T

T

A T

Reaching Those in Need:

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

STATE FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2002

BY LAURA A. CASTNER AND ALLEN L. SCHIRM • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, INC. MARCH • 2005

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 2004, the program served almost

24 million people in an average

month at a total annual cost of nearly

$25 billion in benefits. The average

monthly food stamp benefit was about

$200 per household.

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

over 15 years. The U. S. Department

of Agriculture’s budget request

for fiscal year 2006 includes a

performance target to reach 68 percent

of the eligible population by 2010.

Recent studies have examined

national participation rates as well as

participation rates for socioeconomic

and demographic subgroups

(Cunnyngham 2004) and rates for

States (Castner and Schirm 2004b).

This document presents estimates

of food stamp participation rates for

States for fiscal year 2002. These

estimates can be used to assess recent

program performance and focus

efforts to improve performance.

FOOD AND

NUTRITION

SERVICE

The U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race,

color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs,

sexual orientation, or marital or

family status. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for

communication of program

information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of

discrimination, write USDA,

Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or

call (202) 720-5964 (voice and

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

Participation Rates in 2002

About 54 percent of eligible people

in the United States received food stamp

benefits in fiscal year 2002. Participation

rates varied widely from State to State,

however. Nineteen States had rates that

were significantly higher (in a statistical

sense) than the national rate, and 16

States had rates that were significantly

lower. Among the regions, the Midwest

Region had the highest participation

rate. Its 60 percent rate was significantly

higher than the rates for all of the

other regions. The Northeast Region’s

participation rate, at 50 percent, was

significantly lower than the rates for all

of 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

2002 show whether a State’s participation

rate was probably at the top, at the

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

were very likely at the top, with higher

rates than most States. In contrast,

Massachusetts, Nevada, and New Jersey

likely had lower rates than most States.

Utah, Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, Idaho, North Carolina, Texas,

Maryland, Kansas, Wyoming, California,

Montana, and New York probably fell

in the bottom half of the distribution,

while Missouri, Louisiana, Kentucky,

Tennessee, the District of Columbia,

Indiana, Michigan, Maine, Alaska,

and Vermont were probably in the top

half in 2002.

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 2000 to

2002, Oregon, Hawaii, West Virginia,

Missouri, Louisiana, Kentucky, the

District of Columbia, Michigan, and

Maine had significantly higher

participation rates than two-thirds of

the States, and Tennessee, Alaska,

and Vermont had significantly higher

rates than half of the States. Kansas,

New Hampshire, Colorado, Florida,

and New Jersey had significantly

lower rates than half of the States in

all three years, and Texas, North

Carolina, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and

Massachusetts had significantly lower

rates than two-thirds of the States.

Estimation Method

The estimates presented here were

derived using shrinkage estimation

methods (Castner and Schirm 2004a,

and Castner and Schirm forthcoming).

Drawing on data from the Current

Population Survey, the decennial

census, and administrative records, the

shrinkage estimator averaged sample

estimates of participation rates with

predictions from a regression model.

The sample estimates were obtained

by applying food stamp eligibility

rules to households in the Current

Population Survey to estimate numbers

of eligible people, while estimating

numbers of participating people

from food stamp administrative

data. The regression predictions of

participation rates were based on

observed indicators of socioeconomic

conditions, such as the percentage of

the total State population receiving

food stamp benefits.
How Many Were Eligible in 2002? 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 Mississippi’s participation rate was 56 percent in 2002, the true rate may have been higher or lower.

However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 52 and 61 percent.
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2002?

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 Pennsylvania, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 13 other

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

Vermont) and a significantly higher rate than 16 other States (New York, Montana, California, Wyoming, Kansas, Maryland, Texas, North Carolina,

Idaho, New Hampshire, Colorado, Florida, Utah, New Jersey, Nevada, and Massachusetts). Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly

lower than the rates for the other 21 States, suggesting that Pennsylvania is probably in the broad center of the distribution, unlike, for example, Oregon

and Massachusetts, which were surely at or near the top and bottom of the distribution, respectively. Although we use the statistical definition of

“significance” here, most of the significant differences were at least 10 percentage points, a difference that seems important as well as significant, and

all of them were at least 3 percentage points.
C

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

Participation Rates Varied Widely

There is substantial uncertainty associated with most of these

estimates. Confidence intervals that measure the uncertainty in

the estimates for 2000 and 2001 are presented in Castner and

Schirm (forthcoming). These confidence intervals are generally

about as wide as the confidence intervals that are presented in

this document for the 2002 estimates.

2000 2001 2002

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 (Cunnyngham 2004). The

Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations served about 110,000

people in 2002, 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.

The shrinkage estimates of participation rates for 2000 and 2001 presented

here differ from, and are generally

lower than, the estimates in Castner

and Schirm (2004a and 2004b)

because of improvements in data and

methods. These improvements,

described in detail in Cunnyngham

 2002 Participation Rate

 Above 59% (top quarter)

 50% to 59%

 Below 50% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 54%

Alabama 56% 53% 53%

Alaska 62% 58% 62%

Arizona 46% 47% 53%

Arkansas 57% 55% 56%

California 54% 49% 49%

Colorado 49% 46% 45%

Connecticut 61% 58% 58%

Delaware 52% 49% 51%

District of Columbia 86% 73% 66%

Florida 49% 45% 44%

Georgia 53% 50% 54%

Hawaii 89% 77% 74%

Idaho 44% 41% 46%

Illinois 63% 62% 59%

Indiana 60% 61% 66%

Iowa 54% 51% 52%

Kansas 50% 49% 49%

Kentucky 72% 69% 67%

Louisiana 65% 64% 67%

Maine 72% 67% 64%

Maryland 52% 50% 48%

Massachusetts 42% 41% 39%

Michigan 68% 64% 65%

Minnesota 57% 54% 56%

Mississippi 52% 52% 56%

Missouri 70% 68% 69%

Montana 53% 51% 50%

Nebraska 56% 52% 54%

Nevada 38% 40% 42%

New Hampshire 49% 46% 46%

New Jersey 50% 45% 43%

New Mexico 54% 53% 55%

New York 57% 52% 50%

North Carolina 48% 47% 46%

North Dakota 50% 55% 51%

Ohio 57% 54% 56%

Oklahoma 56% 54% 58%

Oregon 72% 75% 81%

Pennsylvania 64% 58% 55%

Rhode Island 63% 60% 57%

South Carolina 56% 55% 59%

South Dakota 58% 57% 56%

Tennessee 64% 61% 66%

Texas 46% 45% 47%

Utah 47% 43% 43%

Vermont 70% 63% 60%

Virginia 54% 52% 52%

Washington 56% 54% 57%

West Virginia 85% 75% 72%

Wisconsin 53% 53% 55%

Wyoming 51% 50% 49%

Northeast Region 56% 52% 50%

Mid-Atlantic Region 60% 55% 53%

Southeast Region 54% 52% 53%

Midwest Region 61% 59% 60%

Southwest Region 51% 50% 53%

Mountain Plains Region 57% 55% 55%

Western Region 54% 51% 53%

United States 56% 53% 54%

Participation Rates

(2004) and U.S. Department of

Agriculture (2004), include procedures

that account for changes in Food

Stamp Program rules, specifically, the

updated limits on the value of vehicles

that an eligible household can own.

These new rules expanded the number

of people eligible for food stamp

benefits. In the future, some of the

estimates presented here will be

revised—and improved—with further

improvements in data and methods.

References

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

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates of

State Food Stamp Participation Rates in

2000-2002 for All Eligible People and for the

Working Poor.” Washington, DC: Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc., forthcoming.

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

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates of

State Food Stamp Participation Rates in

1999-2001 for All Eligible People and for the

Working Poor.” Washington, DC: Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc., July 2004a.

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

“Reaching Those in Need: State Food Stamp

Participation Rates in 2001.” Alexandria, VA:

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, February 2004b.

Cunnyngham, Karen. “Trends in Food Stamp

Program Participation Rates: 1999 to 2002.”

In Current Perspectives on Food Stamp Program

Participation. Alexandria, VA: Food and

Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, September 2004.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.“Explaining

Changes in Food Stamp Participation Rates.”

Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, September

2004.