A

T

T

T

Reaching Those in Need:

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

STATE FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2000

BY ALLEN L. SCH IRM AND LAURA A. CASTNER • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, INC. DECEMBER • 2002

The Food Stamp Program is a central

component of American policy to

alleviate hunger and poverty. The program’s main purpose is “to permit lowincome 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 2002, the

program served over 19 million people

in an average month at a total annual

cost of over $18 billion in benefits. The

average monthly food stamp benefit

was about $185 per household.

Although the costs of the Food Stamp

Program and other assistance programs

are scrutinized during federal budget

debates, the Government Performance

and Results Act calls for policymakers

to pay close attention to the effects of

programs, not just total dollars spent.

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. Recent studies have also

examined participation rates for

socioeconomic and demographic

subgroups of the national population

(Cunnyngham 2002) and rates for

States (Schirm and Castner 2002b).

The Food and Nutrition Service’s

Strategic Plan for 2000 to 2005 calls

for continued monitoring and includes

a performance target to “increase the

rate of . . . program participation

among eligible people.”

This document presents estimates

of food stamp participation rates for

States as of September 2000. These

estimates can be used to assess recent

program performance and focus

efforts to improve performance.

Participation Rates in 2000

About 59 percent of eligible people in

the United States received food stamps

in September 2000. Participation rates

varied widely from State to State,

however, with some rates under 50

percent and some over 70 percent.

Eighteen States had rates that were

significantly higher (in a statistical

sense) than the national rate, and

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

Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Mountain Plains Regions had participation

rates that at 66, 63, and 63 percent,

respectively, were significantly higher

than the rates for the other regions.

The 54 and 55 percent rates for the

Southwest and Western Regions were

significantly lower than the rates for

the other regions. (See the last page for

a map showing regional boundaries.)

State Comparisons

The estimated participation rates

presented here are based on fairly

small samples of households in each

State. Although there is substantial

uncertainty associated with the

estimates for some States and with

comparisons of estimates from

different States, the estimates for

2000 show whether a State’s participation rate was probably at the top, at

the bottom, or in the middle of the

distribution. Hawaii, the District of

Columbia, and West Virginia were

very likely at the top, with higher rates

than the other States. In contrast,

Nevada likely had a lower rate than

most States. Massachusetts, Idaho,

Arizona, Texas, Delaware, New

Hampshire, Utah, Florida, North

Carolina, New Jersey, and California

probably fell in the bottom half of the

distribution, while Maine, Missouri,

Michigan, Kentucky, Alaska, Oregon,

Vermont, Tennessee, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana were probably in

the top half in 2000.

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 1998 to 2000,

Hawaii, the District of Columbia,

West Virginia, and Maine had

significantly higher participation

rates than two-thirds of the States,

and Michigan, Alaska, Tennessee,

and Pennsylvania had significantly

higher rates than half of the States.

Kansas, California, and Utah had

significantly lower rates than half

of the States in all three years, and

New Hampshire, Texas, Arizona,

Idaho, Massachusetts, and Nevada

had significantly lower rates than

two-thirds of the States.

Estimation Method

The estimates presented here were

derived using shrinkage estimation

methods (Schirm and Castner, 2002a,

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 predictions 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

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.
How Many Were Eligible in September 2000? What Percentage Participated?

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

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

example, while our best estimate is that Alabama’s participation rate was 60 percent in September 2000, the true rate may have been higher or lower.

However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 53 and 67 percent.
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in September 2000?

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

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

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

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

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

estimated rate is significantly higher.

Taking Alabama, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 14 other States

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

Louisiana) and a significantly higher rate than 12 other States (California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Florida, Utah, New Hampshire, Delaware, Texas,

Arizona, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Nevada). Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 24 States,

suggesting that Alabama was probably in the broad center of the distribution, unlike, for example, Hawaii and Nevada, 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 five 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

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

2002). The effects of such adjustments

would generally be negligible. The

estimates of eligible people were

adjusted using available data to reflect

the fact that Supplemental Security

Income recipients in California are not

eligible to receive food stamps because

they receive cash instead.

The shrinkage estimates of participation rates for 1998 and 1999 presented

here differ from the estimates in Schirm

and Castner (2002a and 2002b). The

differences are due to improvements

in data and methods, which are

described in Cunnyngham (2002) and

Castner and Schirm (forthcoming).

One improvement is that data for

2000 were available and were used

with previously available data to derive

estimates for the earlier years. The

2000 data were used because socioeconomic conditions in one year are related

to conditions in other years – both

earlier and later. Thus, the shrinkage

estimator uses data for all of the years

for which estimates are sought to

obtain the most accurate estimates for

each year. Before 2000 data became

available, 1999 data were the most

recent data used in deriving estimates

for 1998 and 1999. When 2000 data

became available, they were used to

derive the first estimates for 2000 and

revised estimates for 1998 and 1999.

In the future, some of the estimates

presented here will be revised – and

improved – using data for 2001 and

subsequent years.

References

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., forthcoming.

Cunnyngham, Karen. “Trends in Food

Stamp Program Participation Rates:

1994 to 2000.” In Current Perspectives

on Food Stamp Program Participation.

Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

June 2002.

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

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates

of State Food Stamp Participation Rates

for 1994-1999.” Washington, DC:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,

October 2002a.

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

“Reaching Those in Need: State Food

Stamp Participation Rates in 1999.”

Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

June 2002b.

 Participation Rates

Alabama 58% 61% 60%

Alaska 74% 69% 74%

Arizona 47% 46% 46%

Arkansas 65% 69% 66%

California 55% 52% 53%

Colorado 60% 54% 55%

Connecticut 67% 62% 63%

Delaware 58% 53% 49%

District of Columbia 89% 100% 85%

Florida 53% 53% 52%

Georgia 58% 57% 56%

Hawaii 95% 98% 97%

Idaho 44% 42% 45%

Illinois 67% 65% 69%

Indiana 62% 60% 66%

Iowa 60% 56% 60%

Kansas 47% 42% 53%

Kentucky 68% 74% 75%

Louisiana 65% 70% 68%

Maine 80% 79% 78%

Maryland 69% 57% 58%

Massachusetts 48% 43% 43%

Michigan 77% 69% 76%

Minnesota 64% 60% 65%

Mississippi 57% 59% 60%

Missouri 68% 71% 77%

Montana 56% 55% 59%

Nebraska 66% 60% 61%

Nevada 42% 34% 39%

New Hampshire 46% 46% 49%

New Jersey 59% 56% 53%

New Mexico 64% 64% 62%

New York 59% 61% 59%

North Carolina 52% 53% 52%

North Dakota 53% 51% 54%

Ohio 58% 54% 57%

Oklahoma 64% 64% 61%

Oregon 65% 66% 74%

Pennsylvania 70% 68% 68%

Rhode Island 64% 69% 66%

South Carolina 63% 62% 63%

South Dakota 62% 59% 64%

Tennessee 71% 72% 69%

Texas 51% 46% 47%

Utah 53% 50% 51%

Vermont 69% 77% 73%

Virginia 60% 57% 58%

Washington 63% 56% 61%

West Virginia 86% 89% 83%

Wisconsin 51% 48% 56%

Wyoming 53% 48% 53%

Northeast Region 59% 59% 58%

Mid-Atlantic Region 68% 64% 63%

Southeast Region 58% 59% 59%

Midwest Region 65% 61% 66%

Southwest Region 56% 54% 54%

Mountain Plains Region 60% 58% 63%

Western Region 56% 53% 55%

United States 60% 58% 59%

There is substantial uncertainty associated with most of these estimates.

Confidence intervals that measure the uncertainty in the estimates for

1998 and 1999 are presented in Castner and Schirm (forthcoming).

Those confidence intervals are generally about as wide as the confidence

intervals that are presented in this document for the 2000 estimates.

1998 1999 2000