Reaching Those in Need:

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

STATE FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2006

BY KAREN E. CUNNYNGHAM, LAURA A. CASTNER, AND ALLEN L. SCHIRM • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, INC. N O V E M B E R • 2 0 0 8

F O O D A N D 

N U T R I T I O N 

SERVICE

A T

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—formerly 

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 and Nutrition Act of 2008). 

SNAP 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 2008, the program served 28 

million people in an average month 

at a total annual cost of over $34 

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 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 2009 includes 

a performance target to reach 68 

percent of the eligible population 

by 2010. 

SNAP provides an important 

support for the “working poor”—

people who are eligible for SNAP 

benefits and live in households 

in which someone earns income 

from a job. Of the 26 million 

people who received benefits in 

an average month in 2007, over 

10 million—41 percent—lived in 

households that had income from 

earnings, up from 30 percent of all 

participants 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 2008), and rates for all 

eligible people and for the working poor for States (Cunnyngham, 

Castner, and Schirm 2007). This 

document presents estimates of 

Food Stamp Program participation 

rates for all eligible people and 

for the working poor for States 

for fiscal year 2006. These estimates can be used to assess recent 

program performance and focus 

efforts to improve performance.

Participation Rates in 2006 

About 67 percent of eligible people 

in the United States received 

Food Stamp Program benefits in 

fiscal year 2006. 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 20 States had rates that 

were significantly lower. Among 

the regions, the Midwest Region 

had the highest participation rate. 

Its 74 percent rate was significantly 

higher than the rates for all of 

the other regions. The Western 

Region’s participation rate of 58 

percent was significantly lower 

than the rates for all of the other 

regions. (See the last page for a 

map showing regional boundaries.)

Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program

Beginning October 1, 

2008, the Food Stamp 

Act of 1977 is renamed 

the Food and Nutrition 

Act of 2008, and the 

Food Stamp Program 

is renamed the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program.
How Many Were Eligible in 2006? 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 Wisconsin’s participation rate was 67 percent in 2006, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 

that the true rate was between 62 and 71 percent.

2

Participation Rates and Confidence Intervals 

(Participation Rate = 100 x Number of People Participating ÷ Number of People Eligible) 

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

58%

Eligible

People

(Thousands)

66% 67% 69%

56% 59%

62% 64% 67%

64% 67% 70%

68% 70% 72%

68% 70% 73%

70% 72% 74%

72% 74% 77%

74% 78% 83%

48% 50% 52%

47% 53% 58%

50% 54% 59%

49% 54% 60%

51% 55% 59%

51% 56% 61%

52% 57% 62%

51%

53% 58%

57%

62%

63%

54% 59% 63%

54% 60% 65%

55% 60% 65%

57% 61% 65%

56% 61% 66%

58% 62% 66%

58% 62% 67%

60% 63% 66%

60% 63% 67%

58% 63% 68%

59% 63% 68%

59% 65% 72%

62% 66% 70%

62% 67% 71%

62% 67% 71%

63% 67%

64% 68% 72%

63% 68% 74%

63% 69% 74%

65% 69% 73%

66% 69% 73%

66% 70% 73%

67% 71% 76%

67% 71% 75%

66% 72% 78%

68% 73% 78%

68% 74% 79%

69% 74% 78%

69% 75%

69%

71%

80%

75% 80%

75% 79%

72% 77% 81%

75% 79% 83%

75% 80% 85%

76% 80% 83%

78% 83% 87%

79% 85% 91%

79% 86% 94%

86% 91%

90% 96%

93% 98% 100%

100%

97%

30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

 797 Missouri

 156 Maine

 921 Tennessee

 99 District of Columbia

 456 Oregon

 311 West Virginia

 1,292 Michigan

 56 Vermont

 1,519 Illinois

 733 Kentucky

 481 Arkansas

 1,421 Pennsylvania

 835 Louisiana

 702 Washington

 708 South Carolina

 763 Indiana

 82 Delaware

 121 Hawaii

 335 New Mexico

 309 Iowa

 1,476 Ohio

 610 Oklahoma

 712 Virginia

 371 Minnesota

 81 New Hampshire

 1,337 Georgia

 1,257 North Carolina

 177 Nebraska

 499 Wisconsin

 809 Alabama

 312 Connecticut

 639 Mississippi

 87 Alaska

 3,837 Texas

 2,778 New York

 125 Montana

 1,911 Florida

 852 Arizona

 678 Massachusetts

 662 New Jersey

 483 Maryland

 302 Kansas

 100 South Dakota

 70 North Dakota

 156 Idaho

 230 Utah

 130 Rhode Island

 213 Nevada

 451 Colorado

 45 Wyoming

 3,931 California

 5,920 Midwest Region

 2,608 Mountain Plains Region

 3,769 Mid-Atlantic Region

 8,314 Southeast Region

 6,098 Southwest Region

 4,191 Northeast Region

 6,518 Western Region

37,418 United States

71%
44%

Eligible

Working Poor

(Thousands)

55% 57% 59%

41% 48%

44% 49% 53%

55% 59% 63%

55% 60% 64%

57% 60% 63%

62% 65% 68%

64% 67% 71%

60% 70% 79%

29% 36% 42%

32% 36% 40%

34% 40% 46%

35% 42% 49%

36% 43% 50%

32% 43% 54%

36% 45% 54%

38%

38% 45%

45%

53%

53%

42% 48% 53%

43% 49% 55%

43% 49% 56%

44% 50% 56%

43% 50% 58%

45% 51% 57%

45% 52% 59%

45% 53% 61%

45% 54% 63%

48% 55% 61%

48% 55% 62%

50% 56% 62%

49% 56% 64%

49% 56% 64%

51% 58% 64%

52% 58%

52% 58% 65%

52% 59% 65%

51% 59% 68%

54% 61% 68%

56% 62% 68%

55% 62% 70%

55% 62% 70%

58% 64% 70%

57% 65% 72%

59% 65% 71%

56% 65% 75%

60% 66% 73%

60% 67%

61%

62%

75%

68% 74%

68% 74%

61% 69% 76%

65% 71% 78%

64% 72% 79%

65% 73% 82%

65% 74% 83%

70% 78% 86%

71% 79% 87%

74% 81%

83% 92%

84% 93%

100%

88%

64%

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

 61 Maine

 464 Missouri

 376 Tennessee

 122 West Virginia

 570 Michigan

 202 Oregon

 22 Vermont

 336 Indiana

 299 Kentucky

 383 Louisiana

 176 New Mexico

 235 Arkansas

 573 Pennsylvania

 326 South Carolina

 697 Illinois

 41 Delaware

 159 Iowa

 314 Washington

 645 Ohio

 58 Hawaii

 40 Alaska

 293 Oklahoma

 245 Wisconsin

 33 New Hampshire

 704 Georgia

 324 Virginia

 551 North Carolina

 346 Alabama

 52 South Dakota

 64 Montana

 2,096 Texas

 299 Mississippi

 94 Nebraska

 33 North Dakota

 22 Wyoming

 88 Idaho

 164 Kansas

 521 Arizona

 878 Florida

 126 Utah

 168 Minnesota

 1,267 New York

 223 Maryland

 300 New Jersey

 129 Connecticut

 30 District of Columbia

 109 Nevada

 218 Massachusetts

 220 Colorado

 2,171 California

 39 Rhode Island

 2,662 Midwest Region

 1,398 Mountain Plains Region

 3,778 Southeast Region

 3,183 Southwest Region

 1,614 Mid-Atlantic Region

 1,769 Northeast Region

 3,504 Western Region

17,907 United States

100%

How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2006? 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 Wisconsin’s working poor participation rate was 61 percent in 2006, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances 

are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 54 and 68 percent.

Participation Rates and Confidence Intervals 

(Participation Rate = 100 x Number of People Participating ÷ Number of People Eligible) 

(Estimated participation rates are in red; estimated bounds of confidence intervals are in black.) 
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. T

T

In 2006, 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. Twenty States had 

rates for the working poor that 

were significantly higher than the 

national rate, and 15 States had 

rates that were significantly lower. 

While 67 percent of all eligible 

people in the United States participated in 2006, only 57 percent 

of the eligible working poor participated, a significant difference 

of 10 percentage points. In 34 

States, the participation rate for 

the working poor in 2006 was—

like the national rate for the working poor—significantly lower than 

the rate for all eligible people; in 

8 of these States, the rate for the 

working poor was more than 10 

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 2006 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, Maine, 

and Tennessee, were very likely 

at the top, with higher rates for 

all eligible people than most States. 

In contrast, California likely had a 

lower rate 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 2006. 

Maine and Missouri were very 

likely ranked at the top, with higher 

rates for the working poor than most 

States. In contrast, Rhode Island 

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 

2004 to 2006, Illinois, Kentucky, 

Maine, Missouri, 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, Louisiana, and 

Vermont had significantly higher 

rates than half of the States. Florida, 

Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Jersey, New York, and South 

Dakota had significantly lower rates 

than half of the States in all 3 years, 

while California, Colorado, Nevada, 

North Dakota, Rhode Island, and 

4

N O V E M B E R • 2 0 0 8

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, South 

Dakota, 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 and Minnesota are ranked significantly lower.

Estimation Method

The estimates presented here were 

derived using shrinkage estimation 

methods (Cunnyngham, Castner, 

and Schirm 2008, 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 Program 

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 administrative data. The 

“working poor” were defined as 
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Participation Rates

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

that measure the uncertainty in the estimates for 2004 and 2005 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 2006 estimates.

5

people who were eligible for the 

Food Stamp Program and lived in 

a household in which a member 

earned 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 Program 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 were 

not adjusted to reflect the fact that 

participants in that program were 

not eligible to receive Food Stamp 

Program benefits at the same 

time (Wolkwitz 2008). The Food 

Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations served about 89,900 

people in 2006, 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 

were 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 were not 

legally eligible to receive Food 

Stamp Program benefits because 

they received cash instead. It 

might be useful in some other 

contexts, however, to consider 

participation rates among those 

eligible for Food Stamp Program 

benefits or a cash substitute.

N O V E M B E R • 2 0 0 8

 All Eligible People Working Poor 

 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 

Alabama 60% 66% 66% 54% 63% 58%

Alaska 60% 67% 63% 57% 67% 62%

Arizona 62% 62% 61% 49% 49% 50%

Arkansas 71% 77% 77% 61% 72% 68%

California 48% 49% 50% 34% 35% 36%

Colorado 52% 53% 54% 42% 36% 40%

Connecticut 59% 65% 65% 48% 45% 45%

Delaware 62% 65% 73% 57% 59% 65%

District of Columbia 77% 73% 86% 34% 34% 43%

Florida 57% 59% 62% 42% 46% 50%

Georgia 66% 70% 68% 58% 62% 59%

Hawaii 73% 72% 72% 60% 65% 62%

Idaho 58% 59% 57% 50% 53% 52%

Illinois 69% 76% 79% 59% 65% 66%

Indiana 67% 72% 74% 65% 72% 72%

Iowa 59% 66% 71% 52% 58% 65%

Kansas 54% 59% 59% 47% 50% 51%

Kentucky 72% 77% 78% 65% 75% 71%

Louisiana 74% 80% 75% 71% 81% 70%

Maine 81% 86% 96% 77% 87% 93%

Maryland 52% 54% 60% 44% 40% 45%

Massachusetts 48% 52% 61% 39% 34% 42%

Michigan 65% 72% 80% 66% 72% 78%

Minnesota 63% 67% 69% 45% 45% 49%

Mississippi 59% 61% 63% 50% 58% 55%

Missouri 86% 95% 98% 78% 90% 92%

Montana 58% 61% 62% 51% 56% 56%

Nebraska 62% 66% 67% 51% 54% 55%

Nevada 53% 51% 54% 37% 37% 43%

New Hampshire 61% 64% 68% 53% 55% 59%

New Jersey 55% 59% 60% 48% 45% 45%

New Mexico 65% 69% 71% 61% 73% 69%

New York 55% 60% 63% 43% 46% 48%

North Carolina 60% 63% 67% 51% 56% 58%

North Dakota 51% 53% 57% 51% 51% 54%

Ohio 62% 67% 70% 59% 63% 64%

Oklahoma 67% 70% 69% 60% 66% 62%

Oregon 79% 80% 85% 68% 70% 74%

Pennsylvania 65% 71% 75% 59% 65% 68%

Rhode Island 53% 56% 55% 40% 37% 36%

South Carolina 67% 70% 74% 63% 68% 67%

South Dakota 53% 56% 58% 52% 56% 56%

Tennessee 85% 91% 91% 74% 85% 81%

Texas 56% 59% 63% 49% 57% 56%

Utah 58% 61% 56% 48% 54% 49%

Vermont 70% 75% 80% 62% 68% 73%

Virginia 63% 66% 69% 53% 55% 58%

Washington 67% 68% 75% 55% 59% 65%

West Virginia 76% 78% 83% 70% 80% 79%

Wisconsin 55% 59% 67% 51% 54% 61%

Wyoming 51% 52% 53% 53% 54% 53% 

Northeast Region 55% 60% 64% 45% 46% 49%

Mid-Atlantic Region 62% 66% 70% 55% 56% 59%

Southeast Region 65% 68% 70% 55% 60% 60%

Midwest Region 64% 70% 74% 60% 64% 67%

Southwest Region 61% 65% 67% 55% 62% 60%

Mountain Plains Region 65% 70% 72% 56% 62% 65%

Western Region 55% 56% 58% 42% 43% 44% 

United States 61% 65% 67% 52% 56% 57%
49 51 51

44 50 51

42 49 50

41 48 51

41 47 50

38 46 50

37 45 49

35 44 50

36

34 42

43

47

48

32 41 47

31 40 47

31 39 45

29 38 45

30 37 42

27 36 43

28 35 40

27 34 41

25 33 42

25 32 42

19 31 41

22 30 37

20 29 36

20 28 36

20 27 34

18 26 32

16 25 35

15 24 34

16 23 31

17 22 30

16 21 29

13 20 28

14 19 27

11 18 28

11 17 25

10 16 24

10 15 24

8 14 22

8 13

9

7

23

12 19

11 17

6 10 15

6 9 14

5 8 14

6 7 12

4 6 10

3 5 9

3 4 9

2 3

1 2

1 1 2

3

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 7

Participation

Rate for

 All Eligible 

People

98% Missouri

96% Maine

91% Tennessee

86% District of Columbia

85% Oregon

83% West Virginia

80% Michigan

80% Vermont

79% Illinois

78% Kentucky

77% Arkansas

75% Pennsylvania

75% Lousiana

75% Washington

74% South Carolina

74% Indiana

73% Delaware

72% Hawaii

71% New Mexico

71% Iowa

70% Ohio

69% Oklahoma

69% Virginia

69% Minnesota

68% New Hampshire

68% Georgia

67% North Carolina

67% Nebraska

67% Wisconsin

66% Alabama

65% Connecticut

63% Mississippi

63% Alaska

63% Texas

63% New York

62% Montana

62% Florida

61% Arizona

61% Massachusetts

60% New Jersey

60% Maryland

59% Kansas

58% South Dakota

57% North Dakota

57% Idaho

56% Utah

55% Rhode Island

54% Nevada

54% Colorado

53% Wyoming

50% California

How Did Your State Rank in 2006?

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 Georgia had the 26th highest participation rate in 2006, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the 

true rank was between 18 and 32 among all of the States. To determine how Georgia or your State compares with any other State, see the chart on page 7.

6

Ranks and Confidence Intervals

(Estimated ranks are in red; estimated bounds of confidence intervals are in black.) 
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2006?

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 Georgia, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 16 other States 

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

Washington, South Carolina, and Indiana) and a significantly higher rate than 20 other States (California, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Rhode Island, Utah, 

Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Florida, Montana, New York, Texas, Alaska, and Mississippi). 

Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 14 States, suggesting that Georgia 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 ME TN DC OR WV MI VT IL KY AR PA LA WA SC IN DE HI NM IA OH OK VA MN NH GA NC NE WI AL CT MS AK TX NY MT FL AZ MA NJ MD KS

MO 

ME

TN

DC

OR

WV

MI

VT

IL

KY

AR

PA

LA

WA

SC

IN

DE

HI

NM

IA

OH

OK

VA

MN

NH

GA

NC

NE

WI

AL

CT

MS

AK

TX

NY

MT

FL

AZ

MA

NJ

MD

KS

SD

ND

ID

 

98%

96%

91%

86%

85%

83%

80%

80%

79%

78%

77%

75%

75%

75%

74%

74%

73%

72%

71%

71%

70%

69%

69%

69%

68%

68%

67%

67%

67%

66%

65%

63%

63%

63%

63%

62%

62%

61%

61%

60%

60%

59%

58%

57%

57%

Rate 

UT

RI

NV

CO

WY

CA

SD ND ID UT RI NV CO WY CA

56%

55%

54%

54%

53%

50%

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.

N O V E M B E R • 2 0 0 8

Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc., April 2008.

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Laura 

A. Castner, and Allen L. Schirm. 

“Reaching Those in Need: State 

Food Stamp Participation Rates 

in 2005.” Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service, 

October 2007.

Wolkwitz, Kari. “Trends in Food 

Stamp Program Participation 

Rates: 2000 to 2006.” In Current 

Perspectives on Food Stamp Program 

Participation. Alexandria, VA: 

Food and Nutrition Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

June 2008.

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 were eligible 

for the Food Stamp Program, no 

data were available to estimate the 

number of people who would fail 

the program’s income tests but were 

categorically eligible for Food Stamp 

Program benefits through participation in noncash public assistance 

programs. Therefore, because such 

people could not be included in 

estimates of eligible people, they 

were also excluded from the estimates of participating people. 

Wolkwitz (2008) 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 2004-2006 

for All Eligible People and the 

Working Poor.” Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc., forthcoming.

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: 

 2006 Participation Rate

 for All Eligible People

 Above 74% (top quarter)

 62% to 74%

 Below 62% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 67%