Reaching Those in Need:

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

STATE FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2004

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 6

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 2006, the 

program served 26 million people 

in an average month at a total 

annual cost of over $29 billion in 

benefits, excluding disaster assistance 

provided in October and November 

2005 as a result of hurricanes.

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 2007 

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—by easing the transition 

from dependence on public assistance to self-sufficiency. Of the 25 

million people who received food 

stamps in an average month in 2005, 

almost 10 million—40 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 

(Barrett and Poikolainen 2006), 

rates for all eligible people for States 

(Castner and Schirm 2005), and 

rates for the working poor for States 

(Castner and Schirm 2006b). This 

document presents estimates of 

food stamp participation rates for all 

eligible people and for the working 

poor for States for fiscal year 2004. 

These estimates can be used to assess 

recent program performance and 

focus efforts to improve performance.

Participation Rates in 2004 

About 60 percent of eligible people 

in the United States received food 

stamp benefits in fiscal year 2004. 

Participation rates varied widely 

from State to State, however. 

Twenty States had rates that were 

significantly higher (in a statistical 

sense) than the national rate, and 

17 States had rates that were significantly lower. Among the regions, 

the Mountain Plains Region had 

the highest participation rate. Its 
How Many Were Eligible in 2004? 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 Alaska’s participation rate was 59 percent in 2004, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, 

the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 55 and 63 percent.

2

��������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

54%

Eligible

People

(Thousands)

59% 60% 61%

51% 56%

53% 55% 57%

56% 58% 60%

61% 63% 65%

61% 63% 65%

62% 64% 66%

64% 66% 68%

67% 71% 75%

44% 46% 49%

43% 48% 53%

46% 49% 53%

46% 50% 55%

48% 52% 56%

50% 53% 56%

48% 53% 57%

49%

49% 53%

53%

57%

57%

49% 54% 58%

49% 54% 58%

51% 54% 57%

52% 55% 57%

52% 56% 60%

53% 56% 60%

53% 57% 61%

52% 57% 62%

53% 57% 62%

55% 58% 61%

54% 58% 62%

54% 58% 62%

53% 58% 63%

55% 58% 62%

55% 59% 63%

55% 59% 63%

57% 60% 63%

57% 61% 64%

57% 61% 65%

57% 61% 65%

56% 61% 66%

58% 62% 66%

60% 64% 68%

61% 65% 68%

60% 65% 70%

63% 66% 69%

63% 67% 70%

62% 67% 72%

64% 68%

65%

64%

71%

68% 72%

69% 73%

66% 71% 76%

67% 72% 78%

71% 75% 79%

71% 75% 79%

72% 76% 80%

73% 77% 81%

73% 79% 86%

78% 83%

77% 83%

80% 84% 88%

89%

88%

30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

38,355 United States

800

942

456

109

171

327

916

535

134

755

732

740

497

722

1,256

1,565

1,364

665

339

1,452

68

286

85

182

615

203

802

83

129

152

285

333

3,786

1,646

412

855

426

1,332

2,132

573

87

218

492

98

75

2,978

140

725

659

53

3,967

Missouri

Tennessee

Oregon

District of Columbia

Maine

West Virginia

Louisiana

Oklahoma

Hawaii

Kentucky

Arizona

Indiana

Arkansas

South Carolina

Georgia

Illinois

Michigan

Washington

New Mexico

Ohio

Vermont

Iowa

Delaware

Nebraska

Mississippi

Utah

Virginia

Alaska

Montana

Idaho

Kansas

Connecticut

Texas

Pennsylvania

Minnesota

Alabama

Colorado

North Carolina

Florida

Wisconsin

New Hampshire

Nevada

Maryland

South Dakota

North Dakota

New York

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Massachusetts

Wyoming

California

2,538 Mountain Plains Region

6,107 Midwest Region

8,610 Southeast Region

6,072 Southwest Region

4,184 Mid-Atlantic Region

6,406 Western Region

4,436 Northeast Region
How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2004? 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 Alabama’s working poor participation rate was 50 percent in 2004, the true rate may have been higher or 

lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 43 and 57 percent.

��������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

42%

Eligible

Working Poor

(Thousands)

50% 51% 53%

38% 46%

40% 42% 45%

48% 51% 54%

50% 53% 57%

51% 54% 57%

55% 58% 60%

55% 58% 61%

57% 64% 70%

31% 34% 37%

29% 35% 41%

31% 36% 42%

31% 38% 45%

33% 39% 45%

32% 41% 49%

36% 41% 47%

35%

38% 42%

42%

46%

49%

38% 44% 50%

40% 45% 51%

39% 46% 54%

42% 47% 51%

41% 47% 53%

42% 47% 52%

40% 48% 56%

43% 49% 54%

45% 50% 54%

43% 50% 57%

45% 50% 55%

45% 51% 56%

43% 51% 58%

45% 51% 57%

45% 51% 58%

44% 52%

46% 52% 59%

45% 52% 60%

46% 53% 60%

46% 53% 60%

47% 54% 61%

48% 55% 62%

49% 55% 62%

49% 55% 62%

50% 55% 61%

48% 56% 65%

49% 57% 66%

50% 57% 65%

53% 58%

51%

53%

64%

58% 65%

60% 66%

57% 63% 69%

58% 65% 71%

61% 67% 73%

61% 68% 76%

62% 69% 77%

64% 72% 80%

65% 74% 84%

69% 75%

67% 76%

69% 78% 88%

86%

82%

30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

17,878 United States

2,772 Midwest Region

1,245 Mountain Plains Region

3,915 Southeast Region

3,339 Southwest Region

1,660 Mid-Atlantic Region

3,339 Western Region

1,607 Northeast Region

 410 Tennessee

 222 Oregon

 364 Missouri

 118 West Virginia

 450 Louisiana

 257 Oklahoma

66 Maine

 579 Michigan

 333 Indiana

 326 South Carolina

 307 Kentucky

 225 Arkansas

 182 New Mexico

 653 Ohio

 380 Arizona

 584 Georgia

74 Hawaii

 727 Illinois

 136 Iowa

 624 Pennsylvania

41 Delaware

45 Alaska

27 Vermont

36 North Dakota

87 Idaho

64 Montana

299 Washington

371 Virginia

 290 Mississippi

49 South Dakota

93 Nebraska

134 Kansas

398 Alabama

291 Wisconsin

119 Utah

29 Wyoming

223 Colorado

591 North Carolina

 2,224 Texas

33 New Hampshire

111 Connecticut

181 Maryland

 1,010 Florida

189 Minnesota

 1,095 New York

25 District of Columbia

48 Rhode Island

300 New Jersey

227 Massachusetts

117 Nevada

 2,116 California

59%
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. T

T

66-percent rate was significantly 

higher than the rates for all of the 

other regions. The Northeast and 

Western Regions’ participation 

rates, at 54 percent and 55 percent, 

were significantly lower than the 

rates for all of the other regions. 

(See the last page for a map 

showing regional boundaries.)

In 2004, 51 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. Fifteen States had 

rates for the working poor that 

were significantly higher than the 

national rate, and 13 States had 

rates that were significantly lower. 

While 60 percent of all eligible 

people in the United States participated in 2004, only 51 percent of 

the eligible working poor participated, a significant difference of 

9 percentage points. In 36 States, 

the participation rate for the 

working poor in 2004 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 9 

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 

2004 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 

the District of Columbia were very 

likely at the top, with higher rates for 

all eligible people than most States. 

In contrast, Massachusetts, California, and Wyoming 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 2004. Tennessee, Oregon, and Missouri were very 

likely ranked at the top, with higher 

rates for the working poor than 

most States. In contrast, California, 

Nevada, and Massachusetts 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 2002 to 2004, Missouri, 

Tennessee, Oregon, Maine, West 

Virginia, Louisiana, Hawaii, and 

Kentucky had significantly higher 

participation rates for all eligible 

people than two-thirds of the 

States, while the District of Columbia, Oklahoma, Indiana, Arkansas, 

Illinois, and Michigan had significantly higher rates than half of the 

4

O C T O B E R • 2 0 0 6

States. Colorado, North Carolina, 

Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, 

Maryland, South Dakota, North 

Dakota, New York, and California 

had significantly lower rates than 

half of the States in all 3 years, 

while New Jersey, Massachusetts, 

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. Five States (North Dakota, 

Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Michigan, 

and Wisconsin) 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 3 States 

(Washington, Hawaii, and Minnesota) and the District of Columbia 

are ranked significantly lower.

Estimation Method

The estimates presented here were 

derived using shrinkage estimation methods (Castner and Schirm 

2006a, 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 
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Participation Rates

 All Eligible People Working Poor 

 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 

Alabama 55% 55% 57% 50% 49% 50%

Alaska 59% 62% 59% 54% 64% 54%

Arizona 58% 66% 71% 48% 48% 57%

Arkansas 59% 61% 68% 53% 58% 60%

California 47% 45% 46% 33% 34% 34%

Colorado 46% 49% 56% 37% 38% 47%

Connecticut 56% 53% 58% 41% 45% 45%

Delaware 49% 53% 61% 42% 47% 55%

District of Columbia 63% 68% 79% 37% 40% 41%

Florida 48% 48% 55% 41% 39% 42%

Georgia 59% 64% 67% 48% 50% 57%

Hawaii 77% 70% 72% 62% 54% 56%

Idaho 49% 53% 58% 42% 46% 52%

Illinois 59% 61% 67% 51% 52% 55%

Indiana 66% 65% 69% 60% 62% 65%

Iowa 54% 57% 61% 44% 45% 55%

Kansas 51% 54% 58% 44% 50% 50%

Kentucky 64% 68% 71% 59% 62% 63%

Louisiana 66% 70% 75% 69% 68% 72%

Maine 66% 75% 77% 59% 65% 68%

Maryland 48% 49% 53% 38% 40% 44%

Massachusetts 38% 42% 49% 23% 29% 36%

Michigan 60% 63% 66% 62% 66% 67%

Minnesota 58% 60% 57% 39% 43% 42%

Mississippi 57% 60% 61% 51% 48% 51%

Missouri 70% 77% 84% 64% 69% 75%

Montana 48% 49% 58% 45% 44% 52%

Nebraska 56% 55% 61% 43% 45% 51%

Nevada 41% 45% 54% 24% 29% 35%

New Hampshire 48% 49% 54% 39% 41% 46%

New Jersey 45% 46% 50% 27% 34% 38%

New Mexico 53% 53% 65% 48% 46% 58%

New York 51% 47% 53% 41% 41% 41%

North Carolina 47% 48% 56% 40% 44% 47%

North Dakota 48% 50% 53% 49% 50% 53%

Ohio 57% 62% 64% 50% 56% 58%

Oklahoma 60% 69% 75% 58% 64% 69%

Oregon 76% 81% 83% 77% 78% 76%

Pennsylvania 53% 52% 57% 51% 54% 55%

Rhode Island 52% 52% 52% 37% 35% 39%

South Carolina 57% 65% 68% 55% 62% 64%

South Dakota 50% 50% 53% 47% 44% 51%

Tennessee 70% 83% 83% 65% 74% 78%

Texas 47% 48% 58% 38% 38% 47%

Utah 47% 52% 60% 36% 40% 49%

Vermont 59% 59% 62% 51% 53% 53%

Virginia 53% 55% 59% 44% 43% 51%

Washington 56% 60% 65% 39% 42% 52%

West Virginia 70% 71% 76% 76% 72% 74%

Wisconsin 49% 52% 54% 46% 54% 50%

Wyoming 43% 43% 48% 40% 43% 48% 

Northeast Region 50% 48% 54% 39% 41% 42%

Mid-Atlantic Region 52% 53% 58% 45% 47% 51%

Southeast Region 55% 59% 63% 48% 50% 54%

Midwest Region 59% 61% 64% 53% 57% 58%

Southwest Region 53% 55% 63% 45% 46% 53%

Mountain Plains Region 56% 59% 66% 48% 50% 58%

Western Region 52% 52% 55% 39% 40% 42%

 

United States 54% 56% 60% 45% 47% 51%

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

that measure the uncertainty in the estimates for 2002 and 2003 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 2004 estimates.

5

eligible people and eligible working 

poor, while estimating numbers of 

participating people and participating working poor from 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 (Barrett and Poikolainen 

2006). The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations served 

about 104,000 people in 2004, 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 6
������� ��������

������� ���������

������� ������

������� ��������������������

������� ��������

������� �������������

������� ���������

������� ��������

������� ������

������� ��������

������� �������

������� �������

������� ��������

������� ��������������

������� �������

������� ��������

������� ��������

������� ����������

������� ����������

������� ����

������� �������

������� ����

������� ��������

������� ��������

������� �����������

������� ����

������� ��������

������� ������

������� �������

������� �����

������� ������

������� �����������

������� �����

������� ������������

������� ���������

������� �������

������� ��������

������� ��������������

������� �������

������� ���������

������� �������������

������� ������

������� ��������

������� ������������

������� ������������

������� ��������

������� ������������

������� ����������

������� �������������

������� �������

������� ���������� 49 51 51

45 50 51

44 49 51

39 48 50

36 47 49

37 46 48

34 45 49

35 44 48

35

31 42

43

49

49

31 41 48

33 40 47

33 39 45

27 38 45

27 37 44

25 36 44

23 35 44

23 34 43

24 33 40

23 32 42

23 31 41

21 30 43

22 29 40

21 28 40

20 27 38

20 26 34

19 25 34

18 24 33

19 23 33

17 22 35

17 21 32

14 20 27

13 19 25

11 18 25

13 17 22

11 16 20

10 15 23

10 14 19

9 13

9

7

18

12 18

11 17

8 10 15

6 9 15

5 8 10

4 7 10

4 6 10

3 5 8

1 4 8

1 3

1 2

1 1 4

5

4

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

�������������

���������

�������������

������

How Did Your State Rank in 2004?

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 Utah had the 26th highest participation rate in 2004, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that 

the true rank was between 20 and 34 among all of the States. To determine how Utah 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 2004?

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 Utah, 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 (Missouri, 

Tennessee, Oregon, the District of Columbia, Maine, West Virginia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Kentucky, Arizona, Indiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, 

Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Washington, and New Mexico) and a significantly higher rate than 15 other States (California, Wyoming, Massachusetts, New 

Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, and Colorado). Its 

rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 16 States, suggesting that Utah is probably in the broad center of the 

distribution, unlike, for example, Missouri and California, 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 DC ME WV LA OK HI KY AZ IN AR SC GA IL MI WA NM OH VT IA DE NE MS UT VA AK MT ID KS CT TX PA MN AL CO NC FL WI NH NV

MO

TN

OR

DC

ME

WV

LA

OK

HI

KY

AZ

IN

AR

SC

GA

IL

MI

WA

NM

OH

VT

IA

DE

NE

MS

UT

VA

AK

MT

ID

KS

CT

TX

PA

MN

AL

CO

NC

FL

WI

NH

NV

MD

SD

ND

84%

83%

83%

79%

77%

76%

75%

75%

72%

71%

71%

69%

68%

68%

67%

67%

66%

65%

65%

64%

62%

61%

61%

61%

61%

60%

59%

59%

58%

58%

58%

58%

58%

57%

57%

57%

56%

56%

55%

54%

54%

54%

53%

53%

53%

Rate

NY

RI

NJ

MA

WY

CA

MD SD ND NY RI NJ MA WY CA

53%

52%

50%

49%

48%

46%

Rate for row State significantly higher

Rates not significantly different

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

B

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 6

ticipation Rates for the Working 

Poor in 2003.” Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

April 2006b.

Castner, Laura A., and Allen L. 

Schirm. “Reaching Those in Need: 

State Food Stamp Participation 

Rates in 2003.” Alexandria, VA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service, 

November 2005.

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., forthcoming.

Participation Rates Varied Widely

Northeast

Southeast

Southwest

Mid-Atlantic

Midwest

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. 

Barrett and Poikolainen (2006) 

present details on the methods 

used to estimate the numbers of 

eligible and participating people 

used in deriving the participation 

rates presented here.

References

Barrett, Allison, and Anni Poikolainen. “Food Stamp Program 

Participation Rates: 2004.” In 

Current Perspectives on Food Stamp 

Program Participation. Alexandria, 

VA: Food and Nutrition Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

June 2006.

Castner, Laura A., and Allen L. 

Schirm. “Empirical Bayes Shrinkage 

Estimates of State Food Stamp 

Participation Rates in 2002 and 

2003 for All Eligible People 

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

Research, Inc., July 2006a.

Castner, Laura A., and Allen L. 

Schirm. “State Food Stamp Par-

 2004 Participation Rate

 for All Eligible People

 Above 67% (top quarter)

 56% to 67%

 Below 56% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 60%