T

Reaching Those in Need:

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION RATES IN THE STATES

The Food Stamp Program is a

central component of American

policy to reduce hunger and poverty.

The program’s main purpose is “to

permit low-income households to

obtain a more nutritious diet . . . by

increasing their purchasing power”

(Food Stamp Act of 1977, as

amended). The Food Stamp Program is the largest of the domestic

food and nutrition assistance programs administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Food

and Nutrition Service. During fiscal

year 1999, the program served just

over 18 million people in an average

month at a total annual cost of nearly

$16 billion. The average monthly

food stamp benefit was about $170

per household.

Although the costs of the Food

Stamp Program and other assistance

programs are scrutinized during

federal budget debates, the Government Performance and Results Act

calls for policymakers to pay close

attention to the effects of programs,

not just total dollars spent. One

important measure of a program’s

performance is its ability to reach

its target population. The national

food stamp participation rate – the

percentage of eligible people in the

United States who actually participate in the program – has been a

standard for assessing the program’s

performance for over 15 years.

Recent studies have also examined

participation rates for socioeconomic

and demographic subgroups of the

national population (Castner and

Cody 1999) and participation rates

for States (Schirm 1998). The Food

and Nutrition Service’s Strategic

Plan for 2000 to 2005 calls for

continued monitoring of rates and

includes a performance target to

“increase the rate of . . . program

participation among eligible people.”

This document presents estimates

of food stamp participation rates for

States as of September 1997. It also

presents estimates of how State participation rates changed between

September 1994 and September

1997. These estimates can be used to

assess recent program performance,

determine whether performance has

been improving or deteriorating, and

focus efforts to improve performance.

The estimates can also be used to

help understand the effects of the

strong economy and expanding job

opportunities, as well as the very

early consequences of welfare reform

and the Food Stamp Program

changes that were brought about by

the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193).

B Y A L L E N L . S C H I R M • M A T H E M A T I C A P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H , I N C . JULY • 2000
JULY • 2000

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

M

N

I

Participation Rates in 1997

In September 1997, about 62

percent of eligible people in the

United States received food

stamps. Participation rates varied

widely from State to State,

however. Estimated rates ranged

between 45 percent in Nevada and

92 percent in West Virginia.

Sixteen States had participation

rates that were significantly higher

than the national rate, and 12

States had participation rates that

were significantly lower than the

national rate. Among the regions,

the Mid-Atlantic Region had the

highest participation rate. Its 68

percent rate was six percentage

points higher than the national

rate and significantly higher (in a

statistical sense) than the rates for

all of the other regions, except the

Mountain Plains Region. The

Western Region had the lowest

participation rate, at 56 percent.

This rate was six percentage points

below the national rate and

significantly lower than any other

regional rate. (See the last page of

this document for a map showing

the boundaries of the regions that

were established for administering

federal nutrition programs.)

Changes Since 1994

Nationwide, the food stamp

participation rate fell by nine

percentage points – from 71

percent to 62 percent – between

September 1994 and September

1997. Participation rates fell in

every region of the country and all

but five States (the District of

Columbia, Oklahoma, Hawaii,

West Virginia, and Alaska).

Among the States, Arizona’s

participation rate fell the most –

by 22 percentage points, from 73

percent to 51 percent – while

Oklahoma’s and the District of

Columbia’s participation rates rose

the most – by 8 and 10 percentage

points, respectively. For 30 States,

the 1997 participation rate was

significantly lower than the 1994

rate, and the decline in each

State’s rate was at least seven

percentage points. Only in

Oklahoma was the participation

rate significantly higher in 1997

than in 1994. For every region, the

participation rate fell significantly.

The Western Region, which had

the lowest participation rate in

1994 and in 1997, had the smallest

decline during the period, at five

percentage points. However, the

decrease in the Western Region’s

participation rate was not significantly smaller than the decreases

of seven to eight percentage points

in the Mountain Plains, MidAtlantic, and Southeast Regions.

The decreases in participation

rates for all of the regions except

the Western Region were within

four percentage points of each

other and not substantially different. Nevertheless, the variation

in regional participation rates

diminished between 1994 and

1997. In contrast, the variation in

State rates grew over the same

period, suggesting that differences

among States within regions

generally became larger.

The Forces of Change

Many factors have contributed

to the decline in food stamp

participation rates, although how

much each factor has contributed

is uncertain. The strong economy

has surely made a substantial

contribution by improving work

and earnings prospects for lowincome families. Another

contributing factor is the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which

became law in August 1996. This

law ended the entitlement to

welfare and replaced the Aid to

Families with Dependent

Children program with the workoriented Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families block grant. The

law also included important

changes to Food Stamp Program

rules, limiting participation by

legal noncitizens and unemployed,

able-bodied adults without

dependent children. (See the last

page of this document for a

summary of the key food stamp

provisions of the law.)

Between September 1994 and

September 1997, the number of

people receiving welfare fell by 30

percent nationwide, while the

national food stamp participation

rate fell by nine percentage points.

After all the attention to welfare

reform in recent years, it might be

tempting to conclude that the

falling welfare caseload somehow

caused the decline in the food

stamp participation rate. The

estimates reported here cannot

support this or other strong causal

inferences, but they do suggest

that the effects of welfare reform

and falling welfare caseloads on

food stamp participation rates are

complex. For instance, among the

10 States with the largest

reductions in welfare caseloads,

some had relatively large reductions in food stamp participation

rates; others had moderate to

relatively small reductions.

Likewise, among the 10 States

2
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

JULY • 2000

How Many Were Eligible in September 1997? What Percentage Participated?

A confidence interval expresses our uncertainty about the true value of a participation rate. Each interval displayed here is a 90 percent confidence interval.

One interpretation of such an interval is that there is a 90 percent chance that the true participation rate falls within the estimated bounds. For example, while

our best estimate is that Indiana’s participation rate was 60 percent in September 1997, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances

are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 53 and 67 percent.

3
How Did Participation Rates Change Between September 1994 and September 1997?

Each interval displayed here is a 90 percent confidence interval. One interpretation of such an interval is that there is a 90 percent chance that the

true change in the participation rate falls within the estimated bounds. Differences between the estimated changes in red and the values obtained

by subtracting the 1994 rates at the left of the page from the adjacent 1997 rates are due to rounding.

4
Changes in Food Stamp Participation Rates Have Been Only Weakly Associated with

Contemporaneous Changes in Welfare Caseloads

States are ranked from largest increase (rank equals 1) to largest decrease (rank equals 51) between September 1994 and September 1997. Thus,

Hawaii, for example, had the largest increase in welfare caseload and the third largest increase in food stamp participation rate. The District of Columbia

had the largest increase in food stamp participation rate and the seventh smallest decrease in welfare caseload (counting Hawaii, the only State that

had an increase in caseload, as one of the six States with smaller decreases). Idaho had the largest decrease in welfare caseload, while Arizona had the

largest decrease in food stamp participation rate. Welfare caseloads in September 1994 and September 1997 are the numbers of persons receiving,

respectively, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Welfare caseload figures were obtained from

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

5
JULY • 2000

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

T

A

State Comparisons

All of the estimated participation

rates presented here are based on

fairly small samples of households

in each State. Although there is

substantial uncertainty associated

with the estimates for some States

and with comparisons of estimates

from different States, the

estimates for 1997 show whether a

State’s participation rate was

probably at the top, at the bottom,

or in the middle of the distribution. West Virginia, Maine,

Hawaii, Oklahoma, Vermont, the

District of Columbia, and

Tennessee were very likely at the

top, with higher rates than most

other States. In contrast, Nevada,

Massachusetts, and Arizona

almost surely had lower rates than

nearly all of the other States.

Wisconsin, Idaho, South Dakota,

California, New Hampshire,

Texas, Florida, Minnesota, and

Arkansas probably fell in the

bottom half of the distribution.

The estimates of changes in

participation rates between two

years are relatively less precise than

the estimates of rates for a single

year. Although there are few

statistically significant differences

among States, it does appear that

the District of Columbia and

Oklahoma probably had about the

largest increases in participation

rates between 1994 and 1997, while

Arizona had about the largest

decline in its participation rate.

Estimation Method

The estimates presented here were

derived using shrinkage estimation

methods (Schirm 2000). Drawing

on data from the Current

Population Survey, the decennial

census, and administrative records,

the shrinkage estimator averaged

sample estimates of participation

rates with predictions from a

regression model. The predictions

were based on observed indicators

of socioeconomic conditions, such

as per capita income and the

percentage of the total State

population receiving food stamps.

Shrinkage estimates are substantially more precise than direct

sample estimates from the Current

Population Survey or the Survey

of Income and Program Participation, the leading sources of current

data on household incomes and

program eligibility.

The shrinkage estimates of

participation rates for 1994 that

were used to derive the estimates

of changes in rates between 1994

and 1997 are different from the

estimated rates for 1994 that were

presented in Schirm (1998). The

main reason for differences

between the two sets of estimates

for 1994 is that the estimates in

Schirm (1998) pertain to January,

while the estimates in this

document pertain to September.

The different seasonal effects

associated with these two months

substantially account for the

differences in estimated rates for

several States. Other differences

are attributable to improvements

in data and methods. An improvement in the estimation method

accounts for the difference

between the September 1997

national participation rate of 62

percent reported in this document

and the 63 percent figure reported

previously in Castner and Cody

(1999).

with the smallest reductions in

welfare caseloads, some had the

smallest reductions or small

increases in participation rates;

others had relatively large

reductions.

When policymakers focus on

States where welfare or food

stamp caseloads have fallen the

most, they should, perhaps, be

concerned less about the reduced

caseloads and more about how

the States achieved the reductions

and why food stamp participation

rates fell a lot or relatively little.

For example, when a State’s

economic growth or successful

policies move many people

receiving assistance into jobs and

from lower- to higher-paying

jobs, the need for nutrition

assistance and the amount of food

stamp benefits for which such

people qualify may decrease

markedly. A falling food stamp

participation rate in that State

deserves some attention, especially to determine whether very

many people leaving the program

still have a substantial need for

assistance. However, a greater

concern is a falling participation

rate in another State where a

much smaller fraction of former

welfare and food stamp recipients

are employed and on paths to

higher earnings. If we are to

determine where falling food

stamp participation rates are most

troubling, and if we are to understand how economic growth,

welfare reform, and other factors

contribute to falling rates, we

must carefully analyze State

policies, program operations, and

economic conditions, as well as

what happens to people who are

no longer receiving assistance.

6
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

JULY • 2000

How Did Your State Compare with Other States in September 1997?

Whether one State has a significantly higher participation rate than a second State can be determined from this figure by finding the row for the first State at

the left of the figure and the column for the second State at the top of the figure. If the box where the row and column intersect is red, there is at least a 90

percent chance that the first State (the row State) has a higher true participation rate. If the box is blue, there is at least a 90 percent chance that the second State

(the column State) has a higher true participation rate. Equivalently, there is less than a 10 percent chance that the first State has a higher rate. If the box is tan,

there is more than a 10 percent chance but less than a 90 percent chance that the first State has a higher rate; thus, we conclude that neither estimated rate is

significantly higher.

Taking Iowa, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it has a significantly lower participation rate than 8 other States (West

Virginia, Maine, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Vermont, the District of Columbia, Tennessee, and Missouri) and a significantly higher rate than 11 other States

(Minnesota, Florida, Texas, New Hampshire, California, South Dakota, Idaho, Wisconsin, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Nevada). Its rate is neither significantly

higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 31 States, suggesting that Iowa is probably in the broad center of the distribution, unlike, for example,

West Virginia and Nevada, which are surely at or near the top and bottom of the distribution, respectively. Although we use the statistical definition of

“significance” here, most of the significant differences are at least 10 percentage points, and all of them are at least 5 percentage points, a difference that seems

important as well as significant.

7
JULY • 2000

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

C

Participation Rates Vary Widely

Produced by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for the Food and Nutrition Service under contract no. 53-3198-6-017.

References

Castner, Laura, and Scott Cody.

“Trends in Food Stamp Program

Participation Rates: Focus on September 1997.” In Current Perspectives

on Food Stamp Program Participation.

Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 1999.

Schirm, Allen L. “Empirical Bayes

Shrinkage Estimates of State Food

Stamp Participation Rates for 1994-

1997.” Washington, DC: Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc., 2000.

Schirm, Allen L. “Reaching Those in

Need: How Effective Is the Food Stamp

Program?" Alexandria, VA: Food and

Nutrition Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, August 1998.

______________________________________________________________________________

The key food stamp provisions of the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 have done the

following:

• Limited participation by legal noncitizens.

• Provided short-term assistance to unemployed, able-bodied adults

ages 18 to 50 with no dependent children and linked longer-term

assistance to working or participating in a work program.

• Reduced benefits and limited future growth in benefits.

• Expanded state administrative authority.

Subsequently, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 increased funds for

employment and training of unemployed, able-bodied adults with

no dependent children. The Agricultural Research, Extension and

Education Reform Act of 1998 restored benefits as of November 1,

1998, to permanent resident aliens who were living in the United

States on August 22, 1996, and were over age 64 on that date, or

are now disabled or under age 18.