Reaching Those in Need:

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

STATE FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2005

BY KAREN E. CUNNYNGHAM, LAURA A. CASTNER, AND ALLEN L. SCHIRM • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, INC. O C T O B E R • 2 0 0 7

F O O D A N D 

N U T R I T I O N 

S E R V I C E

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 2007, 

the program served 26 million 

people in an average month at a 

total annual cost of over $30 billion 

in benefits.

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 

25 years. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s budget request for 

fiscal year 2008 includes a performance target to reach 68 percent 

of the eligible population by 2010. 

The Food Stamp Program provides an important support for the 

“working poor”—people who are 

eligible for the Food Stamp Program 

and live in households in which 

someone earns income from 

a job. Of the 26 million people who 

received food stamps in an average 

month in 2006, over 10 million—

41 percent—lived in households 

that had income from earnings, up 

from 30 percent of all food stamp 

recipients in 1996, the year in 

which more emphasis was placed 

on work for public assistance 

recipients through the enactment 

of the Personal Responsibility and 

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

Recent studies have examined 

national participation rates as 

well as participation rates for 

socioeconomic and demographic 

subgroups (Wolkwitz 2007), and 

rates for all eligible people and 

for the working poor for States 

(Cunnyngham, Castner, and 

Schirm 2006). This document 

presents estimates of food stamp 

participation rates for all eligible 

people and for the working poor 

for States for fiscal year 2005. 

These estimates can be used 

to assess recent program performance and focus efforts to 

improve performance.

Participation Rates in 2005 

About 65 percent of eligible people 

in the United States received food 

stamp benefits in fiscal year 2005. 

Participation rates varied widely 

from State to State, however. 

Eighteen States had rates that 

were significantly higher (in a 

statistical sense) than the national 

rate, and 20 States had rates that 

were significantly lower. Among 

the regions, the Midwest Region 

had the highest participation 

rate. Its 71-percent rate was significantly higher than the rates 

for all of the other regions except 

for the Mountain Plains Region. 

The Western Region’s participation rate of 57 percent was 

significantly lower than the rates 

for all of the other regions. (See 

the last page for a map showing 

regional boundaries.)
How Many Were Eligible in 2005? 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 Arizona’s participation rate was 66 percent in 2005, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 

that the true rate was between 61 and 71 percent.

2

0ARTICIPATION2ATESAND#ONFIDENCE)NTERVALS

0ARTICIPATION2ATEX.UMBEROF0EOPLE0ARTICIPATING.UMBEROF0EOPLE%LIGIBLE	

%STIMATEDPARTICIPATIONRATESAREINREDESTIMATEDBOUNDSOFCONFIDENCEINTERVALSAREINBLACK	

57%

Eligible

People

(Thousands)

64% 65% 66%

55% 59%

59% 61% 63%

62% 65% 67%

63% 66% 68%

65% 67% 70%

68% 70% 73%

69% 71% 73%

72% 75% 79%

43% 49% 54%

44% 49% 54%

47% 50% 52%

49% 54% 58%

50% 54% 58%

50% 55% 60%

51% 55% 60%

52%

52% 57%

56%

61%

60%

52% 57% 61%

53% 58% 62%

54% 58% 63%

54% 59% 63%

56% 59% 63%

57% 60% 63%

55% 60% 66%

56% 61% 66%

56% 61% 65%

57% 61% 65%

59% 61% 64%

55% 62% 69%

57% 62% 66%

57% 62% 68%

57% 62% 68%

61% 65% 69%

61% 65% 70%

60% 65% 70%

62% 66% 69%

61% 66% 71%

61% 67% 73%

65% 68% 71%

64% 68% 73%

62% 68% 74%

63% 68% 74%

65% 69% 73%

64% 70% 76%

66% 71% 76%

67% 71%

65%

68%

76%

71% 77%

74% 80%

71% 75% 80%

71% 76% 81%

71% 76% 81%

69% 76% 84%

72% 77% 82%

75% 80% 86%

80% 85% 90%

80% 86%

82% 88%

89% 95% 100%

94%

91%

30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

783

942

457

169

319

525

925

482

741

1,270

1,513

1,213

121

714

759

131

343

736

62

1,497

1,441

81

807

307

86

178

802

354

317

764

147

2,804

285

130

214

630

3,844

2,088

536

1,343

670

97

71

131

494

92

642

450

3,937

245

52

5,874

2,566

8,473

6,120

3,951

4,218

6,541

37,743

Missouri

Tennessee

Oregon

Maine

West Virginia

Oklahoma

Louisiana

Arkansas

Kentucky

Michigan

Illinois

Georgia

District of Columbia

South Carolina

Indiana

Hawaii

New Mexico

Washington

Vermont

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Alaska

Arizona

Iowa

Delaware

Nebraska

Alabama

Minnesota

Connecticut

Virginia

Idaho

New York

Kansas

Montana

Utah

Mississippi

Texas

Florida

Wisconsin

North Carolina

New Jersey

South Dakota

North Dakota

Rhode Island

Maryland

New Hampshire

Massachusetts

Colorado

California

Nevada

Wyoming

Midwest Region

Mountain Plains Region

Southeast Region

Southwest Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Northeast Region

Western Region

United States
43%

Eligible

Working Poor

(Thousands)

55% 57% 59%

39% 47%

43% 47% 52%

50% 54% 58%

57% 61% 64%

57% 62% 67%

58% 62% 66%

61% 65% 70%

66% 74% 82%

29% 34% 39%

30% 34% 39%

29% 36% 43%

24% 36% 48%

34% 41% 47%

34% 41% 49%

34% 42% 49%

34%

38% 45%

42%

53%

50%

38% 46% 54%

39% 47% 54%

39% 47% 56%

42% 48% 55%

42% 49% 55%

41% 49% 57%

43% 50% 57%

44% 51% 58%

46% 52% 58%

45% 53% 60%

46% 53% 59%

46% 54% 61%

47% 54% 60%

46% 54% 62%

47% 55% 64%

49% 56%

48% 56% 64%

48% 56% 64%

50% 56% 62%

49% 57% 66%

51% 57% 64%

50% 58% 67%

51% 61% 71%

52% 62% 72%

55% 63% 70%

55% 63% 71%

56% 63% 70%

56% 64% 72%

57% 65%

58%

62%

73%

69% 79%

70% 77%

63% 71% 80%

68% 75% 82%

66% 75% 84%

67% 75% 84%

68% 76% 83%

67% 78% 89%

71% 79% 88%

71% 81%

74% 83%

80% 89% 99%

92%

92%

63%

416

342

114

64

410

210

563

208

266

243

335

297

560

184

685

637

330

599

41

272

41

152

64

2,120

81

541

234

342

30

413

46

79

35

131

70

130

349

950

1,073

28

153

38

126

91

49

282

208

36

227

2,098

243

2,607

3,558

3,167

1,331

1,628

1,608

3,339

17,238

Missouri

Tennessee

West Virginia

Maine

Louisiana

Arkansas

Michigan

Oregon

Kentucky

Oklahoma

Indiana

South Carolina

Georgia

New Mexico

Illinois

Ohio

Alabama

Pennsylvania

Alaska

Mississippi

Delaware

Iowa

Hawaii

Texas

Idaho

North Carolina

Wisconsin

Washington

Vermont

Arizona

South Dakota

Nebraska

North Dakota

Kansas

Montana

Utah

Virginia

Florida

New York

Wyoming

Minnesota

New Hampshire

Connecticut

Nevada

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Maryland

District of Columbia

Massachusetts

California

Colorado

Midwest Region

Southeast Region

Southwest Region

Mountain Plains Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Northeast Region

Western Region

United States

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2005? What Percentage Participated?

3

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 North Carolina’s working poor participation rate was 56 percent in 2005, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the 

chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 48 and 64 percent.

0ARTICIPATION2ATESAND#ONFIDENCE)NTERVALS

0ARTICIPATION2ATEX.UMBEROF0EOPLE0ARTICIPATING.UMBEROF0EOPLE%LIGIBLE	

%STIMATEDPARTICIPATIONRATESAREINREDESTIMATEDBOUNDSOFCONFIDENCEINTERVALSAREINBLACK	
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. T

T

In 2005, 57 percent of eligible 

working poor in the United States 

participated in the Food Stamp 

Program, but as with participation 

rates for all eligible people, rates 

for the working poor varied widely 

across States. Eighteen States had 

rates for the working poor that 

were significantly higher than the 

national rate, and 18 States had 

rates that were significantly lower. 

While 65 percent of all eligible 

people in the United States 

participated in 2005, only 57 

percent of the eligible working 

poor participated, a significant 

difference of 8 percentage points. 

In 25 States, the participation 

rate for the working poor in 2005 

was—like the national rate for 

the working poor—significantly 

lower than the rate for all eligible 

people; in 10 of these States, the 

rate for the working poor was 

more than 8 percentage points 

lower than the rate for all eligible 

people. In no State was the 

rate for the working poor significantly higher than the rate for all 

eligible people.

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 2005 show whether a State’s 

participation rate for all eligible 

people was probably at the top, 

at the bottom, or in the middle 

of the distribution. Missouri, 

Tennessee, Oregon, and Maine 

were very likely at the top, with 

higher rates for all eligible people 

than most States. In contrast, Wyoming, Nevada, and California likely 

had lower rates than most States. 

Similarly, it is possible to determine 

that some States were probably at 

the top, at the bottom, or in the 

middle of the distribution of rates for 

the working poor in 2005. Missouri 

was very likely ranked at the top, 

with a higher rate for the working 

poor than most States. In contrast, 

Colorado and California likely had 

lower rates than most States. 

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 for 

all eligible people and the working 

poor suggest that some States have 

fairly consistently been in the top 

or bottom of the distribution of 

rates in recent years. In all 3 years 

from 2003 to 2005, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, and West 

Virginia had significantly higher 

participation rates for all eligible 

people than two-thirds of the States, 

while Arkansas, the District of

Columbia, and South Carolina had 

significantly higher rates than half 

of the States. Colorado, Florida, 

Maryland, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, South Dakota, and Wisconsin 

had significantly lower rates than 

half of the States in all 3 years, 

4

O C T O B E R • 2 0 0 7

while California, Massachusetts, 

Nevada, and Wyoming had significantly lower rates than two-thirds 

of the States. 

A State ranked near the top or 

bottom of the distribution of 

participation rates for all eligible 

people is likely to be ranked near 

the top or bottom, respectively, of 

the distribution of participation rates 

for the working poor. Although 

the rankings of States by participation rates for the working poor 

and for all eligible people are generally similar, the rankings do not 

exactly match. Three States (North 

Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) 

are ranked significantly higher for 

all 3 years when ranked by their 

participation rate for the working 

poor than when ranked by their 

participation rate for all eligible 

people, and the District of Columbia is ranked significantly lower.

Estimation Method

The estimates presented here were 

derived using shrinkage estimation 

methods (Cunnyngham, Castner, 

and Schirm 2007, and Cunnyngham, 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 and eligible working poor, while estimating 

numbers of participating people and 

participating working poor from 
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Participation Rates

There is substantial uncertainty associated with most of these estimates. Confidence intervals 

that measure the uncertainty in the estimates for 2003 and 2004 are presented in Cunnyngham, 

Castner, and Schirm (forthcoming). These confidence intervals are generally about as wide as the 

confidence intervals that are presented in this document for the 2005 estimates.

5

food stamp administrative data. 

The “working poor” are defined 

as people who are eligible for food 

stamps and live in a household 

in which a member earns money 

from a job. 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 (Wolkwitz 2007). 

The Food Distribution Program 

on Indian Reservations served 

about 99,000 people in 2005, so 

the effects of such adjustments 

would be negligible in almost all 

States. 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.

O C T O B E R • 2 0 0 7

 All Eligible People Working Poor 

 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Alabama 58% 58% 65% 54% 52% 63%

Alaska 60% 58% 67% 61% 52% 62%

Arizona 63% 68% 66% 46% 56% 54%

Arkansas 63% 69% 76% 63% 63% 76%

California 45% 48% 50% 35% 36% 34%

Colorado 46% 55% 54% 35% 46% 34%

Connecticut 52% 59% 62% 44% 46% 45%

Delaware 52% 61% 65% 46% 55% 58%

District of Columbia 79% 81% 71% 51% 40% 36%

Florida 48% 56% 59% 39% 43% 49%

Georgia 68% 66% 74% 52% 54% 69%

Hawaii 69% 72% 70% 59% 62% 57%

Idaho 55% 56% 62% 47% 48% 56%

Illinois 62% 69% 75% 54% 59% 64%

Indiana 62% 68% 71% 61% 68% 71%

Iowa 59% 61% 66% 49% 57% 57%

Kansas 54% 59% 61% 51% 51% 52%

Kentucky 68% 71% 76% 64% 66% 75%

Louisiana 73% 77% 76% 69% 72% 78%

Maine 74% 80% 85% 65% 73% 79%

Maryland 48% 54% 55% 39% 44% 41%

Massachusetts 44% 51% 54% 29% 39% 36%

Michigan 62% 67% 75% 65% 69% 75%

Minnesota 63% 62% 62% 49% 45% 47%

Mississippi 67% 60% 60% 57% 49% 61%

Missouri 77% 87% 95% 69% 79% 89%

Montana 49% 58% 61% 43% 49% 51%

Nebraska 57% 63% 65% 49% 53% 53%

Nevada 42% 49% 49% 31% 37% 42%

New Hampshire 47% 55% 55% 41% 48% 46%

New Jersey 49% 54% 58% 38% 44% 41%

New Mexico 53% 64% 69% 47% 57% 65%

New York 49% 54% 61% 43% 43% 48%

North Carolina 48% 56% 58% 43% 47% 56%

North Dakota 54% 55% 57% 54% 52% 53%

Ohio 60% 65% 68% 57% 62% 63%

Oklahoma 69% 75% 77% 67% 72% 74%

Oregon 78% 83% 86% 70% 75% 75%

Pennsylvania 54% 61% 68% 54% 57% 63%

Rhode Island 55% 53% 56% 40% 40% 42%

South Carolina 65% 67% 71% 61% 64% 70%

South Dakota 52% 53% 57% 48% 52% 54%

Tennessee 85% 84% 88% 76% 79% 83%

Texas 47% 57% 60% 38% 48% 56%

Utah 50% 60% 61% 41% 48% 50%

Vermont 61% 65% 68% 52% 54% 54%

Virginia 58% 62% 62% 43% 50% 49%

Washington 60% 64% 68% 44% 52% 55%

West Virginia 72% 76% 80% 73% 76% 81%

Wisconsin 51% 54% 59% 54% 49% 56%

Wyoming 45% 48% 49% 46% 49% 47% 

Northeast Region 50% 55% 61% 43% 44% 47%

Mid-Atlantic Region 55% 61% 65% 48% 53% 54%

Southeast Region 60% 63% 67% 52% 54% 62%

Midwest Region 60% 66% 71% 57% 61% 65%

Southwest Region 54% 63% 66% 46% 55% 62%

Mountain Plains Region 60% 67% 70% 51% 58% 61%

Western Region 52% 55% 57% 41% 43% 43% 

United States 56% 61% 65% 48% 52% 57%
47 51 51

46 50 51

48 49 51

40 48 50

39 47 49

36 46 49

35 45 49

36 44 48

33

33 42

43

48

48

32 41 47

30 40 46

29 39 46

29 38 44

28 37 42

24 36 45

25 35 44

25 34 44

26 33 42

27 32 39

18 31 45

23 30 40

21 29 41

20 28 42

17 27 33

17 26 33

16 25 35

17 24 32

16 23 33

13 22 34

15 21 26

13 20 28

12 19 30

12 18 28

12 17 26

9 16 27

9 15 23

10 14 22

8 13

6

6

24

12 20

11 15

6 10 14

5 9 15

5 8 15

4 7 17

5 6 14

3 5 10

2 4 6

2 3

2 2

1 1 2

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 

Participation

Rate for

 All Eligible 

People

95% Missouri

88% Tennessee

86% Oregon

85% Maine

80% West Virginia

77% Oklahoma

76% Louisiana

76% Arkansas

76% Kentucky

75% Michigan

75% Illinois

74% Georgia

71% District of Columbia

71% South Carolina

71% Indiana

70% Hawaii

69% New Mexico

68% Washington

68% Vermont

68% Pennsylvania

68% Ohio

67% Alaska

66% Arizona

66% Iowa

65% Delaware

65% Nebraska

65% Alabama

62% Minnesota

62% Connecticut

62% Virginia

62% Idaho

61% New York

61% Kansas

61% Montana

61% Utah

60% Mississippi

60% Texas

59% Florida

59% Wisconsin

58% North Carolina

58% New Jersey

57% South Dakota

57% North Dakota

56% Rhode Island

55% Maryland

55% New Hampshire

54% Massachusetts

54% Colorado

50% California

49% Nevada

49% Wyoming

How Did Your State Rank in 2005?

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 Nebraska had the 26th highest participation rate in 2005, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true 

rank was between 17 and 33 among all of the States. To determine how Nebraska or your State compares with any other State, see the chart on page 7.

Ranks and Confidence Intervals

(Estimated ranks are in red; estimated bounds of confidence intervals are in black.)

6
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2005?

Whether one State has a significantly higher participation rate for all eligible people 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 Nebraska, 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 

(Missouri, Tennessee, Oregon, Maine, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois, Georgia, the District of Columbia, 

South Carolina, and Indiana) and a significantly higher rate than 15 other States (Wyoming, Nevada, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

Maryland, Rhode Island, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas). Its rate was neither significantly higher 

nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 20 States, suggesting that Nebraska is probably in the broad center of the distribution, unlike, for example, 

Missouri and Wyoming, 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 4 percentage points.

7

MO TN OR ME WV OK LA AR KY MI IL GA DC SC IN HI NM WA VT PA OH AK AZ IA DE NE AL MN CT VA ID NY KS MT UT MS TX FL WI NC NJ SD

MO

TN

OR

ME

WV

OK

LA 

AR

KY

MI

IL

GA

DC

SC

IN

HI

NM

WA 

VT

PA

OH

AK

AZ

IA

DE

NE

AL

MN

CT

VA

ID

NY

KS

MT

UT

MS

TX

FL

WI

NC

NJ

SD

ND

RI

MD

 

95%

88%

86%

85%

80%

77%

76%

76%

76%

75%

75%

74%

71%

71%

71%

70%

69%

68%

68%

68%

68%

67%

66%

66%

65%

65%

65%

62%

62%

62%

62%

61%

61%

61%

61%

60%

60%

59%

59%

58%

58%

57%

57%

56%

55%

Rate

NH

MA

CO

CA

NV

WY

ND RI MD NH MA CO CA NV WY

55%

54%

54%

50%

49%

49%

Rate for row State significantly higher

Rates not significantly different

Rate for row State significantly lower
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

C

The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of a person’s income is 

derived from any public assistance 

program. (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 to 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.

O C T O B E R • 2 0 0 7

Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc., forthcoming. 

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Laura 

A. Castner, and Allen L. Schirm. 

“Reaching Those in Need: State 

Food Stamp Participation Rates 

in 2004.” Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service, 

October 2006.

Wolkwitz, Kari. “Trends in Food 

Stamp Program Participation 

Rates: 1999 to 2005.” In Current 

Perspectives on Food Stamp Program 

Participation. Alexandria, VA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service, 

June 2007.

Participation Rates Varied Widely

Northeast

Southeast

Southwest

Midwest Mid-Atlantic Mountain

Plains

Western

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

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 also been excluded from the 

estimates of participating people. 

Wolkwitz (2007) presents details 

on the methods used to estimate 

the numbers of eligible and participating people used in deriving the 

participation rates presented here.

References

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Laura 

A. Castner, and Allen L. Schirm. 

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage 

Estimates of State Food Stamp 

Participation Rates in 2002-2004 

for All Eligible People and the 

Working Poor.” Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc., April 2007.

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Laura 

A. Castner, and Allen L. Schirm. 

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage 

Estimates of State Food Stamp 

Participation Rates in 2003-2005 

for All Eligible People and the 

Working Poor.” Washington, DC: 

 2005 Participation Rate

 for All Eligible People

 Above 73% (top quarter)

 60% to 73%

 Below 60% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 65%