T

T

A T

Reaching Those in Need:

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

STATE FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2001

BY LAURA A. CASTNER AND ALLEN L. SCHIRM • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, INC. FEBRUARY • 2004

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 2003, the program served over 21

million people in an average month at

a total annual cost of over $21 billion

in benefits. The average monthly

food stamp benefit was about $195

per household.

The Government Performance and

Results Act 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 over

15 years. The U. S. Department of

Agriculture’s Strategic Plan for 2002

to 2007 includes a performance

target to “reach 68% of the eligible

population” by 2007.

Recent studies have examined

national participation rates as well as

participation rates for socioeconomic

and demographic subgroups

(Cunnyngham 2003) and rates for

States (Schirm and Castner 2002).

This document presents estimates

of food stamp participation rates for

States for fiscal year 2001. These

estimates can be used to assess recent

program performance and focus

efforts to improve performance.

FOOD AND

NUTRITION

SERVICE

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,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or

call (202) 720-5964 (voice and

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Participation Rates in 2001

About 60 percent of eligible people

in the United States received food

stamps in fiscal year 2001.

(Cunnyngham (2003) reports both this

rate for fiscal year 2001 and a 62 percent

rate for September 2001.) Participation

rates varied widely from State to State,

however, with some rates under 55

percent and some over 70 percent.

Twenty States had rates that were

significantly higher (in a statistical sense)

than the national rate, and 13 States had

rates that were significantly lower. Among

the regions, the Midwest had the highest

participation rate. Its 69 percent rate was

significantly higher than the rates for all

of the other regions. The Mountain

Plains and Mid-Atlantic Regions had

participation rates that at 64 and 63

percent, respectively, were significantly

higher than the rates for all of the regions

except the Midwest. (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

2001 show whether a State’s participation

rate was probably at the top, at the

bottom, or in the middle of the distribution. West Virginia and Hawaii were very

likely at the top, with higher rates than

most States. In contrast, Massachusetts

and Nevada likely had lower rates than

most States. Florida, Idaho, Texas, New

Jersey, Arizona, North Carolina,

Colorado, Georgia, California, Utah, and

Kansas probably fell in the bottom half

of the distribution, while Oregon,

Maine, Missouri, Kentucky, the District

of Columbia, Michigan, Illinois,

Louisiana, Vermont, Alaska, Indiana,

Tennessee, and Pennsylvania were

probably in the top half in 2001.

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 have fairly consistently been in

the top or bottom of the distribution

of rates in recent years. In all three

years from 1999 to 2001, West

Virginia, Hawaii, Maine, Kentucky,

the District of Columbia, Michigan,

and Vermont had significantly higher

participation rates than two-thirds of

the States, and Missouri, Illinois,

Louisiana, Alaska, Tennessee, and

Pennsylvania had significantly higher

rates than half of the States. Kansas,

Colorado, New Jersey, and Florida

had significantly lower rates than half

of the States in all three years, and

North Carolina, Arizona, Texas,

Idaho, 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, 2003,

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
How Many Were Eligible in 2001? 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 Wyoming’s participation rate was 58 percent in 2001, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However,

the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 53 and 63 percent.
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2001?

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 Montana, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 15 other States

(West Virginia, Hawaii, Oregon, Maine, Missouri, Kentucky, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Illinois, Louisiana, Vermont, Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee,

and Pennsylvania) and a significantly higher rate than 13 other States (Kansas, Utah, California, Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina, Arizona, New Jersey,

Texas, Idaho, Florida, Nevada, and Massachusetts). Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 22 States,

suggesting that Montana was probably in the broad center of the distribution, unlike, for example, West Virginia 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 ten percentage points, and all of them were at least four percentage points, a difference that seems important as well as significant.
C

Produced by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for the Food and Nutrition Service under contract no. 53-3198-9-008.

Participation Rates Varied Widely

There is substantial uncertainty associated with most of these

estimates. Confidence intervals that measure the uncertainty in the

estimates for 1999 and 2000 are presented in Castner and Schirm

(forthcoming). Confidence intervals for the 2001 estimates are

presented in this document.

1999 2000 2001

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 stamps.

Shrinkage estimates are substantially

more precise than direct sample

estimates from the Current Population

Survey or the Survey of Income and

Program Participation, the leading

sources of current data on household

incomes and program eligibility.

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 stamps at

the same time (Cunnyngham 2003).

The effects of such adjustments

would generally be negligible. 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

stamps because they receive cash

instead. It might be useful in some

other contexts, however, to consider

participation rates among those eligible

for food stamps or a cash substitute.

The shrinkage estimates of participation rates for 1999 and 2000 presented

here differ from the estimates in

Schirm and Castner (2002) and

Castner and Schirm (2003). The

differences are due to changes in the

reference period – an average month

in the fiscal year, rather than just

September – and improvements in

data and methods, which are described

in Cunnyngham (2003) and Castner

and Schirm (forthcoming). In the

future, some of the estimates presented

here will be revised – and improved –

when new data become available.

References

Castner, Laura A., and Allen L. Schirm.

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates of

State Food Stamp Participation Rates for

1999-2001.” Washington, DC: Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc., forthcoming.

Castner, Laura A., and Allen L. Schirm.

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates of

State Food Stamp Participation Rates for

1998-2000.” Washington, DC: Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc., March 2003.

Cunnyngham, Karen. “Trends in Food

Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1999

to 2001.” In Current Perspectives on Food

Stamp Program Participation. Alexandria,

VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, June 2003.

Schirm, Allen L., and Laura A. Castner.

“Reaching Those in Need: State Food

Stamp Participation Rates in 2000.”

Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

December 2002.

 2001 Participation Rate

 Above 70% (top quarter)

 55% to 70%

 Below 55% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 60%

Alabama 64% 60% 60%

Alaska 71% 73% 72%

Arizona 49% 48% 51%

Arkansas 68% 61% 62%

California 54% 57% 54%

Colorado 54% 52% 52%

Connecticut 66% 68% 67%

Delaware 60% 55% 55%

District of Columbia 93% 87% 77%

Florida 55% 52% 48%

Georgia 60% 55% 53%

Hawaii 90% 94% 85%

Idaho 48% 50% 48%

Illinois 71% 71% 73%

Indiana 64% 67% 71%

Iowa 60% 61% 61%

Kansas 48% 54% 55%

Kentucky 77% 78% 77%

Louisiana 76% 70% 73%

Maine 84% 82% 81%

Maryland 60% 57% 55%

Massachusetts 43% 45% 45%

Michigan 78% 77% 76%

Minnesota 63% 65% 63%

Mississippi 63% 54% 57%

Missouri 73% 77% 79%

Montana 60% 60% 61%

Nebraska 64% 63% 61%

Nevada 39% 43% 46%

New Hampshire 51% 57% 55%

New Jersey 54% 54% 50%

New Mexico 72% 59% 62%

New York 61% 62% 58%

North Carolina 53% 49% 51%

North Dakota 53% 54% 63%

Ohio 60% 62% 63%

Oklahoma 66% 60% 61%

Oregon 70% 77% 84%

Pennsylvania 73% 72% 69%

Rhode Island 67% 69% 67%

South Carolina 64% 59% 61%

South Dakota 63% 63% 65%

Tennessee 74% 68% 69%

Texas 50% 47% 49%

Utah 57% 56% 54%

Vermont 78% 77% 72%

Virginia 58% 58% 58%

Washington 60% 64% 64%

West Virginia 100% 96% 89%

Wisconsin 54% 61% 64%

Wyoming 56% 56% 58%

Northeast Region 60% 61% 58%

Mid-Atlantic Region 67% 66% 63%

Southeast Region 62% 57% 57%

Midwest Region 67% 68% 69%

Southwest Region 58% 53% 56%

Mountain Plains Region 61% 63% 64%

Western Region 56% 59% 57%

United States 61% 60% 60%

Participation Rates