Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series 

The Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation 

Food Stamp Program Report No. FSP-01-CSFSP 

Changes in Client Service in the Food Stamp Program 

After Welfare Reform: 

A Synthesis of Case Studies in Eight States

United States Food and 

Department of Nutrition 

Agriculture Service 

January 2001
Changes in Client Service in the Food Stamp Program 

After Welfare Reform: 

A Synthesis of Case Studies in Eight States 

Authors:

Vivian Gabor 

Christopher Botsko 

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Health Systems Research, Inc. Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation 

1200 18th Street NW Suite 700 USDA, Food and Nutrition Service 

Washington, DC 20036 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 503 

Telephone: (202) 828-5100 Alexandria, VA 22302-1500 

FAX: (202) 728-9469 Project Officer: Christine Kissmer 

Internet: www.hsrnet.com 

Project Director: Vivian Gabor 

This study was conducted under Contract number 53-3198-6-020 with the Food and Nutrition Service. 

This report is available on the Food and Nutrition Service web site: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane.

Suggested Citation:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Changes in Client 

Service in the Food Stamp Program After Welfare Reform: A Synthesis of Case Studies in Eight States, FSP-01-CSFSP, by 

Vivian Gabor and Christopher Botsko. Project Officer, Christine Kissmer. Alexandria, VA: 2001.

United States Food and 

Department of Nutrition 

Agriculture Service 

January 2001

Food Stamp Program

Report No. FSP-01-CSFSP
Non-Discrimination Policy 

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

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 

orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten 

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Acknowledgements 

Acknowledgements 

This synthesis of case studies on local implementation of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) under 

welfare reform represents the combined efforts of many individuals. In 1997, the FNS project 

officer Alana Landey and Steven Carlson of the Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation 

provided excellent advice in defining the purpose and content of the case study interview and 

focus group protocols as welfare reform was unfolding. More recently, Christine Kissmer, the 

current project officer, provided invaluable guidance and assistance throughout the drafting of 

the individual case study reports and the final production of this synthesis report. Special 

thanks go to Ms. Kissmer, Steven Carlson, and the Food Stamp Program staff who carefully 

reviewed and critiqued the eight case study reports, offered suggestions for improving earlier 

drafts of this synthesis report, and gave their time, expertise and commitment to this project. 

Also greatly appreciated are the efforts of Susan Williams, Susan Pachikara, and Karen Bagley 

at HSR, who participated in the on-site interviews and pulled together summary memoranda 

for the site visits they participated in. Shannon Campbell and Brooke Hardison contributed as 

well with their attention to detail and accuracy in formatting the document and graphics. 

This study would not have been possible without the generous commitment and assistance 

provided by the many State and local food stamp administrators and workers, and 

representatives from community-based non-profit agencies who spent considerable time with 

our case study researchers participating in interviews, arranging site visits, and providing 

background data and policy documents about their programs and their communities. A special 

thanks goes to each of them for being gracious hosts and extremely informative experts on the 

program. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Table of Contents Page i

 

 

Table of Contents 

Chapter I. Background and Overview................................................................................... 1 

A. Policy Context.......................................................................................... 2 

B. The Case Study Research......................................................................... 3 

C. Limitations of Study Design .................................................................. 10 

D. Organization of Findings........................................................................ 11 

Chapter II. Key Findings from the Case Studies.................................................................. 13 

A. Program Accessibility............................................................................ 13 

B. Quality of Service .................................................................................. 27 

C. Availability of Services to Support Clients= Move 

 Toward Employment and Self-Sufficiency............................................ 30 

 D. Conclusion.............................................................................................. 33 

Appendix A: Lists of Case Study Sites, State Agencies Participating in Interviews, and 

Nonprofit Organizations Participating in Focus Groups 

Appendix B: Tables of FSP Participation and Selected Demographics for Local Site
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 1 

CHAPTER I 

Background and Overview 

In October 1996, Health Systems Research, Inc. (HSR) was awarded a contract by the Food 

and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct a study 

on State Food Stamp Program (FSP) policy choices and local implementation of these policies 

after welfare reform. This study, titled Tracking State Food Stamp Choices and 

Implementation Strategies Under Welfare Reform, is designed to describe for FNS the State 

food stamp policy choices and implementation issues at the local office level in the wake of the 

new flexibility provided to States by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). 

Under this study, HSR has prepared five written products, as listed below: 

 A technical memorandum was prepared soon after the enactment of PRWORA, 

summarizing new State food stamp policy options and waivers under PRWORA 

and existing information available from FNS and other research agencies on the 

choices States were making under new and ongoing State options and waiver 

authority. 

 A report on State food stamp policy choices was prepared and released in May 

1998, based on a telephone survey of State food stamp officials conducted in 

November and early December 1997. 

 A report to FNS with recommendations for designing a systematic approach for 

tracking State FSP policy choices over time. 

 A set of eight technical case study reports for FNS, describing how States have 

changed their administrative structures and policy goals and how localities have 

changed program implementation of the FSP since PRWORA. 

 The analytical report on local implementation practices presented here, which is 

a synthesis of the key changes to client service in the FSP after welfare reform, 

based on site visits to 24 local offices in eight case study States. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 2 

This introductory chapter briefly summarizes the policy context in which the case studies were 

conducted, the design of the case study research, and the limitations of the research for 

analyzing program effects. The chapter concludes with a summary of how the key findings 

will be organized and presented in Chapter II. 

A. Policy Context

The central purpose of Federal welfare reform, as enacted through PRWORA, was to replace 

the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the Temporary Assistance 

to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program. TANF was designed to provide States with 

more flexibility to increase work and self-sufficiency among low-income families with 

children. PRWORA also introduced some changes in the FSP. The legislation made two 

major changes that directly affected FSP eligibility and participation: the majority of legal 

immigrants and refugees were made ineligible for participation in the program and new work 

requirements and a time limit on receipt of food stamps were imposed on able-bodied adults 

without dependents (ABAWDs)--a small but important segment of the food stamp clientele. 

The work requirement and time limit also resulted in States making a different array of food 

stamp employment and training (E&T) services available for ABAWDs. 

Additionally, PRWORA gave States an array of options in food stamp policies, including the 

right to impose more stringent penalties on the food stamp benefits of a household that does 

not comply with TANF rules, even if the adults in that household would otherwise be exempt 

from work requirements under the food stamp law. States were also given options to change 

the application process for food stamps. 

Recently there has been much attention paid in the news and research literature on dramatic 

declines in welfare and FSP participation since the mid-1990's. Some of the decline in FSP 

participation has come from the eligibility changes described above and a portion is a result of 

the nation’s improved economy. However, policymakers, program administrators and antihunger advocates have recognized that other factors associated with welfare reform are also 

likely involved. As a result, there has been increased attention paid at the Federal level to how 

welfare reform policies may have indirectly affected the operation of the FSP at the local level 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 3 

and changed service to individuals who are still eligible for and in need of food stamp benefits. 

While many of the food stamp policy options under PRWORA and the broader welfare reform 

changes to cash assistance for families had the stated goal of strengthening work incentives for 

low-income individuals and had the potential for promoting self-sufficiency among food stamp 

clients, they also created the possibility of changes in client service for food stamp applicants 

and recipients in three areas: 

 Program accessibility, 

 Quality of services, and 

 Availability of services for the broader non-cash food stamp clientele to support 

their transition from welfare to work and promote economic self-sufficiency. 

These potential changes in client service are the subject of this case study report. This report 

synthesizes the key findings of the individual case study documents, with an emphasis on local 

policies and practices that may have altered client service in the FSP after welfare reform. The 

report highlights those findings that the authors believe have implications for policymakers as 

they consider ways to improve FSP access and service delivery to food stamp participants. 

B. The Case Study Research

1. Overview 

To capture the way client service in the FSP changed after PRWORA, information for this 

study was gathered through site visits to State agencies and 24 local welfare offices—one rural, 

one small city, and one large urban area—in each of eight States. The case study States were 

Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. These 

States and the location of the three offices visited in each State are highlighted on the United 

States map in Figure 1. Appendix A provides a list of State level organizations visited in each 

State, the city or county for each local office visited, and information on the size of each local 

case study site (rural, small city or large urban). 

The case study findings are based on interviews with State agency staff in eight States as well 

as with local program staff, including the director, casework supervisors and caseworkers in 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 4 

three local welfare offices in each State. In addition, focus groups were used to gather 

community service providers’ and advocates’ perceptions concerning changes in the FSP under 

welfare reform and their potential impact on program accessibility. One such discussion was 

held in each State, usually in the largest urban community visited. The site-visit interviews 

took place between September 1998 and February 1999. At the time of the interviews all of 

the States had established welfare reform efforts in place for at least 18 months. 

2. Information Collected 

The purpose of the site-visit interviews was to collect descriptive information about current 

State food stamp policy choices and on the changes in local FSP practices that have occurred 

as a result of welfare reform. The interviewers obtained descriptive information and opinions 

from staff and advocates in four general areas: 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 5 

Figure I-1. 

Case Study Sites 

WASHINGTON

UTAH

COLORADO

KANSAS

WISCONSIN 

MISS.

OREGON

TENNESSEE

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

* * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* Local food stamp 

 offices visited
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 6 

 Changes in the Office Operations for Food Stamp Applicants and 

Recipients. A major focus of the case studies was to examine how States had 

reorganized their local office operations for food stamp applicants and recipients, 

including those who applied for or received TANF and food stamp benefits 

(TANF/ food stamp households) and those who applied for or received food 

stamps but not TANF (non-TANF food stamp households). The case studies 

examined changes in client flow at application, formal and informal diversion 

practices, the specialization and division of work among caseworkers serving 

food stamp clients, and the food stamp application and recertification processes 

for different client groups. 

 The Extent to Which the Focus of Services Provided for Food Stamp 

Clients was on Moving Clients to Employment and Self-Sufficiency. 

Under PRWORA, States were required to significantly expand their work 

programs for TANF clients, many of whom also received food stamps. A central 

research goal of the case study interviews was to assess whether and how local 

offices also changed the availability of work and training services for the nonTANF food stamp households. 

 Implementation of Optional Food Stamp Sanctions for Noncompliance 

with TANF Rules. A third focus of the case studies was the options under 

PRWORA that allow States to impose stricter food stamp sanctions on 

TANF/food stamp clients who do not comply with TANF program rules. 

Specifically, PRWORA gave States the option to disqualify an individual from 

food stamps for noncompliance with TANF rules, under the same sanction rules 

that apply in each State’s TANF program. This includes the option to impose 

food stamp sanctions on noncompliant parents with children under age six, who 

are otherwise exempt from food stamp sanctions under food stamp law. A 

second FSP option afforded to States is the ability to reduce a household’s food 

stamp benefits if they do not comply with TANF rules. 

Both of these sanction options were designed to reinforce the States’ TANF 

sanction rules. HSR’s first report for this study highlighted the FSP sanction 

choices States had made; however, neither the survey nor other existing studies 

from FNS provides information on how often these sanctions were being 

imposed or whether they were posing a barrier to continued access for food 

stamp participants. These issues were investigated as part of the case study 

interviews. 

 Opinions on Changes in FSP Access and Recommendations for Program 

Improvements. Local office staff, community service providers and advocates 

were asked their views on how FSP access and services overall have changed 

since welfare reform and what they would recommend be done to improve these 

facets of the program. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 7 

3. Site Selection

The eight States profiled in this report implemented a variety of approaches to welfare reform 

and modified their FSP in a variety of ways in response to PRWORA. An eight-State sample 

was purposely selected to capture diversity in State TANF policies and in States’ FSP policy 

choices. Each State was placed in one of three broad categories that reflect different 

approaches the States took to operationalize the goals of welfare reform (see Table I-1). 

Table I-1. 

Categories of Case Study States and the Selected Sample

Categories Based on State 

Food Stamp Policy 

Choices 

Defining Criteria Selected States

Category 1: States 

Emphasizing a SanctionOriented Approach 

Regarding Work 

Requirements 

These States did not waive a large 

portion of their ABAWDs from the 

three-month time limit. They also 

chose the new food stamp sanction 

options for both TANF/food stamp 

and non-TANF food stamp clients 

subject to Food Stamp E&T 

requirements. 

Kansas 

Tennessee 

Mississippi

Category 2: States 

Choosing a Less SanctionOriented Approach and 

Expanding E&T Services 

for ABAWDs 

These States chose the less stringent 

food stamp sanction options under 

PRWORA. Also, in FY 1998—

earlier than most other States—the 

Food Stamp Program in these States 

had expanded services in the Food 

Stamp E&T Program, particularly for 

ABAWDs subject to the three-month 

time limit for food stamps. 

Colorado 

Washington State

Category 3: States Making 

Changes in Front-End 

Operations at Local 

Welfare Offices 

As an integral component of their 

redesigned TANF programs, these 

States altered the way up-front jobrelated services are delivered at local 

welfare offices. Their TANF plans 

also indicated that they had diversion 

programs for TANF applicants in the 

form of lump-sum diversion 

payments or mandatory job search. 

Oregon 

Utah 

Wisconsin
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 8 

The eight-State sample captured diversity not only in policy approaches, but also in size of the 

food stamp caseload and percentage reduction in FSP participation after welfare reform. Table 

I-2 provides September 1998 food stamp caseloads for each case study State, as well as the 

change from 1996 to 1998 in each State’s total food stamp participation and public assistance 

(PA) versus non-public assistance (NPA) food stamp participation. 

4. Data Collection Activities

The study involved extensive interviews with State and local program staff in each of the eight 

States. Focused interviews with State officials were designed to collect information on current 

State food stamp policy choices and on other State programmatic or administrative changes 

that could affect the local delivery of FSP services. Interviews were held with the State FSP 

director and the individuals in charge of FSP field operations and food stamp E&T functions, 

provided there were such specialized program staff.

At each local office, the office director or manager was interviewed individually. Questions 

covered the division and specialization of caseworker roles, changes in local policy and 

operations (both FSP and TANF) that have affected FSP operations, and the director’s views 

on changes in the FSP’s objectives since welfare reform and on whether welfare reform-related 

policy changes had affected services to the food stamp clientele. Group interviews were also 

conducted with food stamp caseworker supervisors and caseworkers at each local office. The 

purpose of these sessions was to determine how clients actually proceed through the 

application process, receive or are referred to E&T services, and to identify the extent of 

formal and informal diversion practices. Local staff were also asked about their views on the 

most significant changes in FSP operations since PRWORA and how these may have affected 

client service. These group interviews were more open-ended than interviews with the State 

and local administrators, since the researchers wanted to ascertain more detailed information 

about how local office practices work on a day-to-day level. The objective was to determine 

how the office actually ran, rather than how it was supposed to run.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 9 

Table I-2. 

Food Stamp Participation Data for Case Study States1

CATEGORY 1 STATES CATEGORY 2 STATES CATEGORY 3 STATES FSP 

PARTICIPATION Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Colorado Washington Wisconsin Utah Oregon(9/98) Participants Number of 

113,826 301,924 522,898 181,924 323,251 181,741 89,113 221,115 

( 9/96- 9/98) Participation Change in FSP Percentage 

-30.2 -31.5 -16.8 -22.1 -27.5 -28.9 -14.5 -18.6 

Cases (7/96-7/98) Assistance (PA) Among Public Participation Change in FSP Percentage 

-43.1 -57.7 -36.8 -37.2 -25.3 -82.0 -18.6 -42.5 

7/98)(NPA) Cases (7/96-Public Assistance Among NonParticipation Change in FSP Percentage 

-15.2 -17.0 -3.5 -15.9 -36.3 +36.4 -15.4 -12.5 

1 State FSP participation data in this table represent the number of individuals participating in the program by month and were obtained from National 

Databank computer runs provided to HSR by the Food Stamp Program, Program Accountability Division at FNS. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 10 

Finally, in one community in each State, less-structured focus groups were conducted with 

staff from emergency food and shelter organizations and advocacy groups. The purpose of 

these focus groups was to elicit discussants’ views on barriers and facilitators to FSP access 

and recommended improvements to the quality of client service. A list of the organization 

participating in the focus groups in each State is provided in Appendix A. 

Quantitative data on population size and unemployment rates for 1996 and 1998 were collected 

for each county or city where the local offices are situated. These figures are presented in the 

tables in Appendix B.2

C. Limitations of Study Design

The case studies provide a rich source of detailed information about local food stamp policies 

and practices that has not been published elsewhere. However, the findings must be 

interpreted in light of several limitations about this research approach. 

First, the States were selected on the basis of food stamp and TANF policy choices of interest 

to FNS. Further, the local offices in each State were selected by the State FSP director because 

they represented the director’s view of offices that best met the State’s policy goals and desired 

implementation practices at the local level. Thus, the site selection process was intentional and 

not representative of the nation or of the selected States. 

Second, reliance on interviews with State and local staff and officials produces data that 

reflects not only the expertise of the respondents but also their personal perspectives on the 

value of the policies and their effects on clients. Interviews with advocates for low-income 

clients were included to provide an informed alternative perspective on the subject matter. 

However, since this study did not include interviews with food stamp participants or 

applicants, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the consequences of particular policies or 

 

2 Efforts were also made to collect and analyze program administrative data to determine how many 

individuals were sanctioned under new food stamp sanction options and how many individuals, 

particularly ABAWDs, were served by the Food Stamp E&T Program; however, very few States had 

collected or compiled data about these areas of program operations. Where data were available, they are 

discussed in the findings section of this report. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 11 

procedures for clients. Descriptions of local office operations and State policies were provided 

by individuals who may have had a vested interest in describing their program in its best light. 

Respondents were asked their views about the consequences of policies and procedures for 

clients, but despite their regular contact with food stamp clientele, program staff and 

administrators occupy very different social positions than clients and may not have been fully 

aware of how policy changes affected the food stamp applicant and recipient populations. 

A final drawback of the case study approach in this study is the limited ability to triangulate 

qualitative and quantitative data. Researchers found that the States and localities had very 

limited tracking and data collection ability to identify the number of clients affected by 

particular policies, such as the number of individuals who had food stamp sanctions imposed 

on their household or the number of individuals participating in local Food Stamp E&T 

Programs. Thus, while the authors learned about particular policies, such as comparable 

sanctions, E&T approaches, or TANF diversion practices that might have posed barriers to 

participation or promoted employment among able-bodied food stamp clients, the impact of 

these policies on clients is not measurable. 

Without outcome data or information on participants’ perceptions of local policies and 

practices, the case study findings on policies and practices must, by definition, be descriptive 

in nature and cannot be used to tie specific policies and practices to outcomes. Hence, the 

discussion of program effects in this report focuses on policies and practices that may be 

impacting client services, and thus are of policy interest to FNS, other government policy 

makers, and interested groups. We stress that the discussion of these potential effects is based 

primarily on the observations and analyses of the senior case study researchers who attended 

each site visit. 

D. Organization of Findings

The aforementioned technical reports to FNS present the individual case study findings for 

each of the eight States visited. Most of the information in these reports is descriptive and 

focuses on the policy choices of particular interest to FNS that formed the criteria for the 

State’s inclusion in the study (see Table I-1 above). The reports also present information on 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 12 

demographic and economic characteristics of the local sites and additional information on the 

overall structure of FSP policies and practices in each State. 

Chapter II presents a synthesis of the findings of these reports in terms of how the observed 

and reported practices may have affected client services, either positively or negatively. Client 

services are examined in terms of the following three key dimensions. 

 Program accessibility. The dimension of client service that may have been 

most affected by various changes in policies and local program operations is 

program accessibility. The analysis of the case study findings focuses on 

changes in program operations and policies that may have affected individuals’ 

decision to apply for food stamps, complete the food stamp application process, 

or to continue participating once they were certified. 

 Quality of service. The case study research also identified two types of 

changes that may affect quality of service offered to food stamp applicants and 

recipients. This included moving ongoing food stamp eligibility functions to a 

telephone center and thereby eliminating many face-to-face interview 

requirements in Utah, and a high caseworker turnover rate in several States.

 Availability of services to support clients’ move toward employment and 

self-sufficiency. Wisconsin, Utah and Oregon were selected as case study sites 

for this study because these States had implemented a strong work first 

orientation for their TANF Program. The case study findings focus on how this 

strong work orientation was carried over to the services for non-TANF food 

stamp households. 

The largest quantity of information and discussion in this report is on the first dimension, 

program accessibility. This is because data collected from the site visits about the effects of 

State changes on local program implementation largely has implications in this area. Findings 

on the second and third dimensions of client service are limited because, as the case study 

interviewers learned during their visits to 24 local offices, by 1998 and early 1999 most of the 

case study States—with the exception of some localities in Wisconsin, Utah and Oregon—had 

not altered either the administration of eligibility services for food stamp clients or the extent 

of employment and training services available to FSP participants. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 13 

CHAPTER II 

Key Findings from the Case Studies 

A. Program Accessibility

Some of the State policy choices and local operational decisions about how to operate the FSP 

discussed during site visits suggest that new factors may have been affecting access to the 

program after welfare reform. Thus, whereas in the past factors such as the location of the 

office, the length and complexity of the application process, language barriers, misinformation 

about eligibility and “welfare stigma” may have affected individuals’ decision to participate in 

the FSP, at the time of the case studies different factors in the local operation of the program 

may have also affected access in either a positive and negative manner. 

Highlighted below are several changes in State policies and local office operations as reported 

by the State and local FSP staff that may have acted as barriers or, in some cases, facilitators to 

access for food stamp applicants and recipients. Some of these changes were a direct effect of 

welfare reform, while others, such as office hours, verification requirements, and outreach 

options, were policies and practices that likely affected FSP access prior to PRWORA. 

1. Potential Barriers to FSP Access

The case studies revealed several areas of program operations that may have directly or 

indirectly posed barriers to FSP access. These barriers can be categorized in the following 

seven areas: 

 Formal or informal job search diversion policies, 

 Limited office hours, 

 Burdensome verification requirements, 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 14 

 Shortened food stamp certification periods, 

 Lack of E&T services to help ABAWDs meet their work requirement and 

maintain benefits, 

 Food stamp sanctions for noncompliance with TANF rules, and 

 Privatization of the TANF eligibility process. 

Each of these potential barriers are discussed in the sections that follow.

a. Formal or Informal Job Search Diversion Policies 

While it is not official State policy to divert eligible clients away from the FSP, the case 

studies provided evidence that, in practice, formal or informal applicant job search 

requirements sometimes created obstacles to clients seeking to apply for food stamp 

benefits. 

 Kansas. Kansas required TANF applicants to look for a job before their TANF 

and food stamp application can be approved. In the few counties operating a 

Food Stamp E&T Program, non-TANF food stamp applicants who were 

mandatory work registrants were also required to conduct a job search before 

their food stamp applications were approved. 

One of the offices visited in Kansas had also implemented a policy designed to 

further the State’s goals of promoting work, but that may have resulted in 

discouraging eligible individuals from applying for food stamps. The policy 

required that all applicants (regardless of whether or not they have a work 

requirement associated with food stamp eligibility) attend a mandatory 

orientation session. The session covered work requirements for the TANF 

Program and the Food Stamp E&T Program. 

While this orientation was designed to provide a general overview of both TANF 

and the FSP, it may have been promoting misinformation or confusion among 

applicants. After the work requirements were explained, some applicants for 

TANF and food stamps might not understand that they would be exempt from 

work requirements if they applied for food stamps only. Others, applying for 

food stamps only, might have thought they were subject to work requirements as 

a condition of eligibility when they were not. As a result, after finishing the 

group orientation session, some food stamp applicants may not have filed their 

application or come back for a follow up interview to complete the application 

process. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 15 

 Utah. A few years ago, Utah merged its employment and training services and 

eligibility functions for TANF, food stamps and General Assistance programs at 

both the State and local levels. At the time of the site visit, the local offices were 

transitioning to a new look that emphasized job placement and job referrals 

instead of what the State called the “support services” of cash assistance and 

food stamps. The local offices, called “employment centers”, or “job centers”, 

were serving a broader population than the population eligible for means-tested 

benefits. They served all people seeking employment or training. These centers 

were staffed by a mixture of the old eligibility workers and staff from the former 

department of employment who had experience with work registration and 

delivering job placement and training services. 

Since welfare reform was implemented in Utah, State agency staff told us they 

had been encouraging local offices to keep people from applying for TANF if 

they could find a job instead. At the time of the site visit, the State agency was 

promoting a coordinated employment services design that would make job 

placement a priority. Local offices were told that assistance in applying for 

TANF and food stamps should be provided only as a secondary support service 

for those who were not able to find jobs. Multiple steps were added to the 

application process, with the goal of dissuading people from applying for TANF 

and food stamps if it was possible to first help them find a job. While steps were 

added to the process, the State office was also encouraging local offices to 

complete the food stamp application interview, for those who did end up 

applying, on the same day that they came into the employment center, though the 

client might have to wait the large part of a day to complete this process. 

While there was a very clear State policy goal of promoting work first and 

streamlining services, the site interviews revealed that these well intentioned 

policies and procedures may have been keeping eligible clients from applying 

for food stamp benefits. 

For example, in all but the small rural county office visited, multiple interviews 

with different types of caseworkers were required before a food stamp 

application could be completed. At the Cedar City office, all applicants were 

required to talk to an intake/up-front worker and then to an employment 

counselor before they could even receive an application for any support services, 

including food stamps. Also in the Salt Lake City office, people applying for 

both TANF and food stamps had to speak to multiple workers before receiving 

an application form. The role of the employment counselor was to assess each 

client’s job readiness, provide job referrals, and establish a plan for employment 

skills training. If the employment counselor decided that a food stamp 

application is needed, the client would be referred to a third person to get the 

application form and get assistance in filling out this form, and then wait for 

several more hours that day to have the eligibility interview. 

While the effort to ensure the applicant had an interview the same day they came 

in for benefits was meant to streamline the process for clients, emergency food 

providers and other community service providers in the State said that many 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 16 

applicants became discouraged with the multi-step process. They reported that 

many people left the offices before their food stamp application was even filed 

and often did not choose to go back to the office for needed assistance because 

of the time and hassle involved. 

 Oregon. In Oregon, researchers interviewed staff in Medford, Oregon—a small 

city office—that had recently moved from a generic caseworker structure to a 

new staffing pattern designed to accommodate the applicant job search 

requirement for TANF. Clients applying for both TANF and food stamps were 

required to first meet with a specified caseworker from an assessment team who 

explained the 40-hour job search rules for applicants to TANF. Supervisors 

interviewed at this office stated that the large majority of TANF applicants did 

not complete the TANF application process either because they found a job first 

or because they did not want to comply with the 40-hour-a-week job search 

requirement. No information was available on how many food stamp applicants 

were turned away from filing their food stamp application because of what they 

learned about the TANF job search requirement at this first visit. However, if 

clients do not understand the different rules between the two programs, this 

could have been a potential barrier to FSP participation. 

Emergency food providers and representatives from other community service 

organizations in the Portland area reported instances where families interested in 

food stamps and cash assistance were handed job leads instead of program 

application forms in an attempt to divert the applicants from applying for 

services. They said that the applicants were sometimes told to come back and 

apply only if the job referrals failed to lead to employment. 

 Wisconsin. When Wisconsin implemented its welfare reform program, called 

“W-2,” it put an emphasis on diverting clients from cash assistance whenever 

possible. One of the principles of W-2, according to the Wisconsin Department 

of Workforce Development is that, “The new system should provide only as 

much service as an eligible individual asks for or needs. Many individuals will 

do better with just a light touch.”3

Anyone applying for W-2 assistance was first required to see a resource 

specialist, who made an initial assessment of the applicant’s needs, performed 

initial referrals to employment and training service providers, diverted the 

individual to other resources as appropriate, and evaluated the need for W-2 

supportive services such as food stamps. This resource specialist described the 

requirements of the various programs; another worker conducted food stamp 

eligibility interviews. 

Representatives from local non-profit agencies in Milwaukee pointed out that the 

State’s approach to the W-2 intake process may have blocked eligible clients 

from accessing food stamps. In November 1998, shortly after HSR’s site visit 

 

3 Department of Workforce Development. Wisconsin Works Philosophy and Goals. 

http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/desw2/philosop.htm 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 17 

for this project, Congressman Tom Barrett of Wisconsin called for an FNS 

investigation of the W-2 agencies in Milwaukee. He cited reports from 

advocates that Milwaukee W-2 agencies were giving food stamp-eligible 

households a list of food banks and other resources, instead of referring them to 

county workers to complete an application.4 

State officials argued that they have designed the diversion process to give 

individuals options, not to discourage them from receiving food stamp benefits. 

They denied that it had ever been official policy to discourage individuals from 

applying for food stamps and indicated that when the controversy arose in 

December 1997, the State agency sent out a memo stating that clients should not 

be discouraged from applying for food stamps. Local office staff generally 

agreed with the State interpretation; however, Milwaukee County officials did 

indicate that when the transition to W-2 first occurred, some workers in the W-2 

agencies may have discouraged food stamp applications along with TANF 

applications. 

 Washington State. The State agency emphasized its efforts to assure access to 

the FSP for all eligible individuals, and at the time of the site visit was 

embarking on a study of the impact of TANF changes on FSP participation in 

the State. However, we heard a different story from one of the local office 

administrators whose focus was on client outcomes. The program administrator 

at a local office in Seattle told us that in his promotion of work first as an office 

goal, he asked his receptionists to not only enforce the work registration 

requirement for all TANF and food stamp applicants who appeared able-bodied, 

but urged them to tell applicants to go to the unemployment office and register 

for work before applying for food stamps. While the supervisors and 

caseworkers had no information about how many potentially eligible clients did 

not apply for food stamps as a result of this informal diversion policy, it clearly 

could have delayed the filing of the food stamp application by eligible 

households and may have been a barrier to access for those who needed food 

stamp benefits, even after they found a job. 

b. Limited Hours for Accessing the Food Stamp Office

 Portland, Oregon. During the focus group with emergency food providers and 

representatives from other community service groups in Portland, we learned 

that in a downtown office, new applicants for TANF and food stamps had to line 

up outside the welfare office before 9:00 a.m. to make an appointment to have an 

eligibility interview that day. If applicants arrived after that time, they had to 

 

4 Representative Tom Barrett’s Office. Barrett Seeks Examination of State’s Food Stamp Practices. Press 

Release. http://www.house.gov/barrett/pr981119.html. November 19, 1998. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 18 

come back the next day to get an interview scheduled. Clearly these very limited 

hours imposed a barrier to FSP participation.5

c. Burdensome Verification Requirements

To reduce the number of errors in the FSP, many States had shortened the food stamp 

certification periods for households with a history of earned income. In these cases, 

both TANF and non-TANF food stamp households were required to conduct in-office 

or telephone interviews every three months rather than every six months. In some 

States, including a few visited for this study, workers were also being asked by their 

local administrators and State offices to conduct more checks on the validity of 

information being provided by clients. In one office in Oregon and in the State of Utah, 

we heard that these changes were not only placing a burden on caseworkers time, but 

also causing some eligible participants to leave the FSP. 

 Oregon. In the Gresham office, the staff said that the emphasis on verification 

increased the caseworkers’ work burden and reduced the time they could spend 

on case management to help their TANF/food stamp clients find and maintain 

employment. Because of the increased number of office visits required, staff 

said that some working clients just stopped participating in the FSP, though they 

may still have been eligible and in need of food stamps. 

 Utah. At the time of the site visit, workers responsible for recertifying food 

stamp cases were required to make direct contact with collateral contacts, 

including employers and landlords, to verify the household’s income and 

circumstances. Advocates indicated that this was causing an increased burden 

on many clients in Salt Lake City who did not want their employers to know that 

they were applying for or receiving public benefits. 

d. Shortened Food Stamp Certification Periods 

Interviewees in five States (Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin) that 

had recently shortened the food stamp certification periods for clients with a history of 

earned income, noted that this policy was increasing the time and paperwork burden on 

caseworkers and clients. They said that clients were required to come into the office 

 

5

 Researchers on this study later learned that this office and its administrator were the subject of an FNS 

audit, initiated by the local legal services office and that the office practices presenting barriers to 

participation were changed as a result. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 19 

more often and supply information and verification documents more frequently. 

Caseworkers expressed particular concern about the continued food stamp participation 

of families with children, working families, and persons with transportation barriers. 

e. Lack of E&T Services to Help ABAWDs Meet Their Work Requirement 

and Maintain Benefits 

Two of the eight States visited—Utah and Oregon—had very limited E&T services 

available for non-TANF food stamp clients at the time of our visit. Kansas provided 

Food Stamp E&T services in a small number of counties in the State and offered no 

services to ABAWDs subject to the time limit. 

 Utah. State officials said that they were slow to start up activities for ABAWDs 

because the goal of providing workfare for ABAWDs was incompatible with the 

broader State welfare reform philosophy of encouraging all applicants and 

recipients to look for a suitable job and maintain unsubsidized employment. 

Local office staff indicated that so much effort had gone into building up E&T 

and job placement systems for TANF applicants and recipients, that they had not 

yet had time to build up a similar set of options for ABAWDs, though they 

hoped to in the near future. 

 Oregon. During our visits to the local offices, the caseworkers in Oregon told 

us that since the work requirements were imposed on ABAWDs, most had left 

the FSP and the workers did not know if they had found employment. The 

exception to this rule was in Medford, where there was a contractor providing 

workfare slots to every ABAWD subject to the work requirement, though 

caseworkers stated that most ABAWDs did not go to the orientation session to 

learn about activities that could help them meet their work requirement. At the 

time of our interviews, the State agency staff and advocates told us that the State 

had funded a non-profit organization to study how to best serve the ABAWD 

population, including how to design an effective workfare component for this 

population. 

Also, during this same period, Oregon officials were requesting a broad waiver 

from FNS that would have allowed them to impose stricter job search 

requirements on all food stamp work registrants and eliminate the three-month 

time limit for ABAWDs. Clearly, Oregon’s Food Stamp E&T Program was in 

transition at the time of our visit. Very few non-TANF food stamp clients were 

receiving E&T services and many ABAWDs were losing benefits due to limited 

availability of qualifying work slots to help them meet their work requirement. 

 Kansas. The decision not to serve ABAWDs in the Food Stamp E&T Program 

was made at the outset of welfare reform in Kansas. The State official who 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 20 

administered the Food Stamp E&T Program expressed the State viewpoint that 

focusing the program on workfare and education and training opportunities for 

ABAWDs would change its nature and would not meet their needs or further the 

goals of welfare reform in the State. Since Kansas had not requested any 

waivers from FNS to exempt certain areas from the three-month time limit, the 

only way for ABAWDs to collect food stamp benefits after three months was to 

find unsubsidized employment. 

f. Food Stamp Sanctions for Noncompliance with TANF Rules

PRWORA offers States the option to impose food stamp sanctions on TANF/food 

stamp households that would otherwise be exempt from food stamp sanctions under the 

Food Stamp E&T Program rules. One provision of the welfare reform law, known as 

the “comparable disqualification option” allows States to disqualify a TANF/food 

stamp individual from food stamps when he or she is disqualified from TANF for not 

complying with TANF rules, even if the individual would otherwise be exempt from a 

food stamp sanction under the Food Stamp E&T rules. A second provision allows 

States to reduce a household’s food stamp benefits by up to 25 percent when the 

household’s TANF benefits have been reduced for noncompliance with a TANF 

requirement. PRWORA also offers States the option to impose food stamp sanctions 

on a whole food stamp household for up to six months when the head of household is 

noncompliant with TANF work requirements and a mandatory food stamp E&T 

registrant. 

Three States—Mississippi, Kansas, and Tennessee—were selected as case study States 

because they had chosen one of these sanction options after PRWORA, and thus were 

assumed to be using a more punitive food stamp policy option than were many other 

States. One purpose of the interviews in these States was to determine how often the 

sanctions were imposed and whether there was a formal conciliation process routinely 

used to help clients meet their work requirements and thereby prevent a sanction. 

The following paragraphs summarize what was learned from interviews with State and 

local staff about the difference in implementation of the optional sanction policies in 

the three States. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 21 

 Mississippi. Mississippi chose the comparable disqualification option soon 

after the passage of PRWORA. Initially, the State interpreted this option more 

broadly than intended by Federal policy makers. Beginning in July 1997, if an 

individual did not comply with TANF work requirements or did not comply with 

child support agency requirements, the whole family, including the children, lost 

both TANF and food stamp benefits. At the time of the site visit, and pursuant 

to a November 1997 policy clarification memorandum from FNS, the State had 

changed its implementation of this sanction option to disqualify only the 

noncompliant individual from food stamps. Thus, if a TANF/food stamp 

household did not comply with TANF work rules and there was no child age six 

or above in the household then the noncompliant individual was sanctioned. In 

households with children age six or older, the whole household was still 

sanctioned because the head of the household was considered a mandatory Food 

Stamp E&T client and subject to Mississippi’s food stamp sanction rules. State 

and local officials reported that most TANF/food stamp cases were exempt from 

full household food stamp E&T sanctions because they included a child under 

age six. 

State data on food stamp sanctions for September 1998 indicated that 540 

TANF/food stamp individuals or whole households were disqualified from food 

stamps that month because they had not met TANF requirements. While the 

State data do not differentiate between individual and whole household 

sanctions, clearly both the comparable disqualification sanction option in 

PRWORA and the State’s food stamp E&T sanction policies for comparable 

TANF work requirements were resulting in a large total number of food stamp 

sanctions that month. 

State and local officials indicated that the initiation of the comparable food 

stamp sanction policy after PRWORA had a limited effect on clients’ 

compliance with the TANF work rules. Rather than be subject to a comparable 

food stamp sanction many families with children under age six opted to 

discontinue TANF participation. Interviewers said that these families often 

applied for food stamps as non-TANF households, thus avoiding TANF work 

requirements and the potential for related food stamp sanctions. This behavior 

on the part of clients was in large part attributed to the State’s low TANF benefit 

level. At the time of the site visit, Mississippi had the lowest TANF benefit level 

of any State (the maximum TANF cash benefit for a family of three was $120 a 

month) and as a result food stamp benefits were more valuable to clients than 

TANF benefits. 

 Kansas. When Kansas was visited in September 1998, the State had a 

comparable disqualification option in place. If a head of household in a 

TANF/food stamp household violated a TANF work requirement or did not 

cooperate with child support, both the TANF case and the food stamp case were 

closed, and the household received no benefits from either program. This was 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 22 

referred to as a “full family sanction.”2 If a household member other than the 

head of household violated the TANF work requirement or did not cooperate 

with child support, only that individual’s TANF and food stamp benefits were 

discontinued. 

September 1998 data provided by the State indicated that 67 households (with an 

unknown number of individuals) had their food stamp cases closed that month 

due to non-compliance with a work requirement. Case managers and 

supervisors indicated that the monthly number of TANF and food stamp 

sanctions had been much higher when Kansas initially implemented its TANF 

program. Therefore, quite a few households had probably been negatively 

affected by the comparable disqualification policy since its implementation in 

Kansas. 

At the time of the site visit, there was no routine conciliation process in effect for 

households losing food stamp benefits due to sanctions. Local staff reported that 

TANF/food stamp full family sanctions had to be reviewed by a caseworker 

supervisor. Both workers and supervisors indicated that supervisors almost 

always concurred with the worker. Some staff indicated that the workers were 

influenced by their supervisor’s philosophy regarding how strict they should be 

when imposing sanctions. These philosophies apparently varied significantly. 

Some encouraged sanctions at the first instance of noncompliance, while others 

encouraged workers to spend time with the client and to do what was needed to 

help them participate in a work activity before sanctioning their cash and food 

stamps. 

 Tennessee. Tennessee was the only State visited that chose the food stamp 

benefit reduction option for TANF/food stamp households that do not comply 

with TANF requirements. At the time of the site visit, the State reduced food 

stamp benefits by 10 percent when a household did not comply with TANF 

rules. Tennessee was also the only State with a very client-friendly conciliation 

process designed to prevent sanctions when possible.3 Local and State staff 

interviewed indicated that the benefit reduction was too small to serve as an 

incentive for households to comply with TANF rules. According to the staff, it 

was very common for households to receive reduced food stamp benefits for 

long periods of time as a result of continued non-compliance with TANF rules. 

In response to concerns about the number of TANF cases being closed, in 

January 1998 Tennessee initiated a review process for all cases that were going 

 

6

 Kansas officials were aware that its policy was not in compliance with FNS guidance; however, at the 

time of the site visit, State officials stated that they disagreed with the FNS interpretation and had 

decided to maintain the policy until official regulations were issued. This decision was subsequently 

modified. Effective April 1, 1999, the State ended the full family sanction policy for the FSP. All food 

stamp penalties now effect only the individual violating the TANF requirement. 

3

 The State did not have data on the number of households that were receiving reduced food stamp 

 benefits because of noncompliance with TANF rules or on how many families left the FSP as a result of 

this sanction. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 23 

to be sent a case closure notice for noncompliance. The reviews, initially done 

by State employees and subsequently turned over to contract employees hired by 

four State universities, involved contacting the client and keeping the family on 

benefits if possible. Workers were told to maintain TANF and food stamp 

benefits for the household if the reviewer found an error in the case, if the client 

had good cause for noncompliance, or if the reviewer convinced the client to 

agree to comply with the TANF requirement. 

According to State and local staff and advocates interviewed, this conciliation 

process has reduced the number of TANF sanctions and has maintained access to 

the FSP at full benefit levels for most TANF households. 

g. Privatization of the TANF Eligibility Process

Of all the local offices visited, only Milwaukee, Wisconsin had fully privatized TANF 

eligibility and other services. One of the consequences of privatization is the delinking 

of TANF and FSP functions since the FSP must be administered by State and local 

personnel. This separation created challenges for food stamp workers and potential 

participants in Milwaukee. The following summarizes some of the challenges and 

barriers to FSP access that were assessed through the local interviews. 

 Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The local delivery of TANF benefits and services was 

privatized and reorganized in Milwaukee. At the time of the site visit, 

households applying for both TANF and food stamps went to one of six district 

offices—administered by five different private contractors—to have their food 

stamp eligibility determined by Milwaukee County workers who worked on-site 

with the private contractors. To facilitate enrollment in food stamps in this 

divided system, a client could apply for food stamps at any of the district offices; 

the case was then transferred to the correct office for ongoing case management. 

While this arrangement addressed one potential problem for applicants, it caused 

discontinuity in services and confusion for participants. 

The county workers also indicated that dividing the city into regions caused 

problems for themselves and clients because of the large number of cases being 

transferred. Some of these transfers resulted from individuals applying at one 

center and receiving ongoing case management at another, but an even greater 

cause of the transfers was clients moving from one district to another. One 

county worker reported that 300-500 cases were transferred out of his office 

each month and another 300-500 cases were transferred into the office from 

other TANF agencies or county food stamp offices. County caseworkers 

reported that they received as many as 56 new cases from an outside TANF 

agency in a month. When a case was transferred, the record needed to be 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 24 

reviewed and the worker was supposed to make sure it was not due for 

recertification. County workers who reviewed transferred cases said that they 

frequently ran into problems because procedures had not been followed 

correctly. This process placed a burden on clients as well because the 

transferred cases needed to be seen in the new office within 30 days after the 

transfer. 

The nonprofit service providers participating in the focus group in Milwaukee 

reported that dividing the city into service areas presented a real problem for 

clients. Many clients did not understand the divisions. Often times the office 

they were assigned to was not the one closest to their home. The providers 

reported that some clients had been told that they could get services at county 

offices, but when they went to those offices, they were sent to private TANF 

agency offices. 

Another potential barrier to participation for ongoing food stamp cases in 

Milwaukee was the lack of coordination between TANF and food stamp 

recertifications and its resultant time burden for clients. The certification period 

for most food stamp households was three months, while TANF and Medical 

Assistance cases were reviewed every six months. Because different workers 

were responsible for the food stamp and TANF portions of a household’s case, 

clients had to see two different caseworkers to be recertified, sometimes at two 

different locations. As a result, they had to provide the same information twice. 

In addition, while the goal of the local offices was to coordinate the scheduling 

of TANF and food stamp recertifications when they occurred in the same month, 

county workers indicated that in practice this was the exception rather than the 

rule. As a result, TANF/food stamp participants often had to make multiple trips 

to the office to maintain their eligibility for food stamps and TANF. 

2. Potential Facilitators to FSP Access

A few of the local offices visited had implemented efforts to promote FSP participation, 

particularly among ABAWDs, working families, and elderly persons. Their practices fall into 

two categories: 

 Outreach, and 

 Designated caseworkers and on-site E&T assessments for ABAWDs. 

a. Outreach

At the time of the site visits, few States had taken advantage of the available Federal 

matching funds to develop food stamp outreach plans. Three exceptions were 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 25 

Tennessee, Washington, and Colorado. After PRWORA, these States initiated new 

outreach efforts targeted to populations with the largest declines in FSP participation. 

For example, Tennessee began funding a community-based organization to conduct 

outreach to working families and legal immigrants. In Colorado, a new outreach effort 

by a private contractor at one local site focused specifically on ABAWDs who had left 

the FSP. More details on these States’ outreach efforts are provided below. 

 Tennessee. Since the 1980s, Tennessee has spent State food stamp 

administrative dollars matched by Federal dollars to help fund the outreach 

activities of several advocacy organizations. Manna, a Nashville area 

emergency food provider and advocacy organization, has a long-standing food 

stamp outreach effort that initially targeted the elderly and disabled. Since the 

implementation of welfare reform, Manna has broadened its focus to include 

working families and immigrants. West Tennessee Legal Services has also been 

engaged in food stamp outreach activities. At the time of the site visit, East 

Tennessee Legal Services had requested to get involved in food stamp outreach 

and the State had agreed. The outreach effort by these advocacy groups is an 

accepted part of the Tennessee program. Despite some tension between the 

policy goals of advocates and those of State officials, there has been good 

cooperation between the agencies. 

 Washington State. Washington State has had a food stamp outreach program 

for several years, administered through private nonprofit organizations funded 

by the Community Services Block Grant and other agencies serving hard-toreach populations, such as migrant farm workers and non-English speaking 

immigrants. During the group interview with advocacy organizations in 

Spokane, researchers learned about an interesting street outreach program 

conducted by a local community action agency. This program, targeted to the 

homeless, encourages participation in the FSP and specifically in workfare 

programs that can help ABAWDs meet their food stamp work requirement and 

maintain benefits. 

 Colorado. In Colorado Springs, Goodwill Industries is the E&T provider for 

food stamp participants. At the time of the site visit, Goodwill was planning to 

initiate an outreach program at a local soup kitchen to help ABAWDs regain 

food stamp eligibility after hitting their three-month time limit. The plan was to 

meet individually with these ABAWDs and talk to them about how Goodwill 

and the FSP could help them get back on their feet and find a workfare 

placement that would not only restore their food stamps, but also lead to the 

possibility of permanent employment. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 26 

b. Designated Caseworkers and On-site E&T Assessments for ABAWDs

Two of the States visited had made extensive efforts to expand their program capacity 

at the local level in order to offer every ABAWD a qualifying E&T slot. At each local 

office visited in these States there was a worker specially assigned to help ABAWDs 

meet their work requirement and thus maintain access to the FSP. The Food Stamp 

E&T efforts for ABAWDs in these States are described below. 

 Colorado. Colorado’s Food Stamp E&T Program has always had a strong 

commitment of funding from the counties. By Fiscal Year 1999, the State was 

planning to provide Food Stamp E&T services with funding provided by 44 of 

63 of the counties, including every county that did not have a waiver from the 

ABAWD provisions. 

Workfare has been a major component of the State’s E&T strategy for food 

stamp participants since 1992, when it initiated a mandatory workfare 

demonstration project in several counties. At the time of the site visit, 42 local 

programs had workfare activities. The State had also encouraged counties to 

expand the availability of job training and education services in their Food 

Stamp E&T Programs. Our visits to the three local offices made it apparent that 

the key to the successful participation of ABAWDs in E&T in this State was 

having an individual case manager on site who saw the ABAWD right after his 

or her first eligibility interview and who was highly motivated to help the client 

find an appropriate E&T slot and to help him or her follow through with 

participation. 

Colorado is the only State visited that had outcome data on its mandatory E&T 

population. The counties were required to track and report these data each 

month, as a condition of receiving funds from the State. According to figures 

provided by the State agency, the approach in Colorado not only helped ensure 

continued food stamp participation for many ABAWDs, but also helped many 

find employment. Forty percent of food stamp participants statewide (ABAWDs 

and non-ABAWDs subject to mandatory E&T requirements) who were referred 

to a workfare site complied with the site’s participation requirements. More 

impressive still, 55 percent of those who started a food stamp workfare 

placement subsequently become employed. These numbers compare very 

favorably to the ABAWD E&T participation rates noted in local offices in other 

States visited for this study. 

 Washington State. Since the passage of PRWORA, the State food stamp 

agency, with assistance from a statewide anti-poverty advocacy organization, the 

Children’s Alliance, had actively sought to help ABAWDs maintain their food 

stamp eligibility through participation in qualifying E&T. At the time of the site 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 27 

visit, each regional office in the State had staff specifically assigned to help local 

offices identify more workfare sites and build their employment and training 

capacity for ABAWDs. In addition, local offices were provided temporary 

funding for a designated worker to provide case management services for 

ABAWDs. 

Each of the three local offices visited had a full-time caseworker assigned to the 

ABAWD caseload. The caseworker’s client responsibilities were to explain the 

time limit rules and employment and training options, and to provide counseling 

and referrals to job search and subsequently to workfare positions in the 

community. These workers were not primarily eligibility workers, but rather 

more like the case managers for TANF. Local staff reported that many 

ABAWDs did not participate in the workfare assignments offered them and that 

the case managers did make an effort to follow-up and assist these clients. The 

ABAWD workers told us that it was their role either to help the ABAWDs link 

up with employment services to find a job or to find out why they did not 

participate in workfare and to help them find a more suitable workfare 

placement. 

Some of the staff from nonprofit agencies who participated in the focus group in 

Spokane said they worked closely with the ABAWD case managers to find 

appropriate workfare slots and reach out to ABAWDs who had left the program 

to inform them of their right to regain food stamp eligibility if they comply with 

the work requirement. This was identified by focus group participants and local 

agency staff as a successful partnership effort. 

B. Quality of Service

At the same time that welfare reform was changing the way States deliver services to new 

applicants and participants, the case study site visits revealed changes in the caseworker 

function that may have positively or negatively affected the quality of service for food stamp 

clients. 

1. Centralized Telephone Eligibility Center: A New Model to Streamline Services 

for Ongoing, Non-TANF Food Stamp Cases

 Utah. In June 1998, in effort to streamline functions related to determining 

client eligibility and to increase staff time available for employment-related 

services, Utah’s Department of Workforce Service began a pilot project to assess 

the feasibility of centralizing all eligibility functions for food stamps and other 

supportive services at a telephone eligibility center. At the time of the site visit, 

the 3,500 households in this pilot project conducted virtually all food stamp 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 28 

recertification business over the telephone with this centralized staff. The sole 

exception was a required annual face-to-face interview with a caseworker at the 

food stamp office. The telephone center staff were also responsible for 

responding to that food stamp participant’s questions and concerns in between 

recertifications. Clients without telephones in their homes were being asked to 

come into their local employment center and talk to a worker using a telephone 

located in the office. 

A consumer satisfaction survey conducted by the State found that people using 

the telephone service center felt it was easier to do business with the telephone 

center staff than to visit an employment center. However, two concerns arose 

from the creation of this center. First, because the telephone center staff were so 

focused on eligibility functions, the State’s goal of integrating employmentrelated services with eligibility functions for all clients was weakened somewhat. 

Second, as reported by advocates in the focus group in Salt Lake City, there 

were long waiting times for clients who called the telephone center. 

Representatives from community groups and caseworkers also expressed some 

concern about the State’s plan to further automate the telephone service 

functions for ongoing food stamp cases. Staff from community groups in Salt 

Lake City reported that clients’ were already somewhat confused and frustrated 

by the fact that after their eligibility was determined they only had access to a 

worker by telephone. These individuals felt that the clients would be further 

confused and might not stay on the FSP if the process became less personalized 

by having to report changes and provide other information to an automated voice 

over the telephone. 

Overall, it appears that the move toward a telephone eligibility system in Utah 

can ease the burden of multiple office visits required for clients and potentially 

provide easier access for clients to information about their case and to a worker 

who can take information they need to report. The model in Utah is one that 

other States have considered implementing in the near future. However, States 

must learn from the experience of Utah. In the short-term, advocates in Utah 

described the confusion that this change caused clients who still want to see an 

individual caseworker face-to-face and who expect continuity of service from 

the same worker. State agency staff reported that as the State’s system evolved 

and further evaluations and refinements were being made, one of the State’s first 

priorities would be to improve customer satisfaction by reducing the waiting 

times for clients who call in and by improving customer education about the 

benefits of the telephone center for them. 

Another early challenge of the centralized system was the transferring of clients’ 

case records from paper files to a centralized automated system so that any 

worker at the telephone center could quickly pull up a client’s file when he or 

she called in. At the time of the site visit, State agency staff reported this 

process was being assessed and improved, but had not yet been perfected. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 29 

2. Caseworker Turnover

At the time of the site visits, caseworker turnover was high in many States, particularly among 

the non-TANF food stamp caseworkers whose pay scale was often lower than that for the 

TANF workers. Turnover may affect quality of service in at least two ways. First, turnover 

increases the size of caseloads for workers who remain. Second, it means that services are 

being provided by newer, less experienced staff. Case study information indicates that the 

problem of caseworker turnover stemmed from a variety of factors, as described below. 

 Low Pay. Administrators and supervisors in Mississippi, Tennessee, and 

Colorado pointed to low pay as a major cause of caseworker turnover. These 

staff left the welfare system for better paying opportunities. In Colorado, many 

caseworkers who worked with the non-public assistance food stamp clients 

transferred to the Colorado Works Program (the State’s TANF program), where 

caseloads are smaller and the resources available for both clients and workers are 

greater. 

 Complexity of the Job. In Mississippi, the difficulty of understanding and 

implementing complex policies in multiple programs led offices to seek out 

individuals with advanced degrees. These individuals were especially prone to 

leave because of the limited advancement possibilities within the State agency. 

In Colorado, supervisors in the larger offices noted that there was a large 

turnover in food stamp caseworkers because of the large caseloads and the 

complexity and multiple changes in the food stamp rules. 

 Increased Emphasis on Verification and Error Prevention. In some of the 

local offices visited in Washington and Utah, caseworkers said that the amount 

of time they must spend reviewing each case to prevent errors was increasing 

their workload, decreasing the amount of time they could spend with clients and 

causing high turnover rates. In Oregon, caseworkers did not directly mention 

high turnover as an issue, but they did say that their high caseloads and the three 

month recertification period for food stamp households was resulting in 

increased paperwork requirements and a consequent reduction in job 

satisfaction. These workers said the time they spent on verification for food 

stamps took away needed time to provide quality case management for public 

assistance food stamp cases—a new function under welfare reform that had 

greatly increased their job satisfaction. In Salt Lake City, some caseworkers 

responsible for ongoing maintenance of cases, including contacting collateral 

contacts and other increased verification requirements, expressed some concern 

about increased caseloads and noted high turnover and decreased job satisfaction 

among their colleagues. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 30 

 Limited Labor Pool in a Rural Area. In most rural offices visited, the 

caseworkers serving food stamp cases had been working in the program for many 

years and had experienced many changes in policies and procedures. One office 

in rural Tennessee had a major problem retaining workers in their community. 

Most of the workers in this office were recruited from different counties, and 

were transferred when job opportunities arose closer to their homes. 

C. Availability of Services to Support Clients’ Move Toward 

Employment and Self-Sufficiency

A number of States were trying new ways of delivering employment services for the TANF 

population and, as a result, had dramatically changed the design of the local welfare office 

procedures for TANF/food stamp applicants. For example, several States were accepting food 

stamp applications at new employment or job service centers that were emphasizing job search 

and placement, rather than public assistance eligibility determination. Three such States—

Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin—were purposely selected as category three case study sites to 

examine whether this strong work orientation was carrying over to the non-TANF food stamp 

clientele and helping them move toward employment and self-sufficiency. Though case study 

interviewers repeatedly heard that there was little significant change in the ability of the FSP to 

help non-TANF clients move toward employment and self-sufficiency in all eight case study 

States, some local offices in Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin had made the greatest changes in this 

area and the findings from these sites are highlighted below. 

 Oregon. Since implementation of welfare reform statewide in Oregon, the State 

required everyone who applied for and received TANF benefits to conduct 

applicant job search activities for 40 hours a week as a condition of eligibility and 

then participate in self-sufficiency activities. Oregon also strengthened the TANF 

sanctions for non-cooperation with the required activities and expanded the range 

of work activities available to TANF/food stamp clients, including subsidized 

employment and substance abuse treatment, which the State has a waiver to count 

as a work activity for TANF/food stamp clients in need of treatment. 

State officials reported that they encouraged local offices to provide case 

management services to all clients coming in to apply for benefits, including the 

non-TANF unemployed and underemployed food stamp households. However, 

local office staff in the two urban offices (Gresham and Medford) indicated that 

both limited resources and the Food Stamp E&T Program rules prevented them 

from providing case management services for non-TANF food stamp households. 

While there were requirements for caseworkers to refer ABAWDs to E&T 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 31 

services that qualified to meet their work requirement, in these offices the focus 

of the caseworkers’ interaction with the non-TANF food stamp households was 

on food stamp eligibility determination and verification of client circumstances to 

prevent overpayments.4 

At the two urban offices visited in Oregon, employment and training services and 

case management were generally not available or utilized for non-TANF food 

stamp individuals, except for workfare as an option in Gresham for some 

ABAWDs. In the rural office of Tillamook, where all caseworkers were generic 

in their responsibilities and thus determined eligibility for multiple programs for 

all client types, all food stamp clients received one-on-one case management 

services, even if they were not ABAWDs. This office had a particularly large 

proportion of non-TANF food stamp households in its food stamp caseload. Of a 

total food stamp caseload of approximately 1,300 in September 1998, 90 percent 

were non-TANF food stamp households. The caseworkers, many of whom knew 

these clients on a very personal level in this close-knit community, told us that 

they tried to provide the same set of services, including referrals to appropriate 

E&T opportunities and case management, for all their TANF and non-TANF 

food stamp clientele. Also of note is that in this office, at the time of our site 

visit, caseloads averaged about 100 per caseworker, a much smaller number than 

in the larger offices visited in Oregon and in other States. Clearly workers with 

smaller caseloads had the time to provide more intensive counseling, referrals and 

follow-up services for their clients. 

Oregon was taking another innovative approach to E&T services in its Medford 

office. At the time of our visit, this office was beginning job retention services 

for families with children either diverted from TANF or who had left TANF for a 

job. In this office, retention team workers provided preventive case work to assist 

clients in retaining employment for the first year of work. While the supervisors 

discussed an office-wide emphasis on job retention, the retention team staff—

each of whom had a caseload of about 150 to 180—felt that that the limited 

funding available in the Food Stamp E&T Program overall and the Federal 

requirement to target 80 percent of the available funds on ABAWDs prohibited 

them from being able to provide the same intensity of services for working 

households on food stamps who had not recently left the TANF rolls. 

 Utah. After State welfare reform was enacted in 1997, the Department of 

Workforce Services in Utah urged all local “employment centers” to change their 

image and the way they deliver services. The caseworkers were no longer to 

emphasize eligibility determination for public benefits; instead, they were to 

serve as “employment counselors”, whose primary function was to find jobs in 

the community and place people in these jobs. 

 

8 At the time of the site visit, Oregon had requested a comprehensive waiver to the Food Stamp E&T 

Program rules that would have permitted it to enforce more stringent sanctions for noncompliance with 

E&T requirements for food stamp households and required most adults in the FSP to have a selfsufficiency plan, with adherence to the plan a mandatory condition of eligibility. The waiver also asked 

for FSP funds to be passed along to the State in a form similar to a block grant. This waiver was not 

approved by FNS in the form in which it was submitted. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 32 

State officials reported that their goal was to blur individual program lines to 

provide customers with seamless employment-oriented services. When the State 

merged its employment and supportive services into one-stop employment 

centers at the local level, it was envisioned that all customers, regardless of the 

specific reason that brought them to the office, would receive similar 

employment-related services. In the State’s plan, and in each of the three offices 

visited, each employment center had an up-front area with a job board and other 

resources, such as personal computers, to help clients with their job search. In 

mid-size and larger offices, someone was always available in this front area to 

help people use the on-line job information and to counsel them briefly about job 

opportunities. In the State model, each client then had a more in-depth 

counseling session with an employment counselor who could match the client’s 

skills and experience with job openings in the community or referrals for 

appropriate training if needed. 

While the State encouraged a broad model of employment support for all persons 

coming to an employment center, local staff reported that they were not able to 

provide extensive, or in some cases any, E&T services for non-TANF food stamp 

households, unless the client was job-ready. Office directors and supervisors 

reported that they prioritized the TANF population because these parents had 

strict work and education requirements and a three-year lifetime limit for receipt 

of TANF, and the State had strict work participation rate requirements for the 

local offices. In only one office visited, an office serving a large caseload in 

downtown Salt Lake City, did staff routinely provide employment counseling to 

non-TANF food stamp households. This was focused solely on ABAWDs subject 

to the three-month time limit and disabled clients who were receiving State 

general assistance and not eligible for SSI. 

State officials said that one of the reasons workers may not have implemented the 

employment emphasis for non-TANF food stamp households is that in most 

offices, the non-TANF food stamp cases were served by a different set of 

workers, whose primary function was eligibility determination and benefit 

calculation. Another factor impeding the ability of caseworkers to provide 

employment-related services for non-TANF food stamp households was their 

larger caseloads. 

 Racine, Wisconsin. The local welfare office in Racine represents a model 

combination of employment and benefit services. It offered integrated, one-stop 

shopping approach for all clients. Like in Utah, employment services were also 

available to anyone in the community seeking employment assistance. The food 

stamp E&T caseworker reported that participation in food stamp E&T was higher 

since E&T services and eligibility services were co-located. In the past, it was 

much easier for clients to become disengaged as they went from place to place to 

access E&T services. 

In contrast to the offices visited in Utah, where local offices had not yet been able 

to realize the State’s goal of serving all clients, Racine provided one-on-one 

ongoing case management for all food stamp E&T clients, including non-TANF 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 33 

food stamp clients. At the Racine job center, food stamp E&T clients had the 

same intensity of employment services available to them as the TANF/food stamp 

clientele do. Workshops, job search assistance, and adult education classes, held 

at the job center, included a mixture of TANF/food stamp participants, nonTANF food stamp E&T participants, and other interested people from the 

community. On-site child care was available for anyone who used the job center, 

whether they came to look for work, meet with a food stamp or TANF worker, or 

participate in an E&T activity. When major employers in the community needed 

to hire a large number of workers they regularly conducted their interviews in the 

job center. All the staff interviewed emphasized the tremendous advantage of 

having many services located in one place. 

Mandatory food stamp E&T clients were assigned to a group orientation at the 

job center. They then attended a group assessment, where they learned about the 

resources available and were assigned to a specific component and a case 

manager. The center offered multiple tools for finding a job including job search 

resources at the center and a series of workshops tailored to individual client 

needs. Among the workshops offered in the month of the site visit were: 

“Techniques for a Great Receptionist,” Career Assessment,” Cover Letters,” 

“Thank-you Notes and More,” “Triumph over Termination,” “Interviewing 

Skills,” “Careers in Health Care,” the “Earned Income Tax Credit,” and 

“Nontraditional Occupations.” Workshops were made available in the evening to 

accommodate working people who wanted to advance their job skills. 

While Racine offered a wide range of services to food stamp clients, utilization of 

these services was low. According to a case manager interviewed, less then onethird of all mandatory E&T participants attended the initial orientation session. 

Most people who attended the orientation and received job search assistance 

found jobs quickly. Staff indicated that this was probably also the case for a 

portion of clients who applied for food stamps and never went to an E&T 

orientation. Those food stamp E&T participants who were not able to find a job 

were assigned to workfare (“work experience”) slots in the public and private 

sectors. 

D. Conclusion

Without doubt, the strong U.S. economy and the impact of cash assistance reforms and 

changes in FSP eligibility contributed to the decline in food stamp participation since 1994. 

These factors also had a profound impact on the way services were delivered at local welfare 

offices and on individuals’ attitudes towards public assistance. This study suggests that the 

way in which clients are served at local food stamp offices and changes in local office 

operations under welfare reform may also affect participation decisions by eligible households 

in ways that contribute to the decline in FSP participation. 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 34 

The in-depth study of 24 local offices in 8 States provided an opportunity to examine how 

State policy choices under welfare reform are implemented at the local level and how local 

office choices affect client service. Interviews with supervisors, caseworkers and local nonprofit organizations examined ways in which the FSP is presented to applicants, the application 

and recertification processes, and the availability of employment and training services to nonTANF food stamp clients. The site visits revealed a number of practices in several of the 24 

offices visited that potentially pose barriers to participation in the FSP. Examples of these 

policies and procedures included: 

 Multiple interviews with employment-related staff before the food stamp application 

can be completed, 

 Withholding of information about FSP eligibility and an overemphasis on TANF 

rules in ways that may have misled applicants about the differences between TANF 

and FSP requirements and their relevance to their circumstances, 

 Overzealous promotion of employment goals to the point of urging clients to visit 

the unemployment office before filing for food stamp benefits, 

 More frequent certifications and direct collateral verifications of employed clients’ 

circumstances with the consequence that caseworkers had less time for case 

management services to help clients find and maintain employment, 

 Limited E&T services for non-TANF food stamp clients, particularly ABAWDs and 

those who were not job ready, despite, in one State, a general policy to provide these 

services to all clients, 

 More punitive food stamp sanctions for noncompliance with TANF rules and E&T 

work requirements, sometimes without opportunities for conciliation, and

 Lack of coordination between TANF and food stamp certification and change

reporting processes.

Site visits also revealed local office policies and procedures that were designed to facilitate 

program participation. These examples demonstrate that the goals of welfare reform and of

maximizing FSP participation by eligible households are not fundamentally in conflict with 

one another. Some of these local practices included: 

 A designated worker in each office to help ABAWDs meet their work requirement 

and thus maintain food stamp eligibility, 

 The integration and co-location of food stamp E&T and eligibility services, 
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 35 

 The availability of the same mixture of E&T services to both TANF and non-TANF 

food stamp participants, and 

 Food stamp outreach activities initiated to help those most affected by welfare 

reform, namely, legal immigrants, ABAWDs and working families. 

The case study findings also suggest that local office characteristics may influence how State 

welfare reform policies are implemented. For example, in one State, an office in a more rural

area was more successful at offering E&T services to all food stamp clients than its urban 

counterparts, in large part because of smaller caseloads and personal relationships between 

workers and clients. In another State, years of experience operating workfare projects was the 

basis for the commitment to serve ABAWDs. Finally, many of the local food stamp outreach 

initiatives that were identified built upon prior relationships with community-based 

organizations serving low-income individuals. 

Although case studies provide a rich source of detailed information about local food stamp 

policies and practices, the research approach has several limitations. First, the site selection 

was purposive and not representative of the nation or of particular States, although State 

officials were asked to select offices that best met the State’s policy goals. As a result, the list 

of examples is not comprehensive and statements about the prevalence of certain practices 

cannot be made. Second, the data are qualitative and impacts on participation were not 

measured. The study, however, does support the concern that the design of local office food 

stamp operations may be a factor contributing to the rapid decline in FSP participation. 

The task of identifying and remedying practices that can negatively impact access to the FSP is 

a difficult challenge for policymakers because, as this study demonstrated, official State 

policies are not a reliable indicator of what occurs at the local level. This study also revealed 

that many local procedures that may impede program participation are frequently the product 

of well-intentioned efforts to further the goals of welfare reform. 
Appendix A: Lists of Case Study Sites, State Agencies 

 Participating in Interviews, and Nonprofit 

 Organizations Participating in Focus Groups 
Case Study Sites 

 States Local Food Stamp Offices 

 Offices in Rural Offices in Small Cities Offices in Large Urban 

 Areas (Name of City) Areas 

 (Name of Major City) 

CATEGORY 1 STATES 

Kansas 

 McPherson County Saline County Sedgwick County 

 (Salina) (Wichita) 

Mississippi 

 Adams County Washington County Hinds County

 (Greenville) (Jackson) 

Tennessee 

 Robertson County Montgomery County Knox County 

 (Clarksville) (Knoxville)

CATEGORY 2 STATES

Colorado 

 Bent County Fremont County El Paso County 

 (Canon City) (Colorado Springs)

Washington 

 Tri-County Area Spokane East Ballard 

 Stevens County (Spokane) (Seattle) 

 Pend Oreille 

 Ferry County 

CATEGORY 3 STATES 

Oregon 

 Tillamook County Medford Gresham Branch 

 (Medford) (East Portland) 

Utah 

 Beaver County Iron County Downtown Salt Lake 

 (Cedar City) City Office 

 (Salt Lake City) 

Wisconsin 

 Dodge County Racine County Milwaukee County 

 (Racine) (Milwaukee)
State Food Stamp Agencies in the Case Study States 

State Agency

CATEGORY 1 STATES 

Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services 

Mississippi Department of Human Services

Tennessee Department of Human Services 

CATEGORY 2 STATES 

Colorado Department of Human Services 

Washington Department of Social and Health Services 

CATEGORY 3 STATES 

Oregon Adult and Family Services Division, Department of Human Resources1

Utah Department of Workforce Services 

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

 

1 The agency name was changed to the Oregon Department of Human Services after the site visit was conducted. 
Non-Profit Agencies and Advocacy Groups 

Participating in Focus Groups 

CATEGORY 1 STATES 

Wichita, Kansas 

 The Salvation Army 

 Interfaith Ministries 

 The Campaign to End Childhood Hunger 

Jackson, Mississippi

 Stewpot Community Services 

 Iona House 

Knoxville, Tennessee

 Knoxville Community Action Committee 

 The Private Industry Council 

 Knox Area Rescue Ministries 

 Knoxville Community Development Corporation 

 The Salvation Army 

 Volunteers of America 

CATEGORY 2 STATES

Colorado Springs, Colorado 

 Care and Share Food Bank 

 Manna Ministries 

 Ecumenical Social Ministries 

 Ranch House Ministries 

 Westside Cares 

 Faith-Based Mentoring Task Force 

Spokane, Washington 

 Spokane Food Bank 

 Central United Methodist Church 

 Spokane Neighborhood Action Program 

 Children’s Alliance 
CATEGORY 3 STATES 

Portland, Oregon 

 Asian Family Services 

 Oregon Food Bank 

 Oregon Hunger Relief Task Force 

 Sisters of the Road 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

 Cathedral of the Madeline 

 Salt Lake Community Action Program 

 Northwest Food Pantry 

 Crossroads Urban Center 

 Utahans Against Hunger 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

 Hunger Task Force of Milwaukee 

 Hmong/American Friendship Association 

 Central City Churches 

 New Life Presbyterian Church 

Social Development 
Appendix B: Tables of FSP Participation and Selected 

 Demographics for Local Sites 
Table B-1. 

State and Local Food Stamp Participation Trends For the Case Study Sites

September 1996 to September 19981

Number of Individuals Participating 

Location 

September 1996 September 1998 

Percentage Decline 

in Participation 

1996-1998 

U.S. Totals 24.85 million 18.68 million 24.8 

Kansas 163,172 113,826 30.2 

McPherson 

County 884 733 17.1 

Saline County 3,403 2,102 38.2 

Sedgwick County 37,268 24,917 33.1 

Mississippi 440,523 301,924 31.5 

Adams County 7,933 5,956 24.9 

Hinds County 44,318 29,247 34.0 

Washington 

County 19,205 15,288 20.4 

Tennessee 628,657 522,898 16.8 

Knox County 34,371 27,002 21.4 

Montgomery 

County 10,320 8,211 20.4 

CATEGORY 1 STATES 

Robertson 

County 3,634 3,245 10.7 

Colorado 233,505 181,924 22.1 

Bent County 805 651 19.1 

El Paso County 26,031 21,333 18.8 

CATEGORY 

2 STATES 

Fremont County 3,172 2,532 20.2 

 

1

 Data on the number of individuals participating in each State’s Food Stamp Program in September 1996 

and September 1998 were obtained from National Databank computer runs provided by the USDA, FNS, 

Food Stamp Program, and Program Accountability Division on February 11, 1999. The State food stamp 

agencies provided county and local office-specific food stamp participation data. 
Table B-1 (continued). 

State and Local Food Stamp Participation Trends For the Case Study Sites

September 1996 to September 1998

Number of Individuals Participating 

Location 

September 1996 September 1998 

Percentage Decline 

in Participation 

1996-1998

Washington2 446,036 323,251 27.5 

Ballard OfficeSeattle 7,404 5,363 27.6 

Spokane East 

Office 13,637 10,875 20.3 

CATEGORY 2 

STATES(cont.)

Tri-county Office 7,164 6,363 11.2 

Oregon 271,491 221,115 18.6 

Gresham OfficePortland 60,025 38,537 35.8 

Medford Office 10,549 7,950 24.6 

Tillamook Office 1,571 1,303 17.1 

Utah 104,216 89,113 14.5 

Beaver County 319 280 12.2 

Iron County 2,378 2,197 7.6 

Salt Lake City 40,699 32,789 19.4 

Wisconsin 255,669 181,741 28.9 

Dodge County 1,334 961 28.0 

Milwaukee 

County 126,459 94,125 25.6 

CATEGORY 3 STATES

Racine County 8,631 6,053 29.9 

 

2 In 1996, Washington State converted to a new computer system. Though the State believes the 1996 

data it provided are reliable, these represent the average number of cases per month and are a 

combination of the old and new computer data. 
Table B-2. 

Population and Unemployment Rates for the Local Case Study Sites

Unemployment Rates2

Location Population1 in 

1998 1996 1998 

Kansas

McPherson 

County 28,549 3.0% 2.8% 

Saline County 51,399 3.9% 3.5% 

Sedgwick County 447,819 4.4% 3.3% 

Mississippi

Adams County 34,141 7.0% 8.3% 

Hinds County 247,262 4.0% 4.1% 

Washington 

County 65,173 10.1% 9.2% 

Tennessee

Knox County 374,693 3.4% 3.1% 

Montgomery 

County 127,156 4.0% 3.5% 

CATEGORY 1 STATES 

Robertson County 53,192 5.0% 3.4% 

Colorado

Bent County 5,798 4.0% 4.0% 

El Paso County 490,044 4.6% 4.5% 

CATEGORY 2 

STATES 

Fremont County 44,225 5.0% 4.7% 

 

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/popest.html 2 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Selective 

Access. http://stats.bls.gov/lauhome.htm 
Table B-2 (continued). 

Population and Unemployment Rates for the Local Case Study Sites

Unemployment Rates Location Population in 

1998 1996 1998 

Washington 

Seattle 536,978 5.8% 3.6% 

Spokane 184,058 6.6% 5.5% 

 Tri-county 

Stevens County 39,591 10.8% 9.0% 

Pend Oreille 11,523 16.4% 12.1% 

CATEGORY 2 

S T A T E S (cont.) 

Ferry County 7,163 13.7% 11.5% 

Oregon 

Portland 503,891 5.5% 5.1% 

Medford 57,156 7.8% 6.4% 

Tillamook County 24,283 6.0% 6.0% 

Utah 

Beaver County 5,901 5.3% 4.9% 

Iron County 28,777 3.8% 3.9% 

Salt Lake City 174,348 3.0% 3.4% 

Wisconsin 

Dodge County 83,007 2.8% 2.8% 

Milwaukee County 911,536 4.1% 4.0% 

CATEGORY 3 STATES 

Racine County 185,537 4.2% 4.1%