T

I

By Allen L. Schirm

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

The Food Stamp Program is a

central component of American

policy to reduce poverty and hunger.

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 1997, the program served

about 23 million people in an average month at a total annual cost of

nearly $20 billion. The average

monthly food stamp benefit was

just over $170 per household.

Although the cost of the Food

Stamp Program and other assistance programs has been at the

center of recent 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

long been a standard for assessing

the program’s performance (see,

for example, Stavrianos 1997).

This document presents the first

widely released estimates of food

stamp participation rates for

States. These estimates can be

used to focus efforts to improve

program performance. They also

provide a benchmark to help

understand the consequences of

welfare reform for the Food Stamp

Program. The participation rates,

which pertain to January 1994,

provide one indicator of how

effectively each State was serving

eligible people before the program

changes that were brought about

by the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193). See

the last page for a list of the key

food stamp provisions of the act.

Food Stamp Participation

Rates for States

In January 1994, about 71 percent

of eligible people in the United

States received food stamps.

Participation rates varied widely

from State to State, however.

Estimated rates ranged between

38 percent in Alaska and 100

percent in Vermont and Maine.

Although there were some large

differences in State participation

rates within most regions, there

were also discernible patterns

across regions. The highest

regional participation rates were in

the Mountain Plains, Midwest,

and Mid-Atlantic Regions. Their

75 to 76 percent rates were significantly higher (in a statistical sense)

than the 71 to 72 percent rates in

the Southwest, Northeast, and

Southeast Regions. The Western

Region had the lowest participation rate, at 62 percent. This rate

was nine percentage points below

the national rate and significantly

lower than any other regional

rate. See the last page for a map

showing regional boundaries.

All of the estimated participation

rates presented here are based on

fairly small samples of households

in each State. Even after application of the shrinkage estimation

methods described later, there is

substantial uncertainty associated

with the estimates for some States

and with comparisons of estimates

from different States. Nevertheless, the estimates show whether a

State’s participation rate probably

fell at the top, at the bottom, or

in the middle of the distribution.

Vermont, Maine, West Virginia,

Rhode Island, Hawaii, Delaware,

Missouri, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania were very likely at the

top, with higher rates than most

other States. In contrast, Alaska

almost surely had a lower rate

than all other States. California,

the District of Columbia, South

Dakota, New Jersey, Nevada,

Reaching Those in Need:

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

HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM?

AUGUST • 1998

Participation rate for row State

significantly higher than rate for

column State

How Does Your State Compare with Other States?

Participation rate for row State

not significantly different from

rate for column State

Participation rate for row State

significantly lower than rate for

column State

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 Utah, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it has a significantly lower participation rate than six other States (Vermont,

Maine, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Delaware) and a significantly higher rate than eight other States (Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, New Jersey,

South Dakota, the District of Columbia, California, and Alaska). Its rate is neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 36 States,

suggesting that Utah is probably in the broad center of the distribution, unlike, for example, Vermont and Alaska, which are 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 exceed ten percentage points, and

all of them are at least five percentage points, a difference that seems important as well as significant.

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

VT

ME

WV

RI

HI

DE

MO

MS

PA

OR

TN

MI

OH

NE

IN

MT

AZ

AR

KY

AL

VA

LA

OK

IA

WA

UT

CO

MN

NM

NY

TX

GA

WY

ND

IL

WI

MA

SC

MD

ID

CT

NH

FL

KS

NC

NV

NJ

SD

DC

CA

AK

100%

100%

95%

90%

90%

88%

84%

83%

82%

80%

80%

80%

79%

79%

78%

78%

78%

77%

77%

77%

77%

76%

76%

75%

74%

74%

73%

72%

71%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

68%

68%

67%

67%

66%

66%

65%

65%

63%

63%

63%

62%

59%

57%

38%

Rate
S T

North Carolina, Kansas, and Florida

probably fell in the bottom half of

the distribution.

Estimation Method

The estimates presented here were

derived using shrinkage estimation

methods (Schirm and DiCarlo

1998). Drawing on data from the

Current Population Survey, the

Survey of Income and Program

Participation, the decennial census,

and administrative records, the

shrinkage estimator averaged sample

estimates of food stamp eligibles in

each State with predictions from a

regression model. The predictions

were based on observed indicators of

socioeconomic conditions, including

levels of participation in government

programs, such as the National

School Lunch Program and the Aid

to Families with Dependent Children program. 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

current data on household incomes.

References

Schirm, Allen L., and John V.

DiCarlo. “Using Bayesian Shrinkage

Methods to Derive State Estimates

of Poverty, Food Stamp Program

Eligibility, and Food Stamp Program

Participation.” Washington, DC:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,

1998.

Stavrianos, Michael. “Food Stamp

Program Participation Rates: January

• Limit participation by legal

noncitizens.

• Provide short-term assistance to

unemployed, able-bodied adults

ages 18 to 50 with no dependent

children and link longer-term

assistance to working or participating in a work program.

• Reduce benefits and limit future

 growth in benefits.

• Expand State administrative

 authority.

1994.” In Current Perspectives on

Food Stamp Program Participation.

Alexandria, VA: Food and Consumer

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 1997.

 The key food stamp provisions of

the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996 do the following:

AUGUST • 1998 Produced by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for the Food and Nutrition Service under contract no. 53-3198-3-038.