Contract No.: 53-3198-6-017

MPR Reference No.: 8370-019

TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES:

FOCUS ON AUGUST 1995

October 17, 1997

Authors:

Scott Cody

Carole Trippe

Submitted to: Submitted by:

U.S. Department of Agriculture Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Food and Consumer Services 600 Maryland Ave., SW, Suite 550

3101 Park Center Drive Washington, DC 20024-2512

2 Floor (202) 484-9220 nd

Alexandria, VA 22302

Project Officer: Project Director:

Jenny Genser Carole Trippe

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

contract is $2,199,819.
iii

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ................................................................ ix

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

TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES: FOCUS ON AUGUST 1995 ................. 1

A. TRENDS IN AGGREGATE RATES .......................................... 3

1. Rates for Individuals Fell, Spurred by a Decrease in Participants .............. 4

2. Household Rate Showed Little Change Between 1994 and 1995 .............. 5

3. Benefit Rate Showed Little Change Between 1994 and 1995 ................. 5

B. REASONS FOR THE DECLINE IN AGGREGATE RATES .................... 9

C. TRENDS IN RATES FOR SUBGROUPS OF THE ELIGIBLE 

POPULATION ........................................................ 13

1. Demographic Subgroups ............................................. 13

2. Economic Subgroups ............................................... 16

D. METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 30

1. Changes to Methodology from the Original August 1994 

Estimates to the Revised August 1995 Estimates .......................... 31

2. Determining FSP Eligibles ........................................... 34

3. Determining the Number of FSP Participants ............................. 37

4. Calculating FSP Participation Rates .................................... 38

REFERENCES ........................................................ 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

iv

APPENDIX A: SELECTED FEATURES OF THE CPS-BASED TRENDS FILE

APPENDIX B: SELECTED FEATURES OF THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

 UNDER PAST AND CURRENT LEGISLATION

APPENDIX C: UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE IQCS CASE RECORDS

 AND UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE CPS 

APPENDIX D: NUMBERS OF FSP PARTICIPANTS AND ELIGIBLES USED TO

 CALCULATE PARTICIPATION RATES IN 1990 THROUGH 1995
v

TABLES

Table Page

1 MONTHLY NUMBER OF ELIGIBLES, PARTICIPANTS, 

AND PARTICIPATION RATES FOR INDIVIDUALS, 

HOUSEHOLDS, AND BENEFITS .................................. 6

2 CHANGE IN INDIVIDUAL FSP PARTICIPATION RATES .............. 7

3 MAJOR ECONOMIC INDICATORS, CALENDAR YEARS

1986-1995 .................................................... 11

4 HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD

SIZE ........................................................ 20

5 INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ............................ 21

6 INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD ............. 22

7 SIPP-BASED FSP PARTICIPATION RATES ........................ 38

8 IMPACT OF METHODOLOGY CHANGES ON CPS-BASED 

ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBLES RELATIVE TO SIPP-BASED 

ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBLES ..................................... 39
vii

FIGURES

Figure Page

1 TRENDS IN MONTHLY FSP PARTICIPATION

RATES ....................................................... 8

2 TRENDS IN THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLES AND

PARTICIPANTS ............................................... 12

3 TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES, POVERTY

RATES, AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES .......................... 23

4 TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY

HOUSEHOLD SIZE ............................................ 24

5 TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY

AGE GROUP .................................................. 25

6 TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY

RACE/ETHNICITY OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD ....................... 26

7 TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION ................................... 27

8 TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION

RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC

CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLD ............................ 28

9 TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION

RATES BY HOUSEHOLD BENEFIT LEVEL

AS A PERCENT OF MAXIMUM BENEFIT ......................... 29

10 TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION

RATES BY DATA SOURCE ..................................... 40
PREFACE

The Food Stamp Program has undergone major changes since August 1995 due to the passage of

the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). This

legislation, enacted August 22, 1996, makes the following significant modifications to the FSP:

C Most legal permanent resident aliens are disqualified from the FSP

C Most able-bodied, non-working, childless adults are limited to three months of FSP

benefits in any 36-month period

C The maximum food stamp benefit is reduced from 103 percent to 100 percent of the

Thrifty Food Plan

C The standard deduction is frozen at fiscal 1996 levels indefinitely

C New shelter deduction caps are established for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, with

the cap frozen at fiscal year 2001 levels in subsequent years

Because these changes were not in effect in fiscal year 1995, they are not reflected in this report. 

Specifically, FSP participation counts include individuals who were participants in August of 1995

but would be disqualified under PRWORA, and discussions of program eligibility and benefit

computation rules refer to the status of these rules in fiscal year 1995. Future reports in this series

will incorporate descriptions of PRWORA rules as they are implemented.
xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the latest trends in Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation rates. It adds

one more year of information, 1995, to the series of reports on FSP participation rates based on

March Current Population Survey (CPS) data for eligibles and FSP administrative data for

participants. Participation rates are calculated as the percentage of the total eligible population that

participate in the FSP. Although the report focuses on changes in rates from 1988 to 1995, it also

examines longer-term trends beginning with 1976. Trends in aggregate rates and trends for

subgroups of the eligible population are summarized in the text that follows and described fully in the

body of this report. 

HIGHLIGHTS OF CHANGES IN RATES SINCE 1994

FSP participation rates fell slightly between 1994 and 1995. Participation rates for individuals

fell by 1.2 percentage points; for households, by 0.3 percentage points; and for benefits, by 0.4

percentage points. However, there were some noteworthy changes in rates, especially for certain

subgroups of the population. Below, we highlight some of the key changes: 

C Participation rates for individuals declined slightly. The participation rates for

individuals fell about 1 percentage point between 1994 and 1995. The number of

participating individuals fell by 4 percentage points while the number of eligible

individuals fell by 2 percentage points. Most likely, the small drop in individual

participation rates between 1994 and 1995 is a continuation of a flattening trend in

participation rates.

C Rates fell for households with income above the poverty line. The participation rate

for households above poverty fell by more than 5 percentage points between 1994 and

1995. The rate for households in poverty increased slightly (by 0.5 percentage points).

The participation rate for households with earnings fell by 6 percentage points. 

C Rates fell for two-parent households, but surged for single-parent households. The

participation rate for persons in households with multiple adults and children dropped

by almost 11 percentage points. At the same time, the participation rate for persons in

single-parent households increased by almost 7 percentage points between 1994 and

1995. 

C Rates for elderly living alone increased substantially. Although the participation rates

for all elderly fell (by 2 percentage points) between 1994 and 1995, the rates for elderly

persons living alone jumped by almost 10 percentage points.

xiii

TRENDS FOR SUBGROUPS

Trends in participation rates for subgroups tend to follow overall trends. Most rates for

subgroups have experienced an overall increase from 1988 to 1995. However, rates for some

subgroups have increased substantially more or less than rates for other subgroups.

C Rates for small households grew faster than rates for large households. Between

1988 and 1995, participation rates for small households have risen faster than the rates

for large households. Rates for small (one- and two-person) households have risen

steadily since 1988. Rates for large (five or more people) households exhibited minimal

growth from 1998 to 1994, and fell from 1994 to 1995. 

C Rates for individuals in poor households increased faster than for others.

Participation rates for persons in households with a gross income below the poverty

level (in poverty) have risen steadily since 1988. These rates exhibited strong growth

from 1988 through 1992, and somewhat slower growth from 1993 through 1995.

Participation rates for persons in households with income below the poverty level have

been consistently and significantly higher than participation rates for persons in

households with income above the poverty level. 

C Rates for those eligible for the highest benefits have risen the most. Rates for those

eligible for the highest benefits have risen steadily since 1988, while rates for those

eligible for the lowest benefits have remained relatively low. This is not surprising since

rates for the poorest households have increased more than rates for others, and the

poorest are eligible for the highest benefits.

C Rates for individuals in households with Aid to Families with Dependent Children

continue to rise. The participation rate for individuals in households with Aid to

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) have risen faster than the rates for

individuals in households with earnings. With the exception of a decline between 1990

and 1991, rates for individuals in AFDC households have exhibited strong growth since

1988. 

CPS- VS. SIPP-BASED ESTIMATES

This report presents trends in participation rates based on CPS data for the number of eligibles

and FSP administrative data for the number of participants. Although these data sources provide a

good measure of the change in rates over time, prior to 1994 the rates were biased downward

because of limitations in the CPS data. 

FSP participation rates based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation

(SIPP) provide a more accurate measure of participation rates at a particular point in time because

SIPP data contain more of the information needed to estimate food stamp eligibility. However,

because SIPP data do not exist prior to 1984, CPS data are used to examine participation rates over

a longer period of time. While the levels of CPS- and SIPP-based participation rates have differed,
xiv

trends in CPS-based participation rates have been consistent with trends in SIPP-based participation

rates. 

The improved methodology used to derive the 1995 participation rates produces CPS-based rates

that are more in line with the SIPP-based rates. The most recent SIPP-based rates show that in

January 1994, 71 percent of all eligible persons participated in the FSP (Stavrianos 1997). This is

very close to the revised CPS-based rate for August 1994, which is 72 percent.
Thisreport is part of a continuing time series of rates beginning with 1976. The earlier reports 1

are listed in the references at the end of this report. 

FSP participation rates based on data from the SIPP (Stavrianos 1997) provide a more accurate 2

measure of participation rates because the SIPP data contain a better measure of the income, expense

and asset information used to simulate FSP eligibility. However, because SIPP data do not exist prior

to 1984, we use CPS data to examine rates over a longer period of time.

Detailed descriptions of all of the modifications are provided in Section D. 3

Non-pure PA units are units in which at least one person is not covered by AFDC, SSI, or other 4

assistance such as GA. Pure PA units are FSP units in which all persons are covered by AFDC, SSI

or other assistance such as GA. 

1

TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES:

FOCUS ON AUGUST 1995

This report presents the latest trends in Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation rates. It adds

one more year of information (1995) to the series of reports on FSP participation rates based on March

Current Population Survey (CPS) data for eligibles and FSP administrative data for participants.1

Although the report focuses on changes in rates from 1988 to 1995, it also examines longer-term

trends beginning with 1976.

Several changes were made to improve the methodology used to estimate eligibles in the 1995

CPS-based file. These changes substantially improve the CPS-based estimates and make them more

consistent with SIPP-based estimates. These changes: 2 3

C Improved the estimate of food stamp units passing the asset test by using an equation to

impute the probability that non-pure public assistance (PA) units will pass the asset test.4

Previous trends estimates used a proxy for asset balances that substantially

underestimated total assets and thus overestimated total eligibles. The proxy for asset

balances used in previous trends estimates is equal to the income from financial assets

divided by a rate of return of 6.5 percent.

C Improved the FSP unit formation algorithm to improve the estimate of pure PA units.

In previous Trends reports, the food stamp unit was defined as all persons in a dwelling

unit. This definition substantially underestimated the number of pure PA units. The
The IQCS is a survey of over 50,000 food stamp households. 5

Selected features of the FSP under current and past legislation can be found in Appendix B. 6

2

new unit definition is based on FSP rules for unit formation and observed split-off rates

in SIPP and FSP Integrated Quality Control System (IQCS) data.5

C Expanded the definition of pure PA units to include spouses of AFDC recipients and

elderly or disabled spouses of SSI recipients. This improvement captures those spouses

who would otherwise be considered outside of the AFDC or SSI unit because of

limitations in the CPS data.

Because the changes made to improve the methodology had a substantial impact on the estimated

participation rates for 1995, we re-estimated the 1994 participation rates. This allows us to examine

the trends in participation rates from 1994 to 1995 without the influence of different estimation

methodologies. The individual participation rate for August 1994 estimated under the old

methodology is 61.4 percent; the individual participation rate for August 1994 estimated under the

revised methodology is 72.1 percent, much closer to the 1994 SIPP-based participation rate of 71.0

percent. 

We assume that the changes made to the methodology do not affect the direction or magnitude

of year to year changes in participation rates. Therefore, trends from 1976 to 1994 can be assessed

using results generated with the old methodology, and trends from 1994 to 1995 can be assessed using

results generated with the new methodology.

In addition to the improvements made to the methodology, we updated the following aspects of

the eligibility file:

C The FSP net income screens and asset limit were updated to reflect 1995 FSP

regulations.6
Because net income is estimated using a regression equation, the model does not explicitly

7

calculate deductions from gross income. Therefore, we do not explicitly implement changes to

deductions. The updated regression equation coefficients are shown in Appendix A.

For example, the dependent care deduction cap was raised from $160 a month per dependent to 8

$200 for each child under the age of two and $175 for all other dependents. This change is implicitly

captured in the updated net income regression coefficients. 

3

C The regression equation used to estimate FSP net income was updated using 1995 QC

data.7

Most of the provisions introduced under the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act of

1993 are captured in the net income or asset equations. However, we explicitly modeled one

8

provision introduced by the act--the change in the maximum age for which student earnings can be

excluded from income. The Mickey Leland Act raised the age from 17 to 21 beginning in September

1994.

The following discussion covers trends in aggregate rates, trends for subgroups of the eligible

population, and the methodology for estimating the rates. Tables and figures appear at the end of each

section. 

A. TRENDS IN AGGREGATE RATES

FSP participation rates, which exhibited a steady rise from 1988 through 1994, fell modestly in

1995. From 1994 to 1995, participation rates for individuals fell by 1.2 percentage points; for

households, by 0.3 percentage points; and for benefits, by 0.4 percentage points (Table 1). The

benefit rate was 13 points higher than the household rate and 10 points higher than the individual rate

in 1995. These trends are illustrated in Figure 1. Below we highlight the change in rates between

1994 and 1995, and describe the overall trends in rates since 1988.
Notice that the 6-point increase between 1988 and 1990 is for two years, compared with the 3- 9

point increase between 1990 and 1991. If the increase between 1988 and 1990 is evenly divided

between the two years, then participation rates rose 3 points each year between 1988 and 1990, and

this growth did not begin to slow until after 1991.

4

1. Rates for Individuals Fell, Spurred by a Decrease in Participants

FSP participation rates for eligible individuals fell slightly between 1994 and 1995 for the first

time since 1988 (Table 2). This decrease was fueled by a drop of 4.3 percent in the number of

participants during the same period. The number of eligibles also fell between 1994 and 1995, but

by only 2 percent. Hence, the overall decline in participants was large enough to offset the decline

in eligibles, thus reducing the individual participation rate by 1.2 percentage points.

Growth in individual participation rates has tapered off since an initial surge that began in 1988.

The participation rate for individuals increased by 6 points from 1988 to 1990, by 3 points from 1990

to 1991, by 2 points from 1991 to 1992, by 1 point from 1992 to 1993, and by 1 point from 1993 to

1994, as shown in the chart below. Up to 1993, the slower growth in participation rates was the

9

result of a closing gap between the increase in the number of participants and the increase in the

number of eligibles. Between 1993 and 1994, the number of participants and eligibles began to fall,

but the participation rate increased slightly because the number of eligibles fell more than the number

of participants. Between 1994 and 1995, the number of participants and eligibles continued to fall.

The rate also fell because the number of eligibles fell less than the number of participants. Most

likely, the small drop in individual participation rates between 1994 and 1995 is a continuation of the

flattening trend in participation rates.

2. Household Rate Showed Little Change Between 1994 and 1995

Between 1994 and 1995, the number of participating and eligible households decreased by about

the same amount (3 percent and 2.5 percent respectively) resulting in almost no change in the
5

household rate (-0.3 points). Between 1976 and 1990, the household and individual rates were nearly

identical, as shown in Figure 1. Beginning in 1990, the household rate rose above the person rate and

continued rising much faster than the individual rate through 1993, reflecting the fact that small

households were participating at increasingly higher rates than large households. Between 1993 and

1994, household and individual rates increased by almost the same amount (1 percentage point),

indicating a possible end to the trend in diverging rates. Between 1994 and 1995, the individual and

household rates again changed very little, but the revised methodology increased participation rates

for individuals more than rates for households. The new individual rate is now 3 percentage points

higher than the household rate. 

3. Benefit Rate Showed Little Change Between 1994 and 1995

The benefit participation rate is the amount of benefits issued as a percentage of the total benefits

that would be payable if all eligibles participate (total eligible benefits). This rate has been

consistently higher than the individual and household rates, and between 1991 and 1994, it rose faster

than the other two (see Figure 1). Between 1994 and 1995, the benefit rate remained almost constant,

decreasing by 0.4 points, compared with a 1.2 point decrease for the individual rate. While both

benefits paid to participants and total eligible benefits fell between 1994 and 1995, the decrease in

benefits to participants (1.6 percent) was slightly greater than the decrease in total eligible benefits

(1.1 percent), causing the decline in the benefit rate. Nevertheless, the continuing gap between the

benefit rate and the individual and household rates implies that households eligible for the highest

benefits are more likely to participate than those eligible for the lowest benefits, as shown in Section

C.
TABLE 1

MONTHLY NUMBER OF ELIGIBLES, PARTICIPANTS, AND PARTICIPATION RATES

FOR INDIVIDUALS, HOUSEHOLDS, AND BENEFITS,

1976-1995a

(Thousands)

Eligibles (CPS) Participants (Program Operations) Participation Rates (%)

Individuals Households Benefits Individuals Households Benefits Individuals Households Benefitsb

Sept. 1976 50,061 16,282 $1,075,819 15,880 5,308 $375,461 31.1 32.6 34.9

Feb. 1978 40,175 13,984 934,427 15,387 5,286 398,066 38.3 37.8 42.6

Aug. 1980 36,567 14,042 1,108,330 20,185 7,372 689,381 55.2 52.5 62.2

Aug. 1982 39,364 14,538 1,352,251 20,548 7,487 785,658 52.2 51.5 58.1

Aug. 1984 38,591 14,194 1,386,231 19,990 7,324 841,442 51.8 51.6 60.7

Aug. 1986 40,061 15,273 1,544,833 19,069 7,102 860,472 47.6 46.5 55.7

Aug. 1988 38,166 14,896 1,646,310 18,358 7,016 907,117 48.1 47.1 55.1

Aug. 1990 37,631 14,523 1,905,141 20,396 7,973 1,188,808 54.2 54.9 62.4

Aug. 1991 40,989 15,574 2,229,403 23,364 9,204 1,471,406 57.0 59.1 66.0

Aug. 1992 43,474 16,627 2,491,671 25,759 10,238 1,749,058 59.3 61.6 70.2

Aug. 1993 45,241 17,031 2,515,761 27,260 10,900 1,839,469 60.3 64.0 73.1

Aug. 1994(o) 44,327 17,040 2,473,299 27,207 11,005 1,873,953 61.4 64.6 75.8

Aug. 1994(r) 36,669 15,945 2,200,066 26,437 10,694 1,780,630 72.1 67.1 80.9

Aug. 1995 35,663 15,544 2,175,871 25,299 10,378 1,752,232 70.9 66.8 80.5

Change

(1994(r) to 1995) -2.7% -2.5% -1.1% -4.3% -3.0% -1.6% -1.2 points -0.3 points -0.4 points

SOURCE: Food Stamp Program operations data. Special tabulations from IQCS data. FSP eligibility files created from March CPS data for the years shown.

There are two estimates for August 1994 due to the revised methodology for determining food stamp eligibility. This new methodology incorporates a new asset test algorithm, an improved food stamp unit definition, a

and an enhanced pure PA unit definition. The original estimate (o) is based on the methodology employed in all previous trends studies, while the revised estimate (r) is based on the new methodology.

The benefit rate for 1976 and 1978 (pre-EPR periods) is based on the net benefit (maximum benefits-purchase requirement). Hence, the benefit rates are consistent over all years. b
7

TABLE 2

CHANGE IN INDIVIDUAL FSP PARTICIPATION RATES,

1988 to 1995

Time Period

Change in Change in Change in

Participation Rate Participants Eligibles

1988-1990 6.1 points 11.1% -1.1%

1990-1991 2.8 points 14.6% 9.1%

1991-1992 2.3 points 10.3% 5.9%

1992-1993 1.1 points 5.8% 4.1%

1993-1994 1.0 points -0.2% -2.0%

1994-1995a-1.2 points -4.3% -2.0%

SOURCE: Food Stamp Program operations data. Special tabulations from IQCS data. FSP eligibility files created

from March CPS data for the years shown.

1994 and 1995 participation rates were estimated using the revised methodology. a

9

B. REASONS FOR THE DECLINE IN AGGREGATE RATES

The decline in individual participation rates from 1994 to 1995 is likely a signal that participation

rates are continuing to level off in part because of an improving economy. The speculation that rates

for individuals are leveling off is supported by the fact that the household and benefit rates barely

changed over the same period.

The leveling off of participation rates began in 1992. The economy was recovering from a

recession at the same time that expansions in Medicaid slowed, thus slowing the rise in new

participants and participation rates. Economic indicators exhibited improving trends after 1991, as

shown in Table 3. Between 1993 and 1994, the poverty rate fell for the first time since 1989 (by 0.6

points), and the unemployment rate fell for the second year in a row (by 0.9 points) (Table 2).

Between 1994 and 1995, the poverty and unemployment rates continued to fall. 

Starting in 1993, the number of eligibles and participants began to fall as a result of the improving

economy. Between 1993 and 1994, the number of eligibles fell more than the number of participants,

so the overall participation rate continued to increase. Between 1994 and 1995, the number of

eligibles fell again, primarily because growth in income caused participants to become ineligible. This

resulted in a decline in individual participation rates. A closer examination of participation rates for

subgroups (Section C) reveals that participation rates for households above the poverty level and for

households with earnings both fell substantially. Thus, it appears that economic growth caused the

decrease in individual participation rates in two ways: (1) income growth caused eligible participants

to become ineligible, and (2) participation rates decreased among eligibles with the highest income.

Historically, trends in aggregate participation rates have been associated with economic

conditions. The surge in participants and participation rates after 1988 was attributed to a worsening

economy and other factors such as expansions in Medicaid, increased access to FSP offices, and
See also McConnell (1991). 10

The recession officially began in July 1990 and ended in March 1991, according to the National 11

Bureau of Economic Research.

10

liberalized immigration legislation. As shown in Figure 2, the rise in participation rates started about 10

a year before the recession began. This probably happened because Medicaid expansions began as 11

early as 1988, and the effects of the recession were felt in many areas of the country before the

recession was indicated by national measures.
TABLE 3

MAJOR ECONOMIC INDICATORS, CALENDAR YEARS 1986-1995

Calendar Years

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1995)

Difference

(1994 to

Poverty Rate 13.6 13.4 13.0 12.8 13.5 14.2 14.8 15.1 14.5 13. 8 -0.7 points 

Unemployment Rate 7.0 6.2 5.5 5.3 5.6 6.8 7.5 6.9 6.1 5.6 -0.5 points a

Inflation Rate 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.9 3.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 0.2 points b

Real GDP Increase 3.0 2.9 3.8 3.4 1.3 -1.0 2.7 2.3 3.5 2.0 -1.5 points c

Productivity Increase 2.5 -0.2 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 3.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 -0.4 points d

Number of Persons in Poverty 32,370 32,221 31,745 31,528 33,585 35,708 38,014 39,265 38,059 36,425 -4.3 percent 

(thousands)

SOURCE: First and last lines of data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Report, Series P60-194.

Second through fifth lines of data: Economic Report of the President, Washington, DC, February 1997.

All civilian workers, Table B.33. a

Change in implicit price deflator for Gross Domestic Product, Appendix Table B.3. b

Percent change from preceding period, Appendix Table B.2. c

Percent change in output per hour, business sector, Appendix Table B.48. d

13

C. TRENDS IN RATES FOR SUBGROUPS OF THE ELIGIBLE POPULATION

Trends in participation rates for subgroups followed the aggregate trends in general; rates for most

subgroups changed only slightly. Existing trends continued in many cases, but possible new trends

appeared in others. This section discusses trends in rates for demographic and economic subgroups.

Supporting data for the trends are shown in Tables 4 through 6 and are illustrated in Figures 4

through 9.

1. Demographic Subgroups

a. Participation Rates of Small Households Continued to Rise

The participation rate for small households (one or two persons) continued to rise between 1994

and 1995. Spurred by an increase in participation among one-person households, the rate for small

households rose from 59.8 percent in 1994 to 60.1 percent in 1995. The rate for one-person only

households rose by 3.2 percentage points, while the rate for two-person households fell by almost 5

percentage points. This increase in the one-person household participation rate was enough to offset

the decrease in the two-person household participation rate and raise the overall rate for small

households. The rise in the rate for small households is supported by the finding that the average size

of participating households has declined relative to the size of eligible households, as shown in

Table 4. The ratio of average household size of participants to eligibles has declined from 1988 to

1995.

Prior to 1994, the participation rate for small households was larger than the participation rate for

large households and was rising. While the rising trend in the participation rate for small households

continued in 1995, the revised methodology for estimating eligibles increased the participation rates

for larger households more than for smaller households. The driving force for the increase in rates

among larger households is the new asset test imputation, which significantly reduces the number of
For more information on the impact of the changes to the methodology for estimating eligible 12

FSP participants, see Section D.

14

eligible households. This implies that proportionately more large households are reclassified as

12

ineligible as a result of the new methodology than small households.

Participation rates for three-person households continued to rise, and remained the highest

participation rate among all household size categories. The participation rate for three-person

households rose by almost one percentage point to 85.2 percent, and the rate for four-person

households rose by two percentage points to 81.1 percent (Table 4). 

The participation rate for large households (five or more persons) decreased. The rate for

households with five people only fell by 3.3 percentage points, while the rate for households with six

or more people fell sharply, by 14.3 percentage points.

b. Rates for Most Age Groups Fell

Participation rates for all eligible children fell slightly from 1994 to 1995. From 1988 to 1994,

all age groups experienced upward trends in participation rates, with preschool-age children

experiencing the most dramatic increase in participation rates (Figure 5). However, rates for

preschool-age children decreased by 2.8 percentage points between 1994 and 1995. Throughout the

entire time series (from 1976 to 1995) rates for all children have been consistently much higher than

rates for adults or elderly persons.

Participation rates for all eligible elderly persons also fell slightly from 1994 to 1995.

Participation rates for elderly persons have not shown a consistent trend since 1988, as shown in

Figure 5. Rates increased by 3 points between 1988 and 1990, held steady between 1990 and 1991,

decreased by 2 points between 1991 and 1992, increased by 3 points between 1992 and 1993, held

steady between 1993 and 1994, and decreased between 1994 and 1995. Rates for elderly persons have
15

changed by no more than 4 points since 1982. Rates for elderly persons living alone have been

consistently higher (by 5 to 7 points since 1988) than rates for elderly persons living with others, and

these rates jumped by 9.5 percentage points from 1994 to 1995.

c. Rates for Hispanics Fell While Rates for Blacks Increased

Rates for Hispanics fell by 8.3 percentage points between 1994 and 1995 (Table 5). This is the

second drop in participation rates that the Hispanic subgroup has experienced since rates for Hispanics

began to climb in 1986 (Figure 6). The first drop occurred between 1991 and 1992. Between 1992

and 1994, rates for Hispanics surged. Whether the drop between 1994 and 1995 is a reversal of the

trend for Hispanics or simply another dip in participation rates similar to that in 1992 is unclear at this

time. 

The sharp increase in the participation rate for Hispanics since 1992 was caused by a sharp

increase (40 percent) in Hispanic participants, compared with only a modest increase (10 percent) in

Hispanic eligibles. The increase in newly participating Hispanics may have been a result of the fact

that Hispanics that became legal residents as a result the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)

were eligible to apply for food stamps in 1992 and 1993. Furthermore, Hispanics may have responded

to outreach efforts specifically intended to encourage FSP participation.

Participation rates for blacks increased by 3.7 percentage points after declining slightly from 1992

to 1994. The rates for whites, which were relatively level from 1991 to 1994, fell by 0.9 percentage

points from 1994 to 1995. Overall, rates for blacks have been consistently higher than rates for whites

or Hispanics.

d. Rates Fall for Persons in Households with Children and Two Adults

The participation rate for persons in households with children and two or more adults decreased

by 10.7 percentage points between 1994 and 1995 (Figure 7). In contrast, the participation rate for
16

persons in single-parent households increased by 6.7 percentage points between 1994 and 1995. The

participation rate for persons in single-parent households has increased steadily from 1986 to 1995.

Rates for households without children continued their relatively steady trend. Overall, rates for

persons in single-parent households have been consistently higher than rates for other households with

children, and rates for both groups have been higher than rates for households without children. 

2. Economic Subgroups 

a. Rates Were Highest for the Poorest, but the Pace of the Rise Is Slowing

Participation rates of persons in households with a gross income at or below the poverty level (in

poverty) continued to be much higher (by 60 points) than rates for households with a gross income

above the poverty level (not in poverty), as shown in Figure 8. Furthermore, participation rates for

those in poverty have increased steadily since 1988, but the rise is slowing down. For example, rates

for those in poverty increased by 4.5 points between 1991 and 1992, by 1 point between 1992 and

1993, by 0.2 points between 1993 and 1994 and by 0.5 points between 1994 and 1995.

Rates for those not in poverty fell between 1994 and 1995 by 5.3 percentage points. This may

have been caused by both participants becoming ineligible due to income growth and by participants

with more income choosing not to participate. These rates have fluctuated since 1988. For example,

rates for those not in poverty increased by 2 points between 1990 and 1991, decreased by 1.5 points

between 1991 and 1992, held steady between 1992 and 1993, increased by 5 points between 1993 and

1994, and decreased by 5.3 percentage points between 1994 and 1995. 

b. Rates Continued to be Highest for Those Eligible for the Highest Benefits

Since those with the lowest income are eligible for the highest benefits, it is not surprising that

the high participation rates for those in poverty is associated with high participation rates for those

eligible for the highest benefits. For example, in 1995, participation rates for those eligible for the
Householdsreceiving the 100 percent of the maximum benefit are less likely to participate than 13

households receiving 76-99 percent of the maximum benefit. A recent study indicates that households

with zero income (households that would likely be eligible for 100 percent of the maximum benefit)

may face financial circumstances different from those of households with some, but little, income

(Wemmerus and Porter 1996). Because their circumstances are unique and often temporary,

households with zero income may be less likely to consider participating in the FSP.

For example, CPS may undersample low income households. Such an error would upwardly 14

bias the participation rate among households receiving 76 to 99 percent of the maximum benefit. 

17

highest benefits (between 76 and 99 percent of the maximum benefit) were 77 points higher than rates

for those eligible for the lowest benefits (between 1 and 25 percent of the maximum benefit)

(Figure 9).13

Furthermore, in most years since 1988, participation rates for those eligible for the highest

benefits increased more than rates for those eligible for the lowest benefits. Only in 1991 and again

in 1994 did rates for those eligible for the highest benefits increase less than rates for those eligible

for the lowest benefits. Between 1994 and 1995, rates for individuals in households eligible for

between 76 percent and 99 percent of the maximum benefit increased by 5 percentage points, while

rates for all other individuals decreased. Part of the decrease in rates for those with the lowest benefits

may be a result of the decrease in rates for non-elderly SSI recipients (see below), who tend to have

lower benefits.

That participation rates for households receiving 76 to 99 percent of the maximum benefit exceed

100 percent may be attributable to sampling error on the CPS data file. However, we can still assess 14

trends in these rates because they are consistently estimated.

c. Participation Rates Dropped for Those with Earnings and Jumped for Those with

Unemployment Compensation 

The participation rate for individuals in households with earnings decreased substantially (by 6

points) from 1994 to 1995. Prior to 1995, the trend in the participation rate for these individuals had
The surge in participating nonelderly SSI recipients was driven by an increase in children

15

receiving SSI. The increase in children receiving SSI was largely due to two factors: settlement of

a class action suit that expanded SSI eligibility and changes in related childhood disability regulations.

18

maintained steady growth. This drop was fueled by both a 5 percent increase in the number of

eligibles and a 7 percent decrease in participants. As with households above the poverty level, this

may be caused by both participants becoming ineligible due to income growth and by participants with

more income choosing not to participate. 

The participation rate for persons in households with unemployment compensation jumped by

almost 14 points between 1994 and 1995, after falling by almost 11 points between 1993 and 1994

(Figure 9). The jump in the participation rate is due to both a 16 percent increase in participants with

a concurrent 15 percent decrease in eligibles. 

The rate for persons receiving unemployment compensation has fluctuated widely since 1988,

as shown in Figure 9. The rate increased between 1988 and 1990 (by 6 points), declined between

1990 and 1991 (by 2 points), increased between 1991 and 1993 (by 11 points), declined between

1993 and 1994 (by 11 points), and increased between 1994 and 1995 (by 14 points). The wide

fluctuation may have been partly due to the relatively small and consistently changing sample of

participants with unemployment compensation. 

d. Rates Fell for Nonelderly SSI Recipients and Continued to Rise for Those Receiving AFDC

Participation rates for persons in households with nonelderly SSI recipients dropped by 3.7

percentage points between 1994 and 1995 after rising by almost 20 points between 1993 and 199415

(Table 6). The fall in rates for nonelderly SSI recipients between 1994 and 1995 was due to a 3

percent decrease in FSP-participating nonelderly SSI recipients. The fall in rates between 1994 and

1995 may indicate a reverse in the upward trend that began in 1991. 
Because the availability of data was limited, we estimated rates for AFDC and SSI recipients for 16

these years only.

19

The rate for persons in households receiving AFDC benefits continued its upward trend,

increasing by 7.7 points. Participation rates for AFDC recipients have increased every year since

1988 except when they declined between 1990 and 1991. The rate for AFDC recipients rose by 6

points from 1988 to 1990, by 9 points from 1991 to 1992, by 7 points from 1992 to 1993, and by 5

points between 1993 and 1994.

We included rates for persons in households receiving AFDC and SSI benefits for the years 1988

to 1994 despite the substantial underreporting of AFDC and SSI income receipts in the CPS. As a 16

result of underreporting, the rates for persons in households receiving AFDC benefits exceeded 100

percent. However, we can still assess trends in these rates because they are consistently estimated. 
TABLE 4

HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE,

1976-1995

Participation Rates by Household Size Average Household Size

1 2 3 4 5 6+ Total Eligibles Participants Eligibles

Participants/

Sept. 1976 31.8 35.7 39.0 29.8 29.9 29.1 32.6 3.0 2.9 0.94

Feb. 1978 33.3 38.3 43.7 35.6 42.8 42.2 37.8 2.8 2.8 1.00

Aug. 1980 44.6 49.2 63.5 57.9 64.9 61.9 52.5 2.6 2.6 1.00

Aug. 1982 47.7 45.7 62.9 55.6 67.0 44.6 51.5 2.7 2.6 0.96

Aug. 1984 50.7 45.8 57.2 51.5 59.3 54.7 51.6 2.7 2.6 0.96

Aug. 1986 41.2 44.5 54.7 53.6 52.5 45.8 46.5 2.6 2.6 1.00

Aug. 1988 41.6 47.0 61.4 48.8 48.5 45.0 47.1 2.5 2.5 1.00

Aug. 1990 47.7 60.0 71.1 55.5 62.0 37.0 54.9 2.6 2.4 0.92

Aug. 1991 53.1 63.3 77.1 58.0 55.1 47.8 59.1 2.6 2.4 0.92

Aug. 1992 59.0 63.7 72.8 63.8 53.8 46.0 61.6 2.6 2.5 0.96

Aug. 1993 59.1 71.1 78.6 64.9 49.3 48.7 64.0 2.7 2.5 0.93

Aug. 1994(o) 61.3 71.9 76.8 63.2 52.3 46.8 64.6 2.6 2.5 0.96 a

Aug. 1994(r) 55.0 68.2 84.3 79.1 75.3 79.5 67.1 2.3 2.5 1.09 a

Aug. 1995 58.2 63.5 85.2 81.1 72.0 65.2 66.8 2.3 2.4 1.07

Difference (1994(r) 

to 1995) + 3.2 -4.7 +0.9 +2.0 -3.3 -14.3 -0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.02

SOURCE: Food Stamp Program operations data. Special tabulations from IQCS data. FSP eligibility files created from March CPS data for the years shown.

There are two estimates for August 1994 due to the revised methodology for determining food stamp eligibility. This new methodology incorporates a new asset test algorithm, an improved food stamp unit definition, and a

an enhanced pure PA unit definition. The original estimate (o) is based on the methodology employed in all previous trends studies, while the revised estimate (r) is based on the new methodology.
TABLE 5

INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, 1976-1995

Individual Participation Rates (Percentage)

Sept. Feb. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. (1994(r)

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 to 1995)

Aug. 1994

Difference

(o) (r) b b

Elderly 22.7 23.5 32.0 28.2 29.4 25.6 24.3 27.5 27.2 25.7 28.3 28.5 33.1 31.1 -2.0

Living Alone 26.3 28.4 37.0 35.3 36.7 28.3 29.5 31.7 31.0 32.3 33.6 34.8 29.3 38.8 9.5

Living with Others 19.8 19.5 26.8 21.8 21.8 22.4 18.1 22.2 22.5 18.0 22.0 21.1 25.3 21.2 -4.1

Children 37.0 47.0 70.5 65.4 63.7 59.4 59.8 65.6 71.4 74.9 74.6 75.9 85.2 85.3 0.1

Preschool (under age 5) 35.1 42.0 73.0 64.8 63.5 62.3 60.0 65.3 78.6 82.7 86.6 89.7 97.5 94.7 -2.8

School-age (age 5-17) 37.8 49.0 69.4 65.6 63.9 58.1 59.7 65.7 67.7 70.7 68.7 69.4 79.1 81.0 1.9

Adults Ages 18 to 59 26.3 33.6 49.4 48.6 47.7 44.3 45.7 52.2 52.9 56.3 57.5 59.3 73.1 71.1 -2.0

Household Composition

Single Adults w/Children 52.6 54.4 72.8 62.5 61.9 56.0 62.6 70.9 70.1 73.7 73.2 76.4 89.7 96.4 6.7

Two or More Adults with 

 Children 23.1 33.9 52.5 50.8 54.0 51.2 45.9 47.4 55.3 55.1 57.4 57.8 70.4 59.7 -10.7

Households without 

 Children 22.7 24.3 36.9 40.7 33.3 30.2 30.7 36.9 35.8 38.0 39.9 40.3 45.8 45.4 -0.4

Race/Ethnicity of Heada

White Non-Hispanic NA 32.9 NA 36.9 44.3 42.1 43.8 48.8 53.3 53.4 53.3 52.7 67.3 66.4 -0.9

Black Non-Hispanic NA 52.1 NA 85.0 71.7 65.2 62.3 71.6 67.9 80.0 80.0 78.2 82.3 86.0 3.7

Hispanic NA 39.8 NA 46.3 46.1 35.3 40.0 46.0 48.8 42.9 51.1 56.5 62.3 54.0 -8.3

Other NA 32.1 NA 68.0 42.6 57.7 37.2 36.2 53.1 63.2 58.0 86.6 114.9 83.9 -31.0

Male NA 35.6 NA 49.1 49.4 45.5 44.9 50.7 53.6 57.0 58.6 60.1 73.4 71.1 -2.3

Female NA 40.3 NA 53.5 52.4 49.2 50.5 56.7 59.4 61.0 61.4 62.3 71.2 70.7 -0.5

Total 31.1 38.3 55.2 52.2 51.8 47.6 48.1 54.2 57.0 59.3 60.3 61.4 72.1 70.9 -1.2

SOURCE: Food Stamp Program operations data. Special tabulations from IQCS data. FSP eligibility files created from March CPS data for the years shown.

FSP participant data are not available (or contain too many missing values) for 1976 and 1980 for those entries marked as NA. a

There are two estimates for August 1994 due to the revised methodology for determining food stamp eligibility. This new methodology incorporates a new asset test algorithm, an improved food stamp unit definition, and a

an enhanced pure PA unit definition. The original estimate (o) is based on the methodology employed in all previous trends studies, while the revised estimate (r) is based on the new methodology.
TABLE 6

INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD, 1976-1995

Individual Participation Rates (Percentage)

Sept. Feb. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. (1994(r) to

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 (o) (r) 1995 1995)

Aug. 1994 Difference

b b

Household Income as a Percentage of Poverty

Total < 100% 44.4 53.5 70.9 64.4 63.7 58.5 60.3 66.6 69.4 73.9 75.9 76.1 85.0 85.5 0.5

Total > 100 8.6 10.0 20.4 13.5 13.4 12.1 13.3 17.4 19.4 18.0 18.1 22.7 30.8 25.5 -5.3

Household Incomea

Earnings 14.6 17.5 29.1 28.9 29.4 27.7 27.8 28.7 32.3 34.7 35.4 37.4 53.9 47.9 -6.0

Unemp. Comp NA 29.1 NA 23.2 23.7 23.5 18.9 25.0 22.8 27.0 34.8 24.1 37.4 51.1 13.7

AFDC NA NA NA NA NA NA 99.6 106.0 99.4 108.4 114.9 119.6 117.6 125.3 7.7

SSI (non-elderly) NA NA NA NA NA NA 64.7 81.0 68.0 74.1 78.9 98.8 109.5 105.8 -3.7

Monthly Household Benefits as a Percentage of Maximum Benefit

1 - 25% 11.2 18.0 27.6 27.3 20.6 22.3 22.7 24.7 27.5 30.0 27.1 30.7 38.0 32.8 -5.2

26 - 50% 36.6 44.8 61.6 49.7 52.7 45.3 46.5 45.7 47.6 41.6 44.0 48.1 64.9 61.9 -3.0

51 - 75% 50.2 60.6 83.7 76.6 67.5 62.8 63.7 63.9 62.8 76.1 80.7 77.9 92.2 84.3 -7.9

76 - 99% 45.6 53.4 52.4 74.1 92.2 74.2 72.4 87.6 90.6 96.8 96.1 101.8 104.9 109.9 5.0

100% 11.4 20.7 37.7 34.5 38.3 40.0 36.8 46.3 50.0 48.4 52.4 54.3 59.0 66.2 7.2

Total 31.1 38.3 55.2 52.2 51.8 47.6 48.1 54.2 57.0 59.3 60.3 61.4 72.1 70.9 1.2

SOURCE: Food Stamp Program operations data. Special tabulations from IQCS data. FSP eligibility files created from March CPS data for the years shown.

NOTE: Participation rates exceeding 100 percent may be due to reporting and measurement errors in the CPS data file.

FSP participant data are not available (or contain too many missing values) for 1976 and 1980 for those entries marked as NA. a

There are two estimates for August 1994 due to the revised methodology for determining food stamp eligibility. This new methodology incorporates a new asset test algorithm, an improved food stamp unit a

definition, and an enhanced pure PA unit definition. The original estimate (o) is based on the methodology employed in all previous trends studies, while the revised estimate (r) is based on the new methodology.







30

D. METHODOLOGY

The August 1995 participation rates were derived from estimates of the number of eligibles based

on March 1996 CPS data and estimates of the number of participants based on the average of July and

August 1995 FSP Program Operations data. Although these data sources provide a good measure of

the change in rates over time, the rates were biased downward prior to 1995 because of limitations in

the CPS data. The methodology used to derive the 1995 participation rates was revised from previous

versions to account for some of this downward bias. However, for the reasons given below, the bias

in rates and revisions to the methodology still make it necessary to use the CPS-based series to

examine changes in rates and the SIPP-based estimates to examine levels of rates.

Estimates based on SIPP data are more accurate than estimates based on CPS data for two reasons.

First, SIPP data contain more of the information needed to estimate eligibility for the FSP. Second,

the methodology used to estimate eligibility with SIPP data more closely replicates the actual FSP

eligibility determination process. However, SIPP data do not cover as long a period, and certain types

of SIPP data needed to estimate eligibles are available for only a limited number of years.

Despite the historical downward bias, the trends identified through the CPS-based data are

consistent with those identified through SIPP-based data (Table 7 and Figure 10). The CPS-based

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

rate (less than 1 point) from 1986 to 1988, an 11-point rise in the rate from 1988 to 1992, and a 2-

point rise in the rate from 1992 to 1994. The SIPP-based estimates show a 5-point drop in the

individual participation rate from 1985 to 1988, no change from 1988 to 1989, a 15-point increase

from 1989 to 1992, and a 3-point drop from 1992 to 1994. Although the SIPP-based rates show a

small decline in participation rates between 1992 and 1994 (3 points) and the CPS-based rates show

a small increase (2 points), the changes in rates identified through each database were small during
Pure PA units are FSP units in which all persons receive AFDC, SSI, or other assistance such 17

as GA. Non-pure PA units are units in which at least one person does not receive AFDC, SSI, or other

assistance such as GA.

31

this time, indicating that rates leveled off between 1992 and 1994. The recent change in methodology

brings the 1994 CPS-based rates in line with the 1994 SIPP-based rates.

SIPP data for January 1996 are not yet available. CPS data show a 1.2 percentage point drop from

1994 to 1995. It is noteworthy (Figure 10) that the revision to the methodology for estimating

eligibles in 1994 and 1995 (discussed below) brings CPS estimates in line with SIPP estimates.

1. Changes to Methodology from the Original August 1994 Estimates to the Revised August

1995 Estimates

The methodology used to estimate participation rates was changed in several ways. We improved

CPS-based estimates of eligibles to bring them in line with MATH SIPP-based estimates by imputing

the probability of passing the asset test, improving the food stamp unit definition, and enhancing the

pure PA unit definition. We also adjusted the historical estimates of participation rates to account 17

for the revised weighting process introduced by the Bureau of the Census in the March 1993 CPS.

a. Imputing the Probability of Passing the Asset Test 

The proxy for asset balances in the previous methodology was equal to the income from financial

assets divided by a rate of return of 6.5 percent underestimated total assets and therefore overestimated

total eligibles. The August 1994 CPS-based estimates created with the old methodology for

individuals, units, and benefits were 18 percent, 9 percent, and 11 percent higher, respectively, than

the MATH SIPP-based estimates for January 1994. 

In addition, when this proxy was used, about 87 percent of income-eligible households with a

gross income at or below 250 percent of poverty passed the asset test in the 1994 CPS-based trends

file, compared with about 71 percent in the 1994 MATH SIPP-based file. To improve the estimate of
The IQCS is a survey of over 50,000 food stamp households. 18

32

households passing the asset test and thus lower the number of non-pure PA units in the Trends file,

we replaced the rate-of-return proxy with an equation to impute the probability that non-pure PA units

will pass the asset test. Pure PA units are automatically eligible for food stamps and thus are not

affected by the asset test.

Table 8 shows the impact of this change in methodology on the original 1994 CPS-based

estimates of eligibles relative to 1994 SIPP-based estimates. This change significantly decreased the

estimated number of eligibles. This entire decrease came from a decrease in the number of estimated

eligible non-pure PA units. The original 1994 CPS-based estimate of non-pure PA units was 29

percent greater than the SIPP-based estimate; the revised estimate was 10 percent less. 

b. Improving the Food Stamp Unit Definition

In addition to overestimating the number of non-pure PA units, the CPS-based eligible estimates

also underestimate pure PA units. Under the previous methodology, a food stamp unit was defined

as all persons in a dwelling unit (except for SSI recipients in SSI cashout states and persons living in

group quarters). The unit definition in the new methodology is based both on FSP rules for unit

formation and on observed split-off rates in SIPP and IQCS data. The split-off rates estimate the

18

probability that a household of a certain type will form one or more subunits.

Table 8 shows the impact of the new food stamp unit definition combined with the new asset test

imputation on the original 1994 CPS-based estimate of eligibles relative to the 1994 SIPP-based

estimate. Combined with the new asset test, the new food stamp unit definition brings the number of

eligibles closer to the SIPP-based estimate. Estimates of both pure and non-pure PA units increase

as a result of the new food stamp unit definition.
33

c. Enhancing the Pure PA Definition

An expanded definition of pure PA units improves the estimates of pure PA units. Unit

definitions in the previous methodology underestimated the number of pure PA units. Because CPS

data cannot be used to identify persons covered by AFDC or SSI benefits, spouses covered by PA in

pure PA units are not counted in the CPS-based estimates of eligibles. That is, the CPS data only

indicate which person in a family receives the check, not which persons are covered by the check. As

a result, when a two-parent family receives AFDC benefits under the AFDC-UP program, for example,

only the person receiving the check is counted toward pure PA status under the old methodology.

Similarly, when an elderly or disabled married couple receives SSI, only the person receiving the

check is counted toward pure PA status. This problem of not counting spouses of PA recipients adds

to the underestimate of pure PA households in Trends. To address this problem, we expanded the

definition of pure PA units to include spouses of AFDC recipients and elderly or disabled spouses of

SSI recipients.

Table 8 shows the impact of the new pure PA unit definition plus the new food stamp unit

definition and the new asset test imputation on the original 1994 CPS-based estimates of eligibles

relative to 1994 SIPP-based estimates. The new pure PA unit definition raises the number of eligibles

to offset the impact of the new asset test imputation. The number of eligible pure PA units increases

as a result of this change, while the number of eligible non-pure PA units decreases.

The cumulative effect of these first three changes can be seen in Figure 10. The new

methodology brings the CPS-based estimates closer in line with the SIPP-based estimates.

d. Adjusting Historical Rates

Historical participation rates are adjusted to account for the revision to the weighting process

introduced by the Bureau of the Census in the March 1993 CPS. Beginning in 1993, this revision uses
See Trippe (1996). 19

Trippe et al. (1992) includes a detailed discussion of our model of the FSP eligibility process. 20

34

1990 census population controls and includes an adjustment for the census undercount. Previously,

we estimated how this revision would have influenced August 1992 participation rates had it been in

effect in 1992. We adjusted all historical participation rates by the percentage-point difference

19

between the original and revised August 1992 participation rates.

2. Determining FSP Eligibles

We estimated the number of eligibles for the August 1995 participation rate with a model that

simulates the FSP using March 1996 CPS data. In this simulation procedure, FSP eligibility

guidelines that were in effect in August 1995 are quantified and applied to each household in the

CPS. The FSP guidelines include unit formation rules, asset limits, and income limits. Because

20

several types of information needed to determine FSP eligibility are missing from the CPS data, we

estimated this information to improve the model estimates of the number of eligible households. This

estimation procedure is explained below.

a. Simulating the Composition of the Food Stamp Unit

In the FSP, the food stamp unit is defined on the basis of shared food purchases and preparation

in addition to shared living quarters. In the CPS, the dwelling unit is based only on shared living

quarters. Because the CPS data do not reflect who shares food purchases and preparation within each

dwelling, we simulate the formation of food stamp units within each household. For most households,

we simulate all household members to purchase and prepare food together. For other households,

we simulate two or more groups of people to form separate food stamp units. The probability that a
35

household with a certain composition (e.g., the presence of multiple families, unrelated persons, etc.)

will form multiple units is based on observed rates for similar households from SIPP data. We also

use the following rules in identifying food stamp units:

C We excluded from the dwelling unit SSI recipients who receive cash instead of food

stamps in SSI cashout states (California).

C We excluded all persons living in group quarters.

b. Determining Asset Eligibility

A food stamp unit is eligible for FSP benefits if its countable assets are less than $2,000. If the

unit contains an elderly person, the asset limit is $3,000. Since asset balances are not included in the

CPS database, we use an equation to impute the probability that non-pure PA units will pass the asset

test. Pure PA units are automatically eligible for food stamps and are thus not affected by the asset

test.

c. Determining Income Eligibility

In addition to meeting asset limits, food stamp units must also meet income limits in order to be

eligible for benefits. Food stamp units that do not contain elderly or disabled members must have a

gross income below 130 percent of the monthly FSP net income guidelines. There is no gross income

limit for units that contain elderly or disabled members. In addition, all food stamp units must have

a net income below 100 percent of the FSP net income guidelines.

Before determining each household's income eligibility, we estimated monthly income and

household net income as follows, thereby extending the CPS data.
This accounts for a provision of the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act. 21

These changes are summarized in Appendix A along with other FSP eligibility criteria in effect 22

in 1994. FSP guidelines for deductions from gross income in determining FSP net income (such as

the maximum dependent care and excess shelter deductions) are implicitly captured in the regression

model.

36

C Estimating Monthly Income. The CPS database includes information on annual

income, but eligibility for the FSP is determined according to monthly income.

Therefore, we distributed annual income to months on the basis of patterns of income

receipt shown by SIPP data and number of weeks worked shown in CPS data. We then

summed the monthly income allocated to August for each person in the unit to

determine each household's gross income for August. Simply dividing annual income

by 12 would have caused an overestimate of eligibles in any given month. 

C Estimating Net Income. The CPS database does not include information on expenses

deductible from gross income that are used to estimate net income amounts. Therefore,

we use a regression model to estimate net income as a function of the unit's earnings,

unearned income, gross income, and geographic location for each year. We applied the

relationship between these unit characteristics and net income in the July and August

1995 QC data to low-income households in the CPS data. The estimated relationships

(coefficients) are presented in Appendix A, Table A.2.

Using the enhanced CPS data, we determined eligibility for each household in the CPS according

to the program regulations in effect in August 1995 so that our estimates would correspond to program

changes that occurred between August 1994 and August 1995. These changes involved (1) 1995

update to the food stamp net income screens and the maximum food stamp benefits as provided by

FCS (2) 1995 updates to the net income equation coefficients and (3) an increase in age from 17 to

21 for which student earnings are excluded from income. The net income screens are updated each 21

year according to changes in inflation. The maximum food stamp benefit amounts, also updated each

year, are based on 103 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan.22

The unweighted counts of households simulated to be eligible for the FSP in August 1995, along

with the original sample size for the March 1996 CPS file, are listed in Appendix C, Table C.1.
37

3. Determining the Number of FSP Participants

The number of participants for the 1995 participation rate comes from the FSP Statistical

Summary of Operations (Program Operations) data for July and August 1995. This database provides

counts of persons and households that were issued benefits and the total dollar value of these benefits

in each month. We use this database because FSP participation is under-reported in the CPS data.

We distributed the total number of persons, households, and benefits across subgroups of the

population according to the distribution in the sample of food stamp case records in the IQCS. This

was done by multiplying the number of participants in an extract of the IQCS data, called QC data, by

the ratio of the Program Operations total to the QC weighted total for persons, households, and

benefits.

We adjusted the estimate of FSP participants by the percent of total participants that were

ineligible (the error rate), as determined by Program Operations. This is the first year in which

participation rates are adjusted for error rates. We made the adjustment in both the 1995 participation

rates and the revised 1994 participation rates so that it would not effect the trends.

4. Calculating FSP Participation Rates

We estimated aggregate participation rates by dividing the number of participants recorded in the

adjusted IQCS data by the number of eligibles simulated on the basis of CPS data. The number of

participants and eligibles used to calculate participation rates in 1990 through 1995 is presented in

Appendix D, Tables D.1 through D.4.
38

TABLE 7

SIPP-BASED FSP PARTICIPATION RATES,

1985-1994

August January January January January Percent Change

1985 1988 1989 1992 1994 (1992-1994)

Thousands

Eligibles (SIPP)

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 (Program Operations)

Persons 18560 18,286 18,344 24,291 26,872 10.6 %

Households 6894 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 -0.1 points 

Benefits 75.3 66.7 66.0 81.5 81.2 -0.3 points 

SOURCE: Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance errors and MATH SIPP. 
TABLE 8

IMPACT OF METHODOLOGY CHANGES ON CPS-BASED ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBLES

RELATIVE TO SIPP-BASED ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBLES

Percent Difference Between CPS- and SIPP-Based Estimates

(1) (2) (3)

Estimate

1994

MATH-SIPP

Estimate

Original

1994 CPS

Estimate

Original Plus

New Asset

Test

(1) Plus New

Unit

Definition

(2) Plus New

Pure PA

Definition

Eligible Persons 37,445,106 18% -14% -5% -2%

Eligible Benefits 2,229,776,854 11% -18% -3% -2%

Eligible Units 1,567,577 9% -16% 0% 1%

Non-Pure PA Units 10,160,092 29% -10% 3% 0%

Pure PA Units 5,537,485 -28% -28% -7% 4%

SOURCE: MATH SIPP and FSP eligibility files created from March CPS data for 1994.

39

41

REFERENCES

McConnell, Sheena. "The Increase in Food Stamp Program Participation Between 1989 and 1990:

A Report to Congress." Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer

Service, 1991.

Stavrianos, Michael. “Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: January 1994.” Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, 1997.

Trippe, Carole. "Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: Focus on August 1994."

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, 1996.

____________. "Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: Focus on August 1993."

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, 1995.

____________. "Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: Focus on August 1992."

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, 1994.

____________. "CPS-Based Food Stamp Program Participation Rates for August 1991."

Memorandum 530, 1/8/93, to Alana Landey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and

Consumer Service, 1993.

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

Perspectives on Food Stamp Program Participation. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, 1992.

Trippe, Carole, Pat Doyle, and Andrew Asher. "Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates:

January 1976 to 1990." In Current Perspectives on Food Stamp Program Participation.

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, 1992.

Trippe, Carole, and Julie Sykes. "Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: January 1992." In

Current Perspectives on Food Stamp Program Participation. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, 1993.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, Program Information Division.

Program Operations Data, 1976 to 1994. Alexandria, VA: USDA.

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.” Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Food and Consumer Service, 1996.
APPENDIX A

SELECTED FEATURES OF THE CPS-BASED TRENDS FILE
TABLE A.1

CHANGES IN THE MARCH CPS OVER TIME

March Data

Year Year Changes in Design or Weighting from Previous Year

78 77 None

79 78 Changes in metro-nonmetro definitions. New, more detailed income questions were introduced for 2

rotation groups.

80 79 Definition of adult changed from age 14 to age 15. New concept of families and headship status. New

income questions were introduced for all rotation groups.

81 80 New weighting procedure based on 1980 Census was introduced which increased the overall population

by 2.3 percent and had a disproportionate impact on Hispanics.

82 81 Top coding of income variables was increased from $50,000 to $75,000.

83 82 New industry and occupation coding. New definition of group quarters. The poverty index was modified

slightly (deleting the farm/nonfarm dimension).

84 83 The March 1984 file was issued twice. In the second (unofficial) version, the Bureau of the Census

introduced the revised weighting procedure developed for the March 1985 CPS.

85 84 Revised weighting procedures--specifically, the control on Hispanics was changed. This caused a slight

increase in poverty with disproportionate impacts on the Hispanic population, male unrelated individuals,

and persons in related subfamilies. Changes in the designation of metro/nonmetro, farm/nonfarm, central

city/noncentral city statuses.

86 85 More metro/nonmetro changes

87 86 None

88 87 None

89 88 Revised processing procedures increased income overall and reduced poverty. The poverty rate changed

more severely for blacks and persons in selected age ranges.

90 89 None

91 90 None

92 91 None

93 92(r) New population controls based on 1990 census and adjusted for the census undercount. The new

population controls with the adjustments increased the poverty population. The largest increases in poverty

rates were for Hispanic families, families with single female householders, white children, and persons

in unrelated subfamilies.

94 93 Survey was redesigned to improve the measurement of labor force concepts and wording of questions, and

to implement a computerized questionnaire.

95 94 None

96 95 Sample reduction--the CPS national sample was reduced from 56,000 to 50,000; the number of households

on the March 1996 file is 63,339 compared to 72,252 in March 1995. Revised earnings topcoding--instead

of topcoding earnings variables at 99,999, records that were topcoded were assigned the mean earnings

for topcoded individuals with similar characteristics. Revised race edit and allocation--the process for

allocating “other” responses for race into four main race categories was revised to bring estimates in line

with independent estimates. Caution is urged when comparing 1995 and 1996 data on race groups. 
TABLE A.2

RESULTS FOR THE FOOD STAMP NET INCOME REGRESSION EQUATIONS

(Standard Error Estimates in Parentheses)

Coefficients Estimated Using Administrative Data For:

Explanatory Variable 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 

Constant -60.0383 * -62.9407 * -125.9960 * -185.4315 * -169.8675 * -186.3751 *

(2.9524) (3.2940) (3.5619) (4.4493) (3.4631) (3.0435)

Earnings 0.7809 * 0.7422 * 0.7715 * 0.8254 * 0.8062 * 0.7900 *

(0.0101) (0.0108) (0.0127) (0.0131) (0.0097) (0.0062)

Earnings Squared -0.000102 * -0.000012 0.000067 * 0.000037 * 0.000044 * 0.000020 *

(0.000013) (0.000012) (0.000015) (0.000013) (0.000009) (0.000004)

Unearned Income 0.9064 * 0.9253 * 0.9562 * 1.0348 * 0.9634 * 0.9440 *

(0.0157) (0.0171) (0.0187) (0.0184) (0.0124) (0.0097)

Unearned Income Squared 0.0000663 * 0.000025 0.000109 * -0.000026 0.000073 * 0.000087 *

(0.000023) (0.000024) (0.000025) (0.000022) (0.000013) (0.000009)

Flag for Households with Gross Income <_ 10.6218 * 18.0543 * 59.9508 * 90.8267 * 92.4235 * 112.8131 *

$100 (3.6488) (4.4236) (4.7778) (6.2122) (5.4448) (4.7698)

Flag for Households Residing in Alaska NA -60.8075 * -20.6258 * -38.4529 * -42.1620 * -50.9189 *

(9.7622) (6.8873) (17.3631) (14.9779) (12.6897)

Flag for Households Residing in Hawaii 23.9860 * 5.5784 -1.4705 -38.3475 * -33.7594 * -26.5311 *

(8.5449) (6.5567) (3.6057) (7.4509) (5.7024) (6.7390)

Flag for Households Residing in the 24.4276 * 13.5778 * 4.3647 * 26.6802 * 15.9736 * 16.3730 *

Midwest (1.8605) (2.1125) (2.1379) (2.9609) (2.3582) (2.1788)

Flag for Households Residing in the South 36.3114 * 33.0194 * -0.3296 42.4122 * 19.6970 * 25.9688 *

(1.7108) (1.9284) (2.0657) (2.6281) (2.2891) (2.1389)

Flag for Households Residing in the West 13.9124 * 10.5384 * -1.6665 25.5066 * 18.2787 * 16.1168 *

(2.0378) (2.4481) (2.7431) (3.0763) (2.6038) (2.2460)

Sample Size 10,690 13,580 3,743 6,345 6,348 10,349

R 0.8080 0.7380 0.9240 0.8634 0.9196 0.9042 2

Adjusted R 0.8078 0.7378 0.9238 0.8632 0.9195 0.9041 2

*Indicates significance at the .05 level using a two-tail t-test. Coefficients identified as significant at the .05 level are those with t-values greater than 1.96.
TABLE A.2 (continued)

Coefficients Estimated Using Administrative Data For:

Explanatory Variable 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Constant -204.8244 * -196.4351 * -203.1925 * -229.6667 * -235.1379 * -247.02 * -231.5542 *

(2.9655) (4.0839) (3.9569) (4.5641) (4.4156) (4.49) (5.5340)

Earnings 0.7353 * 0.7049 * 0.7093 * 0.7027 * 0.17165 * 0.70 * 0.672 *

(0.0084) (0.0092) (0.0087) (0.0101) (0.0094) (0.01) (0.0111)

Earnings Squared 0.000076 * 0.000076 * 0.000070 * 0.000075 * 0.000059 * 0.00 * 0.000078 *

(0.000008) (0.000007) (0.000007) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.00) (0.0000)

Unearned Income 1.0086 * 0.8863 * 0.9036 * 0.9165 * 0.9144 * 0.94 * 0.8353 *

(0.0054) (0.01319) (0.01108) (0.0123) (0.0105) (0.01) (0.0141)

Unearned Income Squared 0.000002 0.00012 * 0.00008 * 0.00008 * 0.000069 * 0.00 * 0.0001 *

(0.000002) (0.000012) (0.000009) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.00) (0.0000)

Flag for Households with Gross Income <_ $100 126.1543 * 117.1564 * 123.2110 * 138.5731 * 136.9358 * 146.47 * 139.9977 *

(5.6708) (6.5974) (6.8090) (8.2793) (8.1730) (9.20) (9.8378)

Flag for Households Residing in Alaska -52.6491 * -35.4125 * -74.2323 * -39.4700 * -62.6498 * -46.22 * -24.7218 *

(11.8503) (11.9143) (11.9268) (15.1555) (14.5088) (15.46) (15.9221)

Flag for Households Residing in Hawaii -39.9692 * 12.7144 -8.4060 -5.7395 8.6119 11.21 5.8995 

(7.6094) (7.9143) (7.9251) (8.5438) (8.6611) (8.97) (9.2695)

Flag for Households Residing in the Midwest 16.1722 * 22.1803 * 20.6143 32.1891 * 34.9161 * 34.05 * 42.4614 *

(2.4354) (2.6508) (2.7497) (3.1128) (3.2515) (3.66) (3.9347)

Flag for Households Residing in the South 32.5873 * 36.7736 * 38.8219 * 51.7001 * 55.2085 * 50.95 * 56.6378 *

(2.3697) (2.6055) (2.7276) (3.1622) (3.2327) (3.50) (3.7976)

Flag for Households Residing in the West 17.9284 * 23.4548 * 15.7282 * 25.7937 * 28.6053 * 28.99 * 41.8034 *

(2.5100) (2.7491) (2.9337) (3.4385) (3.4847) (3.80) (4.1618)

Sample Size 9,942 9,842 9,743 8,753 8,541 8,184 7,524

R 0.8930 0.8803 0.8810 0.8746 0.8894 0.88 0 8663 2

Adjusted R 0.8929 0.8801 0.8809 0.8745 0.8892 0.88 0 8661 2

*Indicates significance at the .05 level using a two-tail t-test. Coefficients identified as significant at the .05 level are those with t-values greater than 1.96.
TABLE A.3

SELECTED FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY PARAMETERS, 1976 TO 1994

Analysis Year As Amended As Amended 1979 Effective 10/81

September 1976 February 1978 1977; As Amended in 1979 and August 1982

Food Stamp Act of 1964 Food Stamp Act of 1964 1980. Effective late 1978, early OBRA 1981 As Amended in 1981;

August 1980 Food Stamp Act of

Gross Income Eligibility No test No test No test <= 1.3 * Poverty Line

Net Income Eligibility <= Maximum Food Stamp <= Maximum Food Stamp <= Poverty Line <= Poverty Line

Income Income

Asset Eligibility $1500; $3000 for aged households of at least 2 persons

Benefit Reduction Rate N/A N/A .3 .3

Minimum Benefit Varies by household size Varies by household size Persons Min Persons Min

 1 $10. 1 $10.

 2 $10. 2 $10.

 3+ $ 0. 3+ $ 0.

Eligibility of Pure PA Households (AFDC or No Automatic Eligibility Automatically Eligible No Automatic Eligibility No Automatic Eligibility

SSI)

Purchase Requirement Yes Yes No No

Benefit Calculation Benefit = Maximum benefit (household size) - Purchase Benefit = Maximum benefit (household size) - .3 x Food Stamp Net

Requirement (household size and net income) Income

SSI Cashout States California, Wisconsin, Massachusetts

Monthly Food Stamp Net Unit Size US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI 

Income Screen 1 245 307 273 262 328 286 316 397 365 390 490 450

2 322 413 407 344 447 427 418 524 481 519 650 597

3 433 593 580 460 633 607 520 650 598 647 810 745

4 553 753 740 580 807 773 621 777 715 775 970 892

5 660 893 880 687 960 920 723 904 831 904 1,130 1,040 

6 787 1,073 1,053 827 1,147 1,100 825 1,030 948 1,032 1,290 1,187 

7 873 1,187 1,167 913 1,273 1,220 926 1,157 1,065 1,180 1,450 1,335 

8 993 1,353 1,333 1,047 1,453 1,393 1,028 1,284 1,181 1,289 1,610 1,482 

+ 127 167 166 133 180 173 102 127 117 129 160 142

Monthly Maximum Food Unit Size US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI 

Stamp Allotment 1 50 68 66 52 72 70 63 98 84 70 108 95

2 92 124 122 96 134 128 115 180 158 128 197 175

3 130 178 174 138 190 182 165 258 226 183 293 250

4 166 226 222 174 242 232 209 327 287 233 359 318

5 198 268 264 206 288 276 248 388 341 277 426 378

6 236 322 316 248 344 330 298 466 409 332 512 453

7 262 356 350 274 382 366 329 515 452 367 565 501

8 298 406 400 314 436 418 376 589 517 419 646 572

+ 38 50 50 40 54 52 47 74 65 53 81 72

NOTE: Eligibility parameters are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Puerto Rico is excluded from data for 1976 and 1978 in order to be consistent with other years, and Guam and the Virgin Islands

are excluded for all years.
TABLE A.3 (continued)

Analysis Year Effective 10/82 Effective 5/86 1987 Homeless Assistance Act; Leland Hunger Prevention Act of 1988

August 1984 August 1986

OBRA As Amended in 1982; Food Security Act of 1985; August 1988 August 1990

Gross Income Eligibility <= 1.3 * Poverty Line <= 1.3 * Poverty Line <= 1.3 * Poverty Line <= 1.3 * Poverty Line

Net Income Eligibility <= Poverty Line <= Poverty Line <= Poverty Line <= Poverty Line

Asset Eligibility $1,500; $3,000 for aged $2000; $3000 for aged $2000; $3000 for aged households $2000; $3000 for aged households 

households of at least 2 persons households 

Benefit Reduction Rate .3 .3 .3 .3

Minimum Benefit Persons Min Persons Min Persons Min Persons Min

 1 $10. 1 $10. 1 $10. 1 $10.

 2 $10. 2 $10. 2 $10. 2 $10.

 3+ $ 0. 3+ $ 0. 3+ $ 0. 3+ $ 0.

Eligibility of Pure PA Households (AFDC or No Automatic Eligibility Automatically Eligible Automatically Eligible Automatically Eligible

SSI)

Purchase Requirement No No No No

Benefit Calculation Benefit = Maximum benefit (household size) - .3 x Food Stamp Net Income

SSI Cashout States California, Wisconsin,

Massachusetts California, Wisconsin

Monthly Food Stamp Net Unit Size US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI 

Income Screen 1 415 520 478 447 559 515 459 572 526 499 624 573

2 560 701 645 604 755 695 617 770 709 699 836 769

3 705 882 811 760 950 875 775 969 891 839 1,049 965

4 850 1,063 978 917 1,146 1,055 934 1,167 1,074 1,009 1,261 1,160 

5 995 1,244 1,145 1,074 1,342 1,235 1,092 1,365 1,256 1,179 1,474 1,356 

6 1,140 1,425 1,311 1,230 1,538 1,415 1,250 1,564 1,439 1,349 1,686 1,552 

7 1,285 1,605 1,478 1,387 1,732 1,595 1,409 1,762 1,621 1,519 1,899 1,748 

8 1,430 1,786 1,645 1,544 1,930 1,775 1,567 1,960 1,804 1,689 2,111 1,944 

+ 145 181 167 157 196 180 158 198 183 170 213 196

Monthly Maximum Food Unit Size US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI 

Stamp Allotment 1 76 109 108 80 111 124 87 113 133 99 123 151

2 139 200 198 147 204 228 159 207 244 182 227 276

3 199 286 283 211 293 327 228 297 350 260 325 396

4 253 364 360 268 372 415 290 378 444 331 413 503

5 301 432 427 318 442 493 344 448 527 393 490 598

6 361 518 513 382 530 592 413 538 633 472 588 717

7 399 473 567 422 586 654 457 595 700 521 650 793

8 457 655 648 483 670 748 522 680 800 596 743 906

+ 57 82 81 60 84 94 65 85 100 75 93 113

NOTE: Eligibility parameters are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Puerto Rico is excluded from data for 1976 and 1978 in order to be consistent with other years, and Guam and the Virgin Islands are excluded

for all years.
TABLE A.3 (continued)

Analysis Year FACTA of 1991 amendments

August 1991 FACTA of 1991 and FACTA of 1991 and amendments

August 1992 August 1993a

Gross Income Eligibility <= 1.3 * Poverty Line <= 1.3 * Poverty Line <= 1.3 * Poverty Line

Net Income Eligibility <= Poverty Line <= Poverty Line <= Poverty Line

Asset Eligibility $2,000; $3,000 for aged households $2,000; $3,000 for aged households $2,000; $3,000 for aged households

Benefit Reduction Rate .3 .3 .3

Minimum Benefit Persons Min Persons Min Persons Min

 1 $10. 1 $10. 1 $10.

 2 $10. 2 $10. 2 $10.

 3+ $ 0. 3+ $ 0. 3+ $ 0.

Eligibility of Pure PA Households (AFDC or SSI) Automatically Eligible Automatically Eligible Automatically Eligible

(AFDC, SSI, or GA) (AFDC, SSI, or GA)

Purchase Requirement No No No

Benefit Calculation Benefit = Maximum benefit (household size) - .3 x Food Stamp Net Income

SSI Cashout States California, Wisconsin California only California only

Monthly Food Stamp Net Income Screen Unit Size US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI

1 524 654 603 552 691 635 568 709 653

2 702 877 808 740 926 851 766 957 881

3 880 1,100 1,013 929 1,161 1,068 965 1,205 1,110 

4 1,059 1,324 1,218 1,117 1,396 1,285 1,163 1,454 1,338 

5 1,237 1,547 1,428 1,305 1,631 1,501 1,361 1,702 1,566 

6 1,415 1,770 1,628 1,494 1,866 1,718 1,560 1,950 1,795 

7 1,594 1,994 1,833 1,682 2,101 1,935 1,758 2,199 2,023 

8 1,772 2,217 2,038 1,870 2,336 2,151 1,956 2,447 2,251 

+ +179 +224 +205 +189 +235 +217 +199 +249 +229 

Monthly Maximum Food Stamp Benefits Unit Size US AK HI US AK HI US AK HI

1 105 137 172 111 142 181 111 143 182

2 193 252 316 203 261 333 203 262 335

3 277 361 452 292 374 477 292 376 480

4 352 459 574 370 475 606 370 477 609

5 418 545 682 440 564 720 440 567 724

6 502 655 819 528 677 864 528 680 868

7 555 723 905 584 748 955 584 752 960

8 634 827 1,034 667 855 1,091 667 859 1,097 

+ +79 +103 +129 +83 +107 +136 +83 +107 +137 

NOTE: Eligibility parameters are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Puerto Rico is excluded from data for 1976 and 1978 in order to be consistent with other years, and Guam and the Virgin Islands are excluded

for all years.

A reduction in the maximum benefit between 1992 and 1993 was prevented by an amendment to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (P.L. 102-351). a
TABLE A.3 (continued)

Analysis Year August 1994 Hunger Releif Act of 1993

August 1995

Mickey Leland Childhood 

Gross Income Eligibility <= 1.3 * Poverty Line <= 1.3 * Poverty Line

Net Income Eligibility <= Poverty Line <= Poverty Line

Asset Eligibility $2,000; $3,000 for aged households $2,000; $3,000 for aged households

Benefit Reduction Rate .3 .3

Minimum Benefit Persons Min Persons Min

 1 $10. 1 $10.

 2 $10. 2 $10.

 3+ $ 0. 3+ $ 0.

Eligibility of Pure PA Households (AFDC or SSI) Automatically Eligible Automatically Eligible

(AFDC, SSI, or GA) (AFDC, SSI, or GA)

Purchase Requirement No No

Benefit Calculation Benefit = Maximum benefit (household size) - .3 x Food Stamp Net Income

SSI Cashout States California only California only

Monthly Food Stamp Net Income Unit Size US AK HI US AK HI

Screen 1 581 725 670 614 767 706

2 786 982 905 820 1,025 944

3 991 1,239 1,140 1,027 1,284 1,181

4 1,196 1,495 1,375 1,234 1,542 1,419

5 1,401 1,752 1,610 1,440 1,800 1,656

6 1,606 2,009 1,845 1,647 2,059 1,894

7 1,811 2,265 2,080 1,854 2,317 2,131

8 2,016 2,522 2,315 2,060 2,575 2,369

+ +205 +257 +235 +207 +259 +238

Monthly Maximum Food Stamp Unit Size US AK HI US AK HI

Benefits 1 112 147 187 115 147 193

2 206 271 343 212 271 354

3 295 388 492 304 388 508

4 375 492 625 386 492 645

5 446 585 742 459 585 766

6 535 702 890 550 702 919

7 591 776 984 608 776 1,016 

8 676 887 1,125 695 887 1,161 

+ +85 +111 +141 +87 +111 +145 

NOTE: Eligibility parameters are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Puerto Rico is excluded from data for 1976 and 1978 in order to be consistent with other years, and Guam and the Virgin Islands are excluded

for all years.
TABLE A.4

SUMMARY OF MAJOR INFLUENCES ON FSP PARTICIPATION RATES: 1976 to 1995

Period of Participation Effect on Number of Participants and Direction of Change in

Rate Change Major Influence Eligibles Participation Rates a

1976 to 1978 Economy (rising Almost no change in participants. Up (by 7 percentage

inflation and Substantial decrease in eligibles due points)

strengthening economy) to the improving economy and rising

inflation. Rising inflation resulted in

more restrictive asset and in-come

guidelines in real terms.

1978 to 1980 Legislation (Food Stamp Substantial increase in participants as Up (by 16 percentage

Act of 1977) a result of eliminating purchase points)

requirement. Decrease in eligibles as

a result of capping income eligibility.

1980 to 1982 Economy (recession) Almost no change in participants. Down (by 3 percentage

Substantial increase in eligibles due points)

to more households meeting the

income eligibility guidelines.

1982 to 1984 Economy (recovery) Slight decline in both participants No change

eligibles.

1984 to 1986 Legislation (1985 Food Almost no change in participants. Down (by about 4

Security Act) Substantial increase in eligibles due percentage points)

to the more generous eligibility

criteria.

1986 to 1988 Economy (growth) Small decline in both participants and No change

eligibles.

1988 to 1990 Medicaid expansion, Increase in participants due to the Up (by 6 percentage

legislation (Homeless expansion in the Medicaid program, points)

Assistance Act), IRCA, increased outreach and expedited

worsening economy service, and immigration laws

granting resident status to certain

aliens. Small decline in eligibles.

1990 to 1991 Continued Medicaid Increase in participants. Smaller Up (by 3 percentage

expansion, economy percent increase in eligibles. points)

(Recession)

1991 to 1992 Continued Medicaid Increase in participants. Smaller Up (by 2 percentage

expansion, economy percent increase in eligibles. points)

(Continued hardship)

1992 to 1993 Economy (improving) Increase in participants. Smaller Up (by 1 percentage

percent increase in eligibles. point)

1993 to 1994 Economy (improving) No change in participants. Small Up (by 1 percentage

drop in eligibles. point)

1994 to 1995 Economy (improving) Decrease in participants. Relatively Down (by 1 percentage

larger decrease in eligibles. point)

The effect on the number of participants and eligibles and the direction of the change in participation rates in this table is based a

on the rates for individuals.
APPENDIX B

SELECTED FEATURES OF THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

UNDER PAST AND CURRENT LEGISLATION
TABLE B.1

SELECTED FEATURES OF THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM UNDER PAST AND CURRENT LEGISLATION

FSP Feature 88-525) 1-1-79 249) 10-1-81 (PL 84-473) 5-86 100-97) (PL 100-435) (PL 101-624) 1991 (PL 103-66)

Food Stamp Act of 1977 of 1979 and zation Act of Continuing Security Act Homeless Hunger Act of 1990 The Mickey Leland

Act of 1964 as (PL 95-113) 1980 (PL 96- 1981 (PL 97- Resolution of (PL 99-198) Assistance Prevention and 1991-- Amendments Childhood Hunger

Amended (PL Effective 58 and PL 96- 98) Effective 1984 Effective Act (PL Act of 1988 FACTA to FACTA of Relief Act of 1993

Food Stamp Amendments and Reauthori- 10-82 and 1985 Food 1987 and Trade

Food Stamp Amendments 253) Effective Conservation

OBRA of 1981 Food Stamp

(PL 86-35) and Amendments of Farm,

Food Stamp 1982 (PL 97- Agriculture,

Maximum Thrifty Food Thrifty Food Thrifty Food Thrifty Food Indexing to 99% No change No change Incremental No change No change* No Change

Benefit Plan. Indexed Plan. Indexed Plan. Indexed Plan. Indexing rather than indexing to

since 1971, semiannually annually in frozen until 7-1- 100% of Thrifty 103 % of

indexed based on Jan. based on 83, next Food Plan cost. Thrifty Food

semiannually Thrifty Food Sept. cost of adjustment 10- Changed back Plan by FY

from 1973- Plan Plan 1-84 based on to 100% by PL 1991 and

1979 based on components components June cost of 98-473. Last thereafter.

BLS food price Plan step in benefit

index components calculation

rounded down

Income Net income # Net income # Excludes Gross income # Nonelderly and No change No change No change No change No change Earnings of students

Maximum maximum food poverty line energy 1.3 poverty, nondisabled are excluded from

stamp net assistance as except for subject to both income through age

income which income. elderly & net and gross 21. Previously,

was tied to the Includes disabled, who income limits student earnings

maximum income of keep previous were excluded

coupon ineligible net income limit through age 17. 

allotment aliens less Excludes as income

prorate share. 100% of vendor

payments made to

transitional housing

facilities on behalf of

homeless households

and GA vendor

payments for utilitycost assistance.
TABLE B.1 (continued)

FSP Feature 88-525) 1-1-79 249) 10-1-81 (PL 84-473) 5-86 100-97) (PL 100-435) (PL 101-624) 1991 (PL 103-66)

Food Stamp Act of 1977 of 1979 and zation Act of Continuing Security Act Homeless Hunger Act of 1990 The Mickey Leland

Act of 1964 as (PL 95-113) 1980 (PL 96- 1981 (PL 97- Resolution of (PL 99-198) Assistance Prevention and 1991-- Amendments Childhood Hunger

Amended (PL Effective 58 and PL 96- 98) Effective 1984 Effective Act (PL Act of 1988 FACTA to FACTA of Relief Act of 1993

Food Stamp Amendments and Reauthori- 10-82 and 1985 Food 1987 and Trade

Food Stamp Amendments 253) Effective Conservation

OBRA of 1981 Food Stamp

(PL 86-35) and Amendments of Farm,

Food Stamp 1982 (PL 97- Agriculture,

Itemized Payroll, 10% 20% of 1980 Act: 18% of Next inflation 20% of Increased Dependent No change No change Increased cap on

Deductions of earnings to earnings, shelter/ child earnings, adjustment earnings. cap on care shelter deduction for

$30, child child care up care cap shelter/child delayed until Separate cap shelter deduction all households to

care, to $75, indexed care cap set at 10-1-83; limits on shelter deduction increased to $231 after July 1,

education, shelter in annually in $115 with next on the use of deduction of for all $160 per 1994 and to $247

medical over excess of Jan. based on inflation standard utility $147, with households month per after October 1,

$10, alimony 50% of net Sept./Sept. adjustment on 7- expense indexed certified dependent, 1995. Raised the

or child not to exceed change; 1979 1-83, with allowances increases. after rather than dependent care

support, $75 in Act: medical following Separate cap October 1, per deduction cap to

casualty losses, combination expenses over adjustment 10- on dependent 1987. household. $200 a month for

shelter in with child $35 for elderly 1-84, each Oct. care of $160, each child under the

excess of 30% care. Limit & disabled thereafter not indexed age of two and $175

of net indexed allowed, a month for all other

annually in elderly and dependents.

July based on disabled not

shelter-fuel- subject to the

utilities shelter

component of deduction

the CPI maximum

Standard None $60. Indexed Indexed No change $89. Next No change No change No change No change No change No change

Deduction semi- annually in inflation

annually to January based adjustment

CPI-nonfood on Sept. to delayed until

components Sept. 10-1-83

change

Benefit Basis of 30% No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change

Reduction issuance tables

Rate (average 30%

above lowest

levels)
TABLE B.1 (continued)

FSP Feature 88-525) 1-1-79 249) 10-1-81 (PL 84-473) 5-86 100-97) (PL 100-435) (PL 101-624) 1991 (PL 103-66)

Food Stamp Act of 1977 of 1979 and zation Act of Continuing Security Act Homeless Hunger Act of 1990 The Mickey Leland

Act of 1964 as (PL 95-113) 1980 (PL 96- 1981 (PL 97- Resolution of (PL 99-198) Assistance Prevention and 1991-- Amendments Childhood Hunger

Amended (PL Effective 58 and PL 96- 98) Effective 1984 Effective Act (PL Act of 1988 FACTA to FACTA of Relief Act of 1993

Food Stamp Amendments and Reauthori- 10-82 and 1985 Food 1987 and Trade

Food Stamp Amendments 253) Effective Conservation

OBRA of 1981 Food Stamp

(PL 86-35) and Amendments of Farm,

Food Stamp 1982 (PL 97- Agriculture,

Accounting Prospective Prospective States' option: Retrospective Migrant Retrospective Exempts No change No change No change No Change

Period month month prospective or becomes workers, elderly budgeting and from

retrospective mandatory 10- disabled monthly monthly

w/monthly 1-83 for some households with reporting reporting

report households, no earnings required for requirement

prospective for exempt from households s seasonal

others monthly with earnings farm

reporting or work workers and

history except households

migrant in which all

farmers and members

elderly or are

disabled with homeless. 

earnings

Eligibility Automatically Must meet No change No change No change Automatic No change No change Expanded No change No change

of Public eligible same eligibility for categorical

Assistance conditions as pure AFDC or eligibility to

Households other SSI recipients of

households households. certain state

and local

general

assistance

payments. 

Asset Limits $1,500; $1,750; $1,500; No change States' option: $2,000; No change No change No change Same limits. Earned Income Tax

$3,000 for $3,000 for $3,000 for waive asset test $3,000 for Asset holding Credits excluded

elderly elderly elderly for pure AFDC households of AFDC and from consideration

household of at household of household of at households with elderly SSI recipients as part of a

least two at least two least two passing gross member(s) are not household’s assets. 

persons persons persons. income test. (including one- counted. Effective September

Excludes IRA, KEOGH person 1, 1994.

vehicles used accounts count households). Raises the vehicular

for as assets Changed asset limit to $4,550

handicapped definition of on September 1,

countable 1994, to $4,600 on

resources. October 1, 1995 and

$5,000 on October

1, 1996. Excludes

vehicles necessary to

carry food or water.
TABLE B.1 (continued)

FSP Feature 88-525) 1-1-79 249) 10-1-81 (PL 84-473) 5-86 100-97) (PL 100-435) (PL 101-624) 1991 (PL 103-66)

Food Stamp Act of 1977 of 1979 and zation Act of Continuing Security Act Homeless Hunger Act of 1990 The Mickey Leland

Act of 1964 as (PL 95-113) 1980 (PL 96- 1981 (PL 97- Resolution of (PL 99-198) Assistance Prevention and 1991-- Amendments Childhood Hunger

Amended (PL Effective 58 and PL 96- 98) Effective 1984 Effective Act (PL Act of 1988 FACTA to FACTA of Relief Act of 1993

Food Stamp Amendments and Reauthori- 10-82 and 1985 Food 1987 and Trade

Food Stamp Amendments 253) Effective Conservation

OBRA of 1981 Food Stamp

(PL 86-35) and Amendments of Farm,

Food Stamp 1982 (PL 97- Agriculture,

Minimum Minimum $10 for one- No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change

Bonus bonus for all, and twoamount varied person

by household households

size only

Other Nationwide Elimination Increased state Tighter Incentives for Selected Outreach Expanded the Automatic All Title IV Simplifies the

Changes program of purchase incentives for definition of error rate changes efforts for definition of eligibility payments and household definition

requirement reducing error. household, no reduction, limits include: new homeless disabled. expanded to Bureau of by allowing persons

SSNs required. extra benefits student definition of persons and Excluded pure GA Indian who live together

Limits on for strikers, eligibility, disabled, other hard- advanced households. Affairs but do no t purchase

eligible prorated first benefits rounded minor changes to-serve EITC Non-liquid educational and prepare food

students; month benefits, down, job in treatment of groups. payments as resources and assistance is together to be in

residents of Puerto Rico search income, Simplified income. those excluded separate food stamp

shelters for block grant; requirements, tougher work application exempted by from food units. Spouses must

battered exempt from Puerto Rico requirement process for AFDC and stamp still be in the same

women & work cashout provisions, these SSI are not countable household. Effective

disabled in registration for prohibited. new groups. counted. income September 1, 1994.

small groups selected persons Household unit employment Expanded Certain types (Higher

may with young definition and training eligibility of Education

participate. children. altered. No provision, for educational Amendments

initial month Puerto Rico expedited assistance are of 1992 (P.L.

benefit less than block grant source. not counted 102-325).

$10. SSI & SS funds, students Moved as income. 

COLA in JTPA annual Rules for

adjustments exempt from adjustment student

disregarded up categorical in income eligibility

to 3 months. restriction; eligibility were

New definition residents of guidelines modified.

of disabled. publicly to October

operated 1 of each

mental health year from

centers may July 1.

participate.

*A reduction to the maximum benefit was prevented by an amendment to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (PL 102-351).
APPENDIX C

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE IQCS CASE

RECORDS AND UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE

SIZES FOR THE CPS
TABLE C-1

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES

FOR THE IQCS CASE RECORDS

Month/Year IQCS Case Records

September 1976 11,038

February 1978 14,211

August 1980 4,140

August 1982 7,224

August 1984 6,918

July/August 1986 11,010

July/August 1988 10,695

July/August 1990 10,639

July/August 1991 10,602

July/August 1992 9,586

July/August 1993 9,389

July/August 1994 8,981

July/August 1995 8,426
TABLE C-2 

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES

FOR THE CPS

Analysis Year Households Units Households a

Eligible Eligible All

b b

1976 12,276 12,276 68,294

1978 10,122 10,122 68,455

1980 11,372 11,372 81,451

1982 10,335 10,335 73,195

1984 9,719 9,719 74,568

1986 9,953 9,953 73,843

1988 8,751 8,751 70,454

1990 9,348 9,348 75,076

1991 9,714 9,714 74,236

1992 10,280 10,280 73,878

1993 10,172 10,172 73,126

1994 (o) 9,992 9,992 72,152

1994 (r) 8,770 9,312 72,152

1995 7,961 8,130 63,339

There are two estimates for 1994 due to the revised methodology for determining food stamp eligibility. This a

new methodology incorporates a new asset test algorithm, an improved food stamp unit definition, and an

enhanced pure PA unit definition. The original estimate (o) is based on the methodology employed in all

previous trends studies, while the revised estimate (r) is based on the new methodology.

The sample sizes of eligible households and of eligible units are identical under the methodology employed b

from 1976 until 1994(o) because only one unit could exist per household. Under the revised methodology that

is used in 1994(r) and 1995, some households are simulated to form multiple units. 
APPENDIX D

NUMBERS OF FSP PARTICIPANTS AND ELIGIBLES

USED TO CALCULATE PARTICIPATION RATES

IN 1990 THROUGH 1995







1992 REWEIGHTED PARTICIPATION RATES

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

QC QC CPS

QC Adjusted Number of QC/CPS Number of Number of 

Participants Participants Number of CPS Eligible Participation Participating Eligible Participation

Households and Households and Participants (ELIGIBLES) Individuals Rate Individuals Individuals Rate

Benefits Benefits (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 1: INDIVIDUAL, HOUSEHOLD, AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES

Individuals(1,000) 26,091,175 25,758,599 25,759 43,474,359 43,474 59.25% 25,759 43,474 59.25%

Households(1,000) 10,238,401 10,238,402 10,238 16,626,805 16,627 61.58% 10,238 16,627 61.58%

Benefits(1,000) 1,730,187,302 1,749,058,375 1,749,058 2,491,670,921 2,491,671 70.20% 1,749,058 2,491,671 70.20%

Average Household Size 2.55 2.52 2.52 2.61 2.61 3 3

Average Per 66.31 67.90 67.90 57.31 57.31 68 57

 Capita Benefit

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 2: HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

 Household Size

 (number of persons)

1 3,448,409 3,448,410 3,448 5,842,832 5,843 59.02% 3,448 5,843 59.02%

2 2,338,351 2,338,351 2,338 3,670,231 3,670 63.71% 2,338 3,670 63.71%

3 1,924,453 1,924,454 1,924 2,643,819 2,644 72.79% 1,924 2,644 72.79%

4 1,335,587 1,335,587 1,336 2,093,002 2,093 63.81% 1,336 2,093 63.81%

5 681,273 681,273 681 1,267,402 1,267 53.75% 681 1,267 53.75%

6+ 510,327 510,327 510 1,109,519 1,110 46.00% 510 1,110 46.00%

TOTAL 10,238,401 10,238,402 16,626,805
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

QC QC CPS

QC Adjusted Number of QC/CPS Number of Number of 

Participants Participants Number of CPS Eligible Participation Participating Eligible Participation

Households and Households and Participants (ELIGIBLES) Individuals Rate Individuals Individuals Rate

Benefits Benefits (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 4: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S FOOD STAMP UNIT

Income as a

 Percentage of Poverty

26089705

Total <= 100 24,014,324 24,015,678 23,709,557 23,710 32,078,873 32,079 73.91% 23,710 32,079 73.91%

0 1,745,361 1,745,459 1,723,210 1,723 3,477,578 3,478 49.55% 1,723 3,478 49.55%

1-50 9,396,712 9,397,242 9,277,458 9,277 11,530,104 11,530 80.46% 9,277 11,530 80.46%

51-100 12,872,251 12,872,977 12,708,889 12,709 17,071,190 17,071 74.45% 12,709 17,071 74.45%

Total > 100 2,075,381 2,075,498 2,049,042 2,049 11,395,486 11,395 17.98% 2,049 11,395 17.98%

101-130 1,991,453 1,991,566 1,966,180 1,966 10,175,426 10,175 19.32% 1,966 10,175 19.32%

131+ 83,928 83,932 82,862 83 1,220,060 1,220 6.79% 83 1,220 6.79%

Frequency Missing 1471 0

Monthly Household

Benefit Level

<=$10 490,950 484,692 485 2,525,048 2,525 19.20% 485 2,525 19.20%

$11-25 525,501 518,803 519 1,103,033 1,103 47.03% 519 1,103 47.03%

$26-50 832,158 821,550 822 2,041,853 2,042 40.24% 822 2,042 40.24%

$51-75 845,506 834,729 835 2,275,847 2,276 36.68% 835 2,276 36.68%

$76-100 1,203,336 1,187,998 1,188 2,571,297 2,571 46.20% 1,188 2,571 46.20%

$101-150 3,614,204 3,568,135 3,568 6,452,813 6,453 55.30% 3,568 6,453 55.30%

$151-200 4,252,325 4,198,122 4,198 4,994,023 4,994 84.06% 4,198 4,994 84.06%

$201+ 26091175 14,327,195 14,144,571 14,145 21,510,445 21,510 65.76% 14,145 21,510 65.76%

Benefit Amount as % of

 Maximum Monthly Benefit

 1% - 25% 2,042,140 2,016,109 2,016 6,719,614 6,720 30.00% 2,016 6,720 30.00%

 26% - 50% 4,230,278 4,176,356 4,176 10,038,516 10,039 41.60% 4,176 10,039 41.60%

 51% - 75% 7,614,455 7,517,395 7,517 9,882,975 9,883 76.06% 7,517 9,883 76.06%

 76% - 99% 7,897,373 7,796,707 7,797 8,050,749 8,051 96.84% 7,797 8,051 96.84%

 100% 4,306,930 4,252,031 4,252 8,782,506 8,783 48.41% 4,252 8,783 48.41%

Household Income from

 Earnings 7,004,250 6,914,969 6,915 19,950,337 19,950 34.66% 6,915 19,950 34.66%

 Unemployment 972,718 960,319 960 3,551,918 3,552 27.04% 960 3,552 27.04%

 Compensation
1993 PARTICIPATION RATES

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

QC CPS

QC Adjusted QC Number of QC/CPS Number of Number of 

Participants Participants Number of CPS Eligible Participation Participating Eligible Participation

Households and Households and Participants (ELIGIBLES) Individuals Rate Individuals Individuals Rate

Benefits Benefits (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 1: INDIVIDUAL, HOUSEHOLD, AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES

Individuals(1,000) 28,154,157 27,259,846 27,260 45,241,277 45,241 60.25% 27,260 45,241 60.25%

Households(1,000) 10,900,249 10,900,031 10,900 17,031,203 17,031 64.00% 10,900 17,031 64.00%

Benefits(1,000) 1,846,951,964 1,839,468,949 1,839,469 2,515,761,147 2,515,761 73.12% 1,839,469 2,515,761 73.12%

Average Household Size 2.58 2.50 2.50 2.66 2.66 3 3

Average Per 65.60 67.48 67.48 55.61 55.61 67 56

 Capita Benefit

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 2: HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

 Household Size

 (number of persons)

1 3,471,240 3,471,170 3,471 5,875,457 5,875 59.08% 3,471 5,875 59.08%

2 2,613,784 2,613,731 2,614 3,678,088 3,678 71.06% 2,614 3,678 71.06%

3 2,093,862 2,093,820 2,094 2,662,610 2,663 78.64% 2,094 2,663 78.64%

4 1,471,804 1,471,775 1,472 2,266,698 2,267 64.93% 1,472 2,267 64.93%

5 695,643 695,629 696 1,411,159 1,411 49.29% 696 1,411 49.29%

6+ 553,917 553,906 554 1,137,191 1,137 48.71% 554 1,137 48.71%

TOTAL 10,900,249 10,900,031 17,031,203
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

QC CPS

QC Adjusted QC Number of QC/CPS Number of Number of 

Participants Participants Number of CPS Eligible Participation Participating Eligible Participation

Households and Households and Participants (ELIGIBLES) Individuals Rate Individuals Individuals Rate

Benefits Benefits (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 4: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S FOOD STAMP UNIT

Income as a

 Percentage of Poverty

Total <= 100 25,858,826 25,037,426 25,037 32,986,469 32,986 75.90% 25,037 32,986 75.90%

0 1,621,223 1,569,725 1,570 3,877,710 3,878 40.48% 1,570 3,878 40.48%

1-50 10,585,745 10,249,491 10,249 11,696,560 11,697 87.63% 10,249 11,697 87.63%

51-100 13,651,858 13,218,210 13,218 17,412,198 17,412 75.91% 13,218 17,412 75.91%

Total > 100 2,295,331 2,222,420 2,222 12,254,808 12,255 18.14% 2,222 12,255 18.14%

101-130 2,208,069 2,137,930 2,138 10,744,093 10,744 19.90% 2,138 10,744 19.90%

131+ 87,262 84,490 84 1,510,715 1,511 5.59% 84 1,511 5.59%

Frequency Missing 0 0

Monthly Household

Benefit Level

<=$10 567,581 549,552 550 2,891,491 2,891 19.01% 550 2,891 19.01%

$11-25 559,198 541,435 541 1,075,481 1,075 50.34% 541 1,075 50.34%

$26-50 963,946 933,327 933 2,211,500 2,211 42.20% 933 2,211 42.20%

$51-75 937,913 908,121 908 2,593,799 2,594 35.01% 908 2,594 35.01%

$76-100 1,131,011 1,095,085 1,095 2,851,540 2,852 38.40% 1,095 2,852 38.40%

$101-150 4,264,248 4,128,795 4,129 6,909,539 6,910 59.75% 4,129 6,910 59.75%

$151-200 4,061,445 3,932,434 3,932 5,140,053 5,140 76.51% 3,932 5,140 76.51%

$201+ 15,668,814 15,171,098 15,171 21,567,873 21,568 70.34% 15,171 21,568 70.34%

Benefit Amount as % of

 Maximum Monthly Benefit

 1% - 25% 2,307,294 2,234,003 2,234 8,257,883 8,258 27.05% 2,234 8,258 27.05%

 26% - 50% 4,489,648 4,347,035 4,347 9,881,200 9,881 43.99% 4,347 9,881 43.99%

 51% - 75% 8,609,801 8,336,313 8,336 10,335,873 10,336 80.65% 8,336 10,336 80.65%

 76% - 99% 8,089,154 7,832,204 7,832 8,153,776 8,154 96.06% 7,832 8,154 96.06%

 100% 4,658,260 4,510,291 4,510 8,612,544 8,613 52.37% 4,510 8,613 52.37%

Household Income from

 Earnings 7,739,226 7,493,391 7,493 21,171,832 21,172 35.39% 7,493 21,172 35.39%

 Unemployment 1,102,884 1,067,851 1,068 3,065,305 3,065 34.84% 1,068 3,065 34.84%

 Compensation
1994 PARTICIPATION RATES

________________________________________________________________________________________________

QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 1: INDIVIDUAL,FOOD STAMP UNIT, AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES

Individuals 27,515,146 27,206,977 44,326,802 61.38% 27,207 44,327 61.38%

Food Stamp Units 11,010,693 11,005,279 17,039,799 64.59% 11,005 17,040 64.59%

Benefits 1,811,885,588 1,873,952,516 2,473,299,201 75.77% 1,873,953 2,473,299 75.77%

Average Food Stamp Unit Size 2.50 2.47 2.60

Average Per Capita Benefit 65.85 68.88 55.80

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 2: FOOD STAMP UNIT PARTICIPATION RATES BY FOOD STAMP UNIT SIZE

Food Stamp Unit Size

 1 Person 3,766,171 3,764,319 6,140,385 61.30% 3,764 6,140 61.30%

 2 People 2,630,040 2,628,747 3,653,953 71.94% 2,629 3,654 71.94%

 3 People 2,003,896 2,002,911 2,607,808 76.80% 2,003 2,608 76.80%

 4 People 1,410,472 1,409,778 2,229,614 63.23% 1,410 2,230 63.23%

 5 People 687,849 687,511 1,314,685 52.29% 688 1,315 52.29%

 6 or More People 512,265 512,013 1,093,355 46.83% 512 1,093 46.83%

Total Number of Food Stamp Units 11,010,693 11,005,279 17,039,800

________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________

QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Race/Ethnicity of Head of Unit

 White Nonhispanic Head 11,531,167 11,680,875 11,550,049 21,902,654 52.73% 11,550 21,903 52.73%

 Black Nonhispanic Head 8,920,209 9,036,019 8,934,816 11,425,014 78.20% 8,935 11,425 78.20%

 Hispanic Head 5,270,068 5,338,489 5,278,698 9,337,232 56.53% 5,279 9,337 56.53%

 Other Head 1,436,476 1,455,126 1,438,828 1,661,901 86.58% 1,439 1,662 86.58%

 Missing Race or Head 357,226 0 0 0

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,146 44,326,801

Food Stamp Unit Composition

 Single Adult With Kids 13,571,993 13,419,986 17,566,685 76.39% 13,420 17,567 76.39%

 Single Female with Kids 12,912,141 12,767,525 15,540,359 82.16% 12,768 15,540 82.16%

 Single Male with Kids 659,852 652,461 2,026,326 32.20% 652 2,026 32.20%

 Two or More Adults with Kids 8,274,912 8,182,233 14,162,081 57.78% 8,182 14,162 57.78%

 No Kids in Food Stamp Unit 5,124,826 5,067,428 12,571,845 40.31% 5,067 12,572 40.31%

 Other 543,415 537,329 26,192 537 26

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,146 44,326,803

Gender of Individual

 Male 11,476,315 11,347,780 18,872,973 60.13% 11,348 18,873 60.13%

 Female 16,038,832 15,859,197 25,453,829 62.31% 15,859 25,454 62.31%

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,147 44,326,802

*The substantial difference between the 1993 and 1994 numbers in this category is due to a programming error. Many Missing cases were included in the Less than 12 Years category.
MODIFIED 1994 PARTICIPATION RATES

QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

TABLE 1: INDIVIDUAL,FOOD STAMP UNIT, AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES

Individuals 27,515,146 26,437,020 36,669,396 72.10% 26,437 36,669 72.10%

Food Stamp Units 11,010,693 10,693,829 15,945,479 67.06% 10,694 15,945 67.06%

Benefits 1,811,885,588 1,780,629,681 2,200,066,003 80.94% 1,780,630 2,200,066 80.94%

Average Food Stamp Unit Size 2.50 2.47 2.30

Average Per Capita Benefit 65.85 67.35 60.00

TABLE 2: FOOD STAMP UNIT PARTICIPATION RATES BY FOOD STAMP UNIT SIZE

Food Stamp Unit Size

 1 Person 3,766,171 3,657,789 6,647,624 55.02% 3,658 6,648 55.02%

 2 People 2,630,040 2,554,353 3,744,379 68.22% 2,554 3,744 68.22%

 3 People 2,003,896 1,946,228 2,309,500 84.27% 1,946 2,310 84.27%

 4 People 1,410,472 1,369,882 1,731,059 79.14% 1,370 1,731 79.14%

 5 People 687,849 668,054 887,064 75.31% 668 887 75.31%

 6 or More People 512,265 497,523 625,853 79.50% 498 626 79.50%

Total Number of Food Stamp Units 11,010,693 10,693,829 15,945,479
QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

TABLE 3: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Age of Individual

 Elderly 1,958,122 1,960,018 1,883,218 5,686,159 33.12% 1,883 5,686 33.12%

 Living Alone 1,302,992 1,308,258 1,256,997 3,197,655 39.31% 1,257 3,198 39.31%

 Living with Others 655,130 655,603 629,914 2,488,504 25.31% 630 2,489 25.31%

 Children Under Age 18 13,954,718 13,969,265 13,421,907 15,758,154 85.17% 13,422 15,758 85.17%

 Preschool 5,255,112 5,270,929 5,064,398 5,195,196 97.48% 5,064 5,195 97.48%

 School-age 8,699,606 8,705,599 8,364,487 10,562,958 79.19% 8,364 10,563 79.19%

 Adults Age 18 to 59 11,575,693 11,589,000 11,134,908 15,225,083 73.14% 11,135 15,225 73.14%

 Missing Age 26,613 0 0 0

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,146 36,669,396

Education of Adults in Unit

 12 or more years 3,560,543 5,281,751 5,074,796 8,785,016 57.77% 5,075 8,785 57.77%

 Less than 12 years* 2,419,325 3,588,855 3,448,233 6,440,066 53.54% 3,448 6,440 53.54%

 Missing Education* 5,595,825 0 0 1

Total Number of Adults 11,575,693 15,225,083

Employment Status of Adults in Unit

 Employed 2,162,169 2,209,792 2,123,206 4,822,351 44.03% 2,123 4,822 44.03%

 Unemployed 1,198,397 1,224,793 1,176,801 1,727,300 68.13% 1,177 1,727 68.13%

 Not in the Labor Force 7,965,659 8,141,108 7,822,115 8,675,432 90.16% 7,822 8,675 90.16%

 Missing Employment Status 249,468 0 0 0

Total Number of Adults 11,575,693 15,225,083
QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

Race/Ethnicity of Head of Unit

 White Nonhispanic Head 11,531,167 11,680,875 11,223,183 16,680,837 67.28% 11,223 16,681 67.28%

 Black Nonhispanic Head 8,920,209 9,036,019 8,681,960 10,543,870 82.34% 8,682 10,544 82.34%

 Hispanic Head 5,270,068 5,338,489 5,129,310 8,227,879 62.34% 5,129 8,228 62.34%

 Other Head 1,436,476 1,455,126 1,398,109 1,216,811 114.90% 1,398 1,217 114.90%

 Missing Race or Head 357,226 0 0 0

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,146 36,669,397

Food Stamp Unit Composition

 One Adult With Kids 13,571,993 13,040,201 14,540,219 89.68% 13,040 14,540 89.68%

 One Female with Kids 12,912,141 12,406,204 ERR 12,406 0 ERR

 One Male with Kids 659,852 633,997 ERR 634 0 ERR

 Two or More Adults with Kids 8,274,912 7,950,676 11,296,136 70.38% 7,951 11,296 70.38%

 No Kids in Food Stamp Unit 5,124,826 4,924,020 10,750,392 45.80% 4,924 10,750 45.80%

 Kids Only 543,415 522,123 82,649 522 83

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,146 36,669,396

Gender of Individual

 Male 11,476,315 11,026,638 15,030,533 73.36% 11,027 15,031 73.36%

 Female 16,038,832 15,410,382 21,638,863 71.22% 15,410 21,639 71.22%

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,147 36,669,396

*The substantial difference between the 1993 and 1994 numbers in this category is due to a programming error. Many Missing cases were included in the Less than 12 Years category.
QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

TABLE 4: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S FOOD STAMP UNIT

Unit Income as a Percentage of Poverty

Total 100% of Poverty or Less 24,713,589 23,745,236 27,923,970 85.04% 23,745 27,924 85.04%

 0 % 1,702,001 1,635,311 4,079,014 40.09% 1,635 4,079 40.09%

 1-50 % 9,846,563 9,460,745 10,276,286 92.06% 9,461 10,276 92.06%

 51-100% 13,165,025 12,649,179 13,568,670 93.22% 12,649 13,569 93.22%

Total Greater Than 100 % of Poverty 2,801,558 2,691,784 8,745,426 30.78% 2,692 8,745 30.78%

 101-130 % 2,675,517 2,570,682 7,037,580 36.53% 2,571 7,038 36.53%

 131 % or More 126,041 121,102 1,707,846 7.09% 121 1,708 7.09%

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,147 36,669,396

Monthly Unit Benefit

 $10 or Less 639,782 614,713 3,149,772 19.52% 615 3,150 19.52%

 $11-25 627,905 603,301 1,012,222 59.60% 603 1,012 59.60%

 $26-50 1,093,818 1,050,959 2,051,994 51.22% 1,051 2,052 51.22%

 $51-75 1,210,509 1,163,078 1,966,804 59.14% 1,163 1,967 59.14%

 $76-100 1,252,781 1,203,693 2,212,377 54.41% 1,204 2,212 54.41%

 $101-150 4,041,420 3,883,065 5,435,567 71.44% 3,883 5,436 71.44%

 $151-200 3,778,866 3,630,799 4,017,158 90.38% 3,631 4,017 90.38%

 $ 201 or More 14,870,066 14,287,412 16,823,501 84.93% 14,287 16,824 84.93%

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,147 36,669,395
QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

Benefit as % of Maximum

 1 - 25 % 2,742,252 2,634,802 6,937,143 37.98% 2,635 6,937 37.98%

 26 - 50 % 4,678,650 4,495,326 6,927,605 64.89% 4,495 6,928 64.89%

 51 - 75 % 7,492,559 7,198,978 7,807,671 92.20% 7,199 7,808 92.20%

 76 - 99 % 7,765,943 7,461,650 7,115,617 104.86% 7,462 7,116 104.86%

 100 % 4,835,742 4,646,263 7,881,360 58.95% 4,646 7,881 58.95%

Total Number of Individuals 27,515,146 36,669,396

Unit Income Sources

 Earnings 7,930,452 7,619,713 14,138,294 53.89% 7,620 14,138 53.89%

 Unemployment Compensation 638,098 613,095 1,638,774 37.41% 613 1,639 37.41%

 AFDC Benefits 13,826,801 13,285,025 11,301,049 117.56% 13,285 11,301 117.56%

 Non-elderly SSI Benefits 3,921,645 3,767,983 3,442,702 109.45% 3,768 3,443 109.45%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 PARTICIPATION RATES

QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

TABLE 1: INDIVIDUAL,FOOD STAMP UNIT, AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES

Individuals 25,882,666 25,299,091 35,663,485 70.94% 25,299 35,663 70.94%

Food Stamp Units 10,610,477 10,377,506 15,544,496 66.76% 10,378 15,544 66.76%

Benefits 1,794,924,230 1,752,232,030 2,175,871,357 80.53% 1,752,232 2,175,871 80.53%

Average Food Stamp Unit Size 2.44 2.44 2.29

Average Per Capita Benefit 69.35 69.26 61.01

TABLE 2: FOOD STAMP UNIT PARTICIPATION RATES BY FOOD STAMP UNIT SIZE

Food Stamp Unit Size

 1 Person 3,842,171 3,757,810 6,456,479 58.20% 3,758 6,456 58.20%

 2 People 2,434,926 2,381,463 3,751,952 63.47% 2,381 3,752 63.47%

 3 People 1,963,071 1,919,968 2,252,642 85.23% 1,920 2,253 85.23%

 4 People 1,305,484 1,276,820 1,575,233 81.06% 1,277 1,575 81.06%

 5 People 633,978 620,058 861,620 71.96% 620 862 71.96%

 6 or More People 430,848 421,387 646,569 65.17% 421 647 65.17%

Total Number of Food Stamp Units 10,610,478 10,377,506 15,544,495
QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

TABLE 3: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Age of Individual

 Elderly 1,755,479 1,757,292 1,717,670 5,516,951 31.13% 1,718 5,517 31.13%

 Living Alone 1,237,376 1,242,932 1,214,908 3,129,408 38.82% 1,215 3,129 38.82%

 Living with Others 518,103 518,499 506,809 2,387,543 21.23% 507 2,388 21.23%

 Children Under Age 18 13,176,682 13,191,281 12,893,858 15,112,091 85.32% 12,894 15,112 85.32%

 Preschool 4,682,614 4,697,326 4,591,416 4,850,790 94.65% 4,591 4,851 94.65%

 School-age 8,494,068 8,500,246 8,308,592 10,261,301 80.97% 8,309 10,261 80.97%

 Adults Age 18 to 59 10,923,803 10,937,154 10,690,555 15,034,442 71.11% 10,691 15,034 71.11%

 Missing Age 26,702 0 0 1

Total Number of Individuals 25,882,666 35,663,485

Education of Adults in Unit

 12 or more years 3,789,324 5,454,325 5,331,346 8,552,569 62.34% 5,331 8,553 62.34%

 Less than 12 years* 2,334,641 3,360,465 3,284,697 6,481,874 50.68% 3,285 6,482 50.68%

 Missing Education* 4,799,838 0 0 -1

Total Number of Adults 10,923,803 15,034,442

Employment Status of Adults in Unit

 Employed 2,097,806 2,158,132 2,109,473 5,014,546 42.07% 2,109 5,015 42.07%

 Unemployed 1,110,035 1,141,956 1,116,208 1,551,296 71.95% 1,116 1,551 71.95%

 Not in the Labor Force 7,410,609 7,623,715 7,451,823 8,468,600 87.99% 7,452 8,469 87.99%

 Missing Employment Status 305,353 0 0 0

Total Number of Adults 10,923,803 15,034,442
QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

Race/Ethnicity of Head of Unit

 White Nonhispanic Head 10,394,013 10,410,332 10,175,611 15,318,164 66.43% 10,176 15,318 66.43%

 Black Nonhispanic Head 9,054,797 9,069,013 8,864,535 10,305,718 86.02% 8,865 10,306 86.02%

 Hispanic Head 4,656,775 4,664,086 4,558,925 8,436,828 54.04% 4,559 8,437 54.04%

 Other Head 1,372,949 1,375,105 1,344,100 1,602,774 83.86% 1,344 1,603 83.86%

 Missing Race or Head 40,065 0 0 1

Total Number of Individuals 25,518,599 35,663,485

Food Stamp Unit Composition

 One Adult With Kids 13,638,078 13,330,581 13,833,215 96.37% 13,331 13,833 96.37%

 One Female with Kids 12,885,457 12,594,929 ERR 12,595 0 ERR

 One Male with Kids 752,621 735,651 ERR 736 0 ERR

 Two or More Adults with Kids 6,731,264 6,579,495 11,024,845 59.68% 6,579 11,025 59.68%

 No Kids in Food Stamp Unit 4,979,597 4,867,322 10,712,281 45.44% 4,867 10,712 45.44%

 Kids Only 533,728 521,694 93,144 522 93

Total Number of Individuals 25,882,666 35,663,485

Gender of Individual

 Male 10,435,864 10,200,567 14,340,622 71.13% 10,201 14,341 71.13%

 Female 15,431,247 15,083,320 21,322,863 70.74% 15,083 21,323 70.74%

Total Number of Individuals 25,867,111 35,663,485
QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

TABLE 4: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S FOOD STAMP UNIT

Unit Income as a Percentage of Poverty

Total 100% of Poverty or Less 23,628,097 23,095,356 27,027,827 85.45% 23,095 27,028 85.45%

 0 % 1,815,511 1,774,577 4,143,984 42.82% 1,775 4,144 42.82%

 1-50 % 9,404,822 9,192,772 9,121,582 100.78% 9,193 9,122 100.78%

 51-100% 12,407,764 12,128,007 13,762,261 88.13% 12,128 13,762 88.13%

Total Greater Than 100 % of Poverty 2,254,569 2,203,735 8,635,658 25.52% 2,204 8,636 25.52%

 101-130 % 2,206,151 2,156,409 7,155,386 30.14% 2,156 7,155 30.14%

 131 % or More 48,418 47,326 1,480,272 3.20% 47 1,480 3.20%

Total Number of Individuals 25,882,666 35,663,485

Monthly Unit Benefit

 $10 or Less 548,154 535,795 3,121,842 17.16% 536 3,122 17.16%

 $11-25 537,908 525,780 955,088 55.05% 526 955 55.05%

 $26-50 880,642 860,787 1,764,309 48.79% 861 1,764 48.79%

 $51-75 995,679 973,229 2,047,455 47.53% 973 2,047 47.53%

 $76-100 1,100,286 1,075,478 2,162,621 49.73% 1,075 2,163 49.73%

 $101-150 4,094,440 4,002,123 5,256,028 76.14% 4,002 5,256 76.14%

 $151-200 3,256,245 3,182,827 3,650,648 87.19% 3,183 3,651 87.19%

 $ 201 or More 14,469,312 14,143,073 16,705,494 84.66% 14,143 16,705 84.66%

Total Number of Individuals 25,882,667 35,663,485
QC QC

QC Adjusted Adjusted CPS

Participant Participants Participants Eligible

Individuals Units and Units and Individuals QC/CPS QC CPS

Units and Benefits Benefits Units and Participation Participants Eligibles Participation

Benefits (Missings) (Prog Ops Ratio) Benefits Rate (1,000) (1,000) Rate

Benefit as % of Maximum

 1 - 25 % 2,320,772 2,268,446 6,906,972 32.84% 2,268 6,907 32.84%

 26 - 50 % 4,238,017 4,142,463 6,688,636 61.93% 4,142 6,689 61.93%

 51 - 75 % 6,953,545 6,796,764 8,066,001 84.26% 6,797 8,066 84.26%

 76 - 99 % 7,267,676 7,103,812 6,464,455 109.89% 7,104 6,464 109.89%

 100 % 5,102,656 4,987,607 7,537,421 66.17% 4,988 7,537 66.17%

Total Number of Individuals 25,882,666 35,663,485

Unit Income Sources

 Earnings 7,282,276 7,118,083 14,862,658 47.89% 7,118 14,863 47.89%

 Unemployment Compensation 730,175 713,712 1,397,356 51.08% 714 1,397 51.08%

 AFDC Benefits 12,971,512 12,679,044 10,122,242 125.26% 12,679 10,122 125.26%

 Non-elderly SSI Benefits 3,722,956 3,639,015 3,438,296 105.84% 3,639 3,438 105.84%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------