T

Reaching Those in Need:

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

STATE FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2003

BY LAURA A. CASTNER AND ALLEN L. SCHIRM • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, INC. N OV EM B E R • 2 0 0 5

FOOD AND

NUTRITION

SERVICE

A

T

The Food Stamp Program is a

central component of American

policy to alleviate hunger and

poverty. The program’s main

purpose is “to permit low-income

households to obtain a more

nutritious diet . . . by increasing

their purchasing power” (Food

Stamp Act of 1977, as amended).

The Food Stamp Program is the

largest of the domestic food and

nutrition assistance programs

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and

Nutrition Service. During fiscal year

2005, the program served over 25

million people in an average month

at a total annual cost of over $28

billion in benefits, excluding disaster

assistance provided as a result of

hurricanes in September 2005.

The Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993 calls for

policymakers to assess the effects

of programs, and one important

measure of a program’s performance is its ability to reach its

target population. The national

food stamp participation rate—

the percentage of eligible people

in the United States who actually

participate in the program—has

been a standard for assessing

performance for about 20 years.

The U. S. Department of

Agriculture’s budget request

for fiscal year 2006 includes a

performance target to reach 68

percent of the eligible population

by 2010.

Recent studies have examined

national participation rates as

well as participation rates for

socioeconomic and demographic

subgroups (Cunnyngham 2005)

and rates for States (Castner and

Schirm 2005b). This document

presents estimates of food stamp

participation rates for States for

fiscal year 2003. These estimates

can be used to assess recent

program performance and focus

efforts to improve performance.

Participation Rates in 2003

About 56 percent of eligible people

in the United States received food

stamp benefits in fiscal year 2003.

Participation rates varied widely

from State to State, however.

Twenty-two States had rates that

were significantly higher (in a

statistical sense) than the national

rate, and 16 States had rates that

were significantly lower. Among the

regions, the Midwest Region had

the highest participation rate. Its 62

percent rate was significantly higher

than the rates for all of the other

regions. The Mountain Plains and

Southeast Regions had participation rates that, at 59 percent, were

significantly higher than the rates

for all of the other regions except

the Midwest. The Northeast

Region’s participation rate, at 49

percent, was significantly lower

than the rates for all of the other

regions. (See the last page for a

map showing regional boundaries.)

State Comparisons

The estimated participation rates

presented here are based on fairly

small samples of households in each

State. Although there is substantial

uncertainty associated with the

estimates for some States and with

comparisons of estimates from

different States, the estimates for
T

2

There is substantial uncertainty associated with most of these

estimates. Confidence intervals that measure the uncertainty in

the estimates for 2002 are presented in Castner and Schirm

(forthcoming). These confidence intervals are generally about

as wide as the confidence intervals that are presented in this

document for the 2003 estimates.

Participation Rates

Alabama 55% 56%

Alaska 63% 65%

Arizona 57% 64%

Arkansas 58% 62%

California 48% 45%

Colorado 46% 48%

Connecticut 56% 53%

Delaware 50% 53%

District of Columbia 68% 72%

Florida 47% 48%

Georgia 59% 65%

Hawaii 76% 67%

Idaho 49% 53%

Illinois 60% 61%

Indiana 67% 65%

Iowa 54% 57%

Kansas 52% 55%

Kentucky 63% 67%

Louisiana 65% 69%

Maine 62% 72%

Maryland 46% 48%

Massachusetts 38% 43%

Michigan 62% 65%

Minnesota 56% 59%

Mississippi 56% 60%

Missouri 70% 76%

Montana 50% 50%

Nebraska 57% 56%

Nevada 41% 44%

New Hampshire 44% 46%

New Jersey 45% 47%

New Mexico 54% 52%

New York 51% 48%

North Carolina 46% 49%

North Dakota 50% 51%

Ohio 57% 61%

Oklahoma 58% 67%

Oregon 80% 83%

Pennsylvania 53% 54%

Rhode Island 52% 53%

South Carolina 58% 65%

South Dakota 54% 52%

Tennessee 70% 82%

Texas 47% 48%

Utah 43% 48%

Vermont 59% 60%

Virginia 51% 54%

Washington 57% 60%

West Virginia 67% 68%

Wisconsin 52% 55%

Wyoming 46% 46%

Northeast Region 50% 49%

Mid-Atlantic Region 52% 54%

Southeast Region 55% 59%

Midwest Region 59% 62%

Southwest Region 52% 54%

Mountain Plains Region 56% 59%

Western Region 53% 52%

United States 54% 56%

2002 2003

2003 show whether a State’s

participation rate was probably at

the top, at the bottom, or in the

middle of the distribution.

Oregon, Tennessee, and Missouri

were very likely at the top, with

higher rates than most States. In

contrast, Massachusetts likely had

a lower rate than most States.

Nevada, California, Wyoming,

New Hampshire, New Jersey,

Utah, Colorado, New York,

Florida, Texas, Maryland, North

Carolina, and Montana probably

fell in the bottom half of the

distribution, while the District

of Columbia, Maine, Louisiana,

West Virginia, Hawaii, Kentucky,

Oklahoma, South Carolina,

Michigan, Alaska, Georgia,

Indiana, Arizona, Arkansas, Ohio,

and Illinois were probably in the

top half in 2003.

How a State compares with other

States may fluctuate over time

due to statistical variability in

estimated rates and true changes

in rates. The statistical variability

is sufficiently great that a large

change in a State’s rate from the

prior year should be interpreted

cautiously, as should differences

between the rates of that State and

other States. It may be incorrect to

conclude that program performance in the State has improved

or deteriorated dramatically.

Despite this uncertainty, the

estimated participation rates

suggest that some States were in

the top or bottom of the distribution of rates in both 2002 and

2003. In those two years, Oregon,

Tennessee, Missouri, the District

of Columbia, Maine, Louisiana,

West Virginia, Hawaii, and

Kentucky had significantly higher

participation rates than two-thirds

of the States, and Michigan,

Alaska, Indiana, and Illinois had

significantly higher rates than half

of the States. North Carolina,

New York, and California had

significantly lower rates than half

of the States in both years, and

Maryland, Texas, Florida,

Colorado, Utah, New Jersey,

New Hampshire, Wyoming,

Nevada, and Massachusetts had

significantly lower rates than

two-thirds of the States.

Estimation Method

The estimates presented here were

derived using shrinkage estimation

methods (Castner and Schirm

2005a, and Castner and Schirm

forthcoming). Drawing on data

from the Current Population

Survey, the decennial census, and

administrative records, the

shrinkage estimator averaged

sample estimates of participation

rates with predictions from a

regression model. The sample

estimates were obtained by

applying food stamp eligibility

rules to households in the Current

Population Survey to estimate

numbers of eligible people, while

estimating numbers of participating people from food stamp

administrative data. The regression predictions of participation

rates were based on observed

indicators of socioeconomic

conditions, such as the percentage

of the total State population

receiving food stamp benefits.

Shrinkage estimates are substantially more precise than direct

sample estimates from the Current

Population Survey or the Survey

of Income and Program Participation, the leading sources of data

used to estimate program

eligibility. Because these surveys

do not collect data on participation in the Food Distribution

Program on Indian Reservations,

the estimates presented here are

not adjusted to reflect the fact

that participants in that program

are not eligible to receive food

stamp benefits at the same time

(Cunnyngham 2005). The Food

Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations served about 108,000

people in 2003, so the effects of

such adjustments would be

negligible in almost all States.
How Many Were Eligible in 2003? What Percentage Participated?

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

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

For example, while our best estimate is that Alabama’s participation rate was 56 percent in 2003, the true rate may have been higher or lower.

However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 52 and 60 percent.

3
How Did Your State Rank in 2003?

A confidence interval expresses our uncertainty about the true value of a State’s rank. Each interval displayed here is a 90-percent confidence interval.

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

best estimate is that Alabama had the 26th highest participation rate in 2003, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90

in 100 that the true rank was between 20 and 35 among all of the States. To determine how Alabama or your State compares with any other State, see

the chart on page 5.

4
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2003?

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

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

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

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

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

estimated rate is significantly higher.

Taking Alabama, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 19 other States

(Oregon, Tennessee, Missouri, the District of Columbia, Maine, Louisiana, West Virginia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Michigan,

Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Arizona, Arkansas, Ohio, and Illinois) and a significantly higher rate than 14 other States (Montana, North Carolina,

Maryland, Texas, Florida, New York, Colorado, Utah, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Wyoming, California, Nevada, and Massachusetts). Its rate was

neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 17 States, suggesting that Alabama is probably in the broad center of the

distribution, unlike, for example, Oregon and Massachusetts, which were surely at or near the top and bottom of the distribution, respectively.

Although we use the statistical definition of “significance” here, most of the significant differences were at least 10 percentage points, a difference that

seems important as well as significant, and all of them were at least 3 percentage points.

5
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

C

Produced by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for the Food and Nutrition Service under contract no. FNS-03-030-TNN.

Participation Rates Varied Widely

 2003 Participation Rate

 Above 62%

 51% to 62%

 Below 51%

 National Rate = 56%

Because our focus in this document is on participation among

people who are eligible for the

Food Stamp Program, the

estimates of eligible people were

adjusted using available data to

reflect the fact that Supplemental

Security Income recipients in

California are not legally eligible

to receive food stamp benefits

because they receive cash instead.

It might be useful in some other

contexts, however, to consider

participation rates among those

eligible for food stamp benefits or

a cash substitute.

Although our focus is on participation among people who are

eligible for the Food Stamp

Program, no data are available to

estimate the number of people

who would fail the program’s

income tests but are categorically

eligible for food stamp benefits

through participation in noncash

public assistance programs. Therefore, because such people cannot

be included in estimates of eligible

people, they have been excluded

from the estimates of participating

people used in deriving the

participation rates presented here.

The methods used to estimate the

numbers of eligible and participating people are described in detail

in Cunnyngham (2005).

References

Castner, Laura A., and Allen L.

Schirm. “Empirical Bayes

Shrinkage Estimates of State Food

Stamp Participation Rates in

2002-2003 for All Eligible People

and the Working Poor.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc., forthcoming.

Castner, Laura A., and Allen L.

Schirm. “Empirical Bayes

Shrinkage Estimates of State Food

Stamp Participation Rates in

2000-2002 for All Eligible People

and the Working Poor.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc., October 2005a.

Castner, Laura A., and Allen L.

Schirm. “Reaching Those in Need:

State Food Stamp Participation

Rates in 2002.” Alexandria, VA:

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture,

March 2005b.

Cunnyngham, Karen. “Food

Stamp Program Participation

Rates: 2003.” In Current Perspectives on Food Stamp Program

Participation. Alexandria, VA:

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture,

July 2005.

The U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race,

color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs,

sexual orientation, or marital or

family status. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for

communication of program

information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of

discrimination, write USDA,

Director, Office of Civil Rights,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA

is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

N OV E M B E R • 2 0 0 5