database.

95