Abstract

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP) have no eligibility restrictions based on the legal status of immigrants. This study reveals 

an increase in the number and share of immigrants and their children in WIC and NSLP between the mid-1990s and 

2006; however, their share of participants is generally comparable to their share of the eligible population. Findings 

suggest that immigrants face fewer barriers to access in WIC and NSLP than they do for the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other benefits subject to 

immigration-related eligibility restrictions.

Keywords: WIC, NSLP, immigration, legal status, eligibility, participation

By Tracy Vericker, Karina Fortuny, and Kenneth Finegold, The Urban Institute, 

and Sevgi Bayram Ozdemir, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Effects of Immigration on 

WIC and NSLP Caseloads

Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 63

October 2010

This study was conducted by The Urban Institute under a cooperative research 

agreement with USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) Food Assistance 

and Nutrition Research Program (FANRP): agreement number 59-5000-8-0098 

(ERS project representative: Michele Ver Ploeg). The views expressed are 

those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.
 

Effects of Immigration on WIC and NSLP Caseloads 

 

Urban Institute 

Tracy Vericker 

Karina Fortuny 

Kenneth Finegold 

University of Maryland, Baltimore County 

Sevgi Bayram Ozdemir 

October 2010 

We are grateful to Randy Capps, Ajay Chaudry, Ei Yin Mon, Joyce Morton, Jeffrey Passel, 

Caroline Ratcliffe, and Laura Wheaton for their invaluable contributions to this report. We are 

thankful to Marianne P. Bitler, Dennis Ranalli, and Edward J. Welniak for helping us obtain and 

understand the data. We are also grateful to David Betson and Alison Jacknowitz for their 

thoughtful and comprehensive review. We would also like to thank the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for 

allowing us to use output data from TRIM3 simulations that have not yet been released for public 

use. 

Disclaimer: This study was conducted by the Urban Institute under Agreement Number: 59-5000-8-0098, Project 

Number: FANRP 251 with the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS). The authors take full responsibility for 

the accuracy of material presented herein and the technical review. The views expressed are those of the authors 

and should not be attributed to the ERS or USDA or to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Information 

presented here is derived in part from the Transfer Income Model, Version 3 (TRIM3) and associated databases. 

TRIM3 requires users to input assumptions and/or interpretations about economic behavior and the rules governing 

federal programs. Therefore, the conclusions presented here are attributable only to the authors of this report. 

THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2100 M STREET, N.W. / WASHINGTON D.C. 20037
Contents 

List of Tables and Figures iY

Executive Summar\ viLi

Introduction 1 

Background 11 

Data and Methods 19 

Results 22 

Trend Analyses 22 

WIC 22 

NSLP 36 

Decomposition Analyses 52 

WIC 53 

NSLP 61 

Multivariate Analyses 69 

WIC 70 

NSLP 79 

Discussion 88 

References 92 

Technical Appendices A1 

Appendix A. Simulation of WIC Eligibility and Participation A1 

Appendix B. Simulation of NSLP Eligibility and Participation A15 

Appendix C. Imputation of Immigrant Status and Identification of Parents A28 

Appendix D. Decomposition Analyses A31 

Appendix E. Multivariate Analyses A33 

Appendix F. Sensitivity Analyses Tables A37 
iv

TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table ES-1 Number and Percent of WIC Participants in 1997 and NSLP Participants 

in 1994, by Immigrant Status Group xx

Table ES-2 Number and Percent of WIC and NSLP Participants in 2006, by 

Immigrant Status Group xx

Table 1. Foreign-Born Population in 1994 and 2006 16 

Table 2. Number and Percent of WIC Eligibles by Immigrant Status Group: Children 

Ages 0 to 4 (weighted) 25 

Table 3. Number and Percent of WIC Participants by Immigrant Status Group: 

Children Ages 0 to 4 (weighted) 28 

Table 4. Percent Distribution of WIC Eligibles and Participants by Immigrant Status 

Group in 2006: Children Ages 0 to 4 (weighted) 30 

Table 5. Number and Percent of WIC Eligibles by Immigrant Status Group: 

Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers (weighted) 32 

Table 6. Number and Percent of WIC Participants by Immigrant Status Group: 

Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers (weighted) 34 

Table 7. Percent Distribution of WIC Eligibles and Participants by Immigrant Status 

Group in 2006: Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers (weighted) 36 

Table 8. Number and Percent of NSLP Eligibles by Immigrant Status Group: Free 

Lunches (weighted) 38 

Table 9. Number and Percent of NSLP Participants by Immigrant Status Group: Free 

Lunches (weighted) 42 

Table 10. Percent Distribution of Free Lunch Eligibles and Participants by Immigrant 

Status Group in 2006 (weighted) 44 

Table 11 Number and Percent of NSLP Eligibles by Immigrant Status Group: 

Reduced-Price Lunches (weighted) 46 

Table 12 Number and Percent of NSLP Participants by Immigrant Status Group: 

Reduced-Price Lunches (weighted) 49 

Table 13. Percent Distribution of Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibles and Participants by 

Immigrant Status Group in 2006 (weighted) 51 

Table 14. Children, Ages 0–4: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and 

Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 54 

Table 15. Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers: Effects of Changes in Immigrant 

Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 55 

Table 16. Children, Ages 0–4 from Traditional Immigrant-Receiving States: Effects of 

Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC Participation 

between 1997–2006 

56 

Table 17. Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers from Traditional ImmigrantReceiving States: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and 

Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

56 

Table 18. Children, Ages 0–4, from States with High-Growth Immigrant Populations: 

Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC 

Participation between 1997–2006 

57 
v

Table 19. Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers from States with High-Growth 

Immigrant Populations: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, 

and Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

58 

Table 20. Children, Ages 0–4, from States with Slower-growing Immigrant 

Populations: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up 

on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

59 

Table 21. Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers from States with Slower-growing 

Immigrant Populations: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, 

and Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

60 

Table 22. Children Ages 5–18: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, 

and Take-up on Free Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 62 

Table 23. Children Ages 5–18: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, 

and Take-up on Reduced-Price Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 63 

Table 24. Children Ages 5–18 from Traditional Immigrant-Receiving States: Effects 

of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Free Lunch 

Participation between 1994–2006 

64 

Table 25. Children Ages 5–18 from Traditional Immigrant-Receiving States: Effects 

of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Reduced-Price 

Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 

64 

Table 26. Children Ages 5–18 from States with High-Growth Immigrant Populations: 

Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Free 

Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 

65 

Table 27. Children Ages 5–18 from States with High-Growth Immigrant Populations: 

Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on ReducedPrice Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 66 

Table 28. Children Ages 5–18 from States with Slow-Growth Immigrant Populations: 

Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Free 

Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 

67 

Table 29. Children Ages 5–18 from States with Slow-Growth Immigrant Populations: 

Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on ReducedPrice Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 68 

Table 30. Demographic Characteristics of Children Ages 0 - 4 and Breastfeeding and 

Postpartum Mothers Eligible for WIC, 1997–1998 and 2005–2006 (weighted) 72 

Table 31. Estimated Relationship between WIC Take-up of Breastfeeding and 

Postpartum Mothers Eligible for WIC and Immigrant Status, Change between 

1997–1998 and 2005–2006 (weighted) 

76 

Table 32. Estimated Relationship between WIC Take-up of Children Ages 0 - 4 

Eligible for WIC and Immigrant Status, Change between 1997–1998 and 

2005–2006 (weighted) 

77 

Table 33. Demographic Characteristics of Children Ages 5 - 18 Eligible for Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunches, 1994–1995 and 2005–2006 (weighted) 80 

Table 34. Estimated Relationship between Free Lunch Take-up of Children Ages 5–18 

Eligible for Free Lunches and Immigrant Status, Change Between 1994–1995 

and 2005 – 2006 (weighted) 

84 
vi 

Table 35. Estimated Relationship between Reduced-Price Lunch Take-up of Children 

Ages 5 - 18 Eligible for Reduced-Price Lunch and Immigrant Status, Change 

Between 1994-1995 and 2005-2006 (Weighted) 

86 

Table A-1. Key Program Rules for TRIM3 WIC and NSLP Simulations A5 

Table A-2. Children and Mothers Simulated as Eligible for WIC, by CPS-ASEC 

Response Group A12 

Table A-3. Children and Mothers Simulated as Enrolled in WIC, by CPS-ASEC 

Response Group A13 

Table B-1. Children Simulated as Eligible for NSLP, by CPS-ASEC Response Group A22 

Table B-2. Children Simulated as Enrolled in NSLP, by CPS-ASEC Response Group A26 

Table F-1. Number and Percent of Children Demographically Eligible for WIC by 

Immigrant Status Group (weighted) A37 

Table F-2. Number and Percent of Women Demographically Eligible for WIC by 

Immigrant Status Group (weighted) A38 

Table F-3. Number and Percent of Children Demographically Eligible for NSLP by 

Immigrant Status (weighted) A39 

Table F-4. Number and Percent of WIC Explicit Reporters by Immigrant Status 

Group: Children Ages 0 to 4 (weighted) A40 

Table F-5. Number and Percent of Eligible WIC Explicit Reporters by Immigrant 

Status Group: Children Ages 0 to 4 (weighted) A41 

Table F-6. Number and Percent of WIC Explicit Reporters by Immigrant Status 

Group: Women (weighted) A42 

Table F-7. Number and Percent of Eligible WIC Explicit Reporters by Immigrant 

Status Group: Women (weighted) A43 

Table F-8. Number and Percent of NSLP Explicit Reporters by Immigrant Status 

Group A44 

Table F-9. Number and Percent of Eligible NSLP Explicit Reporters by Immigrant 

Status Group A45 

Table F-10. Number and Percent of NSLP Eligibles Excluding Children not in School, 

by Immigrant Status Group: Free Lunches (weighted) A46 

Table F-11. Number and Percent of NSLP Eligibles Excluding Children not in School, 

by Immigrant Status Group: Reduced-Price Lunches (weighted) A47 

Table F-12. Number and Percent of NSLP Participants Excluding Children not in 

School, by Immigrant Status Group: Free Lunches (weighted) A48 

Table F-13. Number and Percent of NSLP Participants Excluding Children not in 

School, by Immigrant Status Group: Reduced-Price Lunches (weighted) A49 

Figure ES-1. Children Grouped by Nativity and Immigrant Status of Child and Parents x

Figure 1. Average Monthly Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Participation in the NSLP 

Program, 1994–2006 (millions) 13 

Figure 2. Average Monthly Participation in the WIC Program, 1997–2006 (millions) 14 

Figure 3. Number of Children Ages 0–4 Eligible and Participating in WIC, 1997–2006 24 

Figure 4. Share of Children Ages 0–4 Eligible for WIC, by Immigrant Status Group, 

1997–2006 26 
vii

Figure 5. Share of Children Ages 0–4 Participating in WIC, by Immigrant Status 

Group, 1997–2006 

29 

Figure 6. Number of Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers Eligible and Participating 

in WIC, 1997–2006 31 

Figure 7. Share of Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers Eligible for WIC, by 

Immigrant Status Group, 1997–2006 33 

Figure 8. Share of Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers Participating in WIC, by 

Immigrant Status Group, 1997–2006 35 

Figure 9. Number of Children Eligible and Participating in NSLP: Free Lunches, 

1994–2006 37 

Figure 10. Share of Children Eligible for Free Lunches, by Immigrant Status Group, 

1994–2006 40 

Figure 11. Share of Children Participating in Free Lunches, by Immigrant Status 

Group, 1994–2006 43 

Figure 12. Number of Children Eligible and Participating in NSLP: Reduced-Price 

Lunches, 1994–2006 45 

Figure 13. Share of Children Eligible for Reduced-Price Lunches, by Immigrant Status 

Group, 1994–2006 47 

Figure 14. Share of Children Participating in Reduced-Price Lunches, by Immigrant 

Status Group, 1994–2006 50 

Figure A-1. CPS-ASEC WIC Questions, March 2007 A8 

Figure A-2. CPS-ASEC WIC Public Use Variables, March 2007 A8 

Figure B-1. CPS-ASEC NSLP Questions, March 2007 A19 

Figure B-2. CPS-ASEC NSLP Public Use Variables, March 2007 A20 
viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Children of immigrants are the fastest growing population in the United States.1 In 1990, 13 

percent of all U.S. children ages 0 to 18 had at least one immigrant parent; by 2006, that figure 

had risen to 23 percent. Due to a rise in immigration flows during the 1990s, a growing number 

of native-born children in the United States have immigrant parents. The number of native-born 

children of immigrants increased from 9.6 million in 1994 to 14.4 million in 2006. Native-born 

children accounted for the majority (81 percent) of children with immigrant parents in 2006. In 

2006, children that were themselves immigrants represented 4.4 percent of all U.S. children, 

similar to their share in 1994, 4.1 percent. Less than half (48 percent) of foreign-born children 

were unauthorized immigrants—living in the country without the legal documentation to do so—

up from 37 percent in 1994. In 2006, unauthorized immigrant children represented a small share 

of U.S. children, 2.1 percent. 

Compared with native-born families, immigrant families are more likely to be poor and thus 

income-eligible for means-tested public assistance programs, such as Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).2

However, noncitizens—foreign-born persons who are not U.S. citizens by naturalization, face 

restrictions on eligibility for these programs.3 Unauthorized and temporary immigrants are in 

general ineligible for major federal benefit programs and legal immigrants may also face 

eligibility restrictions (Fix and Passel 2002).4 Further, fears and misconceptions about these 

programs prevent some immigrant families from applying on behalf of eligible U.S. citizen 

children (Fix and Passel 2002; Henderson, Capps, and Finegold 2008). 

 

1

 Throughout this study, the term “children with immigrant parents” is used to encompass all children with at least 

one foreign-born parent, whether the children themselves are native- or foreign-born. An immigrant or foreign-born 

person is someone born outside the United States and its territories, to parents who are not U.S. citizens. People born 

in the United States, Puerto Rico, and other territories, or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, are native-born. 2

 The Food Stamp Program’s name was changed to the Special Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008. 3

 Throughout this study, the term “noncitizen” refers to any immigrant who has not obtained U.S. citizenship 

through naturalization. Noncitizens include legally present immigrants and unauthorized immigrants. Unauthorized 

immigrants are residents of the United States who are not U.S. citizens, who do not hold current permanent resident 

visas or who have not been granted permission under a set of specific authorized temporary statuses for longer-term 

residence and work (Passel and Cohn 2009). 

4

 Unauthorized immigrants are eligible for emergency medical care and public K-12 education. 
ix

Two of the largest federal food assistance programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 

for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) have 

no eligibility restrictions for either unauthorized or authorized immigrants. These two programs 

experienced rising participation from the mid-1990s to 2006. With the co-occurring rise in 

immigrant populations, one question is whether increases in WIC and NSLP participation are 

due to increased usage by immigrants, particularly whether this use has occurred most for 

unauthorized immigrants who do not have access to many other public benefits. The extent to 

which immigrants and children of immigrants are using these programs is currently unknown 

and no national data have been available to assess their contribution to the growth in 

participation in WIC and NSLP. 

To fill this knowledge gap, this report seeks to assess the extent to which immigrant children and 

native-born children of immigrant parents are eligible for and participating in the WIC and NSLP 

programs. First, we examine trends in participation and eligibility in WIC and NSLP by nativity 

and legal status (see Figure ES-1).5

 Using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 

augmented by the TRIM3 micro-simulation model, this study is the first to estimate eligibility 

for and participation in the WIC and NSLP programs by nativity and immigrant legal status. 

TRIM3 assigns legal status to immigrants in the CPS, and these assignments form the basis for 

the estimates used in this study. Second, we use demographic decomposition to examine the 

contribution of changes in take-up rates (numbers of participants divided by eligible children), 

changes in the number of persons eligible, and changes in the demographic composition of 

mothers and children (e.g., nativity and legal status) on changes in program participation over 

time.6 Lastly, we estimate the relationship between nativity and legal status and program take-up 

rates over time using multivariate regression models. We also examine the role of state 

immigrant population trends in predicting take-up of WIC and NSLP. Specifically, we look at 

traditional immigrant-receiving states (e.g., California and Florida), states with rapidly-growing 

 

5

 This study estimates WIC eligibility and participation among breastfeeding and postpartum mothers and their 

children ages 0 through 4 for 1997 through 2006, and free and reduced-price lunch eligibility and participation for 

school-age children from 1994 through 2006. 

6

 The term “demographic composition” in this report refers to the immigrant status groups as defined in the report, 

e.g., native-born children of native-born parents, and does not reflect other demographic characteristics, such as age 

and race/ethnicity. 
 x

immigrant populations (e.g., Arizona and North Carolina), and states with slower-growing 

immigrant populations (e.g., Ohio and Louisiana). 

FIGURE ES-1. Children Grouped by Nativity and Immigrant Status of Child and Parents, 2006 

Native-born children 

with native-born parents

77% Native-born children 

with mixed-status 

immigrant parents

0.5%

Native-born children 

with unauthorized 

immigrant parents only

4%

Native-born children 

with authorized 

immigrant parents

13%

Native-born children 

with foreign-born 

parents with unknown 

immigrant status

1%

Unauthorized 

immigrant children

2%

Authorized 

immigrant children

2%

Children with 

foreign-born 

parents

23%

U.S. children Children with foreign-born parents

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). 

Summary of key findings

Eligibility and Participation among WIC Children (ages 0–4)7

• Nearly all of the children eligible for WIC were native-born in both 1997 and 2006 

(98.6 percent and 98.2 percent, respectively). The total number of eligible children 

increased from 9.5 million in 1997 to 10.2 million in 2006. In 2006, 180,000 immigrant 

 

7

 The analyses in this report combine infants and children age 1 to 4 into one category of WIC children due to 

sample size restrictions. 
xi

children were eligible for WIC, up from 132,000 in 1997.8

 Children of immigrants were a 

larger share of children eligible for WIC over time; their share increased 23.6 percent in 

1997 to 28.2 percent in 2006. 

• The number of children participating in WIC increased from 5.4 to 5.8 million 

between 1997 and 2006; native-born children with native-born parents represented 

the largest group of WIC participants, but the growth in WIC participation 

occurred primarily for children of immigrants. The number of native-born children 

with native-born parents participating in WIC declined between 1997 and 2006 from 4.2 

to 4.1 million children (Tables ES-1 and ES-2). Between 1997 and 2006, the number and 

share of children of immigrants—including both immigrant children and native-born 

children with immigrant parents—participating in WIC increased from 1.2 million (22 

percent of all participants) to 1.8 million (31 percent). 

 

The largest growth in terms of number and share of children participating in WIC 

between 1997 and 2006 was among native-born children with unauthorized immigrant 

parents. In 1997, 366,000 native-born children with one or both unauthorized immigrant 

parents participated in WIC (6.8 percent of all participants), and by 2006, they had 

increased in number to 683,000 (11.7 percent of all participants). 

The number and share of unauthorized immigrant children participating in WIC grew 

between 1997 and 2006, but remained low, accounting for less than one percent of the 

overall WIC population. The number of unauthorized immigrant children participating in 

WIC increased from an estimated 35,000 (0.6 percent) in 1997 to an estimated 53,000 

(0.9 percent) in 2006. 

• Among all children ages 0 to 4, the WIC participation rate (number of participants 

divided by number of children age 0 to 4) increased by 1 percentage point from 27.5 

percent in 1997 to 28.5 percent in 2006.9 Nearly one-third (31.9 percent) of the change 

in the participation rate can be attributed to changes in the demographic composition of 

 

8

 Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are based on the exact estimates. Totals and percentages 

may not add up due to rounding. 

9

 The decomposition analysis examines participation for the entire population of children ages 0 to 4, including 

income-eligible and ineligible children. 
xii

U.S. children (particularly, the number of children with foreign-born parents versus 

children with native-born parents).10 Over half (56.4 percent) of the increase in the 

number of children participating in WIC between 1997 and 2006 was due to increase in 

the number of children eligible for the program and the remainder, 11.7 percent, was due 

to an increase in the take-up rate (number of participants divided by number of eligible 

children). Changes in the demographic composition of participant families (e.g. the 

increasing number of children with foreign-born parents relative to the number of 

children with native-born parents) had the greatest effect in traditional immigrantreceiving states and had less of an effect in states with rapidly-growing and slowergrowing immigrant populations—mostly because the non-traditional states all have lower 

immigrant populations. 

• The take-up rate (number of participants divided by the number of eligibles) for 

WIC was higher among some groups of children of immigrants compared with 

children of natives after controlling for other factors. In 1997, native-born children 

with authorized immigrant parents were no more or less likely than native-born children 

with native-born parents to take-up WIC. However, native-born children with authorized 

immigrant parents were 4.1 percentage points11 more likely than the native-born children 

with native-born parents to take-up WIC in 2006. 

Native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents were 4.8 percentage points 

more likely to take-up WIC in 2006 than in 1997 compared with native-born children 

with native-born parents, but they were not more likely to take-up WIC than native-born 

children with native-born parents in 2006.

 

10 The effect of changing demographics represents the overall effect and does not identify the children group(s) 

driving the change. The decomposition technique, however, accounts for all groups by nativity and legal immigrant 

status (e.g., changes in the number of unauthorized immigrants, authorized immigrants, native-born children of 

unauthorized immigrants, native-born children of authorized immigrants, and native-born children with native-born 

parents). 

11 This represents the combined effect—the sum of the main effect (e.g., the likelihood of take-up for the relevant 

group versus the reference group) and the interaction effect (e.g., the change in the likelihood of take-up between 

1997 and 2006 for the relevant group versus the change for the reference group). 
xiii

Unauthorized immigrant children were no more or less likely to take-up WIC than nativeborn children with native-born parents, controlling for other factors. 

Eligibility and Participation among WIC Mothers (Postpartum and Breastfeeding Women) 

• The number of WIC-eligible breastfeeding and postpartum mothers increased from 

837,000 in 1997 to 958,000 in 2006, a 14 percent increase. This increase was largely 

driven by an increase in unauthorized immigrant mothers eligible for WIC. The 

total number of immigrant mothers eligible for WIC increased from 181,000 to 253,000 

between 1997 and 2006, and their share increased from 21.6 percent of all eligible 

mothers in 1997 to 26.4 percent in 2006. Unauthorized immigrant mothers represented 

7.2 percent of eligible postpartum and breastfeeding women in 1997; their share 

increased to 11.9 percent in 2006. The share of eligible women that were authorized 

immigrants stayed the same, at 14.5 percent.12

• The number of postpartum and breastfeeding mothers participating in WIC 

increased from 766,000 in 1997 to 873,000 in 2006 (an increase of 14 percent), with 

greatest growth occurring among unauthorized immigrant mothers. Between 1997 

and 2006, the number of immigrant mothers participating in WIC increased by 42 

percent, from 162,000 (21 percent of all participants) to 241,000 (28 percent) compared 

with native-born mothers who increased in number from 604,000 in 1997 to 632,000 in 

2006, a 5 percent increase. 

Unauthorized immigrant mothers, while representing a relatively small share of 

participating mothers in WIC, experienced the greatest growth in number and share 

between 1997 and 2006. Unauthorized immigrant mothers represented 53,000 (7 percent 

of all WIC mothers) of those participating in WIC in 1997 and 106,000 (12 percent of all 

WIC mothers) in 2006. Authorized immigrant mothers made up 110,000 (14 percent of 

all WIC mothers) of all mothers participating in WIC in 1997 and 134,000 (15 percent of 

all WIC mothers) of the mothers participating in 2006. 

 

12 Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are based on the exact estimates. Totals and 

percentages may not add up due to rounding. 
xiv

• Among all breastfeeding and postpartum mothers, the WIC participation rate 

(number of participants divided by number of mothers) increased by 0.7 percentage 

points from 25.9 percent in 1997 to 26.6 percent in 2006, largely due to the 

demographic composition of mothers.13 Of the 0.7 percentage point increase in the 

WIC participation rate among mothers, over 70 percent (71.6 percent) of the change in 

the participation rate over time can be attributed to changes in the demographic 

composition of mothers (i.e., native-born v. foreign-born). The remainder of the change 

in the participation rate was due to changes in the take-up rate and eligibility for WIC 

among breastfeeding and postpartum women.

• There is some evidence that the WIC take-up rate of breastfeeding and postpartum 

mothers varies by state and immigrant status. Among all eligible mothers, 

unauthorized immigrant mothers in states with rapidly growing immigrant 

populations were more likely to take-up WIC in 2006 than native-born mothers, 

controlling for other factors. Unauthorized immigrant mothers in states with rapidlygrowing immigrant populations were 8.4 percentage points more likely to take-up WIC 

than native-born mothers in 2006. Unauthorized immigrant mothers in traditional 

immigrant-receiving states were 5.7 percentage points more likely to take-up WIC in 

2006 than in 1997 compared with native-born mothers, but in 2006, they were no more or 

less likely than native-born mothers to take-up WIC. 

Eligibility and Participation among NSLP Children (Free Lunches) 

• The number of children eligible for free lunches declined from 18.6 million in 1994 

to 14.2 million in 2006, driven primarily by a decline in eligible native-born children 

with native-born parents. The number of children of immigrants eligible for free 

lunches increased between 1994 and 2006. Immigrant children represented 8 percent of 

children ages 5 to 8 eligible for free lunches in both 1994 and 2006. However, the share 

of eligible children that have immigrant parents increased from 20.3 percent to 27.8 

percent during this time. The increase was driven mostly by native-born children with 

 

13 The decomposition analysis examines participation for the entire population of breastfeeding and postpartum 

mothers, including income-eligible and ineligible women. 
xv

unauthorized immigrant parents whose numbers more than doubled from 394,000 in 1994 

to 946,000 in 2006.14 

• The number of children participating in free lunches increased from 12.1 million in 

1994 to 13.7 million in 2006 (an increase of 13 percent), with the largest growth 

among children of immigrants. Between 1994 and 2006, the number and share of 

children of immigrants participating in free lunches increased from 2.6 million (21 

percent of all participants) to 3.8 million (28 percent). To put the numbers in perspective, 

the number of native-born children with native-born parents participating in free lunches 

grew from 9.5 million in 1994 to 9.9 million in 2006. 

 

The number and share of native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents 

participating in the free lunches grew between 1994 and 2006. In 1994, native-born 

children with one or both unauthorized immigrant parents comprised 3 percent (310,000) 

of all children participating in free lunches, and in 2006, their share had more than 

doubled to 7 percent (914,000 children). 

The number and share of unauthorized immigrant children participating in free lunches 

grew between 1994 and 2006—from an estimated 380,000 (3 percent) in 1994 to an 

estimated 603,000 (4 percent) in 2006, but their number and share remained relatively 

low. 

• Among all children ages 5 to 18, the free lunch participation rate (number of 

participants divided by number of children ages 5 to 18) increased by 1.1 percentage 

points, from 22.6 percent in 1994 to 23.7 percent in 2006. This increase was largely 

influenced by increases in take-up and eligibility among children ages 5 to 18.15 Of 

the 1.1 percentage point increase in the participation rate, changes in the demographic 

composition of U.S. children (i.e., children with foreign-born parents versus children with 

native-born parents) contributed 0.3 percentage points. Changes in the number of 

 

14 Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are based on the exact estimates. Totals and 

percentages may not add up due to rounding. 

15 The decomposition analysis examines participation for the entire population of children ages 5 to 18, including 

income-eligible and ineligible children. 
 xvi 

children eligible contributed -8.4 percentage points and changes in the take-up rate 

(number of participants divided by number of eligible children) contributed 9.2 

percentage points, which suggests that decreases in the number of children eligible and 

increases in the take-up rate were more influential on the overall participation rate than 

changes in the demographic composition of children. 

• There is some evidence that the take-up rate among children eligible for free 

lunches is associated with the legal status of children and their parents, all else 

constant. Native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents were 6.2 percentage 

points less likely to take-up free lunches in 2006 compared with native-born children 

with native-born parents, controlling for other factors even though they were 8.6 

percentage points more likely to take-up free lunches in 1994. Native-born children with 

unauthorized immigrant parents were less likely to take-up free lunches in 2006 

compared with native-born children in both traditional immigrant-receiving states and 

states with slower-growing immigrant populations. This was not the case for states with 

rapidly-growing immigrant populations. 

Among children eligible for free lunches, unauthorized immigrant children were 2.9 

percentage points less likely to take-up free lunches than native-born children with 

native-born parents in 2006. Looking at differences in take-up rates by type of state, this 

relationship held only for children eligible for free lunches from traditional immigrantreceiving states. 

Eligibility and Participation among NSLP Children (Reduced-Price Lunches) 

• Children of immigrants accounted for 31.9 percent of children eligible for reducedprice lunches in 2006, up from 21.3 percent in 1994; the increase was driven by 

native-born children of immigrants. The number of native-born children of authorized 

immigrant parents eligible for reduced-price lunches increased from 535,000 to 944,000 
xvii

between 1994 and 2006.16 Similarly, the number of native-born children of one or both 

unauthorized immigrant parents more than doubled from 135,000 to 398,000 during this 

time. 

• The number of children participating in reduced-price lunches increased from 1.9 to 

2.9 million between 1994 and 2006, with the most growth attributable to children of 

immigrants. Between 1994 and 2006, the number of children of immigrants participating 

in reduced-price lunches increased from 453,000 (24 percent) to 1.0 million (35 percent). 

The number of children with native-born parents participating in reduced-price lunches 

increased from 1.4 to 1.9 million between 1994 and 2006. 

The share of unauthorized immigrant children participating in reduced-price lunches 

grew between 1994 and 2006, but remained low. The number of unauthorized immigrant 

children participating in reduced-price lunches increased from an estimated 71,000 (4 

percent) in 1994 to an estimated 152,000 (5 percent) in 2006. 

• Among all children ages 5 to 18, the reduced-price lunch participation rate (number 

of participants divided by number of children ages 5 to 18) increased by 1.6 

percentage points from 3.5 percent of all school-aged children in 1994 to 5.1 percent 

of all school-aged children in 2006; little of this effect was due to changes in the 

demographic composition of children ages 5 to 18. Of the 1.6 percentage point 

increase, changes in the demographic composition of U.S. children (e.g., children of 

native-born parents vs. children of foreign-born parents) contributed 0.2 percentage 

points. An increase in the take-up rate (number of participants divided by number of 

eligible children) between 1994 and 2006 contributed the most to the participation rate 

(0.9 percent), followed by an increase in the number of children eligible for reduced-price 

lunches (0.5 percent). 

• There is some evidence that unauthorized immigrant children are more likely than 

children of natives to take-up reduced-price lunches, after accounting for other 

factors. In 2006, unauthorized immigrant children in traditional immigrant-receiving 

 

16 Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are based on the exact estimates. Totals and 

percentages may not add up due to rounding. 
xviii

states were 15.5 percentage points more likely to take-up reduced-price lunches than 

native-born children with native-born parents, holding other factors equal. Unauthorized 

immigrant children in states with slower-growing immigrant populations were more 

likely to take-up reduced-price lunches than native-born children with native-born parents 

in 1994, but there is no evidence that this was the case in 2006. 

The population of low-income immigrants and their children increased rapidly during the study 

period. The results of this study reveal a concurrent increase in the number and share of children 

of immigrants and immigrant mothers participating in the WIC and NSLP programs. Despite 

these increases, our study finds that for children of immigrants and immigrant mothers, their 

share of participants is generally comparable to their share of the eligible population. This is also 

true for unauthorized immigrant mothers and children as well as children of unauthorized 

immigrants. Further, unauthorized immigrants still make up a relatively small share of those 

participating in WIC and NSLP in 2006: 0.9 percent of WIC children, 12.2 percent of WIC 

mothers, 4.4 percent of children receiving free lunches, and 5.2 percent of children receiving 

reduced-price lunches. Native-born children of one or both unauthorized immigrant parents 

represent slightly larger shares of WIC participants (11.7 percent) and NSLP participants (6.7 

percent of free lunch and 7.9 percent of reduced price lunch participants). 

Changes in the composition of immigrants (e.g., unauthorized versus authorized immigrants) do 

not appear to be the driving factor in participation trends in WIC and NSLP between the mid1990s and 2006. We find that changes in the number of eligible children and changes in the takeup rates (e.g., likelihood of participation when eligible) are the main drivers of program growth 

among children, not changes in the demographic composition of the eligible populations. In 

short, children of immigrants did not become significantly more likely than other children to 

participate—given their eligibility—over the period of study. On the other hand, we find that 

changes in the demographic composition for mothers are the primary drivers of participation 

increases in WIC among mothers—meaning that immigrant mothers did disproportionately 

increase their participation relative to U.S.-born mothers. 
 xix

We find mixed evidence concerning whether immigrants and their children are more likely to 

take-up WIC and NSLP. We found that native-born children of authorized immigrants were 

more likely to take-up WIC than native-born children with native-born parents in 2006. We also 

found that authorized immigrant mothers were more likely to take-up WIC in 2006 than nativeborn mothers. With regard to take-up of NSLP, we find that in 2006 unauthorized immigrant 

children were more likely to take-up reduced-price lunches than native-born children with 

native-born parents, but only in traditional immigrant-receiving states. Finally, we found that all 

immigrant groups except authorized immigrants were less likely to take-up free lunches in 2006 

than native-born children with native-born parents. 

Taken together, our findings suggest that immigrants’ fears about participating in TANF, SNAP, 

and other benefits subject to immigration-related eligibility restrictions do not extend to benefits 

like WIC and NSLP that do not include these restrictions. Neither does it seem that unauthorized 

immigrant parents are afraid to apply for their citizen children (or their unauthorized immigrant 

children or themselves for that matter) for WIC and NSLP. The different settings in which 

parents apply for these benefits—health clinics for WIC and schools for NSLP—appear to have 

insulated immigrants from the fears, concerns, and access barriers noted for welfare offices and 

other settings in which SNAP and TANF benefits are handled. WIC and NSLP appear to be 

important food assistance programs for immigrant families that might not be eligible or reluctant 

to apply for other public benefits. 
 xx

TABLE ES-1. Number and Percent of WIC Participants in 1997 and NSLP Participants in 1994, by Immigrant Status 

Group 

 WIC (1997) NSLP (1994) 

 Mothers Children 0 to 4 Free Reduced Price 

 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Native-born 604 78.8% 

Native-born Child, Native-born Parents 4,197 77.5% 9,509 78.5% 1,401 75.6% 

Native-born Child, Authorized Immigrant Parents 741 13.7% 1,223 10.1% 243 13.1% 

Native-born Child, Unauthorized Immigrant Parents 309 5.7% 275 2.3% 61 3.3% 

Native-born Child, Mixed-Status Parents 56 1.0% 35 0.3% 17 0.9% 

Native-born Child, Foreign-born Parents (status unknown) 43 0.8% 47 0.4% 5 0.3% 

Authorized Immigrant 110 14.3% 32 0.6% 643 5.3% 55 3.0% 

Unauthorized Immigrant 53 6.9% 35 0.6% 380 3.1% 71 3.9% 

Total 766 100.0% 5,414 100.0% 12,113 100.0% 1,854 100.0% 

 

Note: WIC participants include postpartum and breastfeeding women and children ages 0 to 4. NSLP participants include children ages 5 to 18. 

Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary 

workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. For detailed 

definitions see Appendix C.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and 

imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and 

develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning 

and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

TABLE ES-2. Number and Percent of WIC and NSLP Participants in 2006, by Immigrant Status Group 

 WIC NSLP 

 Mothers Children 0 to 4 Free Reduced Price 

 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Native-born 632 72.4% 

Native-born Child, Native-born Parents 4,053 69.3% 9,856 72.1% 1,904 65.2% 

Native-born Child, Authorized Immigrant Parents 978 16.7% 1,622 11.9% 512 17.5% 

Native-born Child, Unauthorized Immigrant Parents 625 10.7% 833 6.1% 195 6.7% 

Native-born Child, Mixed-Status Parents 59 1.0% 81 0.6% 35 1.2% 

Native-born Child, Foreign-born Parents (status unknown) 42 0.7% 174 1.3% 21 0.7% 

Authorized Immigrant 134 15.4% 38 0.6% 509 3.7% 99 3.4% 

Unauthorized Immigrant 106 12.2% 53 0.9% 603 4.4% 152 5.2% 

Total 873 100.0% 5,848 100.0% 13,678 100.0% 2,919 100.0% 

 

Note: WIC participants include postpartum and breastfeeding women and children ages 0 to 4. NSLP participants include children ages 5 to 18. 

Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary 

workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. For detailed 

definitions see Appendix C.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and 

imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and 

develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning 

and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 1 - 

INTRODUCTION 

Due to rapid immigration, children with immigrant parents—those with at least one foreign-born 

parent—are the fastest growing component of the U.S. child population.17 In 1990, 13 percent of 

all U.S. children had at least one immigrant parent; this included native-born children with 

foreign-born parents and children that were foreign-born themselves. By 2006, the share of 

children of immigrants had risen to 23 percent (Fortuny, Capps, Simms, and Chaudry, 2009). 

Immigrant families are more likely than native families to be low-income and experience 

economic hardship that would make them income-eligible for means-tested programs, such as 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) (Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-Anderson, and Passel, 2004; Hernandez, 2004).18

Nevertheless, research has found that immigrant parents’ fears about deportation, citizenship 

applications, relative’s sponsorship, language barriers, and difficulty documenting employment 

and earnings are all associated with lower rates of immigrant involvement with public service 

systems (Capps, Ku, et al. 2002; Capps, Hagan, and Rodriguez 2004; Holcomb et al. 2003; 

Capps and Fortuny 2006). Further, relatively high levels of food insecurity have been 

documented in immigrant households (Capps, Fix, Ku et al., 2002; Capps, 2001). Yet, legal 

immigrants face many restrictions on eligibility for major federal benefit programs and 

participation in many of these programs by unauthorized or temporary immigrants is prohibited 

altogether (Fix and Passel 2002). Fears and misconceptions about these programs prevent some 

immigrant families from applying on behalf of eligible U.S. citizen children (Fix and Passel 

2002; Henderson, Capps, and Finegold 2008). 

There are currently no restrictions on the eligibility of noncitizens—whether legal, temporary, or 

unauthorized immigrants—for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

 

17Throughout this study, the term “children with immigrant parents” is used to encompass all children with at least 

one foreign-born parent, whether the children themselves are native- or foreign-born. An immigrant or foreign-born 

person is someone born outside the United States and its territories, to parents who are not U.S. citizens. People born 

in the United States, Puerto Rico, and other territories, or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, are native-born. 18 The Food Stamp Program’s name was changed to the Special Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008. 
- 2 - 

and Children (WIC) or the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).19 Though federal law does 

not prohibit participation for unauthorized immigrants in these programs, states can restrict WIC 

participation based on immigrant legal status. Currently, no states have restricted participation. 

This is not an option for NSLP, as the Department of Agriculture has determined that the NSLP 

program is not subject to Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA),20 which restricts certain welfare and public benefits for 

unauthorized immigrants. 

Income eligibility restrictions do apply to both programs. Families at or below 185 percent of the 

Federal Poverty Level (FPL) are eligible for WIC and reduced-price lunches and families at or 

below 130 percent of FPL are eligible for free lunches.21 Adjunctive eligibility for WIC is 

conferred by Medicaid, TANF and SNAP, and TANF and SNAP confer eligibility for NSLP. 

The extent to which demographic and economic factors are affecting both eligibility and 

participation in WIC and NSLP has not been adequately studied. Studying SNAP, Capps, Fix, 

and Henderson (2009) found that eligible families with noncitizen members participated at 

significantly lower rates than families composed entirely of citizens, and so the increasing share 

of noncitizen families in the eligible population has somewhat slowed overall participation 

growth. Additionally, many immigrants cannot or choose not to access TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, 

and similar benefits, and that could mean they may also be less likely to access WIC, and might 

not have the adjunctive eligibility for WIC or NSLP that participation in the other programs can 

confer. On the other hand, because some immigrants, especially the unauthorized, are barred 

from accessing TANF, SNAP, and other means tested benefits, they may be more likely to 

participate than the native-born in programs like WIC or NSLP for which they are eligible as 

their sole means to address their food insecurity needs. 

 

19 Noncitizens are foreign-born persons that have not become naturalized U.S. citizens. These include legal 

immigrants, such as legal permanent residents and refugees, and unauthorized immigrants. 20 Public Law 104-193. 

21 In 2006, the federal poverty level was $20,614 for a family of four, slightly higher for larger families, and lower 

for smaller families. 185 percent of the federal poverty level was $38,136 for a family of four. 
- 3 - 

Low-income immigrant families may rely heavily on these nutrition programs, and their 

participation in WIC and NSLP may be rising quickly, especially as their ability to access the 

largest food and nutrition program, SNAP, is subject to eligibility restrictions.22 No national data 

currently exist to assess the extent to which immigrant children and children of immigrants may 

be relying on these programs and are contributing to the growth in these programs. To fill this 

knowledge gap, this report seeks to assess the extent to which immigrant children and nativeborn children of immigrant parents are eligible for and participating in the WIC and NSLP 

programs. 

The data used for this study come from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement (CPS-ASEC) and WIC and NSLP administrative data. We estimate 

program eligibility and participation using the Transfer Income Model (TRIM3) funded 

primarily by the Department of Health and Human Services. TRIM3 also imputes the legal status 

of immigrants based on information such as country of origin and year of immigration. 

Definition of Immigrant Status and Immigrant Status Groups for this Analysis 

An immigrant or foreign-born person is someone born outside the United States and its 

territories. We use the term “authorized immigrant” for foreign-born persons who are legal 

permanent residents (LPRs), legal temporary residents (LTRs), refugees, or naturalized U.S. 

citizens. “Unauthorized immigrant” is used for all other foreign-born persons. The term 

“unauthorized” is used because, in the opinion of the authors and their colleagues, it best 

encompasses the population in the data. Many immigrants now enter the country or work using 

counterfeit documents; many others enter and obtain employment with valid documents that 

expire. Some others have petitioned for permanent residency and are waiting for a decision, or 

are in a Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—a form of temporary residency and work permit 

extended to immigrants from countries experiencing natural disasters or other extreme events, 

such as the recent earthquake in Haiti. Thus, these immigrants are “unauthorized” but not all are 

“undocumented,” in the sense that they might have documents, but these documents only allow 

 

22 U.S. citizen children and legal immigrant children are eligible for SNAP, but all unauthorized immigrants and 

most legal immigrants age 18 and older with less than five years of U.S. residency are barred from the federal 

program (Henderson, Capps, and Finegold 2008). 
- 4 - 

them to stay in the country temporarily (Fortuny, Capps, and Passel 2007). The report also makes 

the distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Noncitizens are foreign-born persons that have 

not become naturalized U.S. citizens. These include legal immigrants, such as legal permanent 

residents and refugees, and unauthorized immigrants. 

We examine the following immigrant groups in this report: 

Children (WIC and NSLP Analyses) 

For this analysis, children are categorized based on both their immigrant status and the 

immigrant status of their parents, to form seven groups in all, five of which are sub-groups of 

native-born children, and two are sub-groups of immigrant children: 

• Native-born children with native-born parents—these include native-born children with 

two native-born parents or with one native-born single parent living in the household. 

Native-born children without parents living in the household but whose parents were born 

in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. territories are also included in this group. 

• Native-born children with authorized immigrant parents—native-born children who have 

at least one foreign-born parent who is an LPR, LTR, refugee, or naturalized citizen, and 

who do not have an unauthorized immigrant parent. Children with one native-born parent 

and one authorized immigrant parent are included in this group. 

• Native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents only—native-born children 

whose parents are all unauthorized immigrants. 

• Native-born children with unauthorized and authorized immigrant parents—native-born 

children who have one parent who is an unauthorized immigrant and one parent who is 

authorized. We sometimes refer to this group as native-born children with mixed-status 

parents. 

• Native-born children with parents with unknown immigrant status—native-born children 

without parents living in the household, whose parents were born outside the United 

States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. territories, but for whom immigrant status is not available 

in the survey data. 
- 5 - 

• Authorized immigrant child—all foreign-born children who are legal permanent residents 

(LPRs), legal temporary residents (LTRs), refugees, or naturalized U.S. citizens.23 LTRs 

include dependents of immigrants with student visas or temporary work permits (for 

instance, H1-Bs). 

• Unauthorized immigrant child—all foreign-born children who are unauthorized 

immigrants. 

Mothers (WIC Analyses) 

For the analysis, mothers are categorized based on their immigrant status: 

• Native-born mothers—all native-born mothers. 

• Authorized immigrant mothers—all foreign-born mothers who are LPRs, LTRs, refugees, 

or naturalized citizens. 

• Unauthorized immigrant mothers—all foreign-born mothers who are unauthorized 

immigrants. 

Research Questions: 

The following are the key research questions addressed in this report, and the basis for how the 

report’s findings are organized: 

1. What are the trends in the number of immigrant mothers and children eligible for and 

participating in WIC and in the number of immigrant children eligible for and 

participating in NSLP? 

2. How do trends differ for children who are authorized immigrants and unauthorized 

immigrants? How do trends differ for native-born children with native-born parents 

versus native-born children with authorized and unauthorized immigrant parents? 

3. How much of the increase in immigrant participation in these programs is driven by 

increases in the eligible population versus changes in take-up rates (number of 

participants divided by number of eligible children)? 

 

23 It was not possible to examine naturalized U.S. citizens separately because of their small number in the survey 

data. 
- 6 - 

4. How much of the overall increases in the eligible and participating populations are 

accounted for by these various immigrant status groups? 

5. To what extent are changes over time in WIC and NSLP participation explained by 

growth in the population of eligible immigrants, changes in economic conditions, and 

other factors? 

6. How do trends in overall and immigrant eligibility and participation vary by state? How 

do they vary between the large traditional immigrant receiving states (California, New 

York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois) and states experiencing rapid recent 

growth in their immigrant populations (such as North Carolina or Georgia)? 

To answer these questions we provide results from three analyses in this report. First, we 

examine trends in participation and eligibility in WIC and NSLP by nativity and legal status to 

answer research questions 1 and 2. This study estimates WIC eligibility and participation among 

breastfeeding and postpartum mothers24 and children ages 0 through 425 for 1997 through 2006, 

and free and reduced-price lunch eligibility and participation for school-age children from 1994 

through 2006.26 Second, we examine the contribution of changes in take-up rates (numbers of 

participants among eligible children), changes in the number of persons eligible, and changes in 

the immigrant status of mothers and children (nativity and legal status) on changes in program 

participation over time to answer questions 3, 4, and 6. Lastly, to answer research questions 5 

and 6 we estimate the relationship between nativity and legal status and program participation 

over time using multivariate regression models. 

 

24 We do not include pregnancy related eligibility in this report. The CPS-ASEC does not provide any direct 

indication of pregnancy. Although TRIM3 imputes pregnancy status to some women, it does not provide a 

comprehensive and consistent set of pregnancy imputations for the period analyzed. As this year’s pregnant women 

are next year’s mothers of infants, we expect nativity and citizenship patterns among pregnant women are likely 

similar to those for postpartum and breastfeeding mothers. Bartlett et al. (2007) do not report data on citizenship or 

nativity, but their tables showing race and ethnicity by participant category suggest that those characteristics, which 

are associated with citizenship and nativity, are similar for pregnant women and mothers of infants. 25 This analysis combines infants and children age 1 to 4 into one category of WIC children due to sample size 

restrictions. 

26 The public use CPS-ASEC data have included NSLP items since the March 1980 survey. But TRIM3 first 

developed immigrant status assignments for the foreign-born population in March 1995 (CY 1994) CPS-ASEC, and 

thus 1994 is the first year of data available for our analysis. The CPS-ASEC has included WIC items since March 

2001 (CY 2000) and we were also able to analyze data on WIC participation that were collected on an experimental 

basis in the March 1998, 1999, and 2000 CPS-ASEC surveys, providing data on CY 1997 to 1999. For more 

information about the WIC simulation see Appendix A and for NSLP, Appendix B. We do not produce estimates for 

1996, as immigrant imputations for the CPS were not produced for that year. 
- 7 - 

For the demographic decomposition and multivariate analyses, we also examine whether results 

differ by the type of state in which WIC and NSLP participants reside: traditional-immigrantreceiving states, states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations, and states with slowergrowing immigrant populations (Capps et al. 2007; Fortuny, Capps, and Passel 2007; Fortuny, 

Capps, Simms, and Chaudry, 2009). Traditional immigrant-receiving states include California, 

New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey; states with rapidly-growing immigrant 

populations include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington; and states with slower-growing 

populations include those states not in the two aforementioned groups (Exhibit A). 
- 8 - 

EXHIBIT A. Type of State Based on Immigration Trends 

Traditional ImmigrantReceiving States States with RapidlyGrowing Immigrant 

Populations1

States with SlowerGrowing Immigrant 

Populations 

California Alabama Alaska 

New York Arizona Connecticut 

Texas Arkansas District of Columbia 

Florida Colorado Hawaii 

Illinois Delaware Louisiana 

New Jersey Georgia Maine 

 Idaho Maryland 

 Indiana Massachusetts 

 Iowa Michigan 

 Kansas Missouri 

 Kentucky Montana 

 Minnesota New Hampshire 

 Mississippi New Mexico 

 Nebraska North Dakota 

 Nevada Ohio 

 North Carolina Pennsylvania 

 Oklahoma Rhode Island 

 Oregon South Dakota 

 South Carolina Vermont 

 Tennessee Virginia 

 Utah West Virginia 

 Washington Wisconsin 

 Wyoming 

Note: 1In the 22 high-growth immigration states, the foreign-born populations grew more quickly between 1990 and 

2000 than they did in the six traditional immigrant-receiving states (Capps et al. 2007; Fortuny, Capps, and Passel 

2007). 

The findings of this report indicate that there has been substantial growth in the population of 

children of immigrants that participate in WIC and NSLP, which is not surprising given that 

there has been substantial growth in the population of children of immigrants during this time. 

Most of the growth in children participating in WIC and NSLP has been among native-born 

children with immigrant parents, and to a lesser extent among children who are themselves 

immigrants. This is also not surprising given that the majority (81 percent) of children of 

immigrants are born in the United States. Younger children are more likely than older children to 

be native-born—93 percent of children of immigrants age 0 to 4 are native-born compared with 

76 percent of those age 5 to 18. This helps explain the very small share of WIC participants that 
- 9 - 

are unauthorized immigrant children (0.9 percent) and the slightly higher share of NSLP 

participants that are unauthorized immigrants (4.4 percent for free price lunch and 5.2 percent for 

reduced price lunch). 

The participation trends suggest that the NSLP and WIC programs may continue to experience 

large increases in the number of children of immigrants in the future. Future participation trends 

are likely to depend on both immigration flows and economic conditions. Research has shown 

that growth and declines in the foreign-born population are sensitive to the economy. In times of 

slow economic growth, the immigrant population, particularly the unauthorized population, tends 

to grow more slowly or even decline (Papademetriou and Terrazas 2009). For instance Passel 

and Cohn (2009) estimate that, due to the recession beginning in 2008, the unauthorized 

population showed no net increase between 2006 and 2008 and a recent report from the 

Department of Homeland Security (2010) indicates that there has been a decline in the 

population of unauthorized immigrants. But there has yet to be such a decline in authorized 

immigrants; their migration behavior is less affected by economic conditions, as most waited in 

line for family-based visas for many years before being allowed to immigrate. 

Even when immigration slows or declines, however, the population of children of immigrants 

may continue to increase due to high birthrates among immigrants and population momentum 

(e.g., children of immigrants born in the United States age into NSLP for years after their parents 

immigrated and gave birth to them). Even between 2006 and 2008, when the unauthorized 

immigrant population stopped growing, the number of native-born children with unauthorized 

immigrant parents grew rapidly (Passel and Cohn 2009). Thus one would expect to continue to 

see growth in the number of native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents in the 

U.S. population for the foreseeable future. 

 

Finally, because eligibility for both programs is based on family income, WIC and NSLP 

participation of immigrants and their children will vary based on economic conditions. The 

unemployment rate for immigrants overall is currently only slightly higher than the rate for the 

native-born, but the rate for immigrants from Mexico and Central America—many of whom are 

unauthorized—is several points higher, suggesting that unauthorized immigrants may be 
- 10 - 

disproportionately affected by the current recession (Papademetriou and Terrazas 2009). 

Changing economic conditions—which have increased poverty among unauthorized families—

could offset the decline in immigration, leading to greater eligibility and participation of 

unauthorized immigrants in both programs in the coming years. Increasing poverty in 

unauthorized families combined with the population momentum described above could together 

contribute to significant ongoing increases in the numbers of native-born children with 

unauthorized immigrant parents in both programs. 

 

The following describes the organization of this report. We begin with a short description of the 

WIC and NSLP programs and what is currently known about immigration and service use 

amongst immigrant populations. Next, we describe the methods and data used to impute 

immigrant status and program eligibility and participation. We then turn to the findings from the 

three analyses. We conclude with a brief discussion about the potential implications of the 

findings. Additionally, there are appendices describing in greater detail the imputation methods 

used and sensitivity testing conducted. 
- 11 - 

BACKGROUND 

 

Federal nutrition programs such as WIC and NSLP provide an important safety net for lowincome families and play an important role in promoting food security and preventing hunger. In 

2006, 12.6 million (11 percent) of all U.S. households were food insecure (Nord, Andrews, and 

Carlson 2008).27 Food insecure households depend on a variety of public and private assistance 

programs to help them obtain safe and nutritious food for their children. Chief among these are 

the federal programs that provide nutrition assistance, the largest of which are SNAP, NSLP, and 

WIC.28 In fiscal year 2007, SNAP served more than 13 million children each month; the NSLP 

served more than 31 million children each school day between September and May; and the WIC 

program served more than 8 million women and children each month.29 Combined, these 

programs cost over $47 billion in 2007.30 There are other, smaller federal nutrition programs 

(such as school breakfast and summer food programs for school-age children), but the three 

programs serve by far the most people and account for most of the federal spending on nutrition 

assistance. 

WIC provides benefits via voucher, coupon, or electronic benefit transfer card to purchase 

nutritious foods, as well as nutrition education and referrals to other services for low-income 

pregnant women, new mothers, and infants and young children from one through four who are at 

nutritional risk. Mothers and children who meet these categorical requirements and the 

nutritional risk criteria qualify for WIC if their family incomes are at or below 185 percent of 

FPL. Eligibility for WIC is also conferred through eligibility for TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid 

and for this reason, mothers and children with higher incomes may qualify for WIC. This may be 

particularly true for Medicaid adjunctive eligibility, given that income eligibility for Medicaid is 

higher than 185 percent of FPL in some states. 

 

27 Food insecurity is a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate 

food. 

28 In a previous report to the Economic Research Service, Henderson, Capps and Finegold (2008) examined trends 

in Food Stamp Program eligibility and participation among immigrants. 

29 Food and Nutrition Service, USDA administrative data, available at www.usda.gov. 30 Food and Nutrition Service, USDA administrative data, available at www.usda.gov.
- 12 - 

There are currently no restrictions on the eligibility of noncitizens—whether legal, temporary, or 

unauthorized—for WIC or NSLP. Though federal law does not prohibit participation for 

unauthorized immigrants in these programs, states can restrict WIC participation based on 

immigrant legal status. Currently, no states have restricted participation. In contrast, SNAP, 

TANF, and Medicaid do restrict the eligibility of legal immigrants and prohibit participation by 

temporary or unauthorized immigrants. This may suggest that even though Medicaid incomeeligibility in some states may exceed WIC income-eligibility, few higher-income immigrants 

may qualify for adjunctive eligibility through Medicaid because of restrictions based on 

immigrant status. 

NSLP provides free lunches for children with family incomes at or below 130 percent of the FPL 

in participating public or private schools. Children with incomes between 131 percent and 185 

percent of the FPL qualify for reduced-price lunches that cost them no more than 40 cents per 

day. Participation in SNAP or TANF (but not Medicaid) confers adjunctive eligibility for free 

lunches in NSLP. Like WIC, NSLP does not restrict eligibility based on citizenship. States do 

not have the option to restrict participation of unauthorized immigrants, as the Department of 

Agriculture has determined that the NSLP program is not subject to Title IV of PRWORA, 

which restricts certain welfare and public benefits for unauthorized immigrants. 

During the period covered in this study for NSLP, 1994 to 2006, the number of children 

receiving free and reduced-price lunches increased by 26 percent (Figure 1). The WIC program 

also witnessed growth over the period of time covered by this study, 1997 to 2006. The number 

of mothers and children participating in WIC grew by 9 percent (Figure 2). In part, eligibility and 

participation in these programs fluctuate according to economic conditions. For instance, the 

number of WIC participants fell by about 3 percent between 1997 and 2000, a period of strong 

economic growth and declining child poverty. From 2000 through 2006, a period of weaker 

economic growth, WIC participation grew by about 12 percent. One would expect to see much 

more dramatic increases in participation in both programs during the past couple of years, since 

the current economic crisis began in 2008—however, participation data for this period is as yet 

unavailable. 
- 13 - 

FIGURE 1. Average Monthly Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Participation in the NSLP Program, 1994–2006 

(millions) 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Participation

Source: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA administrative data, available at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/slsummar.htm, retrieved in May 2009. 

14.0 million 

17.7 million
- 14 - 

FIGURE 2. Average Monthly Participation in the WIC Program, 1997–2006 (millions) 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Participation

Source: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA administrative data, available at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wisummary.htm, retrieved in May 2009. 

There are a number of factors that may have led to changes in the number of WIC and NSLP 

participants, including changes in economic conditions and growth in the child and immigrant 

populations. For instance, changes in the poverty rate affect participation (Castner, Mabli, and 

Sykes 2009). The proportion of children with family incomes at or below 185 percent of FPL 

declined from 43 percent in 1994 to 36 percent in 2000.31 Declining poverty may thus partially 

explain the drop in overall WIC participation between 1997 and 2000. NSLP participation, on 

the other hand, continued to increase during this time period, suggesting that other factors 

besides poverty rates impact participation, at least for NSLP. Nonetheless, weaker economic 

conditions since 2000—and especially in the last three years—have highlighted the importance 

of nutrition safety net programs for child well-being. 

 

31 Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 

7.4 million 

8.1 million

7.2 million
- 15 - 

Some of the recent growth in WIC and NSLP may be attributable to rapid immigration. In 2006, 

the total foreign-born population was 37.3 million (12.6 percent), up from 24.5 million (9.4 

percent) in 1994 (Table 1). Some of this growth is attributable to the growth in the number of 

children. A growing number of native-born children in the United States have immigrant parents 

due to a rise in immigration flows during and since the 1990s. The number of native-born 

children ages 0 to 18 with at least one foreign-born parent increased from 9.6 million in 1994 to 

14.4 million in 2006. During this time the number of native-born children with native-born 

parents remained relatively level, so the growth in children of immigrants accounted for much of 

the change in the child population (Fortuny and Chaudry 2009). As a result, the share of nativeborn children that have immigrant parents has increased as well, from 13 percent in 1994 to 18 

percent in 2006. In 2006, the share of children with immigrant parents was slightly higher among 

children ages 0 to 4 (25 percent) than among older children (22 percent). 
- 16 - 

TABLE 1. Foreign-Born Population in 1994 and 2006 

1994 2006 

Total foreign-born population in the U.S. 

Number 24,512,000 37,290,000 

Percent of U.S. population 9.4 12.6 

Authorized immigrants 

Number 19,573,000 26,218,000 

Percent of foreign-born population 79.8 70.3 

Unauthorized immigrants 

Number 4,940,000 11,072,000 

Percent of foreign-born population 20.2 29.7 

 

Total foreign-born children ages 0–18 in the U.S. 

Number 3,019,000 3,426,000 

Percent of U.S. children 4.1 4.4 

Authorized immigrant children 

Number 1,900,000 1,781,000 

Percent of all foreign-born children 62.9 52.0 

Unauthorized immigrant children 

Number 1,120,000 1,645,000 

Percent of all foreign-born children 37.1 48.0 

 

Total native-born children with foreign-born parents ages 0 - 18 

Number 9,551,000 14,368,000 

Percent of U.S children 12.9 18.4 

Authorized immigrant parents 

Number 7,782,000 10,325,000 

Percent of all native-born children with 

foreign-born parents 

81.5 72.0 

Unauthorized immigrant parents 

Number 1,485,000 3,629,000 

Percent of all native-born children with 

foreign-born parents 

15.5 25.3 

Immigrant status of parents unknown 

Number 284,000 414,000 

Percent of all native-born children with 

foreign-born parents 

3.0 2.9 

Note: Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., 

students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country 

illegally or overstayed their visas. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are based on the exact estimates.

Totals and percentages may not add up due to rounding. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). 

The unauthorized immigrant population grew more quickly than the authorized immigrant 

population between 1994 and 2006. In fact, between 1998 and 2004, the estimated annual inflow 

of unauthorized immigrants exceeded the inflow of authorized immigrants32 (Passel and Cohn, 

 

32 This trend has reversed since due to slower growth of the unauthorized immigrant population since 2005 (Passel 

and Cohn, 2008, 2009) 
- 17 - 

2008, 2009). Between 1994 and 2006, the number of children of unauthorized immigrants grew 

faster than the number of children of authorized immigrants. In 1994, 1.5 million native-born 

children had an unauthorized immigrant parent, representing 16 percent of all native-born 

children with immigrant parents. In 2006, 3.6 million native-born children had an unauthorized 

immigrant parent, representing 25 percent of all native-born children with foreign-born parents.33 

The number of children that are unauthorized immigrants themselves is much smaller—in 2006, 

there were 1.6 million unauthorized immigrant children among the 3.4 million children who 

were foreign-born. Unauthorized immigrant children represented 9 percent of all children of 

immigrants (and 2 percent of all children in the United States) in 2006. Younger children of 

immigrants are more likely than older children to be born in the United States and less likely to 

be unauthorized immigrants. In 2006, a smaller share of children of immigrants ages 0 to 4 were 

unauthorized immigrants, 3 percent, compared with children ages 5 to 18 (12 percent). 

Immigrant populations are concentrated in six large states that have been traditional immigrant 

destinations (California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey), but during the 

1990s, the immigrant populations grew rapidly in nearly every state, and most rapidly in many 

western, mid-western, and southeastern states, some of whom had relatively small immigrant 

populations before 1990. The six states with the largest immigrant populations saw a substantial 

increase of 74 percent in the number of children with foreign-born parents between 1990 and 

2006, while many of the new high-growth immigrant states, such as North Carolina, Nevada, 

Georgia, Arkansas, and Nebraska, experienced extraordinary growth rates four to five times as 

high. The average growth rate in these rapidly growing states was 220 percent. The number of 

children of immigrants in the other states also grew, though at a relatively slower pace, 78 

percent, below the national average of 90 percent.34

 

33 Demographers have estimated that unauthorized immigrants are undercounted by about 12.5 percent in these data 

sources (see Passel and Cohn 2009). Neither the raw CPS-ASEC totals nor the TRIM3 estimates are adjusted for this 

undercount, so estimates of unauthorized immigrants and their children could reflect the undercount. 

34 Urban Institute analysis of the 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 5 percent sample and 2005 and 2006 

U.S. Census Bureau American Community Surveys. 
- 18 - 

As previously noted, unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for TANF, SNAP, and several other 

means tested federal benefit programs (Fix and Passel 2002). Although all authorized immigrant 

children had their SNAP eligibility restored in 2003, there remains significant confusion over the 

complicated food stamp eligibility rules for noncitizens (Henderson, Capps, and Finegold 2009). 

Participation in SNAP and similar programs remains lower for children of immigrants—even 

among those who are eligible U.S. citizens—than for children of native-born parents (Capps, 

Fix, and Henderson 2009). Immigrant parents, especially those who are unauthorized, often 

misunderstand complex program eligibility rules and participation procedures, and fear applying 

for benefits even for citizen children, due to concerns about potential arrest or adverse impacts 

on immigration or naturalization applications (Holcomb et al. 2003; Rodriguez, Hagan, and 

Capps 2004). 

WIC and NSLP include no such bars on noncitizen participation, and their application 

procedures are far less complex than those for SNAP or TANF. Moreover, applications are taken 

at hospitals, health clinics, and schools—locations that provide much greater access to 

noncitizens than welfare and food stamp offices (Holcomb et al. 2003). The lack of access 

barriers in WIC and NSLP generally may lead to much higher take-up rates of the eligible 

population for these programs and may lead to increased growth of the unauthorized immigrant 

population in these two programs. 

Thus, immigration and economic conditions may be leading to changes in WIC and NSLP use, 

and the extent to which these demographic and economic factors are affecting eligibility and 

participation is addressed in this study. 
- 19 - 

DATA AND METHODS 

Eligibility and participation estimates in the report are based on output from the TRIM3 

microsimulation model, which the Urban Institute maintains and develops with primary funding 

from the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human 

Services.35 The input data for TRIM3 come from CPS-ASEC, which is collected each year in 

March. The CPS-ASEC provides extensive data on income, employment, and demographic 

characteristics; the survey also collects data on participation in public programs including TANF, 

SNAP, Medicaid, WIC, and NSLP. Appendices A and B provide additional detail on the 

underlying assumptions of estimates and the micro-simulation model used. 

We analyze CPS-ASEC data for NSLP eligibility and participation for 1994 through 2006 and 

for WIC for 1997 through 2006. The public use CPS-ASEC data have included NSLP items 

since the March 1980 survey. But TRIM3 first developed immigrant status assignments for the 

foreign-born population in the March 1995 (CY 1994) CPS-ASEC, and thus 1994 is the first year 

of data available for our analysis. The CPS-ASEC has included WIC items since March 2001 

(CY 2000) and we were also able to analyze data on WIC participation that were collected on an 

experimental basis in the March 1998, 1999, and 2000 CPS-ASEC surveys, providing data on 

CY 1997 to 1999. 

Categorical eligibility for WIC infants, older children ages 1 to 4, and mothers of infants is 

modeled in TRIM3. Mothers of infants are categorically eligible for twelve months postpartum if 

they breastfeed, and for six months if they do not. Women are also categorically eligible if they 

are pregnant. In this report, we exclude pregnant women from the analyses due to data 

restrictions (pregnancy is not indicated on the CPS-ASEC). Thus all analyses for adult women in 

WIC is for mothers who are breastfeeding or postpartum. Additionally, we combine infants and 

children into one category of children ages 0 to 4 due to insufficient sample sizes to examine 

infants and children separately. 

 

35 For additional information on TRIM3, see http://trim3.urban.org/T3Technical.php. 
- 20 - 

Being deemed at “nutritional risk” is an additional requirement for WIC benefits. TRIM3 does 

not model the nutritional risk criteria for WIC eligibility because CPS-ASEC does not provide 

information on nutritional status of individuals. However, women and children who are 

otherwise eligible for WIC could be certified to be at nutritional risk based on an inadequate diet 

when no other risk criteria are present (Bitler, et al. 2003). USDA program staff suggested that 

few people who meet the other eligibility criteria are excluded on this basis. 

To receive free or reduced-price lunches from NSLP, individuals must be participating in 

elementary or secondary school and meet the requirement for either income or adjunctive 

eligibility. We approximate this restriction by simulating NSLP eligibility for children in the age 

range of 5 to 18.36 This is the same age range that the CPS-ASEC uses to define the universe for 

its school lunch questions. 

Income eligibility for WIC is based on monthly family income at or below 185 percent of FPL. 

Children are eligible for free lunches if their monthly family income is at or below 130 percent 

of FPL, and for reduced price lunches if monthly family income is at or below 185 percent of 

FPL. To determine income-eligibility and benefits, the TRIM3 model acts as a caseworker 

would, applying state and national program rules to the simulated record of monthly income and 

employment. Participation in one program can confer eligibility in another program, as TANF, 

SNAP, and Medicaid do for WIC, and TANF and SNAP do for NSLP. 

We modeled WIC and NSLP participation, among those simulated as eligible by TRIM3, with 

SAS code developed specifically for this project. The code uses information from the simulation 

of eligibility and from the administrative data for each year, state, and participant group (e.g., 

mothers of infants). Our goal in modeling participation decisions was to produce a simulated 

caseload that comes close to the state and national targets from the administrative data and 

accurately captures the characteristics of program participants. Appendices A and B provide 

additional detail on the underlying assumptions of the estimates. 

 

36 Excluding students no longer in school based on the survey data does not affect the distribution of participants 

across the immigrant status groups (see Appendix F). 
- 21 - 

The CPS collects information on nativity and citizenship but not on the immigrant status of 

immigrants. One of the essential components of TRIM3 is the assignment of immigrant status to 

immigrants in the CPS data. The methodology for these imputations, developed at the Urban 

Institute by Jeffrey Passel and Rebecca Clark, is explained in more detail in Appendix C. 
- 22 - 

TREND ANALYSES 

The trend analyses presented in this report include estimated eligibility and participation trends 

for WIC between 1997 and 2006 and for NSLP between 1994 and 2006. Trends in WIC 

eligibility and participation are examined for two groups: (1) children (ages 0 to 4) and (2) 

postpartum and breastfeeding mothers.37 For NSLP, we examined two groups of eligible and 

participating children ages 5 to 18: (1) those eligible for Free Lunches and (2) those eligible for 

reduced-price meals. Trends among children are examined by their own immigrant status and the 

immigrant status of their parents. Trends among WIC mothers are examined by their own 

immigrant status only. The methodology for these estimates is explained in more detail in 

Appendix A for the WIC program and Appendix B for NSLP. 

WIC 

Eligible Children. We estimate that the number of children ages 0 to 4 eligible for WIC declined 

steadily between 1997 and 2000 and increased from 2001 through 2006. There were 9.5 million 

children eligible for WIC in 1997 and their number increased to 10.2 million in 2006 (Figure 3, 

Table 2). 

The number of eligible native-born children with native-born parents increased over the study 

period. In 1997, there were 7.2 million native-born children with native-born parents eligible for 

WIC. In 2006, the number eligible increased to 7.3 million—a 1 percent increase.38

The number of children of immigrants eligible for WIC increased by more than the number of 

native-born children with native-born parents. Between 1997 and 2006, an additional halfmillion native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents became eligible for WIC—an 

increase of 91 percent. This group represents the largest increase in WIC eligibles between 1997 

and 2006, with 549,000 eligible in 1997 and 1.1 million eligible in 2006. The number of nativeborn children with authorized immigrant parents eligible for WIC also increased from 1997 to 

 

37 In this and the next sections, we use the term “children” to include infants and children ages 0 to 4. We combine 

infants and children into one group due to insufficient sample sizes to examine them separately. 

38 Eligibility and participation estimates presented in the tables and figures in this section are rounded to the nearest 

thousand. Percentages and percent changes are based on the exact numbers. 
- 23 - 

2006—from 1.4 to 1.5 million, an 8 percent increase. Fewer native-born children with mixedstatus immigrant parents (20,000) and native-born children with foreign-born parents of 

unknown immigrant status (1,000) were eligible for WIC in 2006 compared with 1997, though 

with small sample sizes, it is difficult to determine if these are meaningful differences. 

Though not as large in magnitude, the number of foreign-born children eligible for WIC 

increased as well. From 1997 to 2006, the number of unauthorized immigrant children eligible 

for WIC increased by 62 percent from 70,000 to 113,000. The number of authorized immigrant 

children eligible for WIC increased from 62,000 to 67,000—an 8 percent increase. 

Turning to population shares, children with foreign-born parents comprised 24 percent of the 

total child population eligible for WIC in 1997; in 2006, their share rose to 28 percent (Figure 4). 

Most of this shift was due to native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents, who 

represented 6 percent of eligibles in 1997 and 10 percent in 2006. In contrast, children with 

native-born parents comprised 76 percent of the total child population eligible for WIC in 1997; 

their share declined to 72 percent in 2006. 
- 24 - 

FIGURE 3. Number of Children Ages 0–4 Eligible and Participating in WIC, 1997–2006 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Average Monthly Number of Children (in thousands)

Simulated Eligibility

Simulated Enrollment

Actual Enrollment

Notes: Simulated eligibility and participation are based on TRIM3. Actual participation is based on FNS administrative data. 

Children under age 5, with family incomes at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level or who are eligible for SNAP, 

Medicaid, or TANF, and who are at nutritional risk are eligible for WIC. 

Source: TRIM3 simulations of CPS data for 1998 - 2007 and WIC administrative data for 1997 - 2006. 
- 25 - 

TABLE 2. Number and Percent of WIC Eligibles by Immigrant Status Group: Children Age 0 to 4 (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents Foreign

Total Children Eligible for 

WIC 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born 

Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant 

parents Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant 

parents Only 

Unauthorized 

and Authorized 

Immigrant 

Parents 

Immigrant 

Status of 

Parents 

Unknown 

Authorized Immigra

Unweighted 

sample 

Weighted 

population 

(1000s) 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

1997 7,274 9,471 7,238 76.4% 1,374 14.5% 549 5.8% 105 1.1% 73 0.8% 62 0.7% 1998 6,647 9,298 6,982 75.1% 1,403 15.1% 572 6.2% 108 1.2% 75 0.8% 96 1.0% 1999 7,558 9,044 6,900 76.3% 1,180 13.0% 608 6.7% 89 1.0% 109 1.2% 75 0.8% 2000 6,303 8,975 6,691 74.6% 1,257 14.0% 642 7.2% 100 1.1% 99 1.1% 88 1.0% 2001 10,271 9,246 6,769 73.2% 1,392 15.1% 730 7.9% 89 1.0% 93 1.0% 105 1.1% 2002 11,118 9,315 6,928 74.4% 1,313 14.1% 726 7.8% 86 0.9% 107 1.1% 77 0.8% 2003 11,205 9,682 7,143 73.8% 1,354 14.0% 872 9.0% 53 0.5% 89 0.9% 72 0.7% 2004 8,910 9,661 6,973 72.2% 1,382 14.3% 919 9.5% 62 0.6% 110 1.1% 79 0.8% 2005 9,249 9,859 7,148 72.5% 1,426 14.5% 916 9.3% 81 0.8% 105 1.1% 62 0.6% 2006 10,236 10,182 7,308 71.8% 1,490 14.6% 1,048 10.3% 85 0.8% 72 0.7% 67 0.7% Note: Children include children ages 0 to 4. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., stu

workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. Weighted numbers are roundethousand. Percentages are based on the exact estimates. Totals and percentages may not add up due to rounding.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations o

participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from t

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 26 - 

FIGURE 4. Share of Children Ages 0–4 Eligible for WIC, by Immigrant Status Groups, 1997–2006 

76.4%

23.6%

14.5%

5.8%

1.1% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7%

71.8%

28.2%

14.6%

10.3%

0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 1.1%

Native-Born

Child with

Native-Born

Parents

Total Children of

Immigrants

Native-Born

Child of

Authorized

Immigrant

Parents

Native-Born

Child of

Unauthorized

Immigrant

Parents Only

Native-Born

Child of MixedStatus Immigrant

Parents

Native-Born

Child of ForeignBorn Parent

(Status

Unknown)

Authorized

Immigrant

Unauthorized

Immigrant

1997 2006

Note: Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., 

students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country 

illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 

Participating Children. Like the number of children eligible for WIC, the number of children 

participating in WIC declined from 1997 through 2000, and then increased fairly steadily from 

2001 through 2006. In 1997 there were 5.4 million children ages 0 to 4 participating in WIC and 

5.8 million were participating in 2006 (Figure 3, Table 3). 

As with trends in eligibility, we estimate that the largest growth in numbers of children 

participating in WIC was among native-born children with foreign-born parents. In 2006, the 

WIC program served over a half-million (553,000) more children in this category than it did in 

1997. Within this group, native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents grew the 

fastest. In 1997, the program served 309,000 children in this category; by 2006, the program 

served over twice as many (625,000). There was also growth within the native-born children 
- 27 - 

groups with authorized and mixed-status immigrant parents. The number of children with 

authorized immigrant parents grew by 237,000 participants—a 32 percent increase—and the 

number of children with mixed-status immigrant parents grew by 2,000—a 4 percent increase. 

 

The WIC program also saw an increase (24,000) in the number of foreign-born children 

participating between 1997 and 2006. Most of this growth was among unauthorized immigrant 

children. In 2006, 53,000 unauthorized immigrant children participated in WIC, up from 35,000 

in 1997. The number of authorized immigrant children grew from 32,000 to 38,000 over the 

same period. 

In contrast to trends among children of immigrants, participation among native-born children 

with native-born parents declined. In 1997 the program served 4.2 million such children, and in 

2006 the program served 4.1 million. 

In total, participation of children of immigrants rose by 577,000 from 1997 to 2006, while 

participation among native-born children with native-born parents declined by 144,000. In 1997, 

children of immigrants (both native- and foreign-born children) represented 22 percent of all 

WIC participants, with native-born children with native-born parents representing 78 percent 

(Figure 5). In 2006, children with foreign-born parents made up 31 percent of WIC participants, 

with the remaining 69 percent composed of native-born children with native-born parents. As 

with the trends among eligibles, the major driver of this shift came from native-born children 

with unauthorized immigrant parents, who represented 6 percent of participants in 1997 and 11 

percent in 2006, and from native-born children with authorized immigrant parents (14 percent of 

participants in 1997 and 17 percent in 2006). 
- 28 - 

TABLE 3. Number and Percent of WIC Participants by Immigrant Status Group: Children Age 0 to 4 (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents 

Total Children 

Participating in WIC 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant Parents 

Immigrant Status 

of Parents 

Unknown 

A

Im

Unweighted 

sample 

Weighted 

population 

(1000s) 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Num

(100

1997 4,159 5,414 4,197 77.5% 741 13.7% 309 5.7% 56 1.0% 43 0.8% 32 1998 3,674 5,342 4,008 75.0% 840 15.7% 325 6.1% 51 1.0% 43 0.8% 41999 4,539 5,285 3,971 75.1% 722 13.7% 390 7.4% 55 1.0% 65 1.2% 42000 3,764 5,182 3,764 72.6% 767 14.8% 433 8.3% 64 1.2% 53 1.0% 32001 5,743 5,339 3,827 71.7% 886 16.6% 433 8.1% 58 1.1% 52 1.0% 52002 6,400 5,217 3,787 72.6% 781 15.0% 454 8.7% 58 1.1% 52 1.0% 42003 6,499 5,500 3,979 72.4% 836 15.2% 518 9.4% 32 0.6% 47 0.9% 42004 5,202 5,710 4,074 71.3% 843 14.8% 583 10.2% 38 0.7% 61 1.1% 42005 5,386 5,826 4,135 71.0% 905 15.5% 580 10.0% 48 0.8% 68 1.2% 22006 5,643 5,848 4,053 69.3% 978 16.7% 625 10.7% 59 1.0% 42 0.7% 3Note: Children include children ages 0 to 4. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., stu

refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. Weighted numbers are rounded to the n

based on the exact estimates. Totals and percentages may not add up due to rounding.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations of 

provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Departm

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 29 - 

FIGURE 5. Share of Children Ages 0–4 Participating in WIC, by Immigrant Status, 1997–2006 

77.5%

22.5%

13.7%

5.7%

1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6%

69.3%

30.7%

16.7%

10.7%

1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.9%

Native-Born

Child with

Native-Born

Parents

Total Children of

Immigrants

Native-Born

Child of

Authorized

Immigrant

Parent

Native-Born

Child of

Unauthorized

Immigrant

Parents Only

Native-Born

Child of MixedStatus Immigrant

Parents

Native-Born

Child of ForeignBorn Parent

(Status

Unknown)

Authorized

Immigrant

Unauthorized

Immigrant

1997 2006

Notes: Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., 

students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country 

illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 

For both children of immigrants and children with native-born parents, we find their share of 

participants to be generally comparable to their share of eligible children. For instance, we find 

that unauthorized immigrant children made up 1.1 percent of all children eligible for WIC and 

0.9 percent of all children participating in 2006 (Table 4). Native-born children with authorized 

immigrant parents make up a slightly higher proportion of WIC participants (16.7 percent) 

compared with their share of the eligible population (14.6 percent). In contrast, native-born 

children with native-born parents make up a slightly lower proportion of participants (69.3 

percent) compared with their share of the eligible population (71.8 percent). 
- 30 - 

TABLE 4. Percent of WIC Eligibles and Participants by Immigrant Status Group in 2006: 

Children Age 0 to 4 (weighted) 

 % Eligible % Participating 

Native-born Child, Native-born Parents 71.8% 69.3% 

Native-born Child, Authorized immigrant parents 14.6% 16.7% 

Native-born Child, Unauthorized immigrant parents 10.3% 10.7% 

Native-born Child, Mixed-Status Parents 0.8% 1.0% 

Native-born Child, Foreign-born Parents (Immigrant Status Unknown) 0.7% 0.7% 

Authorized Immigrant Child 0.7% 0.6% 

Unauthorized Immigrant Child 1.1% 0.9% 

 

Notes: Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., 

students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country 

illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

Eligible Mothers. We estimate that the number of breastfeeding and postpartum mothers eligible 

for WIC has increased fairly steadily over time. The number of mothers eligible for WIC 

increased slightly from 1997 to 1998, decreased between 1998 and 2000, and fairly steadily 

increased between 2001 and 2006 (Figure 6). In 1997, 837,000 mothers were eligible for WIC, 

increasing to 958,000 by 2006 (Table 5). The lower estimate of participants and eligibles than 

actual participants may be due in part to the CPS lacking information on the age of the child and 

undercounting infants.39

The largest growth in the WIC eligible population came from unauthorized immigrant mothers. 

In 1997, 60,000 unauthorized immigrant mothers were eligible for WIC, and in 2006, 114,000 

were eligible—an 89 percent increase. There was also growth in the eligible population of 

authorized immigrant mothers, though less so than for unauthorized immigrant mothers. In 1997, 

121,000 authorized immigrant mothers were eligible for WIC and their numbers grew to 139,000 

by 2006—a 15 percent increase. Similarly, there was growth among native-born mothers. In 

1997, 656,000 native-born mothers were eligible for WIC; in 2006, 705,000 were eligible. 

 

39 See Food and Nutrition Service (2006). WIC Program Coverage: How Many Eligible Individuals Participated in 

the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): 1994 to 2003? Washington, 

DC: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. 
- 31 - 

FIGURE 6. Number of Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers Eligible and Participating in WIC, 1997–2006 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Average Monthly Number of Women (in thousands)

Simulated Eligibility

Simulated Enrollment

Actual Enrollment

Notes: Simulated eligibility and participation are based on TRIM3. Actual participation is based on FNS administrative data. 

Breastfeeding and postpartum mothers, with family incomes at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level or who are 

eligible for SNAP, Medicaid, or TANF, and who are at nutritional risk are eligible for WIC.

Source: TRIM3 simulations of CPS data for CY 1998 - 2007 and WIC administrative data for FY 1997 - 2006. 
- 32 - 

TABLE 5. Number and Percent of WIC Eligibles by Immigrant Status Group: Women (weighted) 

 Foreign-Born Women 

 

Total Women Eligible for WIC Native-Born Women 

Authorized Immigrant Unauthorized Immigrant 

 

Unweighted 

sample 

Weighted 

population 

(1000s) 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

1997 727 837 656 78.4% 121 14.5% 60 7.2% 

1998 564 866 674 77.8% 121 13.9% 71 8.2% 

1999 660 786 625 79.5% 100 12.7% 61 7.8% 

2000 546 781 581 74.4% 122 15.6% 78 10.0% 

2001 881 827 603 72.9% 139 16.9% 85 10.2% 

2002 915 824 615 74.6% 125 15.1% 85 10.3% 

2003 983 871 620 71.1% 149 17.1% 103 11.8% 

2004 790 917 681 74.3% 139 15.1% 97 10.6% 

2005 802 898 676 75.3% 130 14.5% 92 10.2% 

2006 911 958 705 73.6% 139 14.5% 114 11.9% 

Note: Adult Women includes postpartum, and breastfeeding women only, not pregnant women. Authorized immigrants include naturalized 

citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). 

Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. Weighted numbers are rounded to 

the nearest thousand. Percentages are based on the exact estimates. Totals and percentages may not add up due to rounding.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status 

assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban 

Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

With the growth in the eligible population of unauthorized immigrant mothers came an increase 

in their share of the eligible population. In total, the foreign-born population of mothers 

increased between 1997 and 2006 from 22 percent to 26 percent; all of this growth was 

attributable to the unauthorized immigrant eligible population, which grew from 7 percent in 

1997 to 12 percent in 2006 (Figure 7). In contrast, the native-born share of the eligible 

population declined from 78 percent in 1997 to 74 percent in 2006. 
- 33 - 

FIGURE 7. Share of Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers Eligible for WIC, by Immigrant Status Group, 

1997–2006

78.4%

21.6%

14.5%

7.2%

73.6%

26.4%

14.5%

11.9%

Native-Born Total Foreign-Born Authorized Immigrant Unauthorized Immigrant

1997 2006

Notes: Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., 

students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country 

illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

Participating Mothers. We estimate that participation in WIC among breastfeeding and 

postpartum mothers followed trends in eligibility closely (Figure 6). From 1997 to 1998, 

participation increased, then fell in 1999, and then began slowly growing between 2000 and 

2006. In 1997, we estimate that 766,000 mothers participated in WIC and 873,000 participated in 

2006 (Table 6). In contrast, actual program participation increased steadily between 1997 and 

2006. As mentioned previously, this discrepancy may be due to the CPS undercounting infants. 

As with trends amongst eligible mothers, we find that the number of unauthorized immigrant 

mothers participating in WIC grew faster than the other groups. In 1997, 53,000 unauthorized 

immigrant mothers participated in WIC, doubling to 106,000 in 2006. Participation among 
- 34 - 

authorized immigrant mothers also grew—by 23 percent—from 110,000 in 1997 to 134,000 in 

2006. Native-born mothers experienced growth in participation as well, though their growth rate 

was the slowest—5 percent. In 2006, 632,000 mothers participated in WIC, up from 604,000 in 

1997. 

TABLE 6 . Number and Percent of WIC Participants by Immigrant Status Group: Women (weighted) 

 Foreign-Born Women 

 

Total Women Participating in 

WIC Native-Born Women 

Authorized Immigrant Unauthorized Immigrant 

 

Unweighted 

sample 

Weighted 

population 

(1000s) Number (1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

1997 649 766 604 78.8% 110 14.3% 53 6.9% 

1998 515 787 611 77.7% 113 14.3% 63 8.0% 

1999 627 733 576 78.6% 98 13.4% 58 8.0% 

2000 516 735 542 73.7% 115 15.7% 78 10.6% 

2001 805 770 555 72.0% 135 17.5% 81 10.5% 

2002 875 787 582 74.0% 122 15.4% 83 10.6% 

2003 941 830 592 71.3% 141 17.0% 97 11.7% 

2004 743 855 633 74.0% 132 15.4% 90 10.6% 

2005 743 843 627 74.4% 126 15.0% 90 10.7% 

2006 822 873 632 72.4% 134 15.4% 106 12.2% 

Note: Adult Women includes postpartum, and breastfeeding women only, not pregnant women. Authorized immigrants include naturalized 

citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized 

immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. Weighted numbers are rounded to the nearest 

thousand. Percentages are based on the exact estimates. Totals and percentages may not add up due to rounding.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status 

assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban 

Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

With this growth in the foreign-born population, particularly among unauthorized immigrant 

mothers, the shares of each group shifted between 1997 and 2006. In 1997, 21 percent of WIC 

mothers were foreign-born; this share rose to 28 percent in 2006 (Figure 8). Unauthorized 

immigrant mothers comprised 7 percent of participants in 1997 and 12 percent in 2006. 

Authorized immigrant mothers made up 14 percent of participants in 1997 and 15 percent in 

2006. In contrast, native-born participants experienced a decrease in their share of the 

participating population, from 79 percent in 1997 to 72 percent in 2006. 
- 35 - 

FIGURE 8. Share of Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers Participating in WIC, by Immigrant Status Group, 

1997 - 2006

78.8%

21.2%

14.3%

6.9%

72.4%

27.6%

15.4%

12.2%

Native-Born Total Foreign-Born Authorized Immigrant Unauthorized Immigrant

1997 2006

Notes: Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., 

students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country 

illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

While unauthorized immigrant mothers were the fastest growing segment of the eligible and 

participating populations, it is important to note that their participation rates were comparable to 

their share of the eligible population. In 2006, unauthorized immigrant mothers made up 12 

percent of the eligible population and 12 percent of participants (Table 7). The same finding 

holds for authorized immigrant and native-born mothers, each group comprising similar shares 

of eligibles and participants. 
- 36 - 

TABLE 7. Percent of WIC Eligibles and Participants by Immigrant Status Group in 2006: Women 

(weighted) 

 % Eligible % Participating 

Native-born 73.6% 72.4% 

Authorized Immigrant 14.5% 15.4% 

Unauthorized Immigrant 11.9% 12.2% 

 

Notes: Women include postpartum and breastfeeding women only. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal 

permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). 

Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

NSLP 

Children Eligible for Free Lunches. Between 1994 and 2000, we estimate that the number of 

children ages 5 to 18 eligible for free lunches declined—from 18.6 million in 1994 to 14.2 

million in 2000 (Figure 9, Table 8). From 2001 through 2006 the number of eligible children 

remained relatively steady at 14.2 million. 

Between 1994 and 2006, there were shifts in those eligible for Free Lunches by immigrant status 

groups, with children with native-born parents declining in number and share but children of 

immigrants increasing. In 2006, 10.3 million native-born children with native-born parents were 

eligible compared with 14.8 million in 1994—a decline of 4.6 million, or 31 percent. In contrast, 

the number of unauthorized immigrant children increased from 590,000 in 1994 to 622,000 in 

2006. Similarly, native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents grew from 342,000 in 

1994 to 862,000 in 2006—a 152 percent increase. There was also an increase in the number 

eligible among native-born children with mixed-status immigrant parents (51,000 in 1997 and 

84,000 in 2006). Other foreign-born groups saw decreases in the number of children eligible for 

Free Lunches. Native-born children with authorized immigrant parents decreased in number by 

36,000 from 1994 to 2006. Likewise, the number of authorized immigrant children declined by 

nearly half—from 942,000 in 1994 to 522,000 in 2006. The number of native-born children with 

foreign-born parents of unknown immigrant status increased from 143,000 in 1994 to 185,000 in 

2006. 
- 37 - 

FIGURE 9. Number of Children Eligible and Participating in NSLP: Free Lunches, 1994–2006 

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Average Monthly Number of Children (in thousands)

Simulated Eligibility

Simulated Enrollment

Actual Enrollment

Notes: Simulated eligibility and participation are based on TRIM3. Actual participation is based on FNS administrative data. The 

numbers for 1996 are interpolated. Children attending schools that offer the NSLP and with family incomes at or below 130 

percent of the federal poverty level or who are eligible for SNAP or TANF are eligible for free lunches.

Source: TRIM3 simulations of CPS data for 1995 - 2007 and WIC administrative data for 1994 - 2006. 
- 38 - 

TABLE 8. Number and Percent of NSLP Eligibles by Immigrant Status Group: Free Lunches (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents 

Total Children Eligible for 

Free Lunches 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant 

Parents 

Immigrant Status 

of Parents 

Unknown 

Au

Im

Unweighted 

sample 

Weighted 

population 

(1000s) 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Numb

(1000

1994 13,822 18,618 14,831 79.7% 1,719 9.2% 342 1.8% 51 0.3% 143 0.8% 942 1995 11,479 17,026 13,133 77.1% 1,719 10.1% 421 2.5% 98 0.6% 159 0.9% 902 1996 1997 12,011 15,873 11,997 75.6% 1,737 10.9% 477 3.0% 89 0.6% 207 1.3% 789 1998 10,624 15,627 11,795 75.5% 1,797 11.5% 541 3.5% 102 0.7% 160 1.0% 767 1999 10,853 14,839 11,063 74.6% 1,605 10.8% 556 3.7% 87 0.6% 165 1.1% 788 2000 9,910 14,188 10,514 74.1% 1,542 10.9% 632 4.5% 96 0.7% 178 1.3% 640 2001 15,663 14,295 10,447 73.1% 1,698 11.9% 620 4.3% 110 0.8% 168 1.2% 629 2002 16,623 14,194 10,335 72.8% 1,662 11.7% 615 4.3% 93 0.7% 160 1.1% 723 2003 16,748 14,425 10,461 72.5% 1,708 11.8% 775 5.4% 66 0.5% 158 1.1% 574 2004 14,005 14,498 10,549 72.8% 1,586 10.9% 774 5.3% 65 0.4% 170 1.2% 622 2005 14,090 14,069 10,277 73.0% 1,566 11.1% 812 5.8% 72 0.5% 164 1.2% 542 2006 13,916 14,214 10,257 72.2% 1,683 11.8% 862 6.1% 84 0.6% 185 1.3% 522 Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., st

refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. Weighted numbers are rounded to the n

based on the exact estimates. Totals and percentages may not add up due to rounding.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations of p

provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the DepartmOffice of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 39 - 

These changes in the number of children eligible for free lunches by immigrant status have 

resulted in substantial shifts in the share of eligible children in immigrant families. In 1994, 20 

percent of children eligible for Free Lunches were foreign-born or had foreign-born parents 

(Figure 10). By 2006, their share had risen to 28 percent. All categories of children of 

immigrants experienced a growth in their share of the free lunch eligible population from 1994 

through 2006 with the exception of authorized immigrant children. Native-born children with 

unauthorized immigrant parents experienced the largest increase in terms of share—in 1994 they 

represented 1.8 percent of free lunch eligibles and in 2006 they represented 6.1 percent of free 

lunch eligibles. As a result, native-born children with native-born parents experienced a decline 

in their relative share of the free lunch eligible population. In 1994 they represented 80 percent 

of free lunch eligibles and by 2006 their share had dropped to 72 percent. 
- 40 - 

FIGURE 10. Share of Children Eligible for Free Lunches, by Immigrant Status Group, 1994 - 2006

79.7%

20.3%

9.2%

1.8% 0.3% 0.8%

5.1% 3.2%

72.2%

27.8%

11.8%

6.1%

0.6% 1.3%

3.7% 4.4%

Native-Born

Child with

Native-Born

Parents

Native-Born

Total Children of

Immigrants

Native-Born

Child of

Authorized

Immigrant

Parent

Native-Born

Child of

Unauthorized

Immigrant

Parents Only

Native-Born

Child of MixedStatus Immigrant

Parents

Native-Born

Child of ForeignBorn Parent

(Status

Unknown)

Authorized

Immigrant

Unauthorized

Immigrant

1994 2006

Notes: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, 

temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants 

include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

Children Participating in Free Lunches. 

We estimate that the number of children participating in free lunches increased between 1994 

and 1997 from 12.1 to 13.2 million (Figure 9, Table 9). Between 1998 and 2001, the number of 

children participating in free lunches fluctuated between a low of 12.9 million in 1999 and a high 

of 13.2 in 2001. From 2002 through 2006, participation in free lunches steadily increased to a 

high of 13.7 million in 2006. 

The largest increase in participation between 1994 and 2006 for free lunches occurred for nativeborn children with unauthorized immigrant parents. In 1994, 275,000 native-born children with 

unauthorized immigrant parents participated and in 2006, 833,000 participated—a 203 percent 

increase. Other native-born children with foreign-born parents experienced increases as well, 
- 41 - 

though not as dramatic. Native-born children with authorized immigrant parents increased in 

number from 1.2 to 1.6 million from 1994 to 2006; native-born children with mixed-status 

immigrant parents increased in number from 35,000 to 81,000; and native-born children with 

foreign-born parents of unknown immigrant status increased in number from 47,000 to 174,000 . 

Foreign-born children also experienced an overall increase in participation from 1994 to 2006. 

All of the increase was due to unauthorized immigrants, as fewer authorized immigrants 

participated in 2006 than in 1994. In 1994, 380,000 unauthorized immigrants participated in free 

lunches. This number rose to 603,000 by 2006. In contrast, 643,000 authorized immigrants were 

participating in free lunches in 1994 and fewer (509,000) were participating in 2006. 

More native-born children with native-born parents participated in Free Lunches in 2006 than in 

1994. In 2006, 9.9 million participated, up from 9.5 million in 1994. 
- 42 - 

TABLE 9. Number and Percent of NSLP Participants by Immigrant Status Group: Free Lunches (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents 

Total Children Receiving 

Free Lunches 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant Parents 

Immigrant Status of 

Parents Unknown 

Auth

Imm

Unweighted 

sample 

Weighted 

population 

(1000s) 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) 

1994 9,245 12,113 9,509 78.5% 1,223 10.1% 275 2.3% 35 0.3% 47 0.4% 643 1995 8,794 12,792 9,786 76.5% 1,333 10.4% 360 2.8% 81 0.6% 95 0.7% 645 1996 1997 9,819 13,243 10,005 75.6% 1,444 10.9% 403 3.0% 82 0.6% 141 1.1% 670 1998 8,673 13,077 9,826 75.1% 1,547 11.8% 492 3.8% 93 0.7% 107 0.8% 599 1999 9,274 12,888 9,591 74.4% 1,400 10.9% 497 3.9% 78 0.6% 135 1.0% 694 2000 8,840 12,779 9,500 74.3% 1,354 10.6% 589 4.6% 94 0.7% 153 1.2% 545 2001 14,256 13,167 9,626 73.1% 1,559 11.8% 594 4.5% 107 0.8% 139 1.1% 559 2002 15,180 13,088 9,506 72.6% 1,536 11.7% 578 4.4% 87 0.7% 139 1.1% 668 2003 15,411 13,365 9,680 72.4% 1,578 11.8% 742 5.6% 61 0.5% 138 1.0% 525 2004 13,103 13,678 9,931 72.6% 1,514 11.1% 755 5.5% 62 0.5% 151 1.1% 585 2005 13,483 13,555 9,862 72.8% 1,535 11.3% 794 5.9% 70 0.5% 160 1.2% 518 2006 13,355 13,678 9,856 72.1% 1,622 11.9% 833 6.1% 81 0.6% 174 1.3% 509 Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., st

refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. Weighted numbers are rounded to the n

are based on the exact estimates. Totals and percentages may not add up due to rounding.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputat

participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from 

Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 43 - 

The share of children of immigrants participating in free lunches increased from 22 percent of 

participants in 1994 to 28 percent of participants in 2006 (Figure 11). All groups of children with 

immigrant parents exhibited increases in their share of participants with the exception of 

authorized immigrant children. Native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents 

experienced the largest relative increase in size from 2 percent of all participants receiving free 

lunches in 1994 to 6 percent in 2006. In contrast, the share of native-born children with nativeborn parents receiving free lunches decreased in size from 79 to 72 percent. 

FIGURE 11. Share of Children Participating in Free Lunches, by Immigrant Status Group, 1994 - 2006

78.5%

21.5%

10.1%

2.3% 0.3% 0.4%

5.3% 3.1%

72.1%

27.9%

11.9%

6.1%

0.6%

1.3% 3.7% 4.4%

Native-Born

Child with

Native-Born

Parents

Total Children of

Immigrants

Native-Born

Child of

Authorized

Immigrant

Parent

Native-Born

Child of

Unauthorized

Immigrant

Parents Only

Native-Born

Child of MixedStatus Immigrant

Parents

Native-Born

Child of ForeignBorn Parent

(Status

Unknown)

Authorized

Immigrant

Unauthorized

Immigrant

1994 2006

Notes: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, 

temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants 

include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

Though it is clear that there has been an increase in children with immigrant parents eligible for 

and participating in free lunches, we do not find evidence that foreign-born children are 
- 44 - 

participating at higher rates than native-born children with native-born parents. In 2006, the 

shares of the eligible and participating populations were very similar if not the same by 

immigrant category (Table 10). For instance, we estimate that in 2006, unauthorized immigrant 

children comprised 4.4 of the eligible population and 4.4 percent of participants. 

TABLE 10. Percent of Free Lunch Eligibles and Participants by Immigrant Status Group in 2006 

(weighted) 

 % Eligible % Participating 

Native-born Child, Native-born Parents 72.2% 72.1% 

Native-born Child, Authorized immigrant parents 11.8% 11.9% 

Native-born Child, Unauthorized immigrant parents 6.1% 6.1% 

Native-born Child, Mixed-Status Parents 0.6% 0.6% 

Native-born Child, Foreign-born Parents (status unknown) 1.3% 1.3% 

Authorized Immigrant Child 3.7% 3.7% 

Unauthorized Immigrant Child 4.4% 4.4% 

 

Notes: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, 

temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants 

include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

Children Eligible for Reduced-Price Lunches. 

We estimate that the number of children eligible for reduced-price lunches increased from 4.7 

million in 1994 to 5.8 million in 2006 (Figure 12, Table 11). The number of eligibles grew 

between 1994 and 1997, fluctuated between 1998 and 2000, and increased steadily between 2001 

and 2006. 

The greatest increase among those eligible for reduced-price lunches occurred for native-born 

children with authorized immigrant parents. From 1994 to 2006, the number of native-born 

children with authorized immigrant parents rose from 536,000 to 944,000—a 76 percent 

increase. There was an even faster growth rate amongst native-born children with unauthorized 

immigrant children, with 101,000 eligible in 1994 and 336,000 eligible in 2006—a three-fold 

increase. Though smaller in magnitude, other native-born children with foreign-born parents 

increased in the numbers eligible between 1994 and 2006. 
- 45 - 

There was also growth in the number of eligibles among foreign-born children. The number of 

unauthorized immigrant children eligible for reduced-price lunches increased from 153,000 in 

1994 to 237,000 in 2006 and the number of authorized immigrant children increased from 

160,000 to 224,000 over the same period. 

Like the number of children of immigrants, the number of native-born children with native-born 

parents eligible for reduced-price lunches increased. In 1994, 3.7 million native-born children 

with native-born parents were eligible for reduced-price lunches. By 2006, this number rose to 

4.0 million. 

FIGURE 12. Number of Children Eligible and Participating in NSLP: Reduced-Price Lunches, 1994–2006 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Average Monthly Number of Children (in thousands)

Simulated Eligibility

Simulated Enrollment

Actual Enrollment

Notes: Simulated eligibility and participation are based on TRIM3. Actual participation is based on FNS administrative data. The 

numbers for 1996 are interpolated. Children attending schools that offer the NSLP and with family incomes between 130 and 185 

percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for reduced-price lunches.

Source: TRIM3 simulations of CPS data for 1995 - 2007 and WIC administrative data for 1994 - 2006.
- 46 - 

TABLE 11 Number and Percent of NSLP Eligibles by Immigrant Status: Reduced-Price Lunches (weighted) 

 Foreign-Born Child Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents 

Total Children Eligible for 

Reduced-Price Meals Unauthorized 

Immigrant 

Authorized 

Immigrant 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Immigr

of P

Unk

Unweighted 

sample 

Weighted 

population 

(1000s) 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Numbe

(1000s

1994 3,798 4,706 153 3.2% 160 3.4% 101 2.1% 34 0.7% 535 11.4% 19 1995 3,809 5,775 153 2.6% 213 3.7% 144 2.5% 25 0.4% 563 9.7% 21 1996 1997 4,199 5,881 172 2.9% 164 2.8% 166 2.8% 43 0.7% 609 10.3% 28 1998 4,023 5,823 137 2.4% 209 3.6% 185 3.2% 38 0.7% 677 11.6% 45 1999 4,622 5,989 195 3.3% 180 3.0% 219 3.7% 54 0.9% 730 12.2% 39 2000 4,000 5,623 202 3.6% 182 3.2% 231 4.1% 36 0.6% 721 12.8% 40 2001 6,724 5,817 236 4.1% 213 3.7% 236 4.1% 69 1.2% 840 14.4% 46 2002 7,508 5,985 218 3.6% 215 3.6% 207 3.5% 65 1.1% 858 14.3% 30 2003 7,562 6,193 254 4.1% 264 4.3% 273 4.4% 47 0.8% 840 13.6% 36 2004 5,944 5,854 268 4.6% 184 3.1% 258 4.4% 45 0.8% 863 14.7% 47 2005 6,069 5,937 280 4.7% 196 3.3% 300 5.1% 42 0.7% 898 15.1% 37 2006 5,986 5,805 237 4.1% 224 3.9% 336 5.8% 62 1.1% 944 16.3% 46 Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., stud

refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. Weighted numbers are rounded to the ne

based on the exact estimates. Totals and percentages may not add up due to rounding.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputaparticipation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding froHuman Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 47 - 

The shares of children from different immigrant groups eligible for reduced-price lunches shifted 

between 1994 and 2006. The share of children with immigrant parents increased from 21 to 32 

percent of eligibles while the share of children with native-born parents decreased from 79 to 68 

percent from 1994 to 2006 (Figure 13). The greatest shift in shares occurred for native-born 

children of authorized immigrant parents, who increased their relative size from 11 to 16 percent 

of eligibles. 

FIGURE 13. Share of Children Eligible for Reduced-Price Lunches, by Immigrant Status Group, 1994 - 2006

78.7%

21.3%

11.4%

2.1% 0.7% 0.4%

3.4% 3.2%

68.1%

31.9%

16.3%

5.8%

1.1% 0.8% 3.9% 4.1%

Native-Born

Child with

Native-Born

Parents

Total Children of

Immigrants

Native-Born

Child of

Authorized

Immigrant

Parent

Native-Born

Child of

Unauthorized

Immigrant

Parents Only

Native-Born

Child of MixedStatus Immigrant

Parents

Native-Born

Child of ForeignBorn Parent

(Status

Unknown)

Authorized

Immigrant

Unauthorized

Immigrant

1994 2006

Notes: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, 

temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants 

include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).

Children Participating in Reduced-Price Lunches. 

We estimate that the number of children who participated in reduced-price meals increased from 

1.9 million in 1994 to 2.9 million in 2006 (Figure 12, Table 12). The numbers of children 

participating increased consistently between 1995 and 1999. Between 2000 and 2006, the 
- 48 - 

numbers of children who participated in reduced-price meals fluctuated between a low of 2.6 

million in 2000 and a high of 2.9 million in 2005. 

In 1994, 243,000 native-born children with authorized immigrants parents were participating, 

and by 2006, this number had risen to 512,000—a 111 percent increase. Other native-born 

children with foreign-born parents experienced increases as well. In 1994, 61,000 native-born 

children with unauthorized immigrant parents participated in reduced-price lunches, more than 

tripling to 195,000 in 2006. Native-born children with mixed-status immigrant parents increased 

in number from 17,000 to 35,000, and native-born children with foreign-born parents of 

unknown immigrant status increased in number from 5,000 to 21,000 over the same period. 

The number of foreign-born children participating in reduced-price lunches also increased from 

1994 to 2006. Unauthorized immigrant children increased in number from 71,000 to 152,000 and 

the number of authorized immigrant children increased from 55,000 to 99,000 from 1994 to 

2006. 
- 49 - 

TABLE 12 Number and Percent of NSLP Participants by Immigrant Status Group: Reduced-Price Lunches (weighted) 

 Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents Fore

Total Children Receiving 

Reduced-Price Meals 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born 

Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant 

parents Only 

Unauthorized 

and Authorized 

Immigrant 

Parents 

Immigrant Status 

of Parents 

Unknown 

Authorized 

Immigrant 

Unweighted 

sample 

Weighted 

population 

(1000s) 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

Number 

(1000s) % 

1994 1,495 1,854 1,401 75.6% 243 13.1% 61 3.3% 17 0.9% 5 0.3% 55 3.01995 1,558 2,178 1,648 75.7% 243 11.2% 85 3.9% 13 0.6% 11 0.5% 93 4.31996 1997 1,937 2,465 1,875 76.1% 245 9.9% 114 4.6% 28 1.1% 8 0.3% 91 3.71998 1,882 2,482 1,828 73.6% 319 12.8% 110 4.4% 22 0.9% 10 0.4% 112 4.51999 2,173 2,612 1,842 70.5% 397 15.2% 142 5.4% 32 1.2% 16 0.6% 95 3.62000 2,087 2,599 1,803 69.4% 412 15.9% 139 5.4% 27 1.0% 18 0.7% 91 3.52001 3,310 2,748 1,835 66.8% 459 16.7% 162 5.9% 46 1.7% 19 0.7% 98 3.62002 3,633 2,797 1,957 70.0% 445 15.9% 123 4.4% 43 1.5% 6 0.2% 112 4.02003 3,715 2,895 2,025 70.0% 413 14.3% 152 5.3% 34 1.2% 17 0.6% 130 4.52004 3,048 2,864 1,988 69.4% 446 15.6% 164 5.7% 25 0.9% 17 0.6% 97 3.42005 3,216 2,922 2,033 69.6% 434 14.9% 179 6.1% 23 0.8% 7 0.2% 88 3.02006 3,182 2,919 1,904 65.2% 512 17.5% 195 6.7% 35 1.2% 21 0.7% 99 3.4Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., stworkers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. Weighted numbers are roundePercentages are based on the exact estimates. Totals and percentages may not add up due to rounding.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations oparticipation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 50 - 

More native-born children with native-born parents participated in reduced-price lunches in 2006 

than in 1994 as well. In 1994, 1.4 million native-born children with native-born parents 

participated. In 2006, the number of these children increased by 7 percent to nearly 1.9 million. 

From 1994 to 2006, the share of reduced-price lunch participants who had immigrant parents 

increased from 24 to 35 percent and the share of children with native-born parents declined from 

76 to 65 percent (Figure 14). All children of immigrants increased their share of participants 

from 1994 to 2006. Native-born children with authorized immigrants increased the most. In 

1994, they represented 13 percent of all reduced-price lunch participants and in 2006 they 

represented 18 percent. 

FIGURE 14. Share of Children Participating in Reduced-Price Lunches, by Immigrant Status Group, 1994 - 

2006

75.6%

24.4%

13.1%

3.3% 0.9% 0.3% 3.0% 3.9%

65.2%

34.8%

17.5%

6.7%

1.2% 0.7% 3.4% 5.2%

Native-Born

Child with

Native-Born

Parents

Total Children of

Immigrants

Native-Born

Child of

Authorized

Immigrant

Parent

Native-Born

Child of

Unauthorized

Immigrant

Parents Only

Native-Born

Child of MixedStatus Immigrant

Parents

Native-Born

Child of ForeignBorn Parent

(Status

Unknown)

Authorized

Immigrant

Unauthorized

Immigrant

1994 2006

Notes: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, 

temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants 

include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 51 - 

We see some evidence that some children of immigrants participate at higher rates than children 

with native-born parents. For instance unauthorized immigrants represented 4.1 percent of all 

those eligible for reduced-price lunches, but made up 5.2 percent of all participants (Table 13). 

The shares of native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents, authorized immigrant 

parents, and mixed-status immigrant parents participating in reduced-price lunches were also 

slightly higher than their shares of the eligible populations. In contrast, children with native-born 

parents represented 68 percent of the eligible population and 65 percent of those participating. 

TABLE 13. Percent of Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibles and Participants 

by Immigrant Status Group in 2006 (weighted) 

 % Eligible % Participating 

Native-born Child, Native-born Parents 68.1% 65.2% 

Native-born Child, Authorized immigrant parents 16.3% 17.5% 

Native-born Child, Unauthorized immigrant parents 5.8% 6.7% 

Native-born Child, Mixed-Status Parents 1.1% 1.2% 

Native-born Child, Foreign-born Parents (status unknown) 0.8% 0.7% 

Authorized Immigrant Child 3.9% 3.4% 

Unauthorized Immigrant Child 4.1% 5.2% 

 

Notes: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, 

temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants 

include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 52 - 

DECOMPOSITION ANALYSES 

We apply demographic decomposition techniques as described in Das Gupta (1993) to the trend 

data to apportion the change over time in participation into a number of distinct components.40

The components in the analysis include 1) immigrant status groups of children (e.g., native-born 

children of authorized immigrant parents), 2) size of the overall eligible population, and 3) takeup rates (number of participants divided by eligible children). We apply the technique to changes 

in WIC participation between 1997 and 2006 among all children ages 0 to 4 and among all 

breastfeeding and postpartum mothers, and to changes in NSLP participation between 1994 and 

2006 among children ages 5 to 18. We consider the entire population of children (mothers)—

those who are income-eligible and those who are not—and allocate the change in WIC 

participation (between 1997 and 2006) and NSLP participation (between 1994 and 2006) into the 

proportions due to each of the following: 

• Proportion of the change in participation due to changes in the number and share of 

children (mothers) by immigrant status group as described previously41 

• Proportion due to change in the number of children (mothers) that are eligible for the 

program; and 

• Proportion due to changes in the take-up rates (number of participants divided by eligible 

children or mothers). 

We also examine the role of these components on participation by the type of state in which 

mothers and children resided: traditional immigrant-receiving states, states with high-growth 

immigrant populations, and states with slower-growing immigrant populations (those states not 

in categories one or two).42 The methodology for these analyses is explained in more detail in 

Appendix D. 

 

40 See Henderson, Capps, and Finegold (2008) and Fix and Passel (2002) for similar applications of the 

decomposition techniques outlined by Das Gupta (1993). 

41 The effect of changing demographics represents the overall effect and does not identify the children group(s) 

driving the change. The decomposition technique, however, accounts for all groups by nativity and legal immigrant 

status (e.g., changes in the number of unauthorized immigrants, authorized immigrants, native-born children of 

unauthorized immigrants, native-born children of authorized immigrants, and native-born children with native-born 

parents). 

42 The six traditional destination states are California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. The highgrowth states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 
- 53 - 

WIC 

Overall, we estimate that the overall WIC participation rate for children (the number of 

participants divided by all children ages 0 to 4) increased from 27.5 percent in 1997 to 28.5 

percent in 2006 (Table 14). The top panel of table 14 shows that the standardized participation 

rate would be 28 percent in 2006 if the only change is in the take-up rate, while holding constant 

changes in demographic composition (e.g. immigrant status) and eligibility.43 Similarly, the 

standardized participation rate would be 28.1 percent if the only change is in the demographic 

composition of children, and 28.3 percent if the only change is in eligibility. The bottom panel of 

table 14 shows the proportion of change in participation due to each component. The change in 

participation rates was relatively small between 1997 and 2006 (1 percentage point) and the 

separate effects of changes in demographic composition (e.g., children with foreign-born parents 

versus children of native-born parents), eligibility, and take-up rates are also relatively small. 

Between 1997 and 2006, the effect of changes in demographic composition, while holding 

constant eligibility and take-up rates, was positive—increasing the overall WIC participation rate 

by 0.3 percentage points for children. Changes in the shares of children eligible for WIC had a 

slightly larger effect, 0.6 percentage points. Changes in take-up rates had the smallest effect—0.1 

percentage points. Changes in immigrant status from 1997 to 2006 represented a relatively small 

share of the overall change in participation, 31.9 percent for children. 

The participation rate among all breastfeeding and postpartum mothers increased from 25.9 

percent to 26.6 percent, or 0.7 percentage points, between 1997 and 2006 (Table 15). The effect 

of changes in immigrant status, while holding constant eligibility and take-up rates, was 

positive—changes in immigrant status increased the overall WIC participation rate by 0.5 

percentage points for women. Changes in the shares of mothers eligible for WIC had a slightly 

smaller effect, 0.3 percentage points. The effect of changes in the take-up rate was negative (-0.1 

 Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Utah, and Washington (Capps et al. 2007; Fortuny, Capps, and Passel 2007; Fortuny, Capps, Simms, and 

Chaudry, 2009). 

43 The term “demographic composition” refers to the immigrant status groups as defined in the report, e.g., nativeborn children of native-born parents, and does not reflect other demographic characteristics, such as age and 

race/ethnicity. 
- 54 - 

percentage points). Changes in the immigrant status of mothers represented more than half, 71.6 

percent, of the overall change in participation. 

TABLE 14. Children, Ages 0–4: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC 

Participation between 1997–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1 2006 

[A] 

1997 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 28.0% 27.9% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 28.1% 27.8% 

Immigrant Status of Children, Use Standardized Rates 28.3% 27.7% 

Overall Participation Rates 28.5% 27.5% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.3% 31.9% 

Eligibility Effect 0.6% 56.4% 

Take-up Rate Effect 0.1% 11.7% 

Total Effect 1.0% 100.0% 

Notes: 

1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 55 - 

TABLE 15. Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and 

Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1 2006 

[A] 

1997 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Eligibility Standardized Rates 26.1% 26.3% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 26.5% 26.0% 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Use Standardized Rates 26.4% 26.1% 

Overall Participation Rates 26.6% 25.9% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Mothers Effect 0.5% 71.6% 

Eligibility Effect 0.3% 46.4% 

Take-up Rate Effect -0.1% -18.0% 

Total Effect 0.7% 100.0% 

Notes: 

1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 

Next, we examine the role of the three components—demographic composition, eligibility rates, 

and take-up rates, on WIC participation rates by the type of state in which mothers and children 

resided (traditional immigrant-receiving states, states with high-growth immigrant populations, 

and states with slower-growing immigrant populations). We find that the overall change in 

participation rates between 1997 and 2006 were small for the three types of states, so the effect 

sizes of a change in the demographic composition on WIC participation rates were small as well. 

Of note, the effect size of a change in the demographic composition (children with native-born 

parents versus foreign-born parents) on WIC participation rates for mothers and children was 

higher in traditional immigrant-receiving states (0.4 percentage points for children; 0.7 

percentage points for mothers) than in high-growth immigrant states (0.3 percentage points for 

children; 0.5 percentage points for mothers), and states with slower-growing immigrant 

populations (0.0 percentage points for children; 0.1 percentage points for mothers, Tables 16–

21). 
- 56 - 

TABLE 16. Children, Ages 0–4 from Traditional Immigrant-Receiving States: Effects of Changes in Immigrant 

Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1997 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 32.4% 27.9% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 30.4% 30.0% 

Immigrant Status of Children, Use Standardized Rates 29.6% 30.8% 

Overall Participation Rates 32.0% 28.3% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.4% 9.9% 

Eligibility Effect -1.2% -31.4% 

Take-up Rate Effect 4.5% 121.5% 

Total Effect 3.7% 100.0% 

Notes: Traditional immigrant-receiving states include California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. 1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 

TABLE 17. Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers from Traditional Immigrant-Receiving States: Effects of 

Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1997 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Eligibility Standardized Rates 29.3% 29.2% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 29.7% 29.0% 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Use Standardized Rates 28.6% 30.1% 

Overall Participation Rates 28.9% 29.7% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Mothers Effect 0.7% -85.2% 

Eligibility Effect -1.5% 200.7% 

Take-up Rate Effect 0.1% -15.5% 

Total Effect -0.8% 100.0% 

Notes: Traditional immigrant-receiving states include California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. 1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 57 - 

TABLE 18. Children, Ages 0–4, from States with High-Growth Immigrant Populations: Effects of Changes in 

Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1997 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 26.0% 29.3% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 27.8% 27.5% 

Immigrant Status of Children, Use Standardized Rates 28.5% 26.8% 

Overall Participation Rates 26.9% 28.3% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.3% -19.8% 

Eligibility Effect 1.7% -124.5% 

Take-up Rate Effect -3.3% 244.3% 

Total Effect -1.4% 100.0% 

Notes: States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, 

Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North, Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, 

Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. 

1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 58 - 

TABLE 19. Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers from States with High-Growth Immigrant Populations: 

Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1997 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Eligibility Standardized Rates 25.5% 25.6% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 25.8% 25.3% 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Use Standardized Rates 25.8% 25.3% 

Overall Participation Rates 26.1% 25.2% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Mothers Effect 0.5% 55.4% 

Eligibility Effect 0.5% 54.0% 

Take-up Rate Effect -0.1% -9.4% 

Total Effect 0.9% 100.0% 

Notes: States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, 

Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North, Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, 

Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. 

1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 59 - 

TABLE 20. Children, Ages 0–4, from States with Slower-growing Immigrant Populations: Effects of Changes 

in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1997 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 24.4% 26.3% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 25.4% 25.3% 

Immigrant Status of Children, Use Standardized Rates 26.1% 24.6% 

Overall Participation Rates 25.1% 25.4% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.0% -15.1% 

Eligibility Effect 1.5% -517.7% 

Take-up Rate Effect -1.8% 632.8% 

Total Effect -0.3% 100.0% 

Notes: States with slower-growing immigrant populations include Alaska, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 60 - 

TABLE 21. Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers from States with Slower-growing Immigrant Populations: 

Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on WIC Participation between 1997–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1997 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Eligibility Standardized Rates 22.4% 22.8% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 22.7% 22.6% 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Use Standardized Rates 24.0% 21.2% 

Overall Participation Rates 23.9% 21.3% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Mothers Effect 0.1% 4.4% 

Eligibility Effect 2.8% 108.9% 

Take-up Rate Effect -0.3% -13.3% 

Total Effect 2.6% 100.0% 

Notes: States with slower-growing immigrant populations include Alaska, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 61 - 

NSLP 

We estimate that the free lunch participation rate (number of participants divided by number of 

children ages 5 to 18) increased from 22.6 percent in 1994 to 23.7 in 2006; and the reduced-price 

participation rate among all children increased from 3.5 percent to 5.1 percent during this time 

(Tables 22 and 23). The change in participation rates was small between 1994 and 2006 (1.1 

percentage points for free lunch participation and 1.6 percentage points for reduced-price 

participation). Between 1994 and 2006, the effect of the changing demographic composition of 

children (e.g. immigrant status), while holding constant eligibility and take-up rates, was 0.3 

percentage points in the free lunch participation rate and 0.2 percentage points in the reducedprice lunch participation rate. Changes in the shares of children eligible for free lunch had a large 

negative effect (-8.4 percentage points) that was offset by the positive effect of the change in the 

take-up rate (9.2 percentage points). For participation in reduced price lunches, changes in 

eligibility (0.5 percentage points) and take-up rate (0.9 percentage points) were both positive and 

larger than the effect of changes in immigrant status (0.2 percentage points). Changes in 

immigrant status among all children represented relatively small shares, 29.6 and 10.6 percent, 

respectively, of the overall change in free and reduced-price lunch participation from 1994 to 

2006. 
- 62 - 

TABLE 22. Children Ages 5–18: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Free 

Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1994 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 28.6% 19.4% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 24.1% 23.8% 

Immigrant Status of Children, Use Standardized Rates 19.8% 28.1% 

Overall Participation Rates 23.7% 22.6% 

 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.3% 29.6% 

Eligibility Effect -8.4% -735.5% 

Take-up Rate Effect 9.2% 806.0% 

Total Effect 1.1% 100.0% 

Notes: 

1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 63 - 

TABLE 23. Children Ages 5–18: Effects of Changes in Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on ReducedPrice Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1994 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Eligibility Standardized Rates 4.7% 3.8% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 4.3% 4.1% 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Use Standardized Rates 4.5% 4.0% 

Overall Participation Rates 5.1% 3.5% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.2% 10.6% 

Eligibility Effect 0.5% 31.4% 

Take-up Rate Effect 0.9% 58.0% 

Total Effect 1.6% 100.0% 

Notes: 

1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 

We also examine the effects of changes in the demographic composition among children, 

changes in eligibility rates, and changes in take-up rates on NSLP participation rates by type of 

state (traditional immigrant-receiving state, states with high-growth immigrant populations, and 

states with slower-growth immigrant populations). Results are similar to those for WIC—effects 

of changes in the demographic composition of children were small. Unlike the results for WIC, 

however, changes in the demographic composition of children living in high-growth states had a 

slightly larger effect on participation rates than for children living in traditional immigrantreceiving states—0.4 percentage points versus 0.3 percentage points for free lunch, and 0.3 

percentage points versus 0.2 percentage points for reduced-price lunch (Tables 24–29). 
- 64 - 

TABLE 24. Children Ages 5–18 from Traditional Immigrant-Receiving States: Effects of Changes in 

Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Free Lunch Participation between 1994–2006

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1994 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 30.7% 21.0% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 26.0% 25.7% 

Immigrant Status of Children, Use Standardized Rates 21.2% 30.5% 

Overall Participation Rates 25.3% 24.6% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.3% 46.8% 

Eligibility Effect -9.3% -1444.5% 

Take-up Rate Effect 9.7% 1497.7% 

Total Effect 0.6% 100.0% 

Notes: Traditional immigrant-receiving states include California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. 1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 

TABLE 25. Children Ages 5–18 from Traditional Immigrant-Receiving States: Effects of Changes in 

Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Reduced-Price Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1994 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 4.5% 3.9% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 4.3% 4.1% 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Use Standardized Rates 4.6% 3.8% 

Overall Participation Rates 5.0% 3.5% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.2% 12.7% 

Eligibility Effect 0.7% 48.1% 

Take-up Rate Effect 0.6% 39.2% 

Total Effect 1.5% 100.0% 

Notes: Traditional immigrant-receiving states include California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. 1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 65 - 

TABLE 26. Children Ages 5–18 from States with High-Growth Immigrant Populations: Effects of Changes in 

Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Free Lunch Participation between 1994–2006

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1994 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 28.8% 20.6% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 24.9% 24.5% 

Immigrant Status of Children, Use Standardized Rates 20.9% 28.4% 

Overall Participation Rates 24.6% 23.4% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.4% 35.3% 

Eligibility Effect -7.5% -654.4% 

Take-up Rate Effect 8.3% 719.0% 

Total Effect 1.1% 100.0% 

Notes: States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, 

Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North, Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, 

Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. 

1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 66 - 

TABLE 27. Children Ages 5–18 from States with High-Growth Immigrant Populations: Effects of Changes in 

Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Reduced-Price Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1994 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 5.3% 4.3% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 4.9% 4.7% 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Use Standardized Rates 4.9% 4.7% 

Overall Participation Rates 5.5% 4.1% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.3% 17.9% 

Eligibility Effect 0.2% 16.3% 

Take-up Rate Effect 1.0% 65.8% 

Total Effect 1.5% 100.0% 

Notes: States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, 

Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North, Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, 

Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. 

1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 67 - 

TABLE 28. Children Ages 5–18 from States with Slow-Growth Immigrant Populations: Effects of Changes in 

Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Free Lunch Participation between 1994–2006

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1994 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 25.2% 16.1% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 20.6% 20.5% 

Immigrant Status of Children, Use Standardized Rates 16.7% 24.4% 

Overall Participation Rates 20.5% 19.0% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.1% 7.3% 

Eligibility Effect -7.8% -543.2% 

Take-up Rate Effect 9.1% 635.9% 

Total Effect 1.4% 100.0% 

Notes: States with slower-growing immigrant populations include Alaska, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
- 68 - 

TABLE 29. Children Ages 5–18 from States with Slow-Growth Immigrant Populations: Effects of Changes in 

Immigrant Status, Eligibility, and Take-up on Reduced-Price Lunch Participation between 1994–2006 

Standardization 

Standardized Participation Rates1

2006 

[A] 

1994 

[B] 

Immigrant Status of Children, Eligibility Standardized Rates 4.4% 3.1% 

Eligibility, Take-up Standardized Rates 3.8% 3.7% 

Immigrant Status of Mothers, Use Standardized Rates 3.9% 3.5% 

Overall Participation Rates 4.6% 2.8% 

Decomposition 

Effects2 Difference 

[A] – [B] 

Percent Distribution 

of Effects 

Immigrant Status of Children Effect 0.1% 5.1% 

Eligibility Effect 0.4% 20.9% 

Take-up Rate Effect 1.3% 74.0% 

Total Effect 1.8% 100.0% 

Notes: States with slower-growing immigrant populations include Alaska, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 1

The standardized participation rate shows the participation rate due to a change in each component (e.g., take-up rate), holding 

constant the other two components (e.g., demographic composition and eligibility). 2

The individual main effects represent the proportions of the change due to each component, holding constant the other two 

components. The total effect is the sum of the individual main effects. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- 69 - 

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES 

Using multivariate linear regression modeling, we analyzed the association between growth in 

WIC and NSLP take-up rates (number of participants divided by number of eligibles) and growth 

in the number of eligible immigrants to determine to the extent to which changes over time in 

WIC and NSLP take-up rates are explained by growth in the population of eligible immigrants, 

changes in economic conditions, and other factors.44 Specifically, we examined the association 

between growth in take-up and growth in the number of eligible children (mothers) in each 

immigrant group (e.g., unauthorized immigrants), controlling for state immigration trends 

(traditional immigrant-receiving states, states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations, and 

states with slower-growing immigrant populations), state economic characteristics (state 

unemployment and poverty rates), and other demographic factors related to take-up for the WIC 

and NSLP eligible populations. For WIC, we examined changes in the take-up rates between 

1997 and 2006 and for NSLP we examined changes in the take-up rates between 1994 and 2006. 

The linear regression model is used to predict the probability of take-up for eligible children 

(mothers) in WIC and NSLP (the multivariate regression model is explained in more detail in 

Appendix E). For the independent variables we include characteristics of participants and 

families (e.g. child age, mother’s age, race, mother’s education, family structure, household 

composition), immigrant status (of the child and parents), state immigration trends, and state 

demographic and economic characteristics. We include dummy variables for the time period we 

are analyzing (beginning and ending year) with the coefficient on the time variable representing 

the overall change in take-up rates between the two time periods. The coefficients on the 

immigrant status variables (e.g., authorized immigrant) represent the likelihood of take-up at the 

beginning of the time period for each immigrant status group relative to the reference group (e.g., 

native-born children of native-born parents). We also include an interaction term between the 

time period and immigrant status group to determine the relative change in the take-up rates for 

each group. The coefficient on the interaction term represents the relative difference—the change 

in the likelihood of take-up between 1997 and 2006 for the relevant group (e.g., authorized 

 

44 In this section, we examine the predicted take-up rate, that is, the likelihood of WIC/NSLP take-up among eligible 

children (mothers), while controlling for other factors. 
- 70 - 

immigrant mothers) versus the change in likelihood of take-up for the reference group (e.g., 

native-born mothers) during the same time. 

We estimated models separately for (1) WIC eligible mothers, (2) WIC eligible children, (3) 

children eligible for free lunches, and (4) children eligible for reduced-price lunches. We 

combined two years of data at each start and end points to maximize sample size, as was done in 

a companion study of SNAP participation (Henderson, Capps, and Finegold 2008). We first 

describe each sample then we turn to the results of the models. Full model results are presented 

in tables 31-32 and 34-35. 

WIC 

The demographic characteristics of children eligible for WIC remained fairly stable between 

1997 and 2006.45 Nearly all of the children eligible for WIC were native-born in both the 1997 

and 2005-2006 cohorts (98.5 percent and 98.2 percent, respectively) (Table 30). The share of 

native-born children with immigrant parents, however, increased some, from 22.4 to 25.8 

percent. The share of native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents increased from 

6.8 percent of all eligible for WIC in 1997 to 10.4 percent in 2006. Native-born children with 

native-born parents had a comparable decline, from 76.1 percent of all eligible for WIC in 1997 

to 72.3 percent in 2006. The largest share of children in the 1997 cohort (43.2 percent) lived in 

traditionally immigrant-receiving states, followed by states with rapidly-growing immigrant 

population (30.6 percent). Similar patterns also existed in the 2006 cohort; however, the share of 

all children decreased (by 3 percentage points) in traditional immigrant-receiving states and 

increased (by 3.2 percentage points) in states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations. 

The unemployment rate did not change much from the 1997 cohort to the 2006 cohort. In 

contrast, the child poverty rate increased by about 2.5 percentage points from 15.1 percent to 

17.6 percent. 

 

45 “1997” in this section refers to the 1997–1998 period, and “2006” to 2005–2006. 
- 71 - 

Nearly half of the children eligible for WIC were white in the 1997 and 2006 cohorts (48.4 

percent and 45.1 percent, respectively), followed by Hispanics and blacks. Between these two 

cohorts, the share of white children decreased (3.2 percentage points) whereas the share of 

Hispanic children increased (3.6 percentage points). Despite a slight decrease from the 1997 

cohort to the 2006 cohort, about half of the children lived in two-parent households (51.7 percent 

and 49.0 percent, respectively). More than one-third of the mothers were high school graduates 

in the 1997 cohort (36.8 percent) and 2006 cohort (35.1 percent) and similar shares had mothers 

with at least a college degree (32.9 percent in the 1997 cohort and 37.6 percent in the 2006 

cohort). 

With regard to mothers eligible for WIC, the majority were either authorized immigrants or 

native-born in both of the cohorts. However, the percentage of unauthorized immigrant mothers 

increased in share from 6.7 percent in 1997 to 10.3 percent in 2006. About 40 percent of eligible 

mothers lived in traditionally immigrant-receiving states in 1997 and 2006 (42.7 percent and 

39.0 percent, respectively). The share of all mothers living in states with rapidly-growing 

immigrant populations stayed relatively stable at one-third, while there was a slight increase in 

the share of mothers in the states with slower-growing immigrant populations. 

More than half of the mothers eligible for WIC were white in both of the cohorts (55.3 percent 

and 53.5 percent, respectively), followed by Hispanics and blacks. Between these two cohorts, 

there was a slight decrease in the number of white mothers (1.8 percentage points) whereas the 

number of Hispanic mothers increased (1.7 percentage points). Most of the mothers lived in a 

two-parent household in both cohorts; however, there was a decrease (5.4 percentage points) in 

the percent of mothers living in two-parent households. In the 1997 cohort, more than one-third 

of mothers were high school graduates (38.3 percent), followed by those with a college degree 

(34.5 percent). The share with college degree increased to 40.6 percent in the 2006 cohort. 
- 72 - 

TABLE 30. Demographic Characteristics of Children Ages 0–4 and Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers Eligible for WIC, 1997–1998 and 

2005–2006 (weighted) 

Children Mothers 

 1997 - 1998 2005 - 2006 1997 - 1998 2005 - 2006 

Immigrant Status Immigrant Status 

Unauthorized 0.7% 1.2% Unauthorized 6.7% 10.3% 

Authorized 0.9% 0.7% Authorized 12.6% 13.5% 

Native-born, authorized immigrant 

parents 

only 14.9% 14.6% Native-born 80.8% 76.2% 

Native-born, unauthorized immigrant 

parents 6.8% 10.4% 

Native-born, native-born parent 76.1% 72.3% 

Native born, unknown 0.7% 0.8% 

State Immigrant Characteristics State Immigrant Characteristics 

Traditional immigrant-receiving 

states1 43.2% 40.2% 

Traditional immigrant-receiving 

states1 42.7% 39.0% 

States with rapidly-growing immigrant 

populations2

 30.6% 33.8% 

States with rapidly-growing 

immigrant populations2 33.2% 33.1% 

States with slower-growing immigrant 

populations 26.2% 26.0% 

States with slower-growing 

immigrant populations 24.1% 27.9% 

Sate Economic Conditions Sate Economic Conditions 

Unemployment rate 4.9 4.9 Unemployment rate 4.8 4.9 

Child poverty rate 15.1 17.6 Adult poverty rate 13.3 12.8 

Family Characteristics3 Family Characteristics3 

Race Race 

Asian 3.7% 3.2% Asian 2.4% 3.5% 

Black 20.0% 19.7% Black 16.6% 15.6% 

Hispanic 26.3% 29.9% Hispanic 23.9% 25.6% 

White 48.4% 45.1% White 55.3% 53.5% 

Other 1.7% 2.1% Other 1.7% 1.8% 

Age of mother 29.3 29.8 Age 27.5 27.8 

Age of child 2.0 1.9 

Family structure Family structure 

Single-parent 43.1% 45.4% Single-parents 29.7% 35.1% 

Two-parents 51.7% 49.0% Two-parents 70.3% 64.9% 

No parents, other adults in 

household 5.2% 5.6% 

Mother's marital status Mother's marital status 

Married 56.0% 53.7% Married 70.3% 64.9% 

Not married 44.0% 46.3% Not married 29.7% 35.1% 

Mother's education Mother's education 

Less than high school 30.2% 27.3% Less than high school 26.1% 24.8% 

High school 36.8% 35.1% High school 38.3% 34.5% 

College 32.9% 37.6% College 35.6% 40.6% 

Number of adults in household 2.5 2.1 Number of adults in household 1.9 1.9 

Number of children in household 2.5 2.5 Number of children in household 2.4 2.3 

Number of Observations 15,220 20,776 Number of Observations 2,037 2,759 

1. Traditional immigrant-receiving states include, California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey 

2. States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North, Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, 

Washington 

3. For mother characteristics, when there is no mother in the household, the father's information is used, and when there is no father, the 

household head's information is used 
- 73 - 

Turning to results of the linear multivariate regression models, we did not find evidence that in 

1997 unauthorized immigrant mothers eligible for WIC participated at a different rate than their 

native-born peers, but we found that unauthorized immigrant mothers were 6.4 percentage points 

more likely to participate in 2006 than in 1997 compared with native-born mothers, once we 

accounted for other potentially confounding factors (Table 31). This represents the relative 

difference—the change in the likelihood of take-up between 1997 and 2006 for the relevant 

group (e.g., unauthorized immigrant mothers) versus the change in likelihood of take-up for the 

reference group (e.g., native-born mothers) during the same time. Authorized immigrant mothers 

were 3.6 percentage points more likely to take-up WIC in 2006 than in 1997 compared with 

native-born mothers. Despite the faster growth in take-up for unauthorized immigrant mothers 

during the study period, they were not more likely to take-up WIC than native-born mothers in 

2006 (combined effect not shown in table).46 In contrast, authorized immigrant mothers were 5.4 

percentage points more likely to take-up than native-born mothers in 2006 (combined effect not 

shown in table).47 

Among children eligible for WIC, we did not find evidence that unauthorized immigrant children 

were more or less likely to take-up WIC than their native-born peers; however, sample sizes of 

unauthorized immigrant children might be too small to detect significant effects since most 

young children in WIC were U.S.-born and unlikely to be unauthorized immigrants (Table 32). 

Examining the likelihood of take-up for native-born children with unauthorized immigrant 

parents, we found that there were no differences in take-up rates between native-born children 

with unauthorized immigrant parents and native-born children with native-born parents in 1997, 

but native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents were 4.8 percentage points more 

likely to take-up WIC in 2006 than 1997 compared with native-born children with native-born 

parents. Similarly, native-born children with authorized immigrant parents were 5.2 percentage 

points more likely to take-up WIC in 2006 than 1997 compared with native-born children with 

 

46 The combined effect—the sum of the main effect and the interaction effect, is not statistically significant from 

zero. The test statistics for the combined effect are not shown in the report and are available upon request. 47 This represents the combined effect—the sum of the main effect (e.g., the likelihood of participation for the 

relevant group versus the reference group) and the interaction effect (e.g., the change in the likelihood of 

participation between 1997 and 2006 for the relevant group versus the change for the reference group). 
- 74 - 

native-born parents. However, in 2006, only native-born children with authorized immigrant 

parents were more likely to participate than the reference group (combined effect of 4.1 

percentage points, not shown in table). 

Results also suggest that take-up rates of immigrants vary by the type of state in which they 

reside. We compared those eligible for WIC who lived in traditional immigrant-receiving states, 

states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations, and states with slower-growing immigrant 

populations. Among mothers eligible for WIC from traditional immigrant-receiving states, we 

found that unauthorized immigrant mothers were 5.7 percentage points more likely to participate 

in WIC in 2006 than in 1997 compared with native-born mothers, but at the end of the study 

period, they were not more likely to participate than their native-born peers. We also found that 

among mothers eligible for WIC from states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations, 

unauthorized immigrant mothers were 11.8 percentage points more likely to participate in 2006 

than in 1997 compared with native-born mothers and they were more likely to participate than 

native-born mothers at the end of the study period (combined effect of 8.4 percentage points, not 

shown in table). We found that unauthorized immigrant mothers from states with slowergrowing immigrant populations were 12.1 percentage points more likely to participate in 1997 

than their native-born peers, but we found no evidence that they were more likely to participate 

than native-born mothers at the end of the study period (combined effect not shown in table). We 

also found that authorized immigrant mothers in states with slower-growing immigrant 

populations were 8.8 percentage points more likely to participate in WIC in 2006 than nativeborn mothers, but we did not find differences for these mothers in the other states. 

For children eligible for WIC from traditional immigrant-receiving states, we found that nativeborn children with authorized immigrant parents and those with unauthorized immigrant parents 

were more likely to participate in 2006 than in 1997 compared with native-born children with 

native-born parents (7.9 percentage points and 9.6 percentage points, respectively). Despite the 

faster growth in take-up rates, neither of the two groups was more likely to take-up WIC than the 

reference group in 2006 (combined effects not shown in table). Native-born children of 

unauthorized immigrant parents in states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations were more 

likely than native-born children of native-born parents to take-up WIC in 2006 (combined effect 
- 75 - 

of 4.7 percentage points, not show in table). Among authorized immigrant children eligible for 

WIC, we found that children in states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations were 28.9 

percentage points more likely native-born children with native-born parents to participate in 

1997, but at the end of the study period they were not more likely to participate in WIC than the 

reference group (combined effect not shown in table). 
- 76 - 

TABLE 31. Estimated Relationship between WIC Take-up of Breastfeeding and Postpartum Mothers Eligible for WIC and Immigrant Status, Change between 1997–1998 and 

All States 

Traditional Immigrant-Receiving 

States1

States with Rapidly-g

Immigrant Popula

Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient 

Immigrant Status (Native-born, reference) 

Unauthorized immigrant -0.025 0.036 -0.043 0.045 -0.035 Authorized immigrant 0.018 0.015 0.007 0.024 0.004 

State Immigrant Trends (States with Slower-growing Immigrant Populations, reference) 

Traditional immigrant-receiving state -0.023 0.047 States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations -0.014 0.047 

Time * Immigrant Status (Native-born, reference) 

Unauthorized immigrant*2005-2006 0.064 *** 0.022 0.057 *** 0.013 0.118 * Authorized immigrant*2005-2006 0.036 * 0.020 0.032 0.020 0.037 

Time * State Immigrant Trends (States with Slower-growing Immigrant Populations, reference) 

Traditional immigrant-receiving state*2005-2006 0.065 0.051 States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations*2005-2006 0.003 0.065 

State Economic and Demographic Conditions 

Unemployment Rate 0.029 * 0.018 0.082 * 0.037 0.008 Poverty Rate -0.003 0.006 -0.014 0.014 0.002 

Family Characteristics3

Race (White, reference) 

Asian 0.012 0.022 0.022 0.023 -0.062 Black 0.004 0.019 0.012 0.028 0.006 Hispanic 0.013 0.023 0.025 0.032 -0.018 Other -0.070 0.049 0.053 * 0.023 -0.094 

Age of mother -0.001 0.001 -0.001 0.001 -0.003 Family structure (Two-parent, reference) 

Single-parent 0.026 ** 0.012 0.005 0.012 0.046 * 

Mother's education (More than high school degree, reference) 

Less than high school 0.020 0.016 0.036 * 0.017 0.021 High school 0.025 0.016 0.028 0.019 0.047 

Number of adults in household -0.015 * 0.009 -0.029 0.015 0.026 * Number of children in household -0.004 0.005 -0.010 0.008 0.003 

Year (1997-1998, reference) 

2005-2006 -0.021 0.050 0.065 ** 0.022 -0.010 

Number of observations 4,796 1,995 1,468 Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations of program eligiTransfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human ServicPlanning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).Notes: * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01. Models are weighted using survey weights provided in the CPS and standard errors have been adjusted to account for mothers appearing 

1. Traditional immigrant-receiving states include California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. 2. States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mis

Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington 3. For mother characteristics, when there is no mother in the household, the father's information is used, and when there is no father, the household head's information is used. 
- 77 - 

TABLE 32. Estimated Relationship between WIC Take-up of Children Ages 0–4 Eligible for WIC and Immigrant Status, Change between 1997–1998 and 2005–2006 (weighted

All States 

Traditional ImmigrantReceiving States1 States with Rapidly-gr

Immigrant Populatio

Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient 

Immigrant Status (Native-born, native-born parents, reference) 

Unauthorized immigrant -0.040 0.062 -0.014 0.107 -0.110 Authorized immigrant -0.011 0.066 -0.072 0.076 0.289 ** Native-born, authorized immigrant parents only -0.012 0.014 -0.038 ** 0.012 0.047 Native-born, any unauthorized immigrant parents -0.030 0.031 -0.054 0.039 0.002 Native-born, unknown 0.053 0.062 -0.036 0.061 0.211 ** 

State Immigrant Trends (States with Slower-growing Immigrant Populations, reference) 

Traditional immigrant-receiving state1 -0.004 0.021 States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations2 0.024 0.038 

Time * Immigrant Status (Native-born with native-born parents, reference) 

Unauthorized immigrant*2005-2006 0.041 0.099 0.052 0.146 0.108 Authorized immigrant*2005-2006 -0.002 0.074 0.023 0.086 -0.235 Native-born, authorized immigrant parents only * 2005-2006 0.052 ** 0.023 0.079 ** 0.029 0.028 Native-born, any unauthorized immigrant parents * 2005 - 2006 0.048 ** 0.018 0.096 *** 0.011 0.045 Native-born, unknown*2005-2006 0.000 0.072 0.109 0.062 -0.224 * 

Time * State Immigrant Trends (States with Slower-growing Immigrant Populations, reference) 

Traditional immigrant-receiving state*2005-2006 0.095 *** 0.033 States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations*2005-2006 -0.027 0.040 

State Economic and Demographic Conditions 

Unemployment Rate 0.019 ** 0.007 0.026 ** 0.008 0.017 Child Poverty Rate -0.002 ** 0.001 -0.001 0.001 -0.002 

Family Characteristics3

Race (White, reference) 

Asian 0.031 * 0.018 0.057 ** 0.018 -0.030 Black 0.001 0.014 0.042 ** 0.010 0.013 Hispanic 0.020 0.017 0.049 * 0.022 -0.050 Other 0.017 0.027 0.040 0.060 0.008 

Age of mother 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.000 Age of child -0.094 *** 0.003 -0.090 *** 0.004 -0.097 *** Family structure (Two-parent, reference) 

Single-parent 0.037 *** 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.055 *** No parents -0.015 0.018 -0.018 0.023 0.001 

Mother's education (More than high school degree, reference) 

Less than high school 0.034 *** 0.012 0.053 ** 0.014 0.022 High school 0.020 ** 0.008 0.034 ** 0.009 0.008 

Number of adults in household -0.011 *** 0.004 -0.008 0.004 -0.008 Number of children in household -0.037 *** 0.004 -0.047 *** 0.003 -0.030 *** 
- 78 - 

Year (1997-1998, reference) 

2005-2006 -0.021 0.017 0.063 * 0.028 -0.041 

Number of observations 35,996 15,167 10,965 Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations of program eligiTransfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human ServicPlanning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).Notes: * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01 Models are weighted using survey weights provided in the CPS and standard errors have been adjusted to account for children appearing i

1. Traditional immigrant-receiving states include California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. 2. States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mis

Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington 3. For mother characteristics, when there is no mother in the household, the father's information is used, and when there is no father, the household head's information is used. 
- 79 - 

NSLP 

As with WIC, the demographic composition of children eligible for free lunches remained 

relatively stable between the two periods examined in this study, 1994 and 2006.48 There were 

larger changes among children eligible for reduced-price lunches. In both the 1994 and 2006 

cohorts, a very high proportion of the children eligible for free lunches (91.8 percent and 92.1 

percent) and reduced-price lunches (94.5 percent and 92.3 percent, respectively) were nativeborn. Of those who were native-born, between 1994 and 2006, there were increases in the shares 

of children with authorized and unauthorized immigrant parents and a comparable decline among 

those with native-born parents. The largest share (42.5 percent in both cohorts) of all children 

lived in traditional immigrant-receiving states, followed by states with rapidly-growing 

immigrant populations. 

Nearly half of the children who were eligible for free lunches were whites in the 1994 cohort 

(48.3 percent), followed by Hispanics and blacks. Between these two periods, the share of white 

children decreased (7.3 percentage points) whereas that of Hispanic children increased (6.9 

percentage points). Less than half of children lived in a single-parent household (47.2 percent) in 

the 1994 cohort; however, the share increased about 5 percentage points in the 2006 cohort. The 

majority of the mothers had less than a college degree in the 1994 cohort. This pattern persisted 

in the 2006 cohort; however, the share of mothers with some college degree increased from 29.5 

to 33.3 percent. 

As for children who were eligible for reduced-price lunches, more than half of the children were 

white (64.1 percent), followed by Hispanics and blacks in the 1994 cohorts. The share of 

children that were white decreased by 14.2 percentage points in the 2006 cohort and the share of 

Hispanic children increased by 11 percentage points. Nearly three-quarters of children lived in a 

two-parent household (72.9 percent) in the 1994 cohort. This share decreased by about 11 

percentage points in the 2006 cohort. The majority of the mothers had less than a college degree 

in the 1994 cohort. The share of parents with some college increased from 38.2 to 41.6 percent in 

the 2006 cohort. 

 

48 “1994” in this section refers to the 1994–1995 period. 
- 80 - 

TABLE 33. Demographic Characteristics of Children ages 5–18 Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunches, 1994–1995 and 2005–2006 (weighted) 

 Free Lunches Reduced-Price Lunches 

 1994–1995 2005–2006 1994–1995 2005–2006 

Immigrant Status 

Unauthorized 3.3% 4.3% 2.3% 4.1% 

Authorized 4.9% 3.7% 3.2% 3.6% 

Native-born with native-born parent 78.9% 72.9% 81.7% 70.2% 

Native-born with authorized immigrant parents only 9.6% 11.6% 10.1% 15.7% 

Native born with any unauthorized immigrant parents 2.5% 6.4% 2.4% 5.7% 

Native born, unknown 0.8% 1.2% 0.3% 0.6% 

State Immigrant Characteristics 

Traditional immigrant-receiving states1 42.5% 42.5% 38.2% 42.7% 

States with rapidly-growing immigrant 

populations2

 29.4% 31.8% 34.5% 33.4% 

Rest of the nation 28.1% 25.7% 27.3% 24.0% 

State Economic Conditions 

Unemployment rate 6.0 5.0 5.8 4.9 

Child poverty rate 18.7 17.5 17.9 17.2 

Family Characteristics3 

Race 

Asian 3.4% 3.3% 3.6% 3.3% 

Black 24.8% 24.4% 14.1% 16.8% 

Hispanic 21.6% 28.5% 16.9% 27.9% 

White 48.3% 41.0% 64.1% 49.9% 

Other 1.9% 2.7% 1.3% 2.2% 

Age of mother 37.1 38.0 37.6 38.3 

Age of child 11.1 11.4 11.2 11.4 

Family structure 

Single-parent 47.2% 51.6% 22.6% 34.3% 

Two-parents 43.0% 37.9% 72.9% 61.4% 

No parents, other adults in household 9.9% 10.5% 4.5% 4.3% 

Mother's marital status 

Married 49.1% 44.3% 76.9% 65.6% 

Not married 50.9% 55.7% 23.1% 34.4% 

Mother's education 

Less than high school 35.4% 31.9% 19.0% 21.4% 

High school 35.0% 34.8% 42.8% 36.9% 

College 29.5% 33.3% 38.2% 41.6% 

Household size 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.7 

Number of adults in household 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.1 

Number of children in household 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 

Number of Observations 28,981 32,101 8,321 12,526 

1. Traditional immigrant-receiving states include, California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey 

2. States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North, Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, 

Washington 

3. For mother characteristics, when there is no mother in the household, the father's information is used, and when there is no father, the 

household head's information is used. 
- 81 - 

Examining results from the linear multivariate regression models, we found some evidence that 

unauthorized immigrant children participated at different rates in the NSLP than native-born 

children with native-born parents (Tables 34 and 35). In 1994, we found that among all children 

eligible for free lunches, unauthorized immigrant children were no more or less likely to 

participate than native-born children with native-born parents; however, they were 4.7 

percentage points less likely to participate in 2006 than in 1997 compared with native-born 

children with native-born parents; in 2006, they were 2.9 percentage points less likely to 

participate in NSLP than native-born children with native-born parents (combined effect not 

shown in table). In contrast, among children eligible for reduced-price lunches, results indicate 

that unauthorized immigrant children were 12.7 percentage points more likely to participate in 

reduced-price lunches than native-born children with native-born parents in 1994, but they were 

no more or less likely to participate than native-born children with native-born parents in 2006 

(combined effect not shown in table). 

There is also some evidence that native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents 

participate in the NSLP at different rates than native-born children with native-born parents, 

though these findings only hold for children eligible for free lunches. Among children eligible 

for free lunches, we found that native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents were 

8.6 percentage points more likely to participate in 1994 than native-born children with nativeborn parents. This relationship changed over time, as native-born children with unauthorized 

immigrant parents were 14.9 percentage points less likely to participate in 2006 than in 1994 

compared with native-born children with native-born parents, and at the end of the study period, 

they were 6.2 percentage points less likely than native-born children with native-born parents to 

participate in NSLP (combined effect not shown in table). 

We find little evidence that authorized immigrant children or native-born children with 

authorized immigrant parents participate at higher rates than native-born children with nativeborn parents. Among children eligible for free lunches, we found that native-born children with 

authorized immigrant parents were 8.6 percentage points more likely than native-born children 

with native-born parents to participate in 1994, but were 3.8 percentage points less likely to 

participate in 2006 than native-born children with native-born parents (combined effect not 
- 82 - 

shown in table). We found no other differences in NSLP take-up rates between native-born 

children with authorized immigrant parents and native-born children with native-born parents. 

We also find some evidence that NSLP take-up among children of immigrants differs from that 

of children with native-born parents based on the types of states in which they reside (traditional 

immigrant-receiving states, states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations, and states with 

slower-growing immigrant populations). For children eligible for Free Lunches from states with 

traditional immigrant-receiving states, we found that unauthorized immigrant children were 4.3 

percentage points less likely to participate in 2006 than native-born children with native-born 

parents (combined effect not shown). In contrast, for children eligible for reduced-price meals 

from states with traditional immigrant-receiving states, we were that unauthorized immigrant 

children were 15.5 percentage points more likely to participate in 2006 than native-born children 

with native-born parents (combined effect not shown). For children eligible for reduced-price 

meals from states with slower-growing immigrant populations, we were that unauthorized 

immigrant children were 27.2 percentage points more likely to participate in 1994 than children 

with native-born parents, but in 2006 they were not more likely to participate than native-born 

children with native-born parents (combined effect not shown). We find no other differences in 

take-up rates for unauthorized immigrant children by type of state. 

We also find some evidence that there are state differences in take-up rates between native-born 

children with unauthorized immigrant parents and native-born children with native-born parents. 

Among children eligible for Free Lunches from traditional immigrant-receiving states, we found 

that native-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents were 10.4 percentage points more 

likely to participate in 1994 than native-born children with native-born parents. We found that 

this relationship does not hold over time, as native-born children with unauthorized immigrant 

parents were 5.2 percentage points less likely to participate in 2006 than native-born children 

with native-born parents (combined effect not shown). Similarly, we found that among children 

eligible for Free Lunches from states with slower-growing immigrant populations, native-born 

children with unauthorized immigrant parents were 8.8 percentage points less likely to 

participate in 2006 than native-born children with native-born parents (combined effect not 

shown). 
- 83 - 

We find evidence of differences in take-up rates by type of state for native-born children of 

unauthorized immigrant parents eligible for reduced-price meals in 1994, but not in 2006. 

Among children from states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations, we found that nativeborn children with unauthorized immigrant parents were 14.0 percentage points more likely to 

participate in 1994 than children with native-born parents, but that in 2006, they were not more 

likely to participate than the reference group (combined effect not shown). Similarly, for children 

from slower-growing immigrant states, we found that native-born children with unauthorized 

immigrant parents were 25.2 percentage points more likely to participate in 1994 than nativeborn children with native-born parents, but that in 2006, they were not more likely to participate 

than the reference group (combined effect not shown). 

There is modest evidence that take-up rates differ by type of state for authorized immigrant 

children and native-born children with authorized immigrant parents. Among children eligible 

for reduced-price lunches from traditional immigrant-receiving states, we found that authorized 

immigrant children were 10.3 percentage points more likely to participate in 1994 than nativeborn children with native-born parents, but that in 2006, they were not more likely to participate 

than the reference group (combined effect not shown). Similarly, we found that among children 

eligible for free lunches, authorized immigrant children from traditional immigrant-receiving 

states were 5.6 percentage points more likely to participate in 1994 than native-born children 

with native-born parents, but that in 2006, they were not more likely to participate than the 

reference group (combined effect not shown). We found that among children eligible for Free 

Lunches in traditional-immigrant-receiving states, native-born children with authorized 

immigrant parents were 4.4 percentage points less likely to participate in 2006 than native-born 

children with native-born parents (combined effect not shown). 
- 84 - 

TABLE 34. Estimated Relationship between Free Lunch Take-up of Children Ages 5–18 Eligible for Free Lunches and Immigrant Status, Change Between 1994–1995 and 20

All States 

Traditional ImmigrantReceiving States1 States with Rapidly-gro

Immigrant Populatio

Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient 

Immigrant Status (Native-born, native-born parents, reference) 

Unauthorized immigrant 0.018 0.020 0.042 0.022 0.022 Authorized immigrant 0.028 0.021 0.056 * 0.023 -0.014 Native-born, authorized immigrant parents only 0.024 0.016 0.031 0.023 0.034 Native-born, any unauthorized immigrant parents 0.086 *** 0.019 0.104 *** 0.021 0.025 Native-born, unknown -0.111 *** 0.037 -0.070 0.042 -0.184 

State Immigrant Trends (States with Slower-Growing Immigrant Populations, reference) 

Traditional immigrant-receiving state1 0.059 0.046 States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations2 0.097 ** 0.040 

Time * Immigrant Status (Native-born with native-born parents, reference) 

Unauthorized immigrant*2005-2006 -0.047 * 0.023 -0.085 ** 0.023 -0.010 Authorized immigrant*2005-2006 -0.014 0.019 -0.032 0.020 0.042 Native-born, authorized immigrant parents only * 2005-2006 -0.062 *** 0.018 -0.075 ** 0.021 -0.052 Native-born, any unauthorized immigrant parents * 2005 - 2006 -0.149 *** 0.019 -0.156 *** 0.021 -0.060 Native-born, unknown*2005-2006 0.193 *** 0.033 0.164 *** 0.038 0.279 ** 

Time * State Immigrant Trends (States with Slower-Growing Immigrant Populations, reference) 

Traditional immigrant-receiving state*2005-2006 -0.026 0.042 States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations*2005-2006 -0.031 0.040 

State Economic and Demographic Conditions 

Unemployment Rate -0.018 0.013 -0.051 * 0.023 -0.006 Child Poverty Rate -0.001 0.001 -0.004 ** 0.002 0.001 

Family Characteristics3

Race (White, reference) 

Asian 0.048 ** 0.020 0.067 0.038 0.015 Black 0.139 *** 0.013 0.146 *** 0.027 0.149 *** Hispanic 0.098 *** 0.012 0.114 *** 0.016 0.053 * Other 0.086 *** 0.016 0.129 *** 0.028 0.030 

Age of mother 0.001 * 0.000 0.001 *** 0.000 0.001 * Age of child -0.007 *** 0.001 -0.008 ** 0.002 -0.006 *** Family structure (Two-parent, reference) 

Single-parent 0.060 *** 0.010 0.056 ** 0.017 0.070 *** No parents -0.050 *** 0.014 -0.075 *** 0.015 -0.010 

Mother's education (More than high school degree, reference) 

Less than high school 0.114 *** 0.010 0.128 *** 0.018 0.083 *** High school 0.067 *** 0.008 0.082 *** 0.012 0.046 *** 

Number of adults in household -0.014 *** 0.004 -0.012 * 0.005 -0.010 ** Number of children in household 0.029 *** 0.003 0.034 *** 0.004 0.024 *** 

Year (1994-1995, reference) 

2005-2006 0.291 *** 0.031 0.193 ** 0.059 0.258 *** 
- 85 - 

Number of observations 61,070 25,305 17,266 Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations of program eligiTransfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human ServicPlanning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).Notes: * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01 Models are weighted using survey weights provided in the CPS and standard errors have been adjusted to account for children appearing i

1. Traditional immigrant-receiving states include California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. 2. States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mis

Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington 3. For mother characteristics, when there is no mother in the household, the father's information is used, and when there is no father, the household head's information is used. 
- 86 - 

TABLE 35. Estimated Relationship between Reduced-Price Lunch Take-up of Children Ages 5–18 Eligible for Reduced-Price Lunches and Immigrant Status, Change Between 

All States 

Traditional ImmigrantReceiving States1 States with Rapidly-gr

Immigrant Populati

Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient 

Immigrant Status (Native-born, native-born parents, reference) 

Unauthorized immigrant 0.127 ** 0.060 0.126 0.073 0.058 Authorized immigrant 0.093 0.056 0.103 * 0.049 0.213 Native-born, authorized immigrant parents only 0.029 0.024 0.021 0.023 0.055 Native-born, any unauthorized immigrant parents 0.084 0.052 0.050 0.055 0.140 * Native-born, unknown 0.141 0.134 0.296 * 0.142 -0.357 *** 

State Immigrant Trends (States with Slower-Growing Immigrant Populations, reference) 

Traditional immigrant-receiving state1 0.001 0.032 States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations2 0.027 0.030 

Time * Immigrant Status (Native-born with native-born parents, reference) 

Unauthorized immigrant*2005-2006 -0.086 0.060 0.029 0.062 -0.134 Authorized immigrant*2005-2006 -0.086 0.062 -0.050 0.040 -0.147 Native-born, authorized immigrant parents only * 2005-2006 -0.013 0.022 0.028 0.019 -0.111 * Native-born, any unauthorized immigrant parents * 2005 - 2006 -0.075 0.083 0.001 0.097 -0.162 Native-born, unknown*2005-2006 -0.187 * 0.110 -0.228 0.116 0.197 

Time * State Immigrant Trends (States with Slower-Growing Immigrant Populations, reference) 

Traditional immigrant-receiving state*2005-2006 -0.109 *** 0.032 States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations*2005-2006 -0.028 0.036 

State Economic and Demographic Conditions 

Unemployment Rate -0.014 * 0.007 0.000 0.010 -0.030 ** Child Poverty Rate 0.000 0.001 -0.001 0.001 0.000 

Family Characteristics3

Race (White, reference) 

Asian -0.024 0.035 -0.076 * 0.036 -0.029 Black 0.166 *** 0.022 0.162 *** 0.024 0.191 *** Hispanic 0.174 *** 0.023 0.180 *** 0.030 0.137 ** Other 0.080 0.050 -0.129 * 0.063 0.165 *** 

Age of mother -0.002 * 0.001 -0.001 0.001 -0.002 Age of child -0.005 *** 0.001 -0.010 *** 0.001 -0.002 Family structure (Two-parent, reference) 

Single-parent 0.061 *** 0.014 0.086 ** 0.023 0.040 No parents -0.082 *** 0.028 -0.084 0.054 -0.081 ** 

Mother's education (More than high school degree, reference) 

Less than high school 0.116 *** 0.018 0.139 *** 0.027 0.112 *** High school 0.063 *** 0.013 0.098 ** 0.026 0.045 ** 

Number of adults in household -0.039 *** 0.009 -0.049 ** 0.014 -0.033 ** 
- 87 - 

Number of children in household 0.013 ** 0.005 0.004 0.008 0.017 

Year (1994-1995, reference) 

2005-2006 0.141 *** 0.026 0.030 0.031 0.129 *** 

Number of observations 20,845 7,951 6,791 Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations of program eligiTransfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human ServicPlanning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).Notes: * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01 Models are weighted using survey weights provided in the CPS and standard errors have been adjusted to account for children appearing i

1. Traditional immigrant-receiving states include California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. 2. States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations include, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mis

Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South, Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington 3. For mother characteristics, when there is no mother in the household, the father's information is used, and when there is no father, the household head's information is used. 
- 88 - 

DISCUSSION 

Unauthorized immigration and the low-income population of children in unauthorized immigrant 

families both increased rapidly during the study period. The results of this study reveal a 

concurrent increase in the number and share of unauthorized immigrant children and mothers as 

well as native-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents participating in the WIC and 

NSLP programs. Despite these increases, our study finds that unauthorized immigrants still make 

up a relatively small share of those participating in WIC and NSLP in 2006: 0.9 percent of WIC 

children, 12.2 percent of WIC mothers, 4.4 percent of children receiving free lunches, and 5.2 

percent of children receiving reduced-price lunches. Native-born children of unauthorized 

immigrant parents make up somewhat larger shares of WIC participants (11.7 percent) and 

NSLP participants (6.7 percent of free lunch and 7.9 percent of reduced price lunch participants). 

Results from a demographic decomposition analysis reveal that changes in the numbers of 

eligible children and changes in take-up rates (e.g., participants divided by eligible children) had 

a stronger impact on changes in the take-up rate (e.g., participants divided by children ages 0 to 

4) for children in WIC and NSLP compared to changes in the demographic composition of 

children (immigrant status of the child and parents). Thus it does not appear that the increase in 

immigrant populations across the country have substantially affected take-up rates for children in 

these programs. In contrast, we found that among mothers, changes in the share of mothers who 

were foreign- versus native-born had a stronger effect on WIC take-up rate changes than changes 

in eligibility and take-up rates. The increase in the number of immigrant mothers—particularly 

the unauthorized—may have led to a slight increase in the WIC take-up rate, perhaps because 

low-income unauthorized immigrant mothers are ineligible for TANF, SNAP, or other meanstested benefits with limited immigrant eligibility. 

We found mixed evidence that unauthorized immigrants were more likely than the native-born to 

take-up WIC and NSLP. For WIC children, we found no differences in the likelihood of take-up 

between unauthorized immigrant children and native-born children in 2006. But we found that 

unauthorized immigrant mothers were more likely to take-up WIC than native-born mothers in 

2006. We found that unauthorized immigrant children were less likely to take-up free lunches in 
- 89 - 

2006 than native-born children with native-born parents, particularly in traditional immigrantreceiving states. In contrast, we found that unauthorized immigrant children were more likely to 

take-up reduced-price lunches than native-born children with native-born parents in 2006 but 

only in traditional immigrant-receiving states. 

Among native-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents, we found that they were more 

likely to take-up WIC in 2006 than in 1997 compared with native-born children of native-born 

parents, but in 2006 they were no more or less likely to take-up WIC than native-born children of 

native-born parents. Only native-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents in states with 

rapidly-growing immigrant populations were more likely than native-born children of nativeborn parents to take-up WIC in 2006. While native-born children of unauthorized immigrant 

parents were more likely to take-up free lunches in 1994, their take-up rates actually decreased 

over time and in 2006 they were less likely to take-up free lunches compared with native-born 

children of native-born parents. These findings are mixed, but they do not suggest significant 

chilling effects on unauthorized immigrants’ take-up of the two programs (that have been found 

in other public benefit programs), even when controlling for other factors such as race, ethnicity, 

geographic location, and income. 

Taken together, our findings suggest that immigrants’ fears about participating in TANF, SNAP 

and other programs subject to immigrant status limitations do not extend to benefits like WIC 

and NSLP that do not include these restrictions. Neither would it seem that unauthorized 

immigrant parents are afraid to apply for their citizen children (or their unauthorized immigrant 

children or even themselves for that matter) for WIC and NSLP. The different settings in which 

parents apply for these benefits—health clinics for WIC and schools for NSLP—appear to have 

insulated immigrants from the fears, concerns, and access barriers noted for welfare offices and 

other setting in which food stamp and TANF benefits are handled. The message that immigrant 

status is not a barrier to WIC or NSLP receipt appears to have gotten through to immigrant 

communities across the country—in states with smaller and rapidly growing populations as well 

as in the traditional immigrant destinations. WIC and NSLP appear to be important food 

assistance programs for a population of immigrant families that has suffered disproportionately 

from the current economic crisis (Orrenius and Zavodny 2009), and whose other access to the 
- 90 - 

nutritional safety net might be curbed (Fix and Passel 2002; Henderson, Capps, and Finegold 

2008). 

These findings might differ were data on the recent recessionary period included. Increasing 

poverty among families overall has greatly increased WIC and NSLP participation. WIC 

participation has increased from 8.3 million in 2007 to a record 9.1 million in 2009 and NSLP 

participation has increased from 17.7 to 19.4 million.49 Higher unemployment rate for 

immigrants than the native-born might suggest a disproportionate increase in the number of 

needy children of immigrants—perhaps resulting in a disproportionately high increase in 

program participation for this population. Yet since 2006, the numbers of unauthorized 

immigrants and immigrants overall have stabilized, if not declined. Slower growth or decline in 

immigrant populations could slow the trend toward increasing shares of immigrant mothers and 

children in the populations eligible for and participating in WIC and NSLP. Nonetheless, the 

population of native-born children with immigrant parents continues to grow rapidly despite 

slowdowns in immigration because these native-born children continue to age into NSLPeligible populations in greater numbers, and will continue to do so unless birth rates among 

immigrants decline substantially. Increasing poverty in immigrant families together with 

population momentum for their children is likely to continue leading to higher participation of 

children of immigrants in these two important nutrition programs for the foreseeable future. It 

will be important to measure what the impact of the recession and recovery periods was for the 

different sub-populations of the WIC and NSLP program (particularly for native- and immigrantfamilies) in terms of eligibility and take-up rates. 

WIC and NSLP are clearly important safety net programs for immigrant families with children. 

While other safety-net programs such as TANF and SNAP include restrictions on the eligibility 

of many immigrants (especially the unauthorized), WIC and NSLP remain open to all incomeeligible children regardless of their immigrant status or that of their parents. Their function as 

safety nets for vulnerable children becomes all the more important during times of severe 

economic crisis like the present. The high take-up of children of immigrants in these two 

 

49 WIC program data available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wisummary.htm retrieved on February 18, 2010. 

NSLP program data available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/slsummar.htm retrieved on February 18, 2010. 
- 91 - 

programs suggests that they are successful in alleviating poverty and hardship among diverse 

groups of American families. 
- 92 - 

REFERENCES 

Bartlett, Susan, Ellen Bobronnikov, and Michele Mendelson, et al. (2007). “WIC Participant and 

Program Characteristics 2006.” Special Nutrition Programs Report No. 

WIC-06-PC. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Bitler, Marianne P., Currie, Janet, and Scholz, John Karl (2003). WIC eligibility and 

participation. The Journal of Human Resources, 38(S), 1139-1179. 

Capps, Randy. (2001). “Hardship among Children of Immigrants: Findings from the 1999 

National Survey of America’s Families.” Assessing the New Federalism Survey Brief B-29. 

Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. 

Randy Capps, Jacqueline Hagan, and Nestor Rodriguez. (2004). “Border Residents Manage the 

U.S. Immigration and Welfare Reforms.” Pages 229-250 in Philip Krestedemas and Ana 

Aparicio (eds.) Immigrants, Welfare Reform, and the Poverty of Policy. New York: GreenwoodPraeger Press. 

Capps, Randy, Everett Henderson, John D. Kasarda, James H. Johnson Jr., Stephen J. Appold, 

Derrek L. Croney, Donald J. Hernandez, and Michael Fix. (2007). “A Profile of Immigrants in 

Arkansas: Executive Summary.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Capps, Randy, Michael Fix, and Everett Henderson. (2009). “Changes in Immigrants’ Use of 

Public Assistance Following Welfare Reform." Pages 123-152 in Michael Fix (ed.) Immigrants 

and Welfare: The Impact of Welfare Reform on America's Newcomers. New York: Russell Sage 

Foundation. 

Capps, Randy, Michael Fix, Leighton Ku, Chris Furgiuele, and Daniel Perez-Lopez (2002). How 

are Immigrants Faring after Welfare Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New 

York City. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Evaluation. 

Capps, Randy, Michael Fix, J. Ost, J. Reardon-Anderson, and Jeff S. Passel. (2004). “The health 

and well-being of young children of immigrants.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Capps, Randy, and Karina Fortuny. (2006). “Immigration and Child and Family Policy.” Paper 3 

prepared for The Urban Institute and Child Trends Roundtable on Children in Low-Income 

Families. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Capps, Randy, Leighton Ku, Michael Fix, Chris Furgiuele, Jeffrey S. Passel, Rajeev Ramchand, 

Scott McNiven, and Dan Perez-Lopez. (2002). How Are Immigrants Faring after Welfare 

Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York City—Final Report.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 
- 93 - 

Castner, Laura A., James Mabli, and Julie Sykes. (2009). Dynamics of WIC Program 

Participation. Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for the Food and Nutrition 

Service. (Available online at www.fns.usda.gov/fns). 

Children of Immigrants Data Tool. http://datatool.urban.org/charts/datatool/pages.cfm. The 

Urban Institute. Data from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series datasets drawn from the 

2005 and 2006 American Community Survey. 

Das Gupta, Prithwis. (1993). Standardization and Decomposition of Rates: A User’s Manual. 

Current Population Reports, Series P23 186. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

Fix, Michael, and Jeffrey S. Passel. (2002). “The Scope and Impact of Welfare Reform’s 

Immigrant Provisions.” Assessing the New Federalism Discussion Paper (02-03). Washington, 

D.C.: The Urban Institute. 

Fortuny, Karina and Ajay Chaudry. (2009). “Children of Immigrants: Immigration Trends” (Fact 

sheet No. 1). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Fortuny, Karina, Randy Capps, and Jeffrey S. Passel. (2007). “The Characteristics of 

Unauthorized Immigrants in California, Los Angeles County, and the United States.” 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Fortuny, Karina, Randy Capps, Margaret Simms, and Ajay Chaudry. (2009). “Children of 

Immigrants: National and State Characteristics.” Perspectives on Low-Income Working Families 

Brief 9. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Henderson, Everett, Randy Capps, and Kenneth Finegold. (2008). Impact of 2002-03 Farm Bill 

Restorations on Food Stamp Use by Legal Immigrants. Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 

40. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Hernandez, Donald J. (2004). “Demographic Change and the Life Circumstances of Immigrant 

Families.” The Future of Children, 14(2), 17–48. 

Holcomb, Pamela, Robin Koralek, Karen Tumlin, Randy Capps, and Anita Zuberi. (2003). The 

Application Process for TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid and SCHIP: Issues for Agencies and 

Applicants, Including Immigrants and Limited English Speakers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Policy Evaluation. 

Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. (2008). Household Food Security in the 

United States, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 66. 

Orrenius, Pia M., and Madeline Zavodny. (2009). Tied to the Business Cycle: How Immigrants 

Fare in Good and Bad Economic Times. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. 

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/orrenius-Nov09.pdf 
- 94 - 

Papademetriou, Demetrios G., and Aaron Terrazas. (2009). Immigrants and the Current 

Economic Crisis. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. 

Passel, Jeffrey S., and Cohn, D’Vera. (2009). A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the 

United States. Report. Washington, DC: The Pew Hispanic Center. 

Passel, Jeffrey S., and Cohn, D’Vera. (2008). Trends in Unauthorized Immigration: 

Undocumented Inflow Now Trails Legal Inflow. Report. Washington, DC: The Pew Hispanic 

Center. 

Ralston, Katherine, Constance Newman, Annette Clauson, Joanne Guthrie, and Jean Buzby. 

(2008). The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues. Washington, DC: 

Economic Research Service. July. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR61/ERR61.pdf 

Rodriguez, Nestor, Jacqueline Hagan, and Randy Capps. (2004). “The Effects of Recent Welfare 

and Immigration Reforms on Immigrants’ Access to Health Care.” International Migration 

Review 38:2. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2009). Food Security in the United States: Key 

Statistics and Graphics, retrieved from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/stats_graphs.htm#food_secure in November 

2009. 

United States Department of Homeland Security. (Department of Homeland Security 2010). 

Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 

2009. DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. Accessed February 18, 2010 from 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf. 

United States Department of Homeland Security. (Department of Homeland Security 2007). 

Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. 

Wheaton, Laura. (2007). “Underreporting of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the CPS and 

SIPP,” 2007 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section [CDROM], Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association: 3622-3629. 
 - A1 -

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

Appendix A. Simulation of WIC Eligibility and Participation 

Eligibility and participation estimates in the report are based on output from the Transfer Income 

Model (TRIM3) microsimulation model, which the Urban Institute maintains and develops with 

primary funding from the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health 

and Human Services.50 The input data for TRIM3 come from the Current Population Survey 

Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS-ASEC), which is collected each year in 

February, March, and April. The CPS-ASEC provides extensive data on income, employment, 

and demographic characteristics; the survey also collects data on participation in public programs 

including TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, WIC, and NSLP. TRIM3 first developed immigrant status 

assignments for the foreign-born population in the March 1995 (CY 1994) CPS-ASEC. 

The CPS-ASEC has included WIC items since March 2001 (CY 2000)51 and we were also able 

to analyze data on WIC participation that were collected on an experimental basis in the March 

1998, 1999, and 2000 CPS-ASEC surveys, providing data on CY 1997 to 1999. The WIC data 

for these years are not part of the CPS-ASEC public use data, but can be downloaded from the 

Census website and merged with the main datasets. Thus CY 1997 is the baseline year for our 

WIC analyses. 

Participation in means-tested programs such as TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, SCHIP, WIC, and 

NSLP is typically underreported in the CPS-ASEC and surveys. Enrollment totals from 

administrative data, in other words, are usually higher than the totals reported in the surveys 

(Wheaton, 2007). Some of the people who report program participation in the surveys, moreover, 

appear to be ineligible for those programs, on the basis of the information they provided about 

income and other eligibility criteria. This is sometimes described as “overreporting.” 

 

50 For additional information on TRIM3, see http://trim3.urban.org/T3Technical.php. 51 For income, program participation, and many other items, the CPS-ASEC provides data for the previous calendar 

year. For example, the March 2007 CPS-ASCE provides data for CY 2006, the endpoint for our study. 
 - A2 -

TRIM3 corrects for both underreporting and overreporting by applying eligibility criteria to the 

CPS-ASEC records and simulating participation decisions so totals come close to targets from 

administrative data. Most of the information on the CPS-ASEC is for the previous year. The 

TRIM3 model creates a simulated monthly record of employment, based on national 

employment totals and survey responses on the number of weeks of full-time and part-time work 

and the number of spells of unemployment between working weeks. Monthly earnings are 

assumed to be proportional to hours worked; other assumptions are made in allocating various 

forms of unearned income.52 This approach reproduces the income volatility that occurs in the 

real world, which would be missing if the simulation assumed reported income is distributed 

equally across the year. 

To determine eligibility and benefits, the model acts as a caseworker would, applying state and 

national program rules to the simulated record of monthly income and employment. The program 

rules are drawn from databases that are updated annually. Participation in one program can 

confer eligibility in another program, as TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid do for WIC, and TANF 

and SNAP do for NSLP. Participation in one program can also preclude eligibility in another 

program, as is the case for SSI and TANF. To capture these complicated relationships, the 

simulations are run in a particular order, and output data from one program module is used as 

input data for the next. 

The TRIM3 WIC module and our modifications to its outputs are based on several general 

principles and assumptions: 

• Persons simulated as ineligible should not be simulated as participating. 

• Persons simulated as eligible who explicitly report participation should be simulated as 

participating. “Explicitly” excludes responses imputed or allocated by the Census Bureau. 

 

52 Unemployment compensation is distributed by weeks not working, with a one-month lag for some randomly 

chosen recipients. Workers compensation is also distributed by weeks not working for most recipients, but some are 

randomly selected to receive a lump sum payment. The number of months receiving child support and alimony is 

determined by a distribution based on findings from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Other 

types of unearned income are distributed evenly across the twelve months of the survey year. 
 - A3 -

• Other persons simulated as eligible should be simulated as participating so as to come 

close to average monthly targets based on administrative data, by state and person type 

(infants, other children, and mothers of infants). 

• All other things equal, an eligible person for whom the Census Bureau imputes a “Yes” 

response is more likely to have participated in WIC than an eligible person for whom a 

“No” response is imputed, and an eligible person for whom a “No” response is imputed is 

more likely to have participated than a person for whom an explicit “No” response is 

recorded. 

• Participation decisions should be simulated as consistent within the unit and across the 

months of the year, if the relevant variables are the same. 

Modeling Eligibility 

We used the TRIM3 WIC module to estimate WIC eligibility for infants, older children, and 

mothers of infants. The key parameters modeled in TRIM3 are shown in Table A-1. To receive 

WIC benefits, individuals must be categorically eligible and meet the requirements for either 

income or adjunctive eligibility. Categorical eligibility for infants (age = 0), older children 

(0 < age <= 4), and mothers of infants is modeled in TRIM3. Mothers of infants are categorically 

eligible for twelve months postpartum if they breastfeed, and for six months if they do not. The 

CPS-ASEC does not provide any information on breastfeeding. To simulate the restriction on 

benefits for non-breastfeeding mothers, and with dates of birth unknown, we assumed that all 

children were born January 1 and drew a random number to determine eligibility from July 

through December. If the random number was below the threshold breastfeeding rates, we 

simulated the mother as eligible based on breastfeeding in the second six months after childbirth. 

The threshold breastfeeding rates differ by nativity (foreign- versus native-born) and region of 

residence (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West). The breastfeeding rates are based on analysis 

of 2003 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health. 

Women are also categorically eligible if they are pregnant. TRIM3 pregnancy imputations are 

available for CY 2000-2006, but they miss pregnant mothers who live with eligible children or 

did not report coverage on the CPS-ASEC, and therefore account for only a small proportion of 
 - A4 -

the totals for pregnant mothers in the administrative data. We therefore decided not to use the 

pregnancy imputations for this report. 

Income eligibility for WIC is based on monthly family income at or below 185 percent of federal 

poverty guidelines. The guidelines vary by family size and are higher for Alaska and Hawaii than 

for the rest of the states. 

Adjunctive eligibility for WIC is based on participation in TANF, the Food Stamp Program 

(renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, in October 2008), or 

Medicaid, as each of these programs is modeled in TRIM3. Strictly speaking, actual participation 

in these other programs is not required; documentation of eligibility for them is sufficient. In 

practice, most people provide proof of eligibility for TANF, SNAP, or Medicaid by presenting 

documentation of participation in these programs, and the adjunctive eligibility provisions are 

modeled on that basis. 

Because TANF and SNAP eligibility normally ends far below 185 percent of poverty, most of 

the people with adjunctive eligibility for WIC are eligible based on participation in Medicaid. 

Some states set eligibility thresholds for Medicaid well above 185 percent of poverty; therefore, 

Medicaid is more likely to confer eligibility onto those with higher incomes. Participation in 

“Medicaid Expansion” CHIP programs confers adjunctive eligibility for WIC, but participation 

in separate (non-Medicaid) CHIP programs does not. Individuals who are not eligible for 

Medicaid themselves qualify for adjunctive eligibility for WIC if a pregnant or infant family 

member is participating in Medicaid. Adjunctive eligibility for WIC on the basis of a family 

member’s participation in TANF is not modeled in TRIM3. 

TRIM3 estimates of Medicaid eligibility for CY 2004, 2005, and 2006 are currently available, 

but participation estimates are not. For purposes of adjunctive eligibility for WIC, we simulated 

children ages 1 through 4 who were simulated to be eligible for Medicaid as participating in that 

program if a uniform random number was below 0.847. Similarly, we simulated Medicaideligible infants as participating if the random number was below 0.838, and we simulated 
 - A5 -

Medicaid-eligible mothers of infants as participating if the random number was below 0.775. 

These thresholds are based on the estimated Medicaid participation rate for each group in 2003. 

TRIM3 does not model the nutritional risk criteria for WIC eligibility. USDA program staff 

suggested that few people who meet the other eligibility criteria are excluded on this basis. 

The CPS-ASEC WIC questions are not administered if there is no one in the household who 

could have been demographically eligible, or if annual family income is above a low-income 

threshold. We did not restrict eligibility or participation based on the income screen because 

some families with annual income above eligibility limits may have lower incomes in particular 

months. A small number of people from such families are simulated as eligible for or 

participating in WIC. 

TABLE A-1. Key Program Rules for TRIM3 WIC and NSLP Simulations 

 WIC NSLP 

Demographic 

Requirements 

- Age 0-4 OR 

- mother of an infant (age 0) 

- Age 5-18 

Income 

Eligibility 

- ≤ 185% of federal poverty guidelines - Free: ≤ 130% of federal poverty 

guidelines 

- Reduced-price: ≤ 185% of federal poverty 

guidelines 

Adjunctive 

Eligibility 

- TANF 

- SNAP 

- Medicaid (includes Medicaid Expansion 

CHIP programs but not Separate State 

CHIP programs) 

- TANF 

- SNAP 

Certification 

Period 

- Infants: full year 

- Children: eligibility reassessed after six 

months of benefits 

- Mother of infant: eligible for one year 

after delivery if breastfeeding, six months 

if not breastfeeding 

- School year (eligibility assessed in 

September and January) 

 

We compared our eligibility estimates to trends in the demographically and income-eligible 

population—children ages 0 to 4 and mothers of an infant age 14 to 45 with family incomes 

below 185 percent of FPL. The eligibility trends for children by immigrant status presented in 

table 2 follow the demographic trends in table F-1. In 1997, children with foreign-born parents 

represented a similar share of the population eligible for WIC as their share of low-income 

children, 24 percent versus 25 percent. Similarly, in 2006, children of foreign-born parents 
 - A6 -

accounted for 29 percent of low-income children and 28 percent of children eligible for WIC. 

Similar to the trends among children, the eligibility trends for mothers (Table 5) follow the 

demographic trends for low-income mothers shown in table F-2. The foreign-born share of 

women eligible for WIC increased from 22 to 26 percent between 1997 and 2006; the increase 

mirrors the increase in the foreign-born share of low-income mothers for this period (from 22 to 

26 percent). 

Modeling Participation 

We modeled WIC participation, among those simulated as eligible by TRIM3, with SAS code 

developed specifically for this project. The code uses information from the simulation of WIC 

eligibility and from the administrative data for each year, state, and participant group. We 

combined the mothers shown in the administrative data as breastfeeding or postpartum into a 

single category for mother of infants. Our goal in modeling these decisions was to produce a 

simulated caseload that comes close to the state and national targets from the administrative data 

and accurately captures the characteristics of program participants. 

In almost all contexts, someone with an explicit (not imputed) report of program participation 

will be simulated as participating, if simulated as eligible. If the totals for eligible participants are 

below the targets, as they usually are, some respondents with imputed responses, and some who 

explicitly said they did not participate, also will be simulated as participating. Because the 

TRIM3 simulations of WIC and NSLP use inputs from the simulations of TANF, SNAP, and 

Medicaid that correct for underreporting of participation in those programs, TRIM3 estimates 

simulate more people with adjunctive eligibility for WIC or NSLP than estimates that use 

unadjusted CPS-ASEC data on participation in the federal programs. 

We developed the targets to which the TRIM3 enrollment estimates are aligned from enrollment 

totals in the U.S. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National Databank. The National Databank 

includes aggregate data by state and month on measures including program enrollment and 

spending. At our request, FNS prepared extracts of data for FY 1994 to FY 2007 from the 

following series: 

• WIC enrollment, infants; 
 - A7 -

• WIC enrollment, children (ages 1 to 4); 

• WIC enrollment, breastfeeding mothers; 

• WIC enrollment, postpartum mothers (not breastfeeding); 

• NSLP enrollment, free lunches; and 

• NSLP enrollment, reduced-price lunches. 

For consistency with the CPS-ASEC timeframe and universe, we calculated average monthly 

enrollment on a calendar year (rather than fiscal year) basis and dropped records for American 

Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and military families living outside the U.S. 

Because the CPS-ASEC does not include information on breastfeeding, we combined WIC 

enrollment totals for breastfeeding and postpartum mothers into a single category for mothers. 

Enrollees in tribal WIC programs are counted in their state of residence. 

The CPS-ASEC WIC questions and variables are shown in Figures A-1 and A-2. In each year, 

we divided infants simulated as eligible for WIC into four categories based on the CPS-ASEC 

WIC variables: 

• Explicit Yes 

• Imputed Yes 

• Imputed No 

• Explicit No 

Because the CPS-ASEC WIC data for 1997-1999 was not edited, no values were imputed for 

cases with responses that were recorded as blank, missing, or “don’t know.” We coded all such 

responses as Imputed Noes, which meant that there were no Imputed Yeses for these years. 

Households above 200 percent of poverty are not asked the WIC question, but some women in 

these households are simulated as eligible due to adjunctive eligibility or monthly income 

variation. We treated these cases as explicit Noes. 
 - A8 -

 

Table A-2 shows the distribution of simulated eligibles across the four response categories. The 

proportion of eligible children who live in households reporting WIC, either explicitly or by 

imputation, is consistently between 33 and 39 percent. The proportion of responses that are 

Figure A-1. CPS-ASEC WIC Questions, March 2007 

SWRWIC 

At any time during 2006, (was/were) (you/ anyone in this household) on WIC, the Women, Infants, and 

Children Nutrition Program? 

1 Yes 

2 No 

SWRW 

Who received WIC for themselves or on behalf of a child? 

Enter all that apply, separate with commas 

Probe: Anyone else? 

Enter person’s line number (1-16) 

Note:

WIC questions are not asked if household does not include any children below age 5 or women age 15 to 45, or 

if family income is above low-income threshold (varies by family size) 

Figure A-2. CPS-ASEC WIC Public Use Variables, March 2007 

Household: 

HRWICYN WIC benefits received, anyone 

0 Not in Universe 

1 Yes 

2 No 

HRNUMWIC Number of people in the household receiving WIC 

0-16 

Person: 

WICYN WIC benefits received 

0 Not in Universe 

1 Yes 

2 No 

WICYNA Allocation flag for WICYN 

0 Not in universe or not imputed 

1 Imputed 

Note: 

WIC receipt by infants or children is stored on record of female parent or guardian.
 - A9 -

imputed increased when the WIC questions became part of the regular CPS; this suggests that 

our code for 1997-1999 may not be capturing all the edits and imputations of the current Census 

procedures, or that the universe for the WIC questions was defined somewhat differently in the 

experimental period and now. The shift in the proportion with missing or imputed data reduces 

the proportion of eligible children who are explicit nonparticipants by about 10 percentage 

points. 

The proportion of eligible mothers for whom WIC is reported is 49 percent or more, a higher rate 

than for children. Eligible mothers and infants have the same CPS-ASEC response, so a low rate 

of explicit reporting for older children (ages 1-4) may bring down the numbers for the combined 

group of children ages 0 to 4 shown in Table A-1. 

 

We assumed that the initial participation decision for infants was made in January for the 

remainder of the year. Infants who were not eligible in January but became eligible at a later 

month were re-evaluated for participation for the remainder of the year. 

To estimate participation for infants, we took the following steps: 

1. Simulated all eligible infants as participating in all eligible months when the estimated 

average monthly number of eligible infants was below the state target for average 

monthly infant participation. [If this was not the case, we moved to step 2.] 

2. Simulated participation in all eligible months for each infant simulated as eligible and 

explicitly reported to have participated to have done so. If the total of such infants for the 

state exceeded the average monthly target for infants in that state, we simulated all other 

infants (Imputed Yes, Imputed No, or Explicit No) as nonparticipants. [If this was not the 

case, we moved to step 3.] 

3. We compared the state target with the total of Explicit and Imputed Yes responses. If the 

number of infants with either an Explicit Yes or an Imputed Yes was below the state 

target, we simulated all infants with a Yes response as participating. If the number of 

infants with an Explicit Yes was below the target, but the number with an Explicit or 

Imputed Yes was above the target, we simulated all Noes as not participating and drew a 

uniform random number for all Imputed Yeses. If the random number was less than or 
 - A10 -

equal to the number needed to hit the state-level target for infants, divided by the number 

of Imputed Yes infants, we simulated that infant as participating in all eligible months. If 

the random number was greater than that fraction, we simulated the infant as not 

participating in any eligible months. [If simulated participation was still below the target, 

we moved to step 4.] 

4. We followed similar procedures to simulate participation among eligible infants with 

Imputed No and Explicit No responses as for Imputed Yes and Explicit Yes responses, 

with imputed Noes given priority. 

5. A final set of edits to infant participation compared the number of infants simulated as 

ever participating with the CPS-ASEC household-level variable. If the simulated number 

was below the CPS-ASEC count, additional eligible infants, if any, were simulated as 

participating regardless of the state-level target. 

To simulate the twelve-month certification period for infants, any infant simulated as 

participating in a particular month was simulated as participating in all subsequent months. Thus, 

some infants are simulated as participating for months in which they are “technically ineligible,” 

that is, when they would not be eligible based on that month’s information on family income and 

participation in TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. 

We assumed that eligible mothers of eligible infants made the same participation decision as 

their child. In some households, however, the mother is eligible for Medicaid, and therefore for 

WIC, when the infant is not eligible for either program. In these cases, we used a procedure 

similar to that described above for infants, simulating all eligible Explicit Yes mothers as 

participating and simulating participation decisions by other mothers by comparing cumulative 

simulated participation to the state-level targets. The cumulative totals included mothers already 

simulated as participating with their eligible infants. As with infants, we did a final check against 

the CPS-ASEC household-level WIC variable. 

We assumed that eligible children ages 1 to 4 with eligible infant siblings make the same 

participation decision as the infants. For eligible children with no eligible infant siblings, we 

simulated children with Explicit Yes responses as participating and simulated participation 
 - A11 -

decisions among Imputed Yeses, Imputed Noes, and Explicit Noes by comparison with state 

targets. To simulate the six-month certification period for children in this age range, we 

simulated a child as participating in the initial month and the next five months, without regard to 

that month’s family income or participation in TANF, SNAP, or Medicaid. We redetermined a 

child’s income or adjunctive eligibility in what would be the seventh month of participation. If 

the child was eligible at that point, we simulated the child as participating for the remainder of 

the year. A child who was not eligible at redetermination might nonetheless requalify in a 

subsequent month if family income was lower or the child was simulated as enrolling in one of 

the programs conferring adjunctive eligibility. 
 - A12 -

Table A-2. Children and Mothers Simulated as Eligible for WIC, by CPS-ASEC Response Group

 

Eligible Children 

Response Group 

Year 

Explicit Reporter Imputed Reporter Imputed Nonreporter Explicit Nonreporter 

1997 34% 0% 2% 64% 

1998 36% 0% 2% 62% 

1999 36% 0% 2% 62% 

2000 35% 2% 9% 54% 

2001 35% 3% 9% 53% 

2002 33% 3% 10% 53% 

2003 35% 3% 9% 53% 

2004 34% 4% 10% 52% 

2005 34% 2% 9% 54% 

2006 32% 4% 12% 52% 

 

Eligible Mothers 

Response Group 

Year 

Explicit Reporter Imputed Reporter Imputed Nonreporter Explicit Nonreporter 

1997 49% 0% 2% 50% 

1998 50% 0% 3% 48% 

1999 57% 0% 1% 42% 

2000 54% 3% 6% 37% 

2001 51% 3% 7% 39% 

2002 49% 3% 8% 41% 

2003 54% 2% 7% 37% 

2004 52% 3% 9% 35% 

2005 49% 2% 8% 41% 

2006 46% 4% 9% 40% 

Note: All missing responses for 1997, 1998, and 1999 are coded as Imputed Nonreporters. Children include children 

ages 0 to 4. Adult Women includes postpartum, and breastfeeding women only, not pregnant women. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with 

immigrant status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer 

Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary 

funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 

Table A-3 shows the breakdown of simulated participants by CPS-ASEC response group. 

Explicit participants, who are always simulated as participating, account for about half of the 

simulated caseload for children, and somewhat more than half for the mothers. It is evident 

nonetheless that the simulated WIC caseload includes substantial numbers of explicit 

nonparticipants. We see a slight shift in the proportions of imputed and explicit participants 
 - A13 -

between the 1997-1999 period, when the WIC question was administered on an experimental 

basis, and the 2000-2006 periods, when it was part of the regular annual survey. 

Table A-3. Children and Mothers Simulated as Enrolled in WIC, by CPS-ASEC Response Group

 

Enrolled Children 

Response Group 

Year 

Explicit Reporter Imputed Reporter Imputed Nonreporter Explicit Nonreporter 

1997 43% 0% 2% 55% 

1998 45% 0% 3% 53% 

1999 47% 0% 2% 51% 

2000 45% 3% 12% 40% 

2001 46% 3% 11% 40% 

2002 43% 3% 12% 42% 

2003 45% 4% 12% 40% 

2004 45% 4% 12% 40% 

2005 42% 3% 12% 44% 

2006 41% 5% 16% 38% 

 

Enrolled Mothers 

Response Group 

Year 

Explicit Reporter Imputed Reporter Imputed Nonreporter Explicit Nonreporter 

1997 53% 0% 2% 45% 

1998 54% 0% 3% 42% 

1999 61% 0% 1% 38% 

2000 57% 3% 6% 34% 

2001 55% 3% 8% 35% 

2002 51% 3% 8% 39% 

2003 57% 2% 7% 34% 

2004 55% 4% 9% 32% 

2005 52% 3% 8% 37% 

2006 51% 4% 10% 35% 

Note: All missing responses for 1997, 1998, and 1999 are coded as Imputed Nonreporters. Children include children 

ages 0 to 4. Adult Women includes postpartum, and breastfeeding women only, not pregnant women. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with 

immigrant status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer 

Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary 

funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 

We compared our participation estimates to the numbers of all explicit reporters—children and 

mothers who live in households reporting WIC explicitly—and eligible explicit reporters. 

Simulated participation in WIC for children ages 0 to 4 increased slightly from 1997 to 2006 (by 
 - A14 -

8 percent, Table 3). In contrast, overall explicitly reported participation and explicitly reported 

participation among eligible children decreased slightly during this time (by 3 percent, Tables F4 and f-5). However, trends in simulated and explicitly reported participation were similar across 

immigrant status groups—the largest group, native-born children of native-born parents 

experienced a decline in both explicitly reported and simulated participation and the second 

largest group, children of authorized immigrant parents experienced an increase in both 

explicitly reported and simulated participation. In 2006, children of foreign-born parents 

accounted for 31 percent of simulated participants, similar to their share of eligible explicit 

reporters, 32 percent. 

Trends in simulated participation for mothers were similar to trends in explicitly reported 

participation. Foreign-born mothers experienced an increase in simulated participation between 

1997 and 2006 as shown in table 6 and in explicitly reported participation (Table F-6). Explicitly 

reported participation among eligible women also increased for this group (Table F-7). Foreignborn mothers were slightly over-represented among simulated participants in all years. For 

example, in 2006, foreign-born mothers represented 28 percent of simulated participants 

compared with 26 percent of eligible explicit reporters. 
 - A15 -

Appendix B. Simulation of NSLP Eligibility and Participation 

The estimates of NSLP eligibility and participation in this report are based on simulations from 

the TRIM3 WIC module, run with program settings consistent with NSLP rules on age, income, 

and adjunctive eligibility. The public use CPS-ASEC data have included NSLP items since the 

March 1980 survey, which provides data on Calendar Year (CY) 1979. But TRIM3 first 

developed immigrant status assignments for the foreign-born population in the March 1995 (CY 

1994) CPS-ASEC, and thus 1994 is the first year of data available for our analysis. Input data for 

the simulations are from the March 1995-1996 and March 1998-2007 CPS-ASEC, which provide 

data for CY 1994-1995 and CY 1997-2006. We did not use the March 1997 data, covering CY 

1996, because the TRIM3 imputations of citizenship status are not available for that survey year. 

TRIM3 does not have an NSLP module, but we were able to use the WIC module to simulate 

NSLP eligibility by setting program rules to the values shown in Table A-1. To develop separate 

estimates of eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches, we ran the model twice, first setting 

the income eligibility limit to 130 percent of FPL, then resetting the limit to 185 percent of FPL. 

We identified children simulated as eligible in both runs as eligible for free lunches, whether 

eligibility was based on income or on participation in TANF or SNAP. We identified children 

who were eligible in the 185 percent run only as eligible for reduced-price lunches. We assumed 

that the initial eligibility and participation decision was made in September for the remainder of 

the fall semester. Enrollment is re-assessed in January for the remainder of the school year and 

summer. Children not eligible in September or January respectively, who became eligible at a 

later month, were evaluated for participation for the remainder of the relevant period. 

Our estimates of NSLP eligibility are somewhat high because they assume that all children from 

5 to 18 are in school. In reality, some of the children at the low end of the range have not started 

school yet, some of the children at the high end have already dropped out or graduated, and some 

children at all age levels are home-schooled. The CPS-ASEC does include variables that indicate 

whether a person 16 or older is in school, and if so whether the person is in high school (where 

NSLP may be available) or college (where NSLP is not available). These variables, however, are 

part of a series of questions asking about the past week, rather than about the previous year. A 
 - A16 -

person reported as a high school dropout or college student in March might have been in high 

school at some time during the previous calendar year, which includes most of the months in the 

prior school year. We conducted sensitivity analysis (see Appendix F) and found that excluding 

students no longer in school based on the survey data did not affect the distribution of the 

caseload across the immigrant status categories. 

Our NSLP estimates also assume that all schools participate in the program. Ralston et al. (2008) 

report that 94 percent of schools actually provide the lunches. Here too, the CPS-ASEC does not 

provide the information that we would need to identify students attending nonparticipating 

schools. 

The principles and assumptions of our NSLP simulations are similar to those for WIC, discussed 

in Appendix A: 

• Persons simulated as ineligible should not be simulated as participating. 

• Persons simulated as eligible who explicitly report participation should be simulated as 

participating. “Explicitly” excludes responses imputed or allocated by the Census Bureau. 

• Other persons simulated as eligible should be simulated as participating so as to come 

close to average monthly targets based on administrative data, by state and person type 

(free or reduced price). 

• All other things equal, an eligible person for whom a “Yes” response is imputed is more 

likely to have participated in NSLP than an eligible person for whom a “No” response is 

imputed, and an eligible person for whom a “No” response is imputed is more likely to 

have participated than a person for whom an explicit “No” response is recorded. 

• Participation decisions should be simulated as consistent within the unit and across the 

months of the year, if the relevant variables are the same. 

Eligibility 

To receive free or reduced-price lunches from NSLP, individuals must be participating in 

elementary or secondary school and meet the requirement for either income or adjunctive 

eligibility. We approximated this restriction by simulating NSLP eligibility and participation for 
 - A17 -

children in the age range of 5 to 18. This is the same age range that the CPS-ASEC uses to define 

the universe for its school lunch questions. 

Children are eligible for free lunches if their monthly family income adjusted for family size is at 

or below 130 percent of federal poverty guidelines. The guidelines vary by family size and are 

higher for Alaska and Hawaii than for the rest of the states. Children participating in TANF or 

SNAP qualify for free lunches on the basis of adjunctive eligibility. Children who do not qualify 

for free lunches can receive reduced-price lunches if monthly family income is at or below 185 

percent of federal poverty guidelines. To distinguish children eligible for free lunches from those 

eligible for reduced-price lunches only, we ran one simulation with an income eligibility limit of 

130 percent of poverty and adjunctive eligibility via TANF or SNAP, and a second simulation 

with the income limit raised to 185 percent of poverty. Children eligible in both simulations were 

classified as eligible for free lunches, and children eligible in the second only were classified as 

eligible for reduced-price lunches. 

The CPS-ASEC school lunch questions are not administered if the only children age 5-18 in the 

household are classified as householder or spouse. If there are other children in the household in 

this age range, the questions are asked, but the householder and spouse are not included in the 

count of NSLP participants. We did not exclude householders and spouses in this age range who 

met income or adjunctive eligibility requirements. 

We compared our NSLP eligibility estimates to trends in the demographically and incomeeligible population of children. The eligibility trends for free and reduced price lunch follow the 

demographic trends presented in table F-3. In 1997, children with foreign-born parents 

represented a similar share of the population eligible for free or reduced price lunch as their share 

of low-income children, 21 versus 22 percent. In 2006, children with foreign-born parents 

represented 29 percent of both low-income children and children eligible for NSLP. 
 - A18 -

Participation 

We modeled NSLP participation, among those simulated as eligible by TRIM3, with SAS code 

developed specifically for this project. The code uses information from the simulation of NSLP 

eligibility and from the administrative data for free and reduced-price lunches in each year and 

state. 

For consistency with the CPS-ASEC timeframe and universe, we calculated average monthly 

enrollment on a calendar year (rather than fiscal year) basis and dropped records for American 

Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and military families living outside the U.S. 

Following FNS practice, we dropped the summer months of June, July, and August in 

calculating average monthly targets for NSLP enrollment. Some children whose school year ends 

in June or begins in August do participate in these months, as do children with access to NSLP 

summer programs. We assumed that any child participating in one of the summer months also 

participated for at least one month during the regular school year. We did not attempt to model 

summer participation. 

The CPS-ASEC school lunch questions and variables are shown in Figures B-1 and B-2. 

Although the respondent is asked which children participate, the public use variables give a 

household-level count only. In households where the number of eligible children exceeded the 

number reported to participate, we sorted the eligible children by age and assumed that younger 

children were more likely to participate than older ones. 
 - A19 -

Figure B-1. CPS-ASEC NSLP Questions, March 2007 

Q80 

During 2006 which of the children ages 5 to 18 in this household usually ate a complete lunch offered at 

school? 

Probe: Anyone else? 

Enter all that apply, separate with commas 

Enter 96 for All 

Enter 0 for None 

Enter person’s line number (1-16) 

Q83 

During 2006 which of the children in this household received free or reduced priced lunches because they 

qualified for the Federal School Lunch Program? 

Probe: Anyone else? 

Enter all that apply, separate with commas 

Enter 96 for All 

Enter 0 for None 

Enter person’s line number (1-16) 

Notes: 

Q80 is not asked if there are no children Ages 5 to 18 in household, or if every child in this age range is a 

householder or spouse. 

Q83 is not asked if Q80 is not asked or if response to Q80 is “None.” 
 - A20 -

The number of children reported as participating is topcoded at 9 in the CPS-ASEC data. In 

topcoded households with more than 9 eligible children, we reset the number of children 

reported as participating to the total number eligible. This affected very few households. 

We then classified children eligible for free lunches into six groups: 

• explicitly reported, within reported number of children 

• imputed, within imputed number of children 

Figure B-2. CPS-ASEC NSLP Public Use Variables, March 2007 

Household: 

HHOTLUN Hot lunch eaten by children at school 

0 Not in universe 

1 All or some 

2 None 

HHOTNO Number of children in household who usually ate hot lunch 

0 Not in universe 

1-8 

9 9 or more 

HFLUNCH Children receiving free or reduced price lunches 

0 Not in universe 

1 Some or all 

2 None 

HFLUNNO Number receiving free or reduced price lunch 

0 Not in universe 

1-8 

9 9 or more 

I-HHOTLU Allocation flag for HHOTLUN 

0 No change 

1 Allocated 

I-HHOTNO Allocation flag for HHOTNO 

0 No change 

1 Allocated 

I-HFLUNC Allocation flag for HFLUNCH 

0 No change 

1 Allocated 

I-HFLUNN Allocation flag for HFLUNNO 

0 No change 

1 Allocated 
 - A21 -

• imputed, above imputed number of children 

• explicitly reported, above reported number of children 

• imputed nonparticipant 

• explicit nonparticipant 

Table B-1 shows the distribution of eligible children across the six groups. More than half the 

children eligible for free lunches are in households that explicitly report NSLP participation and 

within the number of children reported as participating. Another 5 percent are in explicitly 

reporting households, but counting them causes the household count to exceed what is shown in 

the CPS-ASEC data. Among the imputed cases, Yeses exceed Noes in most years. 

The patterns are somewhat different for the smaller population of children simulated as eligible 

for reduced-price lunches. Explicit participants within the reported number of participants 

account for up to 40 percent of this group. Explicit nonparticipants account for slightly more than 

40 percent. The proportion of explicitly reporting children above the reported number of 

participants is slightly less than for children eligible for free lunch. Noes exceed Yeses among 

imputed cases. 
 - A22 -

TABLE B-1. Children Simulated as Eligible for NSLP, by CPS-ASEC Response Group

 

Eligible for Free Lunches

Response Group 

Year 

Explicit 

Reporter, 

Within 

Reported 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Reporter, 

Within 

Imputed 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Reporter, 

Above 

Imputed 

Number of 

Children 

Explicit 

Reporter, 

Above 

Reported 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Nonreporter 

Explicit 

Nonreporter 

1994 51% 9% 1% 5% 7% 27% 

1995 57% 9% 1% 5% 5% 23% 

1996 

1997 53% 7% 1% 5% 7% 28% 

1998 56% 9% 1% 4% 4% 26% 

1999 55% 5% 1% 4% 5% 30% 

2000 52% 7% 1% 4% 6% 30% 

2001 52% 7% 1% 4% 6% 30% 

2002 52% 7% 0% 4% 7% 30% 

2003 52% 7% 1% 3% 7% 30% 

2004 53% 8% 1% 3% 6% 29% 

2005 54% 7% 1% 3% 6% 29% 

2006 52% 7% 1% 5% 8% 27% 

 

Eligible for Reduced Price Lunches 

Response Group 

Year 

Explicit 

Reporter, 

Within 

Reported 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Reporter, 

Within 

Imputed 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Reporter, 

Above 

Imputed 

Number of 

Children 

Explicit 

Reporter, 

Above 

Reported 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Nonreporter 

Explicit 

Nonreporter 

1994 35% 5% 1% 4% 11% 43% 

1995 36% 5% 1% 4% 8% 45% 

1996 

1997 41% 3% 0% 3% 11% 41% 

1998 42% 5% 1% 3% 7% 42% 

1999 41% 3% 0% 3% 7% 46% 

2000 41% 4% 0% 3% 10% 42% 

2001 45% 4% 0% 3% 9% 38% 

2002 41% 5% 0% 3% 9% 41% 

2003 41% 5% 0% 3% 11% 40% 

2004 40% 4% 0% 3% 10% 42% 

2005 40% 4% 0% 3% 9% 43% 

2006 40% 3% 0% 4% 12% 41% 

Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with 

immigrant status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer 
 - A23 -

Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary 

funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 

Average monthly state targets and eligibility totals were calculated for the entire year. We took 

the following steps to simulate the participation decision: 

1. Simulated all eligible children as participating when the estimated average monthly 

number of children eligible for free lunch was below the state target for average monthly 

free-lunch participation. [If this condition was not met, we moved to step 2.] 

2. Simulated participation for each child simulated as eligible for a free lunch, explicitly 

reported as participating, and within the reported number of children participating. If the 

total of such children exceeded the average monthly free lunch target for that state, we 

simulated all other children eligible for free lunches as nonparticipants. [If this condition 

was not met, we moved to step 3.] 

3. Compared the state free-lunch target with the total for the first two groups shown. If this 

total was below the state target, we simulated all children with a Yes response as 

participating unless doing so would bring the number of participants above the imputed 

total for the household. If the number in the first group was below the target, but the 

number in the first two groups combined was above the target, we simulated all children 

in the first group as participating and drew a uniform random number for all children in 

the second group. If the random number was less than or equal to the number needed to 

hit the state-level target, divided by the number of children in the second group, we 

simulated that child as participating. If the random number was greater than that fraction, 

we simulated the child as not participating in any eligible month. [If simulated 

participation still did not meet the target, we moved to step 4.] 

4. We followed similar procedures to simulate participation among the other groups of 

children, with children from households that explicitly reported nonparticipation the least 

likely to participate. 

We then repeated the procedures for children simulated as eligible for reduced-price lunches, 

using the average monthly reduced-price state targets. Children already simulated as 

participating for free lunches were subtracted from the reported number of participants before 
 - A24 -

classifying children eligible for reduced-price lunches as within or above the reported number of 

participants. 

The NSLP certification period is the school year. We simulated children participating for free 

lunches in January, February, March, April, or May as participating from their first month of 

eligibility through August. Children participating for reduced-price lunches in January, February, 

March, April, or May were simulated as participating for reduced-price lunches from the first 

month of eligibility through August, with the exception that they could be simulated as switching 

to free lunches if their income or adjunctive eligibility changed before the summer. Children 

simulated as eligible but not participating for reduced-price lunches may be simulated as 

participating for free lunches in a later month. 

Simulated eligibility was redetermined for all children at the start of the new school year in 

September. If eligible, children were simulated as making the same participation decision as 

earlier in the year. Children simulated as enrolling in September, October, or November were 

simulated as participating through December. As in January-May, children participating for 

reduced-price lunches can switch to free lunches if their eligibility changes, and children 

simulated as eligible for, but not participating in, reduced-price lunches may be simulated as 

participating in free lunches in a subsequent month. 

For certain years, these procedures produced simulated participation totals that were substantially 

above the targets, particularly for reduced price lunches. In years when combined free and 

reduced-price participation exceeded the targets, we adjusted the targets for each category in 

which simulated participation exceeded the targets. The adjustment, applied to all states, was to 

multiply the FNS totals by the national ratio of target to simulated participation. We then reran 

the participation code with the adjusted targets to produce estimates that were closer to the 

original FNS totals. We applied the adjustment to both free and reduced-price estimates for 1994, 

1995, 1997, and 1998, and to the reduced-price estimates only for 1999 and 2001. 

Table B-2 shows the distribution of children simulated as participating across the CPS-ASEC 

response categories. Most of the children simulated as receiving free lunches are explicit 
 - A25 -

participants within the reported number for the household, but the trend is downward, and the 

proportion of the simulated free-lunch caseload that is made up of explicit nonparticipants has 

increased to about one quarter. 

Because take-up among children simulated as eligible for reduced-price lunches is lower than 

take-up among children simulated as eligible for free lunches, the state administrative targets are 

low relative to the simulated number of eligibles, and 80 percent or more of the caseload can be 

simulated with explicit participants within the number of participants reported in their 

households. As with the free lunches, there is a downward trend. Explicit nonparticipants make 

up less than 4 percent of the simulated caseload in all years, but the numbers in the intermediate 

categories increase over time. 
 - A26 -

TABLE B-2. Children Simulated as Enrolled in NSLP, by CPS-ASEC Response Group

 

Enrolled for Free Lunches

Response Group 

Year 

Explicit Reporter, 

Within Reported 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Reporter, Within 

Imputed Number 

of Children 

Imputed 

Reporter, Above 

Imputed Number 

of Children 

Explicit 

Reporter, Above 

Reported 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Nonreporter 

Explicit 

Nonreporter 

1994 79% 10% 1% 3% 4% 3% 

1995 75% 11% 1% 4% 3% 5% 

1996 

1997 63% 8% 1% 5% 8% 14% 

1998 66% 10% 1% 5% 4% 14% 

1999 64% 6% 1% 5% 5% 20% 

2000 57% 8% 1% 5% 7% 22% 

2001 57% 8% 1% 4% 6% 24% 

2002 57% 8% 1% 4% 7% 24% 

2003 56% 8% 1% 4% 7% 25% 

2004 56% 8% 1% 3% 7% 25% 

2005 56% 7% 1% 3% 7% 26% 

2006 54% 8% 1% 5% 9% 24% 

 

Enrolled for Reduced Price Lunches 

Response Group 

Year 

Explicit Reporter, 

Within Reported 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Reporter, Within 

Imputed Number 

of Children 

Imputed 

Reporter, Above 

Imputed Number 

of Children 

Explicit 

Reporter, Above 

Reported 

Number of 

Children 

Imputed 

Nonreporter 

Explicit 

Nonreporter 

1994 90% 4% 0% 1% 2% 3% 

1995 96% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 

1996 

1997 99% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 

1998 99% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

1999 94% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 

2000 89% 3% 0% 2% 4% 3% 

2001 96% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 

2002 87% 5% 0% 2% 4% 2% 

2003 87% 4% 0% 1% 5% 2% 

2004 82% 5% 0% 3% 5% 4% 

2005 82% 5% 0% 2% 7% 3% 

2006 80% 5% 0% 4% 8% 3% 

Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant 

status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 

(TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE). 
 - A27 -

The NSLP participation estimates do not account for certification errors for free and reduced 

price lunch. We applied NSLP certification error rates to our participation estimates for 2006 to 

test the sensitivity of the immigrant status estimates.53 In 2006, children with foreign-born 

parents represent the same share of participants in free lunch, 28 percent, with the certification 

error adjustment and without. The shares participating in free lunch are the same for all 

immigrant groups with and without the certification error adjustment. When the certification 

error adjustments are applied to the reduced price lunch participation estimates, the share of 

children with foreign-born parents declines from 35 percent (as shown in Table 12) to 29 

percent. The largest difference is observed for native-born children of authorized immigrant 

parents—their share of all participants declines from 18 percent to 14 percent. Similarly, the 

share of native-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents declines from 7 percent to 5 

percent. 

We also compared trends in simulated participation in free and reduced prince lunch to trends in 

explicitly reported participation. Simulated participation increased between 1994 and 2006 

whereas explicitly reported participation declined during this time as shown in table F-8. 

Explicitly reported participation among eligible children also declined (Table F-9). The 

difference in trends is driven by differences in participation for native-born children of nativeborn parents—the number of simulated participants increased slightly while the number of 

eligible explicit reporters declined. As a result, children of foreign-born parents were slightly 

under-represented among simulated participants. For example, in 2006, children of foreign-born 

parents represented 29 percent of simulated participants compared with 31 percent of eligible 

explicit reporters. 

 

53 The certification error rates are for 2005-2006 and are based on the Food and Nutrition Service, Office of 

Research, Nutrition and Analysis study “NSLP/SBP Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification Study – 

Erroneous Payments in the NSLP and SBP” (See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 

Office of Research, Nutrition and Analysis, “NSLP/SBP Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification Study – 

Erroneous Payments in the NSLP and SBP, Vol. I: Study Findings,” by Michael Ponza, et al. Project Officer: John 

R. Endahl. Alexandria, VA: 2007. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ORA/menu/Published/CNP/FILES/apecvol1.pdf.) 
 - A28 -

Appendix C. Imputation of Immigrant Status and Identification of Parents 

The estimates presented in this report categorize children and their parents on the basis of 

TRIM3 imputations of immigrant status. The methodology for these imputations, developed at 

the Urban Institute by Jeffrey Passel and Rebecca Clark, is summarized in Passel and Cohn 

(2009). 

The CPS-ASEC data include the country of birth for each person in the survey and for his or her 

parents. The data also include information about how long foreign-born people have lived in the 

United States and whether they have become citizens (naturalized). The public-use data do not 

include information about the immigrant status of noncitizens, who may be legal permanent 

residents (LPRs); legal temporary residents (LTRs), such as students, diplomats and their 

families, and workers with guest visas; refugees and asylees; or unauthorized immigrants. 

Administrative data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on LPRs, LTRs, 

refugees, and asylees, by year of entry and country of origin, are used to estimate the number of 

authorized immigrants. Some additional edits adjust for mortality and emigration. The edited 

total number of authorized immigrants is subtracted from the CPS-ASEC foreign-born estimates 

to produce a residual estimate of the number of unauthorized immigrants.54

Individual noncitizens in the CPS-ASEC data are then assigned status as LPRs, LTRs, 

refugees/asylees, or unauthorized immigrants. Noncitizens are assigned refugee/asylee status 

based on comparison of their reported date of entry and country of origin to the DHS 

administrative data on refugee and asylee admissions (e.g., Vietnamese immigrants entering 

during the 1970s and 1980s, Bosnians and Russians during the 1990s, and immigrants from 

various African countries such as Somalia since 2000). Other noncitizens are assigned LTR 

status based on country of birth, date of entry, occupation, and education (e.g., students must be 

participating in school, while temporary workers must be in the United States for a limited period 

of time and work in specified occupations). Some of the noncitizens who are not assigned as 

 

54 Demographers have estimated that unauthorized immigrants are undercounted by about 12.5 percent in these data 

sources (see Passel and Cohn 2009). Neither the raw CPS-ASEC totals nor the TRIM3 estimates are adjusted for this 

undercount, so estimates of unauthorized immigrants and their children could reflect the undercount. 
 - A29 -

LTRs or refugees/asylees are assigned LPR status because they work in occupations such as 

police officer, security guard, or federal government employee that generally require citizenship 

or legal immigrant status, or report receiving federal benefits such as TANF or food stamps, for 

which undocumented immigrants would not be eligible. Immigrants to the United States before 

1980 are assumed to be authorized immigrants.55 

Probabilistic methods are used to assign LPR versus unauthorized status to the remaining 

noncitizens in the CPS-ASEC data (those not already assigned as refugees/asylees, LTRs, or 

LPRs). The results are edited for logical consistency within immigrant families (so that the 

statuses of parents and children generally match, if they entered the country at the same time), 

and then aligned to controls for the total numbers of refugees/asylees, LTRs, LPRs, and 

unauthorized immigrants described above. The assignment process also identifies some people 

reported as native-born on the CPS-ASEC as foreign-born, and identifies some foreign-born 

people reported as naturalized as LPRs, LTRs, refugees/asylees, or unauthorized immigrants. For 

greater precision in the match to the aggregate data, some CPS-ASEC household records are 

replicated, with the original weight distributed among the original and replicate households. 

The CPS data provide information on the relationship of each household member to the 

householder (the person that owns or rents the home). The CPS data also identify the spouse of 

each person if married. For households with children, the data identify one of the parents living 

in the household. For the purposes of this analysis, the other parent is defined as the spouse of 

the parent identified in the data.56 

 

55 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 provided for the legalization of foreign-born persons that had 

arrived as illegal aliens before January 1, 1982. 

56 The CPS-ASEC data for most of the period analyzed in the report link a child with unmarried parents within the 

household to only one of the parents, and do not differentiate among biological, adoptive, and stepparents. Starting 

with the 2007 CPS, for CY 2006, the data do identify both parents if they are living in the household. The new 

variables also distinguish biological, adoptive, and stepfathers. (See Kreider, R. M. (2008, March). Improvements to 

Demographic Household Data in the Current Population Survey: 2007. Housing and Household Economic Statistics 

Division Working Paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retrieved in February 2009 from U.S. 

Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps08/twps08.pdf). To allow for 

comparison across years, we used the same procedures to identify parents in the 2006 data that we used for prior 

years. 
 - A30 -

No parent is identified for a small number of children in the CPS-ASEC data—about 3 percent of 

all children ages 0 to 4 and 5 percent of all children ages 5 to 18. The CPS-ASEC data do not 

provide information on the legal status of these parents, but the data do indicate where they were 

born. Native-born children with (absent) native parents are simply combined in the analysis with 

the children with native parents in the household. Native-born children with foreign-born absent 

parents are placed in their own category because we cannot determine whether the parents were 

authorized. Only 0.4 percent of all children Ages 0 to 4, and 0.6 percent of children ages 5 to 18, 

fall into this category. 
 - A31 -

Appendix D. Decomposition Analyses 

The demographic decomposition technique is applied to changes in participation as described in 

Das Gupta (1993). See Henderson, Capps, and Finegold (2008) and Fix and Passel (2002) for 

similar applications of the decomposition techniques. The decomposition apportions the change 

over time in participation into a number of distinct components: 1) immigrant status groups (e.g., 

native-born children of authorized immigrant parents), 2) size of the overall eligible population, 

and 3) take-up rates (number of participants divided by eligible children). We apply the 

technique to changes in WIC participation between 1997 and 2006 among all children ages 0 to 4 

and among all breastfeeding and postpartum mothers, and to changes in NSLP participation 

between 1994 and 2006 among children ages 5 to 18. The decomposition technique is applied to 

the entire population of children (mothers)—those who are income-eligible and those who are 

not, because we are interested in the effect on participation of eligibility trends. We allocate the 

change in participation into the proportions due to each of the following: 

• Proportion of the change in participation due to changes in the number and share of 

children (mothers) by immigrant status groups as described previously 

• Proportion due to change in the number of children (mothers) that are eligible for the 

program; and 

• Proportion due to changes in the take-up rates (number of participants divided by eligible 

children or mothers). 

We calculate standardized participation rates (number of participants divided by number of 

children ages 0 to 4)—the participation rate given the change in one component (e.g., take-up 

rate), holding constant the other two components (e.g., immigrant status and eligibility). This 

allows us to calculate the effect of each component separately. In contrast to other decomposition 

methods, the decomposition technique developed by Das Gupta (1993) decomposes changes into 

additive main effects (here, immigrant status, eligibility, and take-up rates) without the need for 

an interaction term (the total effect is the sum of the main effects), which makes interpretation 

easier: 
 - A32 -

t – T = R-effect + I-effect + J-effect 

 = [R(t ) - R( T )] + [I( a ) - I( A )] + [J( b ) - J(B )] 

Where: 

t is the overall participation rate at time 2 

T is the overall participation rate at time 1 

R( t ) = take-up rate at time 2, standardized for immigrant status and eligibility 

R( T ) = take-up rate at time 1, standardized for immigrant status and eligibility 

I( a ) = immigrant status at time 2, standardized for take-up rate and eligibility 

I( A ) = immigrant status at time 1, standardized for take-up rate and eligibility 

J( b ) = eligibility rate at time 2, standardized for immigrant status and take-up rate 

J(B ) = eligibility rate at time 1, standardized for immigrant status and take-up rate 

The effect of changes in immigrant status represents the overall effect and does not identify the 

children group(s) driving the change. The decomposition technique, however, accounts for all 

groups by nativity and legal immigrant status (e.g., changes in the number of unauthorized 

immigrants, authorized immigrants, native-born children of unauthorized immigrants, nativeborn children of authorized immigrants, and native-born children with native-born parents). 
 - A33 -

Appendix E. Multivariate Analyses

We used regression modeling to determine the extent to which changes over time in WIC and 

NSLP take-up rates (number of participants divided by number of eligibles) are explained by 

growth in the population of eligible immigrants, changes in economic conditions, and other 

factors. Using multivariate linear regression modeling we analyzed the association between 

growth in take-up and growth in the immigrant population controlling for the type of state 

(traditional immigrant-receiving states, states with rapidly-growing immigrant populations, and 

states with slower-growing immigrant populations), state economic characteristics (state 

unemployment and poverty rates), and other demographic factors related to take-up. We 

combined two years of data for each time period to increase the sample size and examined 

changes in take-up rates between 1997–1998 and 2005–2006 for WIC and between 1994–1995 

and 2005–2006 for NSLP. We estimated models separately for 1) WIC eligible mothers, 2) WIC 

eligible children, 3) children eligible for free lunches, and 4) children eligible for reduced-price 

lunches. 

The models predict changes in take-up: 

Pijt = β0Iijt + β1Tj + β2Sjt + β3Eijt + β4tij + γ0 (Iijt x tij) + γ1 (Tj x tij) + εijt 

Where, 

Pijt = probability that person i in state j participates in the nutrition program at time t; 

Iijt = dummy variables (coded 0 or 1) for different immigrant status groups (e.g., unauthorized 

immigrant) for person i in state j at time t; 

Tj = dummy variables for type of state (e.g., traditional immigrant-receiving state); 

Sjt = a vector of state economic and demographic characteristics at time t; 

Eijt = a vector of characteristics of the participant and family at time t; 

tij = a dummy variable denoting the time period (the first versus last year of the data we are 

analyzing—1997–1998 versus 2005–2006 for WIC and 1994–1995 versus 2005–2006 

for NSLP). 
 - A34 -

The coefficients in the regression equation represent the effects on the probability of an eligible 

individual’s WIC and NSLP take-up controlling for all other factors. The beta coefficients 

represent base coefficients or the “first” level of differences: 

β0, = effects of immigrant status on take-up;

β1, β2, β3, = effects on take-up of, respectively: type of state, state economic conditions, and 

individual and family characteristics; and 

β4 = the overall change in the take-up rate between time 1 and time 2. 

The gamma terms represent the “second” level of differences or changes across time in these 

factors, controlling for other factors:

γ0 = the change in the take-up rate between time 1 and time 2 for each immigrant status group 

(e.g., unauthorized immigrants) relative to the change in take-up for the reference 

group (e.g., native-born mothers); and 

γ1 = the change in the take-up rate between time 1 and time 2 for eligible individuals in each 

type of state (e.g., traditional immigrant-receiving state) relative to the reference 

group (e.g., states with slower-growing immigrant populations). 

Variables: 

Dependent (Pijt) 

• WIC take-up, Mother 

• WIC take-up, Children 

• NSLP take-up, Free 

• NSLP take-up, Reduced-Price 

Independent 

Immigrant status of the child (Iijt) (Native-born, native-born parents, reference)

• Unauthorized immigrant 

• Authorized immigrant 

• Native-born, authorized immigrant parents only 

• Native-born, any unauthorized immigrant parent 
 - A35 -

• Native-born, foreign-born parent with unknown immigrant status 

Or 

Immigrant status of the mother (Iijt) (Native-born, reference)

• Unauthorized immigrant 

• Authorized immigrant 

Type of State (Tj)( States with slower-growing immigrant populations, reference)

• Traditional immigrant-receiving states 

• States with rapidly-growing immigrant populations 

State Economic and Demographic Conditions (Sjt)

• Unemployment rate 

• Child poverty rate [adult poverty rate for WIC mothers model] 

Characteristics of the participant and family (Eijt)

• Race of mother (white, reference)

o Black

o Hispanic

o Asian

o Other

• Age of mother

• Age of child [for WIC child model and NSLP models]

• Family structure (two-parent household, reference)

o Single-parent 

o Other family type (e.g., no parents) 

• Education of mother (more than high school degree, reference)

o Less than high school 

o High school or equivalent education 

• Number of adults in the household 
 - A36 -

• Number of children in household 

We also ran separate regression models for children (mothers) living in the three types of 

states—traditional immigrant-receiving states, states with rapidly-growing immigrant 

populations, and states with slower-growing immigrant populations. 
- A37 -

Appendix F. Sensitivity Analyses Tables 

TABLE F-1. Number and Percent of Children Demographically Eligible for WIC by Immigrant Status Group (weighted) 

 Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents Fore

Total Children 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born 

Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant 

parents Only 

Unauthorized 

and Authorized 

Immigrant 

Parents 

Immigrant Status 

of Parents 

Unknown 

Authorized 

Immigrant 

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N % 1997 6,838 8,935,894 6,748,928 75.5% 1,337,702 15.0% 539,446 6.0% 106,177 1.2% 62,707 0.7% 62,587 0.71998 6,401 8,641,105 6,471,702 74.9% 1,281,091 14.8% 563,903 6.5% 106,017 1.2% 54,254 0.6% 100,183 1.21999 6,794 8,195,960 6,229,885 76.0% 1,062,092 13.0% 580,602 7.1% 87,375 1.1% 75,943 0.9% 74,618 0.92000 5,735 7,959,951 5,888,163 74.0% 1,106,540 13.9% 615,068 7.7% 85,507 1.1% 83,741 1.1% 81,780 1.02001 9,013 8,132,039 5,905,998 72.6% 1,227,200 15.1% 665,115 8.2% 83,494 1.0% 79,463 1.0% 102,717 1.32002 9,823 8,275,285 6,092,263 73.6% 1,177,004 14.2% 686,949 8.3% 75,528 0.9% 88,286 1.1% 75,304 0.92003 10,247 8,765,092 6,436,211 73.4% 1,215,237 13.9% 829,572 9.5% 45,926 0.5% 62,917 0.7% 68,486 0.82004 8,065 8,893,981 6,328,020 71.1% 1,310,702 14.7% 889,700 10.0% 54,795 0.6% 87,146 1.0% 77,110 0.92005 8,308 8,916,566 6,409,366 71.9% 1,284,819 14.4% 861,925 9.7% 74,506 0.8% 92,343 1.0% 64,425 0.72006 8,477 9,022,973 6,390,970 70.8% 1,331,426 14.8% 989,580 11.0% 79,921 0.9% 52,239 0.6% 66,369 0.7Note: Children include children ages 0 to 4 with family incomes below 185 percent of federal poverty level. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal p

temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country visas.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputationparticipation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from tHuman Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A38 -

TABLE F-2. Number and Percent of Women Demographically Eligible for WIC by Immigrant Status Group (weighted) 

Foreign-Born Women 

Total Women Native-Born Women 

Authorized Immigrant Unauthorized Immigrant 

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % 1997 865 1,035,304 804,690 77.7% 153,515 14.8% 77,099 7.4% 1998 710 1,064,324 839,058 78.8% 136,237 12.8% 89,029 8.4% 1999 760 990,376 791,728 79.9% 117,313 11.8% 81,335 8.2% 2000 689 986,857 743,470 75.3% 135,262 13.7% 108,125 11.0% 2001 1,078 1,036,030 762,028 73.6% 155,907 15.0% 118,094 11.4% 2002 1,159 1,049,523 767,758 73.2% 160,765 15.3% 121,000 11.5% 2003 1,193 1,080,872 778,924 72.1% 163,479 15.1% 138,469 12.8% 2004 1,027 1,217,871 896,003 73.6% 184,280 15.1% 137,588 11.3% 2005 1,037 1,164,106 868,427 74.6% 167,118 14.4% 128,561 11.0% 2006 1,083 1,206,949 892,449 73.9% 153,427 12.7% 161,073 13.3% Note: Adult Women includes postpartum and breastfeeding women ages 14 to 45 with family incomes below 185 percent of federal poverty level. 

Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, 

refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and 

imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and 

develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A39 -

TABLE F-3. Number and Percent of Children Demographically Eligible for NSLP by Immigrant Status Group (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents 

Total Children 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant Parents 

Immigrant Status of 

Parents Unknown 

A

I

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N 1994 16,494 21,620,312 16,892,353 78.1% 2,211,944 10.2% 442,933 2.0% 76,641 0.4% 129,200 0.6% 1,111995 14,950 22,052,496 17,110,050 77.6% 2,243,947 10.2% 562,103 2.5% 124,488 0.6% 161,172 0.7% 1,1001996 1997 16,276 21,590,582 16,506,761 76.5% 2,357,163 10.9% 649,410 3.0% 136,610 0.6% 222,376 1.0% 9471998 14,506 21,093,548 16,002,360 75.9% 2,397,281 11.4% 722,345 3.4% 139,823 0.7% 216,328 1.0% 1,0001999 15,460 20,588,299 15,487,905 75.2% 2,307,623 11.2% 766,968 3.7% 132,349 0.6% 185,128 0.9% 9422000 13,861 19,632,133 14,547,256 74.1% 2,231,076 11.4% 880,905 4.5% 126,292 0.6% 213,711 1.1% 8262001 22,421 20,027,340 14,516,110 72.5% 2,507,920 12.5% 873,671 4.4% 181,567 0.9% 242,008 1.2% 8432002 24,108 20,149,188 14,686,964 72.9% 2,462,165 12.2% 829,668 4.1% 160,133 0.8% 220,416 1.1% 9372003 24,823 21,120,881 15,202,191 72.0% 2,653,784 12.6% 1,081,606 5.1% 118,665 0.6% 195,939 0.9% 8952004 20,584 20,930,148 15,044,272 71.9% 2,595,436 12.4% 1,070,700 5.1% 115,779 0.6% 236,382 1.1% 8172005 20,909 20,671,310 14,899,150 72.1% 2,564,809 12.4% 1,137,254 5.5% 116,166 0.6% 218,746 1.1% 7602006 20,482 20,671,569 14,647,660 70.9% 2,778,195 13.4% 1,228,778 5.9% 154,134 0.7% 212,620 1.0% 751Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18 with family incomes below 185 percent of federal poverty level. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstaSource: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Departmenof the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A40 -

TABLE F-4. Number and Percent of WIC Explicit Reporters by Immigrant Status Group: Children Age 0 to 4 (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents Foreign-Bor

Total Children Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

and Authorized 

Immigrant 

Parents 

Immigrant 

Status of 

Parents 

Unknown 

Authorized 

Immigrant 

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N % 1997 2,773 3,668,408 2,836,480 77.3% 520,473 14.2% 201,827 5.5% 53,286 1.5% 7,596 0.2% 20,343 0.6% 281998 2,734 3,743,554 2,813,390 75.2% 550,253 14.7% 268,458 7.2% 50,092 1.3% 14,452 0.4% 22,812 0.6% 241999 3,370 3,826,481 2,927,773 76.5% 492,061 12.9% 265,080 6.9% 54,368 1.4% 42,173 1.1% 21,470 0.6% 232000 2,849 3,637,664 2,717,303 74.7% 505,661 13.9% 271,981 7.5% 51,085 1.4% 13,729 0.4% 43,832 1.2% 342001 4,082 3,681,125 2,645,119 71.9% 592,686 16.1% 298,906 8.1% 52,093 1.4% 25,937 0.7% 39,631 1.1% 262002 4,214 3,529,659 2,542,707 72.0% 561,244 15.9% 319,893 9.1% 40,923 1.2% 13,859 0.4% 26,180 0.7% 242003 4,562 3,693,179 2,606,058 70.6% 588,370 15.9% 405,324 11.0% 27,901 0.8% 10,596 0.3% 24,378 0.7% 302004 3,460 3,671,339 2,572,230 70.1% 633,695 17.3% 363,340 9.9% 26,176 0.7% 26,013 0.7% 19,242 0.5% 302005 3,543 3,699,445 2,637,619 71.3% 544,630 14.7% 393,303 10.6% 37,930 1.0% 30,791 0.8% 17,138 0.5% 382006 3,449 3,559,342 2,433,768 68.4% 572,806 16.1% 446,241 12.5% 40,921 1.1% 8,890 0.2% 20,982 0.6% 35Note: Children include children ages 0 to 4. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., stu

temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputatio

eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary fu

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A41 -

TABLE F-5. Number and Percent of Eligible WIC Explicit Reporters by Immigrant Status Group: Children Age 0 to 4 (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents Fo

Total Children Native-Born Children 

with Native-Born 

Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

and Authorized 

Immigrant 

Parents 

Immigrant 

Status of 

Parents 

Unknown 

Authorize

Immigran

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N 1997 2,638 3,475,135 2,679,718 77.1% 498,188 14.3% 197,494 5.7% 50,665 1.5% 6,467 0.2% 16,169 01998 2,649 3,620,705 2,712,200 74.9% 538,985 14.9% 262,774 7.3% 48,358 1.3% 14,452 0.4% 20,988 01999 3,184 3,593,236 2,746,121 76.4% 464,204 12.9% 247,767 6.9% 49,123 1.4% 42,173 1.2% 21,470 02000 2,657 3,391,288 2,554,997 75.3% 455,169 13.4% 253,355 7.5% 43,765 1.3% 13,729 0.4% 41,557 12001 3,780 3,429,448 2,450,716 71.5% 558,296 16.3% 287,373 8.4% 47,970 1.4% 24,655 0.7% 35,820 12002 3,891 3,280,927 2,375,372 72.4% 515,548 15.7% 298,939 9.1% 34,896 1.1% 13,859 0.4% 18,530 02003 4,240 3,484,079 2,467,149 70.8% 542,130 15.6% 387,157 11.1% 25,875 0.7% 10,271 0.3% 24,284 02004 3,230 3,471,559 2,447,605 70.5% 581,947 16.8% 344,397 9.9% 24,796 0.7% 26,013 0.7% 18,628 02005 3,325 3,489,566 2,496,068 71.5% 506,420 14.5% 372,179 10.7% 32,287 0.9% 30,791 0.9% 15,388 02006 3,263 3,382,369 2,315,936 68.5% 537,450 15.9% 428,932 12.7% 38,685 1.1% 8,427 0.2% 20,000 0Note: Children include children ages 0 to 4. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., stu

workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputation

participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from th

Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A42 -

TABLE F-6. Number and Percent of WIC Explicit Reporters by Immigrant Status Group: Women (weighted) 

Foreign-Born Women 

Total Women Native-Born Women 

Authorized Immigrant Unauthorized Immigrant 

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % 1997 527 684,663 556,009 81.2% 84,311 12.3% 44,343 6.5% 1998 500 738,560 596,472 80.8% 83,205 11.3% 58,882 8.0% 1999 647 749,041 606,942 81.0% 88,549 11.8% 53,550 7.1% 2000 523 736,747 564,235 76.6% 99,220 13.5% 73,292 9.9% 2001 769 727,809 556,692 76.5% 96,057 13.2% 75,059 10.3% 2002 709 658,961 500,471 75.9% 88,014 13.4% 70,475 10.7% 2003 851 798,777 580,764 72.7% 117,082 14.7% 100,931 12.6% 2004 688 826,241 641,682 77.7% 118,341 14.3% 66,217 8.0% 2005 660 738,135 560,363 75.9% 105,865 14.3% 71,906 9.7% 2006 678 751,243 547,939 72.9% 109,156 14.5% 94,148 12.5% Note: Adult Women includes postpartum, and breastfeeding women only, not pregnant women. Authorized immigrants include naturalized 

citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized 

immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute 

maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A43 -

TABLE F-7. Number and Percent of Eligible WIC Explicit Reporters by Immigrant Status Group: Women (weighted) 

Foreign-Born Women 

Total Women Native-Born Women 

Authorized Immigrant Unauthorized Immigrant 

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % 1997 509 669,778 544,819 81.3% 83,734 12.5% 41,225 6.2% 1998 487 715,624 576,019 80.5% 81,965 11.5% 57,640 8.1% 1999 595 713,172 576,281 80.8% 86,630 12.1% 50,261 7.0% 2000 494 686,444 530,383 77.3% 84,710 12.3% 71,351 10.4% 2001 723 679,778 511,600 75.3% 95,279 14.0% 72,898 10.7% 2002 679 636,997 485,189 76.2% 86,576 13.6% 65,232 10.2% 2003 803 756,106 552,321 73.0% 109,341 14.5% 94,444 12.5% 2004 664 800,463 620,294 77.5% 114,756 14.3% 65,413 8.2% 2005 631 710,939 541,954 76.2% 101,154 14.2% 67,831 9.5% 2006 644 722,135 531,622 73.6% 100,053 13.9% 90,459 12.5% Note: Adult Women includes postpartum, and breastfeeding women only, not pregnant women. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, 

legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., students and temporary workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments 

and imputations of program eligibility and participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains 

and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A44 -

TABLE F-8. Number and Percent of NSLP Explicit Reporters by Immigrant Status Group 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents F

Total Children 

Native-Born Children 

with Native-Born 

Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant 

parents Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant 

Parents 

Immigrant Status 

of Parents 

Unknown 

Authoriz

Immigra

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N 1994 10,288 13,114,472 10,064,595 76.7% 1,518,254 11.6% 357,641 2.7% 72,063 0.5% 45,476 0.3% 611,277 1995 9,671 13,449,137 10,063,467 74.8% 1,589,418 11.8% 450,409 3.3% 101,691 0.8% 76,794 0.6% 636,746 1996 1997 9,928 12,797,194 9,421,929 73.6% 1,599,998 12.5% 496,375 3.9% 108,967 0.9% 91,213 0.7% 559,256 1998 9,514 13,102,672 9,517,342 72.6% 1,805,378 13.8% 599,042 4.6% 118,817 0.9% 61,194 0.5% 575,002 1999 10,106 12,610,291 9,017,829 71.5% 1,720,585 13.6% 635,884 5.0% 127,023 1.0% 74,933 0.6% 606,726 2000 9,264 11,877,056 8,245,573 69.4% 1,712,839 14.4% 683,829 5.8% 108,093 0.9% 90,993 0.8% 470,872 2001 14,707 12,593,426 8,732,971 69.3% 1,793,418 14.2% 730,113 5.8% 160,652 1.3% 80,741 0.6% 475,685 2002 15,798 12,334,539 8,425,305 68.3% 1,835,875 14.9% 698,583 5.7% 124,236 1.0% 71,570 0.6% 599,232 2003 15,656 12,525,329 8,543,606 68.2% 1,800,886 14.4% 801,946 6.4% 102,845 0.8% 74,579 0.6% 555,279 2004 12,862 12,603,121 8,636,276 68.5% 1,822,624 14.5% 837,450 6.6% 103,535 0.8% 72,993 0.6% 534,204 2005 13,125 12,557,621 8,804,294 70.1% 1,753,222 14.0% 841,681 6.7% 106,032 0.8% 75,347 0.6% 406,666 2006 12,316 12,208,936 8,445,421 69.2% 1,717,329 14.1% 840,160 6.9% 110,892 0.9% 84,817 0.7% 412,144 Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., st

workers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputation

participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from t

Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A45 -

TABLE F-9. Number and Percent of Eligible NSLP Explicit Reporters by Immigrant Status Group 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents 

Total Children 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant Parents 

Immigrant Status 

of Parents 

Unknown 

Author

Immig

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N 1994 8,955 11,497,147 8,754,662 76.1% 1,343,101 11.7% 323,241 2.8% 52,658 0.5% 41,956 0.4% 572,838 1995 8,621 12,029,874 8,956,785 74.5% 1,393,054 11.6% 415,929 3.5% 87,499 0.7% 73,925 0.6% 595,809 1996 1997 8,768 11,378,655 8,341,244 73.3% 1,400,633 12.3% 453,707 4.0% 98,293 0.9% 77,988 0.7% 533,139 1998 8,414 11,485,433 8,248,292 71.8% 1,589,002 13.8% 545,873 4.8% 105,746 0.9% 54,541 0.5% 539,241 1999 8,856 11,178,541 8,025,840 71.8% 1,485,777 13.3% 553,496 5.0% 102,505 0.9% 70,409 0.6% 556,422 2000 7,874 9,989,618 7,004,524 70.1% 1,391,854 13.9% 553,864 5.5% 96,231 1.0% 76,761 0.8% 378,198 2001 12,409 10,667,188 7,396,366 69.3% 1,493,027 14.0% 642,492 6.0% 134,830 1.3% 74,781 0.7% 404,513 2002 13,009 10,329,499 7,070,428 68.4% 1,474,555 14.3% 581,057 5.6% 107,620 1.0% 63,882 0.6% 535,744 2003 12,950 10,446,142 7,140,178 68.4% 1,449,457 13.9% 685,543 6.6% 82,866 0.8% 69,211 0.7% 469,185 2004 10,472 10,411,502 7,172,460 68.9% 1,447,836 13.9% 696,319 6.7% 71,810 0.7% 68,495 0.7% 446,312 2005 10,842 10,438,009 7,355,945 70.5% 1,385,476 13.3% 722,585 6.9% 75,841 0.7% 57,657 0.6% 343,350 2006 10,255 10,153,464 6,990,120 68.8% 1,427,697 14.1% 722,916 7.1% 96,592 1.0% 82,000 0.8% 350,496 Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., st

refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputatiparticipation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from 

Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A46 -

TABLE F-10. Number and Percent of NSLP Eligibles Excluding Children not in School, by Immigrant Status Group: Free Lunches (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents 

Total Children Eligible for 

Free Lunches 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant Parents 

Immigrant Status 

of Parents 

Unknown 

Autho

Immi

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N 1994 13,472 18,210,163 14,498,770 79.6% 1,709,525 9.4% 341,166 1.9% 51,646 0.3% 126,324 0.7% 920,908 1995 11,186 16,637,677 12,829,824 77.1% 1,703,613 10.2% 420,288 2.5% 98,099 0.6% 145,786 0.9% 866,006 1996 1997 9,748 12,987,269 9,861,333 75.9% 1,499,603 11.5% 421,569 3.2% 84,007 0.6% 133,721 1.0% 533,819 1998 10,342 15,291,146 11,535,888 75.4% 1,801,791 11.8% 541,467 3.5% 101,716 0.7% 146,366 1.0% 719,414 1999 10,472 14,373,553 10,731,345 74.7% 1,596,222 11.1% 552,553 3.8% 87,507 0.6% 148,585 1.0% 729,633 2000 9,572 13,784,135 10,205,379 74.0% 1,536,618 11.1% 623,056 4.5% 94,676 0.7% 157,772 1.1% 608,289 2001 15,185 13,862,878 10,111,856 72.9% 1,681,631 12.1% 617,643 4.5% 109,351 0.8% 150,102 1.1% 604,624 2002 16,254 13,865,490 10,100,631 72.8% 1,653,243 11.9% 612,665 4.4% 92,115 0.7% 146,888 1.1% 689,806 2003 16,383 14,137,771 10,246,078 72.5% 1,708,915 12.1% 771,849 5.5% 66,376 0.5% 147,510 1.0% 559,500 2004 13,707 14,156,486 10,325,726 72.9% 1,566,057 11.1% 768,379 5.4% 64,155 0.5% 152,249 1.1% 582,767 2005 13,790 13,768,081 10,050,018 73.0% 1,560,348 11.3% 811,931 5.9% 72,098 0.5% 155,895 1.1% 522,762 2006 13,589 13,861,761 9,983,132 72.0% 1,666,612 12.0% 853,331 6.2% 84,045 0.6% 171,850 1.2% 505,354 Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., st

refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputa

participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding froHuman Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A47 -

TABLE F-11. Number and Percent of NSLP Eligibles Excluding Children not in School, by Immigrant Status Group: Reduced-Price Lunches (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents F

Total Children Eligible 

for Reduced-Price Meals 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant Parents 

Immigrant Status 

of Parents 

Unknown 

Authori

Immigr

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N 1994 3,621 4,592,389 3,633,947 79.1% 525,867 11.5% 99,115 2.2% 33,229 0.7% 16,836 0.4% 142,747 1995 3,706 5,623,227 4,544,968 80.8% 554,495 9.9% 144,336 2.6% 24,193 0.4% 18,048 0.3% 198,919 1996 1997 3,458 4,856,406 3,908,299 80.5% 505,887 10.4% 146,891 3.0% 40,260 0.8% 16,537 0.3% 111,559 1998 3,932 5,706,979 4,457,801 78.1% 667,532 11.7% 184,897 3.2% 37,919 0.7% 36,641 0.6% 190,009 1999 4,458 5,885,583 4,507,827 76.6% 722,484 12.3% 219,161 3.7% 53,751 0.9% 35,715 0.6% 166,139 2000 3,888 5,507,850 4,131,793 75.0% 707,647 12.8% 234,113 4.3% 35,494 0.6% 36,286 0.7% 173,827 2001 6,645 5,744,603 4,139,490 72.1% 831,251 14.5% 237,747 4.1% 68,508 1.2% 43,965 0.8% 202,400 2002 7,321 5,823,007 4,273,205 73.4% 841,970 14.5% 206,067 3.5% 65,492 1.1% 27,456 0.5% 203,472 2003 7,358 6,038,284 4,387,271 72.7% 824,784 13.7% 271,010 4.5% 46,604 0.8% 31,071 0.5% 255,210 2004 5,841 5,753,343 4,122,922 71.7% 860,798 15.0% 256,920 4.5% 44,419 0.8% 40,400 0.7% 177,506 2005 5,946 5,810,188 4,096,766 70.5% 892,067 15.4% 298,365 5.1% 41,571 0.7% 30,069 0.5% 185,494 2006 5,877 5,695,856 3,884,097 68.2% 928,115 16.3% 335,527 5.9% 60,711 1.1% 45,252 0.8% 215,527 Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., stworkers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputatio

participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from 

Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A48 -

TABLE F-12. Number and Percent of NSLP Participants Excluding Children not in School, by Immigrant Status Group: Free Lunches (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents 

Total Children Receiving 

Free Lunches 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant 

parents Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant Parents 

Immigrant Status of 

Parents Unknown 

Autho

Immi

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N 1994 9,507 12,529,110 9,800,146 78.2% 1,293,982 10.3% 280,973 2.2% 36,859 0.3% 59,047 0.5% 657,874 1995 8,953 13,064,619 10,020,339 76.7% 1,346,556 10.3% 365,621 2.8% 81,142 0.6% 89,535 0.7% 668,670 1996 1997 8,291 11,316,079 8,593,626 75.9% 1,289,660 11.4% 366,624 3.2% 69,738 0.6% 101,541 0.9% 493,720 1998 8,814 13,330,189 10,025,219 75.2% 1,602,160 12.0% 495,460 3.7% 96,443 0.7% 111,291 0.8% 589,785 1999 9,065 12,661,483 9,455,115 74.7% 1,381,289 10.9% 498,176 3.9% 79,297 0.6% 126,318 1.0% 654,505 2000 8,646 12,562,023 9,329,047 74.3% 1,372,487 10.9% 576,891 4.6% 93,225 0.7% 128,711 1.0% 533,814 2001 13,990 12,890,962 9,428,321 73.1% 1,558,519 12.1% 590,412 4.6% 104,175 0.8% 122,991 1.0% 540,676 2002 14,957 12,839,347 9,349,269 72.8% 1,514,358 11.8% 583,278 4.5% 85,858 0.7% 126,238 1.0% 636,450 2003 15,238 13,289,526 9,622,936 72.4% 1,609,601 12.1% 736,629 5.5% 61,624 0.5% 128,896 1.0% 528,641 2004 13,029 13,562,567 9,856,704 72.7% 1,519,507 11.2% 750,807 5.5% 60,229 0.4% 144,427 1.1% 553,940 2005 13,249 13,361,989 9,748,489 73.0% 1,532,851 11.5% 778,830 5.8% 71,011 0.5% 145,983 1.1% 499,160 2006 13,154 13,448,528 9,698,175 72.1% 1,586,075 11.8% 827,641 6.2% 82,307 0.6% 165,084 1.2% 498,518 Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., st

refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imput

participation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding fr

Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).
- A49 -

TABLE F-13. Number and Percent of NSLP Participants Excluding Children not in School, by Immigrant Status Group: Reduced-Price Lunches (weighted) 

Native-Born Child with Foreign-Born Parents F

Total Children Receiving 

Reduced-Price Meals 

Native-Born 

Children with 

Native-Born 

Parents 

Authorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized 

immigrant parents 

Only 

Unauthorized and 

Authorized 

Immigrant 

Parents 

Immigrant Status of 

Parents Unknown 

Authori

Immigr

 Unweighted Weighted N % N % N % N % N % N 1994 1,582 1,979,273 1,511,642 76.4% 252,737 12.8% 61,082 3.1% 17,351 0.9% 5,150 0.3% 57,409 1995 1,643 2,288,774 1,751,030 76.5% 248,407 10.9% 85,991 3.8% 13,305 0.6% 10,812 0.5% 93,260 1996 1997 1,757 2,262,943 1,748,075 77.2% 220,650 9.8% 100,428 4.4% 26,255 1.2% 8,653 0.4% 75,077 1998 1,990 2,717,407 2,049,398 75.4% 331,795 12.2% 110,296 4.1% 21,762 0.8% 9,850 0.4% 112,109 1999 2,258 2,786,991 1,994,847 71.6% 410,103 14.7% 146,169 5.2% 31,852 1.1% 16,147 0.6% 99,459 2000 2,083 2,614,866 1,831,771 70.1% 403,129 15.4% 140,247 5.4% 26,160 1.0% 17,720 0.7% 87,667 2001 3,666 3,017,342 2,077,455 68.9% 473,660 15.7% 168,438 5.6% 46,319 1.5% 19,034 0.6% 101,670 2002 3,634 2,815,398 1,978,968 70.3% 440,603 15.6% 125,059 4.4% 42,847 1.5% 6,802 0.2% 110,365 2003 3,688 2,845,755 1,982,937 69.7% 412,981 14.5% 153,931 5.4% 34,463 1.2% 17,065 0.6% 130,488 2004 3,064 2,878,857 2,003,694 69.6% 448,072 15.6% 161,071 5.6% 25,657 0.9% 17,233 0.6% 92,667 2005 3,233 2,937,395 2,060,975 70.2% 436,126 14.8% 177,732 6.1% 23,617 0.8% 4,933 0.2% 81,332 2006 3,202 2,943,241 1,923,357 65.3% 499,427 17.0% 200,031 6.8% 35,603 1.2% 21,730 0.7% 112,029 Note: Children include children ages 5 to 18. Authorized immigrants include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary permit and visa holders (e.g., stworkers, refugees and asylees). Unauthorized immigrants include immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with immigrant status assignments and imputationparticipation provided by the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3). The Urban Institute maintains and develops the TRIM3 model with primary funding from thHuman Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (HHS/ASPE).