Abstract

This study examines the economic coping strategies of low-income families, using data collected through qualitative 

interviews conducted in 2006-08 with 35 low-income women residing in the Detroit metropolitan area. Three rounds 

of interviews found that the majority of the sample were employed at least some of the time, and most had children 

living with them. Despite careful shopping practices, rising food prices forced cutbacks in purchase of certain foods, 

including milk, cereal, fruits, and meat. Just under half reported running out of food at some point during the year. 

As for government assistance, the then named Food Stamp Program, and now called the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP), was their mainstay. Even when eligible for benefits, many of the families did not 

receive cash assistance, unemployment benefits, or workers’ compensation due to perceived access barriers.

Keywords: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, Food Stamp Program, coping strategies, food hardship, qualitative data, Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program, FANRP, ERS, USDA

By Kristin S. Seefeldt and Tedi Castelli, University of Michigan

Low-Income Women’s Experiences With 

Food Programs, Food Spending, and 

Food-Related Hardships

Evidence From Qualitative Data

Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 57

August 2009

This study was conducted by the University of Michigan under a cooperative 

research contract with USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) Food 

and Nutrition Assistance Research Program (FANRP): contract number 

59-5000-6-0103 (ERS project representative: Margaret Andrews). The views 

expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.
Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support of the Economic Research Service of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and project officer Margaret Andrews for this project. Any opinions 

expressed, though, are the authors and not necessarily those of the USDA. Helen Levy is CoPrincipal Investigator on this project. We thank Benecia Cousin, Sascha Demerjian, Tiffany 

Griffin, Margaret Hudson, Maria Johnson, Jessica Wiederspan, and Jessica Wyse, who helped 

conduct interviews during various stages of the project. We are particularly appreciative to 

various staff at USDA and to Andrew London from Syracuse University who provided 

extremely valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this report. Finally, we thank all of the women 

who so graciously gave their time to participate in this project and to share their stories with us. 
I. Overview 

Take up of public programs, including food programs, and experiences of food-related 

hardships among low-income households are issues that have long held the interest of policy 

researchers (see Ratcliffe, McKernan and Feingold, 2008 and Andrews and Prell, 2001 for 

reviews). A large body of research has emerged, which examines the trends and correlates of 

food program participation, most notably in the federal Food Stamp Program (now the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP) and the factors associated with food 

insecurity and other food hardships (e.g., skipping meals and running out of food due to lack of 

money). Given recent policy interest in reducing obesity, there has been increasing interest 

focused on the nutritional content of food purchased by food stamp households to determine 

whether the program could do more to promote more healthful food choices (Guthrie et. al, 

2007). 

However, much less attention has been paid to how low-income individuals—the 

potential users of these programs—view various nutritional programs and make decisions about 

the food they buy and eat. Particularly lacking are studies that examine the importance of food 

assistance in families’ lives, relative to other assistance programs, the perceptions of low income 

individuals about their ability to buy nutritious food, and the circumstances contributing to 

experiences of food hardships. This report addresses these issues using newly-gathered 

qualitative data. 

The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided 

funding1

 to researchers affiliated with the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan 

to ask detailed questions about a) low-income families use (or non-use) of the Food Stamp, 

 

1

 Additional funding for the study was provided by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy and the National 

Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, the Social Security Administration via a grant to the Michigan 

Retirement Research Center, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

1 
school meal, and summer food programs, b) the role that food assistance programs, particularly 

the Food Stamp Program play in families’ economic coping strategies and c) food spending, 

consumption, and hardship patterns. The data presented here come from qualitative interviews 

conducted in 2006, 2007, and 2008 with thirty-five low-income women residing in the Detroit 

metropolitan area. Nearly all of the women were interviewed in all three years, the majority 

worked at least some of the time, and most women had children living with them. 

While surveys and administrative program data tell us how many families engage in 

various activities (e.g., using Food Stamps or the School Lunch Program) and provide estimates 

of the number of households experiencing food insecurity, they say nothing about how and why 

families make decisions about which types of assistance to use, when to forgo assistance, and 

what set of circumstances contribute to food-related problems. For example, survey data 

indicate that some families have misperceptions about their eligibility (Bartlett and Burstein, 

2004), but why is this? Are they deterred by administrative procedures and if so, what is it about 

these procedures that seems so cumbersome? The rich data in our study will help us understand 

how families make certain choices and not others. Additionally, because we followed women 

over time, we can document how changes in circumstances contribute to various outcomes. 

In this report, we examine the following questions: 

1. What role do food assistance programs (as well as other public programs) play in the 

economic coping strategies of low-income families? What factors, from the perspective of 

low-income women, facilitate or impede use of these programs? 

2. What are the food spending patterns of lower-income families, and how do women perceive 

their patterns as contributing to their household’s well-being? Do these patterns change at 

all in response to economic hard times? 

3. What type of food-related hardships are families experiencing, and what do they believe to 

be the causes? 

In short, we find that the Food Stamp program functions as the safety net for most of the 

women in our sample. Very few women used the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

2 
(TANF) program, which provides cash assistance, and those who attempted to use 

Unemployment Insurance benefits or workers’ compensation found this process extremely 

difficult. Women also reported being very careful shoppers, by using coupons and purchasing 

sale items. However, as food prices rose, women began to cut back on certain foods, including 

milk, cereal, fruits, and meat, due to their perceived lack of affordability. In addition to cutting 

back or eliminating certain foods from their grocery purchases, just under half of the sample 

reported running out of food at some point during the year. A lack of money to meet all of the 

monthly needs was usually the reason for food hardships. While the majority of income-eligible 

women used food stamps, this was often the only reliable source of income from month to 

month, since employment and earnings often fluctuated. 

The remainder of this report proceeds as follows. In the next section we describe the 

economic and policy context of Michigan, the state in which our study was conducted. We then 

provide an overview of the sample and methodology we employed for this study. Section IV 

discusses the use of various food programs and other forms of public assistance by sample 

members, perceptions of the programs, and barriers to using certain programs. Then, we discuss 

the food purchasing decisions of women in the study. Next, we highlight the prevalence of food 

related hardships among this sample, as well as discuss strategies women employ to mitigate 

them. The final section offers potential policy solutions for some of the issues our respondents 

face. 

3 
II. Economic and Policy Context 

The economic and policy landscape facing low-income families has changed remarkably 

over the last decade. The economy went from experiencing an unprecedented boom in the late 

1990s, to a short recession in 2001, to an economic recovery from 2002-2006, to a financial 

crisis by mid-2008. These trends have affected single mothers, the population of interest in this 

report. This section provides an overview of the major trends in employment and public benefit 

receipt during this time period and gives a brief description of some of the major policy changes 

contributing to those trends. 

In the mid-1990s, the proportion of single mothers who were employed was around 60 

percent. By 2000 it had increased to 75 percent (Lerman, 2005). As the economy began to cool 

in 2001, employment rates of single mothers dropped to 70 percent (Lerman, 2005). Real 

earnings declined, and job openings in the retail and services sectors declined by more than 15 

percent (Chapman and Bernstein, 2003). Although the economy rebounded, the recovery was a 

“jobless” one for single mothers, whose employment rates remained around their 2001 levels 

(Women’s Bureau, 2007). 

During the same time period, the social safety net changed. The 1996 welfare reform 

placed restrictions on receipt of cash welfare, both by imposing a lifetime limit as well as work 

requirements. Welfare caseloads subsequently plummeted, reaching historic lows. While not of 

the same magnitude as welfare caseload declines (which dropped by 50 percent, on average), 

caseloads of the Food Stamp program (now SNAP) dropped in the 1996- 2000 period, both 

because of changes in welfare rules and a robust economy (Danielson and Klerman, 2006). 

However, as economic conditions started to worsen in 2001, food stamp caseloads began to rise 

and have risen rapidly in the past year. 

4 
At roughly the same time, expansions to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) increased 

the rewards of work to low-income families by reducing the tax burden of low-wage workers via 

a refundable tax credit. However, receipt of the EITC is contingent upon work, with benefits 

rising as earnings increase and as of January, 2000 the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent, the 

highest in 16 years. Job losses between December 2007 and January 2009 exceeded 3.6 million. 

According to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008), welfare 

caseloads have not risen to reflect these changes, averaging 1.8 million, 1.7 million and 1.6 

million in 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively. However, caseloads for the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program,2

 have increased from 

just under 26.7 million cases in 2006 to 28.4 million cases in 2008 (USDA, 2008a). 

This study takes place in Michigan, a state that has been heralded as a “leader” in welfare 

reform efforts (Weaver, 2000) but one that has also experienced significant economic challenges. 

With passage of welfare reform, states were given considerable leeway to shape their cash 

welfare programs, called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Several analysts 

(e.g., Blank and Schmidt, 2001; Pavetti and Bloom, 2001; Zedlewski, Holcomb, and Duke, 

1998) developed classifications of the stringency of state policy regimes following 

implementation of welfare reform. Most labeled Michigan’s policies as “moderate” or “mixed.” 

Some policies, particularly the requirement that recipients engage immediately in work activities 

(the federal requirement at the time was within 24 months) and the possibility of total loss of 

benefits (a “full family sanction”), were strict. Yet other policies were lenient. In particular, until 

October 2007 when the state established a limit of 48 months, the state had no time limit on 

 

2

 On October 1, 2008, the Food Stamp Program changed its name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP). In this report, we use the convention of referring to SNAP when we discuss the program currently, and 

Food Stamp Program, when referring to the past. 

5 
receipt of cash assistance, despite PRWORA’s mandate that federal funds not be used for cash 

assistance for more than 60 months in a recipient’s lifetime.3

 

While states have a variety of options in administering SNAP, compared to TANF, the 

program is more standardized across states. Federal policy requires that all cases with working 

aged adults be re-determined for program eligibility at least once every 12 months. Prior to 

passage of the 2002 Farm Bill, states could choose shorter recertification periods of six months 

for households with earned income in an effort to lower program error rates.4 However, shorter 

recertification periods are associated with lower program use (Kabbani and Wilde, 2003). In 

Michigan, Food Stamp recipients who also receive TANF are subject to the federal 12-month 

recertification period. Families not on TANF and with earnings must re-verify their income six 

months after their initial certification but are otherwise certified for 12 months. For most other 

options, Michigan’s policies are in line with those of most other states (see USDA, 2007). In 

short, even though devolution makes it difficult to generalize from the experiences of lowincome women living in one state, Michigan’s cash welfare and food stamp policies are not 

particularly punitive, nor are they remarkably lenient. 

While Michigan benefited from the economic boom in the late 1990s, experiencing 

record low unemployment rates in the 1998-2000 period, unemployment has climbed during the 

downturn. Since 2007, Michigan’s unemployment rate has been the highest in the country; in 

2006 only Mississippi had a higher unemployment rate. During the period that we collected 

data, Michigan’s unemployment rate increased from 7.1 percent (January, 2006) to 10.6 percent 

(December, 2008). By contrast, the unemployment rate in the U.S. during the same time 

increased from 4.5 percent to 7.2 percent. 

 

3

 Michigan used state funds to support families who remained on the welfare rolls for longer than 60 months. 

4

 The program error rate is measured as the average monthly percentage of cases that are open in error. 

6 
The decline of the U.S. auto industry has had a profound impact on the state’s labor 

market and Detroit’s in particular, where all but seven of the women in this analysis sample 

reside. Manufacturing plants first left the city for the suburbs, creating a “spatial mismatch” for 

urban jobseekers, and eventually, many assembly jobs were transferred overseas (Farley, 

Danziger, and Holzer, 2000). The city of Detroit’s unemployment rate varied between 13 and 15 

percent during the period 2006-2007 and climbed to 17 percent in November, 2008 (preliminary 

data). Further, until the 1970s, Detroit was the fifth largest city in the U.S., with a peak 

population in 1950 of more than 1.8 million residents. Its population has now fallen under one 

million. Large swaths of the city have reverted to “urban prairies,” and, according to Census 

data, an estimated 24.8 percent of existing residential structures are unoccupied. 

Summary

In sum, high unemployment, a moderately strict welfare and food stamp benefit system 

(at least as characterized by analysts), and a de-populating urban area are central features of the 

economic and policy context faced by women who participated in this study. The next section 

describes study members in more detail, including the recruitment into the study and the methods 

used to collect the data. 

7 
III. Sample and Methods 

Much research on public programs is quantitative in nature, deriving findings from 

surveys or administrative data. Quantitative research seeks to answer questions such as “how 

many?” or “what factors are associated with certain outcomes?” Yet, these types of inquiries do 

not provide insights into how the people behind the numbers (the users or potential users of the 

program) perceive the program or how it fits into their lives. Survey questions that attempt to 

gauge individuals’ opinions about programs may not provide complete information because 

potential responses are often based on researchers’ preconceived notions of how respondents 

think about these issues. On the other hand, as Edin (2003) notes, qualitative research can 

provide important insights into “the world inhabited by the clients of the social programs [we] 

seek to evaluate” (p. 166). 

Our current study attempts to offer these types of insights, particularly as they relate to 

use of food assistance programs and food choices. This section describes recruitment of 

participants into the study and the methods we used to gather data. We also provide 

demographic and other contextual information about the respondents, particularly on factors that 

may have contributed to their use of food programs or to their experiences of food related 

hardships. 

Study Recruitment

The women participating in this qualitative study were identified through two processes. 

First, in early 2006, a pilot version of this study was conducted with 11 women. Flyers were 

distributed at several charter schools in the Detroit area and sent home with children in the 

elementary grades. Mothers or grandmothers of eight children responded to these flyers. Two 

other women were recruited via participant-generated sampling (one is the daughter of a pilot 

8 
respondent, and another is a cousin). Another woman received a flyer from a non-profit social 

service agency. 

Once the pilot phase was completed, we sought to create a larger sample. We received a 

listing of 120 individuals who had recently participated in a study on low- and moderate-income 

families’ access to financial services. This 1,000 person study was intended to be representative 

of households in relatively poor areas of the Detroit metropolitan area (Wayne, Oakland, and 

Macomb counties). The 120 selected cases consisted of 80 non-elderly households with children 

and 40 non-elderly households without children. 

However, these 120 cases were not randomly drawn from the full listing of 1,000 cases. 

The original survey sample over-represented elderly African American women who lived alone. 

While low-income elderly individuals may be eligible for benefits through the Food Stamp 

program, the focus of our study was how working-age adults, particularly those with minor 

children, experienced food programs, including school meal programs, and how they made 

choices about the food they fed their families. Therefore, we limited the 120 cases to individuals 

under the age of 65 and over-sampled younger mothers with children. Our goal was to contact 

potential respondents until we had completed 60 interviews. 

We expected a relatively low response rate overall, both because the survey from which 

most participants were recruited had collected limited follow-up information and because lowincome households have relatively high rates of mobility. As we began data collection in the fall 

of 2006, we did indeed encounter some difficulty locating respondents. We ultimately attempted 

contact with 86 of the 120 survey participants. We completed interviews with 42 of the 86.5

 We 

 

5

 Of the remaining 44 respondents whom we attempted to contact but who did not participate, almost half had 

moved since the time the DAS-FS survey was conducted, and we had no additional way of finding them, despite 

repeated attempts using multiple approaches. We did not make an attempt to contact all 120 people on the subsample list because of concerns of over-representation of higher income individuals. On average, higher income 

9 
also re-interviewed nine of the women who participated in the pilot. The full sample at 

interviewed in late 2006 (round 1) was 52 respondents. In round 2 (conducted six months later, 

in spring 2007), we were unable to complete interviews with seven respondents, but we located 

two of these women by round 3 (summer, 2008). 

Although respondents lived in areas where household income was, on average, below the 

area median (approximately $31,000 a year), not all had low income. In the analyses presented 

in this report, we limit our focus to the 35 qualitative study respondents whose reported 

household income in 2007 was at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line,6

 an amount 

that reasonably approximates the eligibility limits of certain food assistance programs (e.g., 

reduced price school lunches and the Women, Infant, and Children Program- WIC). 

Description of Analysis Sample

The 35 respondents are all women, and are on average 35 years old, ranging in age from 

21 to 51. Thirty of the 35 are African American, two are White, one is Hispanic, and two are 

Arab American. In terms of other demographic characteristics, though, fluidity was the norm, 

and this often had implications for receipt of public benefits, particularly food stamps, and the 

number of people in the household who needed to be fed. When we began the qualitative portion 

of the study, eight were married, four divorced, and the rest were single (all but one a single 

mother). By 2008, three of the eight marriages had ended in divorce, another spouse had died, 

and one woman got married. 

All but one woman in the sample had children living with them, ranging in age from 

toddlers to teen-agers, to young adults. On average, women had two children living with them. 

 sample members were much easier to reach, since they tended to own their own homes and/or be listed in telephone 

directories with current numbers. 

6

 The rest of the sample had incomes ranging from 285 percent of the poverty line to nearly 600 percent of the 

poverty line. However, through the qualitative interviews, we found that several of these women were helping to 

support lower income friends and family. 

10 
Two women gave birth over the course of these two years (one to twins), while other children 

moved in and out of the house (in a couple of cases due to child welfare-related issues and others 

because the child turned 18 and left). At least 10 respondents housed adult children at some 

point during the study; typically, these adult children ate with the family but were not counted as 

part of the household for calculating food stamp benefits. Only Annette,7

 a 50 year old woman, 

did not have any children, adult or minor-aged, living with her between 2006 and 2008. 

However, she lived with her boyfriend and fed both of them on her food stamps. 

Besides children, other family members moved in and out of some women’s houses. Jen, 

a 29 year old single mother of a middle-school girl also has her niece, who is a few years older 

than her daughter, living with her. Jen does not have formal custody, nor does Jen’s mother, 

who previously took care of this girl. When her brother, the girl’s father, can, he provides some 

money to help with expenses, but, as Jen says, “He’s just getting himself together right now” and 

has no job. Jen does not receive any kind of public assistance on behalf of her niece either. 

Kendra’s house, already crowded when we first started interviewing her, has become 

even more so. She recently adopted the young daughters of a cousin. The cousin lost custody of 

the children, but rather than see the girls placed in foster care, Kendra took them in. The 

adoption subsidy she receives on their behalf goes toward paying the mortgage. Kendra herself 

has two teen-aged daughters. In 2007, Kendra’s mother and a niece moved in. Her mother had 

lost her home to foreclosure, and the niece had been living with her mother. In 2008, the niece 

had a baby. The niece received public assistance and paid for her own living expenses (although 

she paid no rent and utilities); Kendra’s mother helped pay for the cable and phone bill, but she 

was not included as part of the household on Kendra’s food stamp allotment. 

 

7

 All names in this report are pseudonyms. Additionally, other details about women’s situations have been changed 

in order to protect their confidentiality. 

11 
Among the 35 respondents, 26 lived within the city of Detroit, while another eight lived 

in nearby, predominantly working class suburbs; one woman now lives out of state. Even among 

those staying within the same city, though, moves were frequent. In total, 18 of the 35 women 

moved to another residence at least once during the 2006-2008 period; Karla, Jean and Judy each 

moved twice (Karla was homeless for some of this time and moved around even more). For a 

couple of these women, moving meant changing offices (and caseworkers) for receipt of public 

benefits. 

Detroit ranks in the middle of all metropolitan areas in terms of rent affordability and has 

some of the lowest priced homes in the country (Center for Housing Policy, 2009), so most 

women in this study were not overly burdened by housing costs. However, the quality of these 

homes and neighborhoods was poor. Nearly all of the women living in Detroit resided in 

neighborhoods which have at least one abandoned or foreclosed upon property, as evidenced by 

boarded up windows, trash in the yard, and padlocked front doors. Women who lived in the 

suburbs also experienced these signs of neighborhood decline. The types of housing structures 

in which women lived varied in terms of quality, but again, women living in Detroit were more 

likely to live in poorer units. For example, Erica, a divorced mother of four young children, 

lived in a home owned by a family member. The interior walls were dirty, and the steps leading 

up to the home were crumbling. The front porch of Annette’s boyfriend’s home (where she 

hoped to be staying temporarily) was sagging, and the ceiling of the dining room had a number 

of holes, one of which went all the way through to the second floor. In both of these cases, the 

owners did not have the funds to make needed repairs. Just two women, Jen and Rhonda, lived 

in recently constructed homes for which the landlords accepted their Section 8 vouchers. But 

again, other homes on their respective blocks were not in as good shape. 

12 
Finally, two women experienced spells of homelessness during the study period, and 

another two were on the verge of losing housing. Geneva and Karla stayed at various family 

members’ homes for several months before they were able to locate stable housing. When 

interviewed in 2008, two women, Judy and Jean, worried that they would soon find themselves 

without housing. The home which Judy rented was being foreclosed upon, and Jean had just 

found out that she was a victim of a scam, paying rent to a “landlord” who did not own the home. 

Given the income restriction we placed on our analysis sample (185 percent of the 

poverty line or less), it is not surprising that most of the women were poor. Median household 

income reported in the 2007 interview was approximately $15,000. To put that number in 

context, a household of one adult and two children would be considered poor in 2007 if their 

income was less than $16,705. Table 1 shows the distribution of household income relative to 

the federal poverty line. 

Table 1 

Income as percent of Federal 

Poverty Line 

Number of 

Respondents 

Percent 

(n=35) 

< 50 percent of FPL 16 46% 

50 -100 percent of FPL 8 23% 

101- 130 percent of FPL 3 9% 

131-150 percent of FPL 5 14% 

150 -185 percent of FPL 3 9% 

As seen in Table 1, the majority of the sample is poor; 69 percent of the sample have 

incomes that fall below the federal poverty line. Within that group, 16 households have incomes 

less than half of the poverty line, a phenomenon that has been referred to as “deep poverty 

(Primus, 2001). Only three women, all of whom were salaried, reported incomes at the higher 

end of the distribution, 150 to 185 percent of the poverty line. 

13 
Our estimates of income as it relates to the poverty line are not strictly comparable to 

federal data. We asked women to report their 2007 income, based upon what they had reported 

to the Internal Revenue Service. However, some women could not remember this amount, and a 

few women did not file for taxes, since they had no taxable income. We then asked them to give 

us an estimate or to tell us what they “lived off of” in a given month. Some women reported the 

amounts that they received through various assistance programs, including food stamps, and 

some women may have included food stamps in their mental calculations. The Census Bureau 

does not include food stamps in its calculation of households’ income, since it is an in-kind 

benefit, not cash. However, all of these women had income below the poverty threshold, so the 

distribution would be the same. 

Also potentially excluded from women’s reports of their income are contributions from 

other workers living in the household. Married women included their spouses’ earnings 

(although husbands did not always have jobs). In fact, of the nine women who were married at 

some point during the study, in just two of those marriages, (Cynthia and Layla’s) were 

marriages in which both spouses worked; Layla only worked for about five hours a week. Only 

one woman, Annette, reported that she lived with an unmarried partner. However, they did not 

share all of their income. Annette bought food using her food stamps and cooked the meals. Her 

boyfriend, a home owner, paid for the utilities, but any expenses that Annette incurred, which 

included large medical bills, were hers to pay. In 2006, Maria said that her boyfriend more or 

less lived with her family, although he did maintain a separate residence as well. By 2008, 

though, this man was prohibited from seeing the children or coming to the house, after he and 

Maria had a violent fight and Child Protective Services was called. Other respondents may have 

had men living with them, but we were not told that this was the case. Only three women 

14 
reported that they received formal child support, and for two of the women, the support was only 

for one of their children, not all. 

Despite the worsening economy, rates of employment increased over the course of data 

collection. About 55 percent of the sample was working in the fall of 2006, but by summer 2008 

that had increased to 63 percent. Only six women never worked during the study period, and one 

of those women had a consistently working husband. Two of these women experienced serious 

injuries at their workplaces prior to becoming part of the study. One of these women received 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for her disability, while the other received disability 

payments from the state. The remaining three included Sheila, who suffered from neurological 

problems that largely kept her out of the labor market,8

 Maria, and Danielle. Maria and 

Danielle were two of the poorest women in the study, experiencing multiple hardships (e.g., 

utility shut-offs, domestic violence). Both reported engaging in illicit activities in order to make 

ends meet, including trading sex for money and trading at least part of their food stamp benefits 

for cash9. 

For the majority of the sample, though, earnings comprised the largest share of women’s 

income, even though employment was not stable over time and work hours (and thus pay) may 

have varied week to week. Among those working, average hours worked per week were 36 

hours at the first interview, 31 hours at the second interview, and 33 hours at the last interview. 

However, these were the hours which women were, in theory, supposed to work. For example, 

at one job, Karla was scheduled to work 40 hours a week, but if there was not enough work to 

do, she was sent home, sometimes right at the start of the day. She reported that some weeks she 

 

8

 Sheila received TANF while she waited for her SSI application to be approved. She also received formal child 

support from her children’s father. 

9

 Maria’s daughter received Social Security Survivor’s benefits after her father died, but as of 2008, Maria no 

longer had access to that income, since her children had been removed from her home after she and her boyfriend 

had a violent fight. 

15 
worked 32 hours and others as little as 16; she never worked a 40 hour week on that job. Judy 

said that a fast food job she held in 2007 had very unpredictable scheduling, prompting her to 

look for a job with stable hours. Most women were paid in the 10 to 11 dollar an hour range, 

although by 2008 four were salaried and paid between $27,000 and $42,000 a year. During the 

2006 - 2008 period, only eight of the employed women held the same job, and 16 had at least 

one spell of unemployment. This type of instability in employment has been found in other 

studies focusing on working poor women in the post welfare reform era (e.g., Scott et. al, 2004). 

Over the two years we interviewed them, women held a wide variety of jobs, including 

nurses’ aides and home health care workers, fast food workers, telemarketers, stockers in “big 

box” retailers, and assembly line workers in auto parts suppliers. The vast majority were hourly 

employees who were not eligible for benefits. Five women reported engaging in off-the-books 

work, although Danielle, who both braided hair and cooked food to sell, reported that the 

demand for her services declined as the economy worsened. 

Finally, this is not an educationally disadvantaged sample. Two women had completed 

Bachelor’s Degrees, and another had an Associate’s Degree. Nine women were either currently 

enrolled in college or had taken at least some college classes. Seven were high school graduates 

who had also completed additional vocational training programs. Only four had high school 

degrees with no further education. While seven women lacked high school diplomas or GEDs, 

all of them had completed other training courses, such as patient care certification, Certified 

Nurse’s Assistant (CNA), or computer programming classes. (Education data are missing for 

four of our respondents). 

16 
Methods

While much of the information reported above, including women’s ages, educational 

attainment, and household income can be gleaned from survey questions with close-ended 

responses, we used a semi-structured interview guide with specific questions as well as followups that served as cues for the interviewers. However, the guide was flexible enough to allow 

interviewers to explore areas of interest related to the study. For example, probes about the 

extent to which income was or was not shared among household members and follow-ups about 

who stayed in the house and when were very useful in capturing the full complexity of women’s 

situations. 

Interviews typically took place in the respondents’ homes and lasted, on average, 76 

minutes. Respondents were paid $40 at each interview for their participation. All interviews 

were audio recorded. Audio recordings were subsequently transcribed into word processing files 

and imported into Atlas ti, a qualitative data analysis software package. For the analyses 

presented in this report, we read (and re-read) the transcripts, focusing in particular on specific 

questions related to perceived eligibility for food stamps, experiences in welfare offices, 

experiences of going without food, and use of other food assistance programs. Codes 

corresponding to the major themes in respondents’ answers were developed and applied. We 

also read the interviews in their entirety to determine if answers given to other interview 

questions were related to our overall research questions. For example, a common response to 

our question, “What other strategies do you use to make your money stretch?” was to discuss 

ways in which shopping at multiple stores and carefully watching grocery store sale flyers helped 

maximize food purchases. Finally, we read all the available transcripts for each respondent, 

examining women’s situations across time to explore how certain situations (including job loss, 

17 
changes in household composition, and health problems) were related to use (or non-use) of food 

programs and use of other means of getting by financially.10

Qualitative studies are occasionally critiqued for the smaller sample sizes these studies 

typically employ, and the sample size in this analysis is certainly not large. However, a primary 

reason that quantitative studies have larger samples is that the researchers wish to generalize 

results to some larger population. The logic of qualitative inquiries, by contrast, is to provide an 

in-depth and contextualized understanding of some issue or set of issues (Patton, 2002). By 

focusing on a small number of cases, and, in our study, interviewing them repeatedly, we are 

able to elucidate a detailed picture of low-income women’s lives, albeit in a particular context, 

and the ways in which they experience public programs and how they manage economically. 

Summary

The data and findings presented in this report come from three waves of in-depth, 

qualitative interviews conducted with thirty-five low-income women during the period 2006 – 

2008. All women had incomes less than 185 percent of the federal poverty line, with almost half 

having incomes less than half of the poverty line. Women’s marital status, living arrangements, 

and housing situations varied, even during this short, two-year period. Children and other family 

members moved in and out of homes, more than half of the women changed residences, and the 

majority changed jobs at least once, with nearly half experiencing at least one spell of 

unemployment. 

 

10 For the most part, we employed a variant on a technique referred to as “cross-case analysis” (Miles and 

Huberman, 1994). This analysis was performed by considering a certain “variable,” such as experiencing food 

related hardships. We then read across cases to determine if women’s responses fell into particular groups or 

patterns, still paying attention to subtle differences between cases. This approach allowed us both to quantify 

responses while still drawing upon the qualitative aspect of the data to illustrate ways in which certain phenomenon 

or experiences operate. 

18 
IV. Use of Public Assistance Programs 

In this section we report on women’s use of public programs, their perceptions of the 

programs, and any challenges to using these programs. To do this, we rely on women’s selfreports about receipt of benefits as well as their descriptions of interactions with welfare and 

other program staff. It is likely that some women misunderstood program rules or that 

information was relayed to them in a way that led to confusion. Or, women could have simply 

been given wrong information. But, by learning more about what clients (or potential clients) of 

these programs “know” and “understand” we can better appreciate reasons for their actions, 

including lack of participation (see Edin, 2003). 

Although the focus of this report is food programs, in this section we also consider 

women’s experiences with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program and 

with employment programs. Food programs, in particular the Food Stamp/Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program, are only one of a number of programs and services that are 

intended to support low-wage workers by supplementing their income or to provide assistance to 

low-income families during periods of unemployment.11

In Michigan, Food Stamp, TANF, and Medicaid eligibility are handled by staff at the 

Department of Human Services (DHS). In most counties, there is one office per county, 

although larger counties, such as Wayne (Detroit) have multiple offices, while residents of 

smaller counties may be served by a single office that covers multiple counties. For purposes of 

this report, though, we refer to the local DHS offices as “the welfare office.” 

 

11 Two very important work supports that we do not consider in this report are the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 

or Medicaid. The EITC is a federal tax credit for low-wage workers, while Medicaid provides health care coverage 

for low-income individuals. In our sample, all of the women who were eligible for the EITC received it and 

reported no problems in obtaining it. Additionally, women reported that all of their minor-aged children had health 

insurance, either through Medicaid or the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which covers low-income 

children whose parents’ have income higher than the Medicaid eligibility threshold. Surprisingly, given the rising 

numbers of the uninsured, all but nine women reported that they were covered by Medicaid or had health insurance 

through their employer. They also reported no problems finding providers willing to accept their coverage. 

19 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Like the rest of the country, Food Stamp Program/SNAP caseloads in Michigan dropped 

in the years immediately following welfare reform but then began to increase in 2001. In 1996, 

the caseload for food stamps was 409,000, dropping to 269,000 in 2000, and then rising to 

603,000 in 2008. Additionally, in Michigan, the rate of food stamp (now called SNAP) 

participation among eligible families was estimated to be 80 percent in 2006, considerably higher 

than the national average of 67 percent (Castner and Schirm, 2008). 

The federal Food Stamp Program has been called “the Nation’s first line of defense 

against hunger and the cornerstone of all Federal nutrition assistance programs” (USDA, 2008b). 

Among our sample, we find that food stamps played an even more important role; for women 

who used the program, food stamps tended to be the only reliable source of income month to 

month. And, compared to other types of assistance programs, it was generally perceived to be 

easy to apply and to use. 

Among the women who, from our data, appear eligible (i.e., have incomes approximately 

130 percent or less of the poverty line), all but seven were receiving food stamp benefits in 2007. 

Of those not on food stamps, three reported that this was a deliberate decision. One woman was 

receiving informal support from her children’s father, and two others reported that the welfare 

office required them to provide too much “personal information” in order to be deemed eligible. 

Another woman, Adrienne, who had been laid off from her job at an auto supply manufacturer, 

was waiting for her unemployment benefits to run out before she applied. 

For the remaining four women, misinformation, misunderstandings, and feelings of 

resignation toward the welfare office seem to explain non-receipt. For example, Charlene 

believed that her family’s income was too high for them to be eligible, even though she and her 

20 
husband supported three children on less than $25,000 per year, an income level within 

eligibility thresholds. Tasha told us that a year earlier, the welfare office sent her a letter, telling 

her that her case would be closed because she was not using her benefits, even though she had 

been. Similarly, Karla was dropped from the program when her caseworker incorrectly budgeted 

her as working full-time. Rather than meet with their workers to resolve these issues, Tasha and 

Karla stopped receiving benefits, believing that they had no power to question a caseworker’s 

decision. (Karla went back on food stamps the following year when she moved and was served 

by a different office, although she also sought assistance from a legal advocacy group). Finally, 

Nichelle explained that when she moved out of state she was given a month of benefits to “get on 

[her] feet” but that this state expected people to work, not receive assistance. She found a job 

shortly after arriving, but her income was not high enough that she should have been ineligible. 

Despite Tasha and Karla’s situations, in general, women reported that the Food Stamp 

Program was easy and simple to navigate. Women did not find the required, once a year face-toface meeting for eligibility determination to be burdensome. Additionally, women receiving 

Food Stamps also reported that they had to send a form to their caseworker, reporting their 

current economic circumstances, but they did not find this form to be a hassle.12 Michigan has 

simplified reporting requirements, which may ease administrative burdens on working recipients. 

Typically, families must report any changes in employment, earnings, or income and changes 

that could affect eligibility. For adults whose earnings or employment status changes frequently, 

this reporting requirement might be burdensome. However, Michigan’s simplified reporting 

requirement requires families to report changes in earned income only when they exceed 130 

percent of the poverty level (USDA, 2003). Women reported that they were provided with a 

 

12 According to Michigan’s policy, food stamp recipients with earned income must complete this “Semi-Annual 

Contact Report.” See Michigan’s Program Administrative Manual at: 

http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/pam/200.pdf 

21 
form that gave the amount of earned income that would necessitate reporting to the welfare 

office, so that they would not have to guess if their earnings exceeded the 130 percent of poverty 

threshold. 

For women whose employment or earnings situation was more volatile, though, receipt of 

food stamps was more difficult. For example, in 2006, Karla was unemployed and receiving 

food stamps when she found a job working at an auto parts manufacturing plant through a 

temporary agency. The number of hours she worked varied anywhere from 16 to 32 a week. 

However, her case worker had budgeted her food stamp benefit as if she were working 40 hours 

a week, and as a result, she was deemed ineligible. When asked if she would try and correct this, 

she shrugged and said she did not really want to be bothered. Based on her previous experience, 

trying to correct the error would do no good because, as she said, “everything falls on you as the 

client, [the welfare] workers are never wrong.” However, after a year of being homeless and 

often going without meals because she did not have money to purchase food, Karla worked with 

a state advocacy agency to get her benefits reinstated. 

Tanya, a single mother of two teen-agers, works as an administrative assistant at a charter 

school. This is a ten month position, although she tries to work during summer school sessions 

when possible. In the past, when this was not an option, she would apply for public assistance. 

She noted that: 

By the time my benefits did kick in, and they budgeted in my last check, from June, 

which I don’t receive until July, once they budget all that in I was back to work before I 

received anything. So it was just like, and then by that time it was time, I had to report 

that I was working again. So it was just, basically like a waste of time. 

Several women who were in between jobs reported experiencing hardships while they 

waited for their cases to be opened and while they looked for new work. Cynthia had worked in 

various health care positions for 13 years, held a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) degree, and 

22 
had completed some coursework toward becoming a Licensed Practical Nurse. In 2004, she had 

a spell of unemployment and sought out help from the welfare office. She reported waiting 

months to get any assistance, and by the time she received her first full month of food stamps 

and cash assistance, she was back working and soon ineligible. In the meantime, though, her 

electricity and gas were shut off for not paying the bill. 

On the other end of the spectrum, food stamp benefits made up half or more of household 

income for three of the women in the sample. In 2008, Danielle, a single mother of two, had 

been off of welfare for four years and worked sporadically in temporary jobs. She received more 

than $400 in food stamps, which she sometimes supplemented with cash she received for doing 

hair. Because she lives in public housing, she pays no rent when she has no reported earnings. 

However, when we interviewed her, her gas had been cut off because she had no money to pay 

the bill. Since her stove was gas, she was doing her cooking on a hot plate. Maria received some 

cash from her daughter’s SSI payment, although this was about to change, since her children 

were recently placed in foster care. Again, food stamps were a primary source of income for her, 

but food stamps could not pay her utility bills (instead, her gas and electricity were hooked up 

illegally). Annette, the third woman, had been unemployed ever since her data entry job was 

outsourced in early 2007. She moved in with her boyfriend shortly after their relationship began, 

a less than ideal situation in her mind. Her boyfriend charges her no rent and pays all of the bills. 

In return, she purchases all of the food with her food stamps and cooks all of the meals. 

Other Food Programs

Twenty-eight of the thirty-five women had school aged children residing with them. All 

but four of these women reported that their children received free or reduced meals during the 

school year. Of those not taking advantage of the program, Carol, a stocker at Target, said that 

23 
her teen-aged daughter did not like the food served by the school’s cafeteria so she did not 

participate in the program. High school students are significantly less likely to participate in this 

program than children aged 8-13 (Newman and Rolston, 2006), and disliking cafeteria food may 

be one of the reasons behind this difference. Judy did not give a specific reason as to why her 

teen-aged son and daughter did not use the meal program. When we asked Cynthia if she 

thought her children were eligible she said, “At first I did, but once you look at the guidelines, 

(laughs), no.” However, at the time, she was operating her own daycare/after school program 

(she subsequently closed it when she got married and moved, although she had plans of reopening). She reported that she was reimbursed for the food she served at daycare and that “my 

kids can eat lunch also [with the daycare children]. As long as it’s a day care child here, my kids 

are eating with the daycare kids. I get reimbursed for what they [my children] eat also.” 

However, one woman, who had not used any public assistance in about ten years, 

attempted to enroll her son and reported great difficulty doing so. Sharon is a single mother with 

a limited amount of education beyond high school. Over the years, she had gotten a good job, 

bought a home, accumulated savings, and got married. By 2006, though, her savings were 

drained due to her husband’s drug problem. She divorced him but then also lost her job due to 

downsizing. Although unemployed for nearly a year, her son was deemed ineligible for free or 

reduced meals. On the application, which she filled out in the fall of 2006, she left blank the part 

on the form asking her to report her income. She told us that the school then used her reported 

income on her 2005 tax returns, which showed earnings of nearly $50,000. She said: 

I had zero income. And it [the denial letter] said, you can reapply and this and that and 

the other. So I called, and they told me that, you know, “you made a mistake, you didn’t 

put in an amount for your income.” I said, “because I don’t have any.” So then they based 

it on my income tax return from the year before. 

24 
Substantial changes in income and earnings over the course of a year, often referred to as 

“income volatility,” can be problematic for accurate targeting of food assistance. An analysis of 

data from 1995-2000 by USDA (Newman, 2006) found that households with income between 

130 to 240 percent of the poverty line were quite likely to experience income volatility and 

would go back and forth over WIC and reduced price school lunch program eligibility lines (185 

percent of poverty) about five times a year. Families can appeal decisions that deny benefits and 

they can apply or re-apply for school meal programs at any time during the academic year. 

Sharon was informed of this at the time her benefits were denied. But, she felt discouraged 

enough by the initial experience and never re-applied. 

Far fewer children in this sample received free meals during the summer months. In 

summer, low-income children may receive free meals through their schools or through the 

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), but only for those weeks that their schools or 

recreational programs are operating. Four women reported that, in the summer of 2007, their 

children were enrolled in summer recreational programs that also provided breakfast and lunch. 

Two other women had at least one child attending summer school, and these children received 

free meals, just as they did during the school year. When asked questions about summer 

programs, four women reported that they could not afford to enroll their children in any 

activities, two thought their children’s various behavioral problems would cause problems at a 

summer program, two had only older children who could cook for themselves and, in one case, 

worked during the summer, and five had other arrangements in place for their children. The 

remaining nine women gave other reasons for not using summer programs including not wanting 

to be away from their children, having children too young to be enrolled, or having a child who 

was a very picky eater and would not eat the food offered in a summer program even if enrolled. 

25 
Three women did not provide answers to this question, and two women missed the 2007 

interview. 

Finally, eight women reported using private food pantries or food banks on at least some 

occasions, although none reported that they were frequent users. Six of these women had very 

low income, 70 percent or less of the federal poverty line. Danielle and Raeanne, for example, 

were two of the poorest women in the sample. Danielle had virtually no income except for food 

stamps and off-the-books income from styling hair. She said that when things got “really, really 

tight” she would obtain a food box from the Salvation Army. Raeanne had participated in an 

“adopt a family” program at several Christmases. In addition to providing gifts, the program 

also gave food. Cynthia, whose income is slightly above the poverty line, used various private 

charities during a time when she was having trouble paying her bills. Tanya, who was employed 

during the school year, used food banks during one summer when she ran out of food but could 

not get her food stamp application approved before she returned to work. 

Some of the women who did not use such programs believed that these resources should 

be reserved for those much worse off than themselves. As Tamara once told us: 

[There are] people out in the world that’s a lot worse off than me ....I refuse to go there 

(a food bank) to take something that I really... don’t need. And that’s why ... I mean it’s 

people out there that have, they look in their refrigerator and they’ve got a bottle of 

ketchup. 

Even Raeanne, whose income was far below the poverty line, went one step further, noting that 

she often sent canned goods to her children’s school for food drives. She said, “We poor, but we 

giving to the poor, too because there are people poorer than us.” 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) 

Given the low rates of TANF use throughout the country, it is no surprise that receipt of 

cash welfare is extremely low in this sample. Nationwide, TANF receipt declined from 4.5 

26 
million families in 1996 to just over 1.6 million families in 2008. In Michigan, the comparable 

figures are 178,000 families in 1996 and 72,500 families in 2008. Among our sample, in 2006, 

only five women were on TANF, and in 2008, only three received benefits, one because she was 

waiting for her Social Security Insurance (SSI) case to be opened. However, more women, at 

least from their reported incomes, appear to be eligible and indeed had tried to use TANF. The 

mandate to participate in the state’s welfare-to-work program, Work First, served as a powerful 

deterrent. 

According to respondents’ description of the program, Michigan’s Work First program 

had not changed much at all since the state first implemented the program in the mid-1990s. At 

that time, welfare recipients were presumed to have the human capital needed to secure lowwage employment but were lacking certain tools, such as a resume and interviewing skills, 

needed to be a successful job applicant (Seefeldt, 2008). However, as noted earlier, in the years 

following welfare reform, employment levels of single mothers rose dramatically, surpassing 

levels of married mothers. Yet Michigan’s Work First system did not evolve to reflect that 

change, instead focusing on job-finding skills, even though many women had labor market 

experience. 

Judy, a forty-year old mother of four with an extensive employment history, albeit in lowpaying jobs, believed that Work First was only helpful “for those that have absolutely no skills.” 

For someone like herself, who had successfully found jobs on her own, Work First was a waste 

of time. Instead, Judy also preferred to look for work on her own, rather than compete directly 

with other Work First clients, many of whom were sent to the same employer at the same time 

for interviews. As a result, she forfeited TANF benefits and only received food stamps. 

27 
As the economy soured, many low-wage workers lost hours on their jobs, becoming 

underemployed but not unemployed. Women who were underemployed reported that 

caseworkers expected them to attend Work First, even if the program conflicted with their work 

hours. If they quit their current jobs in order to participate, they would also be deemed 

ineligible, since cash benefits are denied to those who leave a job without good cause. Tamara, a 

Certified Nurse’s Assistant working in an assisted living facility, was told that in order to receive 

TANF she would need to be at the Work First site from nine in the morning until 4:30 in the 

afternoon. Since Tamara often worked afternoon shifts, she in essence was being told that she 

could choose between cash assistance and work. For those who lost jobs, such as Annette, 

whose data entry job was outsourced, the problem was not that she did not know how to find a 

job, but rather that with the economy in a downturn, there were very few job openings to which 

Work First could refer her. 

Practices such as these are commonly called “informal diversion,” meaning that 

administrative rules and caseworker practices may be used in such a way as to keep TANF 

applicants from coming onto the rolls (Ridzi and London, 2006; Hetling, Ovwigho, and Born, 

2007). Results from analysis of survey data on non-entrants finds that many families who 

consider applying for benefits but then do not apply report that they did not want to go through 

the “hassle” of application (Moffitt, 2003). Additionally, of those who went to the welfare office 

to apply, more than three-quarters, 77 percent, were told about at least one requirement that may 

have diverted them from applying. These include job searches and community service 

requirements. The stories from our sample members illustrate the ways in which informal 

diversion operates. 

28 
Employment Related Programs

Since the majority of women in this analysis had at least some attachment to the labor 

market, we might expect that other programs that are targeted to workers who have lost their 

jobs, such as Unemployment Insurance (UI) or Worker’s Compensation, would serve as a safety 

net. Unfortunately, this system of supports did not seem to function well for women in this 

sample. Most women reported that when they lost jobs, they were not eligible for 

Unemployment Insurance, usually because they were hired in as temporary workers. 

Additionally, several who had been permanent employees encountered difficulty when trying to 

claim UI or Worker’s Compensation. 

Tykia, a single mother of a twelve year old boy, was laid off from her restaurant job, 

which she had held for several years. She filed for UI, but to her surprise, her employer 

contested the claim. Eventually she was deemed eligible, but while she waited for the issue to be 

resolved, Tykia fell behind with rent and other bills. She tried to apply for welfare and food 

stamps but said that a caseworker told her that she was ineligible for both because she already 

had applied for UI (it is important to note that in itself, receipt of UI does not render someone 

ineligible for food stamps and that Tykia may have misunderstood the rules or have been given 

incorrect information). For four months, she received nothing except cash for groceries from her 

father. 

In 2005, Aleta, a women in her late forties, was injured at her job at an auto parts supplier 

when a large piece of metal fell on her head, leaving her with severe balance problems. The 

supplier’s worker’s compensation carrier disputed the claim, arguing that she must have had a 

pre-existing condition. After 10 months of being off work, the supplier fired Aleta. In the 

interim, she applied for Social Security Insurance (SSI) and was turned down. She lived off of a 

29 
$260 a month state disability payment, $150 a month in food stamps, and, as she termed it, 

“charitable contributions,” since after paying her gas and electric bill, she had $119 left to take 

care of any other expenses. 

Summary

For the majority of women in this qualitative analysis sample, the Food Stamp Program 

functioned as the safety net. In general, women found the program easy to use, particularly 

compared to TANF, which women perceived to have too many needless upfront requirements, in 

particular, participation in the Work First program. Women whose employment situation was 

particularly volatile or had changed rapidly, though, reported more difficulty accessing food 

stamps (as well as school meal programs) or having their benefit levels adjusted correctly. Very 

few women received cash welfare through the TANF program, and the few workers who were 

eligible for Unemployment Insurance during layoffs or Worker’s Compensation had difficulty 

obtaining these benefits. Three women, Maria, Danielle, and Annette, were reliant upon food 

stamps for half or more of their monthly income. However, since food stamps can only be used 

for food purchases, they could not always pay other bills. 

30 
V. Women’s Food Purchasing Decisions 

Increasingly, there has been interest in how low-income women, particularly those using 

food stamps, spend money on food. Recent work has found an increase in less-educated single 

mothers’ expenditures on food away from home post-welfare reform (Kashaul, Gao, and 

Waldfogel, 2007). This may be due to the increase in single mothers’ work effort; as more time 

is spent in the formal labor market, less time is available to cook meals at home. Further, policy 

analysts have started asking whether or not the Food Stamp Program could be used as a 

mechanism to promote better eating habits among its users, particularly since recipients consume 

less fruits and vegetables than do higher income individuals (Guthrie et. al, 2007). 

In this section, we examine how respondents make decisions about what types of food to 

purchase, how often they eat out versus cooking at home, and various strategies they employ to 

make their food dollars stretch as far as possible. 

Food Spending Patterns of Low-Income Families

 The recent and rapid increase in the cost of food has affected low-income families more 

than families of other income levels (McGranahan, 2008). Low-income families spend a larger 

proportion of their income, 14.6 percent, on food purchases compared to families with higher 

incomes, who spend about 9.6 percent of their income on food (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

2006). Additionally, food prices have increased sharply. According to data from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (2009), the Consumer Price Index (CPI), a measure of price changes, increased 

by 5.8 percent for food between 2007 and 2008 and by another 5.1 percent between 2008 and 

2009; this compares to increases of just over two percent for the previous two years (Economic 

Research Service, 2009). 

31 
Women in this study made a concerted effort to get the most food for as little money as 

possible. They were aware of the need to have food for the entire month and made their 

purchases accordingly. As Tykia, a young mother of a twelve year old said, “I just don’t go and 

buy a lot of expensive stuff, because I know the food we have has to last us all month.” Women 

were also willing to shop at multiple grocery stores to find the lowest prices. Judy is a good 

example of someone who does this. Even though she does not own a car, she said, “If it takes 

for me to go to four different grocery stores to get the most for what I need, that’s what I’ll do.” 

Additionally, eight women reported that they regularly watched for sales or clipped 

coupons, which they often found out about through flyers they received in the mail, and stocked 

up on discounted items. Several of these women said that they were always looking to “catch a 

sale” and used sales as an opportunity to stock up on the discounted item. Geneva looked for the 

“carts where the stuff is older, where they’re selling it on discount, and I can get day old bread.” 

For a few of these women, sales shopping was a relatively new behavior. Brianna, a single 

mother in her twenties, noted, “I pay attention to the sales now. Before I used to just pick up stuff 

and buy it. Now I pay attention.” However, traveling to multiple shopping locations has a 

downside. As Tanya wisely observed, going from store to store to look for the best bargain or to 

find the best quality food for the price meant spending more money on gas. With “everything 

going up but your paycheck,” including the price of gas, driving farther for a sale may not really 

save money.13

Women also bought different types of food in the years we interviewed them. As prices 

of food rose, women started purchasing more less-expensive items and fewer high-priced items. 

Specifically, 14 respondents reported cutting back on cereal, fresh fruit, vegetables, red meat, 

 

13The Energy Information Administration reports that the average cost of gasoline in the US on January 1, 2007 was 

$2.296. Approximately on year later, that price had risen to $3.088 (a 34.5% increase). The price of gasoline 

peaked at $4.054 on July 14, 2008, which was during the middle of our third round of data collection. 

32 
and/or milk. Amala, a mother of four, said that before 2007, she used to be able to purchase 

twenty pounds of beef at one time and put it in her freezer. “Now,” she said, “I can’t afford it. 

Just two pounds, three pounds [at a time], that’s it.” Geneva wished she could afford more 

nutritional food for her children: “I like for them to, to have more fruit, though, the only thing 

we can afford are bananas. I’d like for them to eat (pause), I’d like for them to just eat better - 

period. To drink more orange juice, [but] I can’t afford that stuff.” Similarly, Brianna said: 

I've been trying to eat healthier, but I've stopped eating a lot of different things, and even 

healthier things, like the leaner turkey, it's like even more...I don't buy a lot of fruits and 

stuff. And I noticed, lemons used to be 2 for a dollar, now they’re like 79 cents a lemon. 

Rhonda also wished she could afford ground turkey, but went back to purchasing ground 

beef, which she acknowledged to be less healthy. While some women knew that they were 

substituting less healthy options (e.g., fattier meat for leaner meat) or forgoing healthy snacks 

(e.g., fruit), it is not clear that all women had a good sense of the nutritional value of certain 

foods. Rather, finding the lowest price for particular items or for the foods they were used to 

eating was the most important goal. Danisha, a young mother of an eight year old and infant 

twins, remarked that her savings came from purchasing generic junk food, instead of brand 

names. As she said, “Frito-Lays, I mean, you know, Lays is expensive, $2.99 for that bag, or the 

Chip Ahoy Cookies, like...four dollars ...You want stuff like that, you have to get off-brand 

things.” 

Meals Away from Home

On average, food that is eaten away from home is characterized by high levels of 

nutrients that are already over-consumed and low levels of under-consumed nutrients (Lin, 

Guthrie, and Frazao, 1999). Although lower-income families tend to eat out less than higherincome families, as single mothers have increased their labor force participation, meals away 

33 
from home for these families have increased. One hypothesis is that as women spend more time 

in the formal labor market, they have less time to cook at home (Cawley, 2006). 

However, among our sample, women reported that they dined out infrequently with their 

family. As reported in 2007, the median number of meals eaten outside the home (or delivery of 

restaurant food to the home) was 1.5 per month. Reasons given for eating out included not 

having the energy to cook, not having food in the house to cook, not wanting the heat from the 

oven to make the house warmer, and desiring the convenience that meals away from home 

provide. All but two respondents said that when they ate out they consumed fast food. However, 

most women said that they did not eat out more often because it was cheaper to eat at home. 

Meals away from home can also be convenient when work hours overlap with meal 

times. However, bringing a meal from home may be a less costly option. Among the 26 

respondents who were employed at the time of the 2007 interview (when questions about eating 

out were asked), ten reported that they always brought their own food to work. Reasons for 

doing so had to do both with saving money and because there were few restaurant options near 

their place of work. Six reported that they almost always purchased their meals while at work, 

although in the case of one of these women, her daughter was the one who paid for the meal. For 

most of these women, convenience was the primary reason for buying meals. A couple of 

women said that they did not have time in the morning to prepare a lunch, so eating out was a 

time-saver. Five women purchased food when they had money but otherwise brought meals to 

work. Three women never ate while at work, one because she worked four-hour shifts, the other 

two as a way to save money.14

 

14 The two other employed women had their meals provided by their employer. 

34 
Summary

Many women in this sample reported that they watched for sales, clipped coupons, or 

were willing to travel to multiple stores in order to get the “most for the money.” However, as 

food prices rose, women began to cut back on certain foods, including milk, cereal, fruits, and 

meat, due to their perceived lack of affordability. Women also reported dining out infrequently, 

whether at home or at work. This runs contrary to other research, indicating an increase in food 

away from home in the post-welfare reform era. It could be that as the economy worsened, 

eating out was one of the first expenses to be cut. 

35 
VI. Food-related Hardships 

In this section we address our third research question about the extent of food-related 

hardships experienced by sample members and the strategies they used to alleviate them. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture has developed a number of modules designed to measure “food 

security” in U.S. households. Food secure households are those in which all members have 

access to enough food at all times for an active and healthy life at all times (Nord, Andrews and 

Carlson, 2007). Households who do not meet this criterion are considered food insecure. In 

2006, 89 percent of U.S. households were food secure, while the balance, eleven percent, met the 

definition of food insecure. Food insecurity rates in Michigan are just slightly above the U.S. 

average at 11.8 percent (Food Research and Action Center, 2008). Food insecurity is more 

prevalent among certain groups, including households living in poverty (36.3 percent), 

households headed by single mothers (30.4 percent), and Black households (21.8 percent), all 

demographic groups included in our sample. 

Since our study is qualitative, we did not administer the survey questions needed to 

assess systematically food insecurity among our sample (to do so might have disrupted the flow 

of conversation). We did, though, ask, in an open-ended fashion, “In the last 12 months did you 

ever run out of food and not have money to buy more? Tell me what happened.” We also asked 

women to talk about ways they made their money stretch through the month, and some talked 

about changes in their shopping and eating habits, raising issues similar to those discussed in the 

previous section. 

Food Hardships Among our Sample

In our sample, we found that many families were experiencing food-related hardships 

particularly with the decline in Michigan’s economy. Hardships include those highlighted in the 

36 
previous section, such as not being able to purchase the foods they would like and sacrificing 

nutritional value for dollar value. Additionally, women mentioned being unable to stock their 

deep freezers (as they had done in years past) and running out of food completely. 

Almost every respondent indicated that they had changed their purchasing habits at the 

grocery store in response to rising food prices. A number reported no longer being able to afford 

red meat (or at least the quantity they would prefer to eat) or fish and were now eating 

significantly more chicken or other substitutes. For example, Jen, a thirty year old mother of 

two, used to eat more fish. Now, she said, “I gotta stick with my chicken. Chicken and hot dogs. 

Chicken every day, that's all we do, is eat chicken all the time.” Similarly, Geneva fed her 

family red meat about three to four times a week in 2007; by 2008 she had reduced this to twice 

a week, substituting in chicken and “lots of noodles.” While substituting chicken for fish and 

beef is not necessarily nutritionally detrimental, as we noted in the previous section, many 

women perceive that they cannot afford certain items and have opted for less healthy choices. 

Three women in the study talked about changing their eating toward the end of the 

month, when money started to run out, eating food that was cheap but not necessarily nutritious. 

Geneva said that she and her three sons, aged sixteen, twelve and eight, ate only Ramen Noodles 

at the end of the month, a pattern that had become routine for her children. She said, “The kids 

don’t care anymore. They had [a] problem with it at first, but they know it’s Ramen Noodle time 

now. It’s end of the month. You know, we kind of laugh about it.” Maria reported keeping 

beans, rice, and flour on hand, so when the end of the month came, she and her children might 

have something to eat. Similarly, Amala said that at the end of the month she would be looking 

through her cupboards, searching for anything from which she might make meals. 

37 
When asked if they had run out of food at any time in the last 12 months (either during 

2007 or 2008) and did not have money to buy more, 17 of the 35 responded with a “yes.” This 

includes five women who responded affirmatively in 2007 only,15 five who did in 2008 only, and 

seven who ran out of food in both years. In the latter group are women like Geneva, Maria and 

Amala, who “scraped together” meals out of the remnants of their cupboards. They kept a small 

stock of canned goods, lentils, and rice and used these to put together meals when they ran out of 

other food. For these women, running out of food did not necessarily mean having no food in 

the house, but rather that they were down to their emergency supplies. On the other hand, Karla 

once reported going several days without really having a meal. When pressed to explain how 

she managed on little food, she replied, “I just drink a lot of water. That keeps me full.” Karla’s 

situation was likely not made any easier by the fact that the apartment in which she lived at the 

time did not have a refrigerator. Thus, she could not keep any perishables. 

Running out of food (or having very little on hand) happened fairly regularly. Maria 

reported running out nearly every month, and Geneva said it happened nine out of the previous 

12 months. Yvette, a mother of five children, often ran out of food when her two oldest, both 

teenage boys, were living with her. In early 2008, one went to college and the other moved in 

with his grandmother. Once they were out of the house, food lasted. In total, nine women 

reported that they ran out almost every month. 

Other women, like Tanya or Brianna, only ran out once or twice during a year. However, 

Brianna reported that this was a new experience to her, since in the past she always had enough 

money to buy food. After losing her job she found it difficult to keep up with all of her bills. 

While the assistance she received from food stamps helped, she noted that grocery prices had 

 

15 Three of these five women were not interviewed in 2008, two because we were unable to make contact and one 

because she was deceased. 

38 
risen quite a bit. Likewise, running out of food was new for Sharon. She experienced extreme 

downward mobility since 2006, going from having a household income of $70,000 a year to 

being out of work due to a lay off for over a year and losing her savings. During one of the 

interviews, she opened her refrigerator and cupboards for the interviewer, displaying their near 

empty contents.16 

Women coped with their situations in a number of ways. Quite a few relied on family 

members or friends for help, either by getting money to buy food, receiving a bag of groceries, or 

sending children over to a relative’s house for a meal. Brianna and Sharon relied on their 

mothers to provide either food or cooked meals when they had no food of their own. Geneva’s 

mother would marshal the extended family to help out. Geneva explained how her mother “went 

through my family. Because they know that it’s really hard here. So [she] went through the 

family, and the family got me a care basket. I mean, that happens at least once every two 

months.” Adrienne, a former factory worker, sometimes could borrow food from a family 

member, but often she said, “I do without.” In this case, her meal might be a bowl of soup. 

Both Erica and Karla received food from a community center. Nichelle, a single mother 

of three grade school aged boys, cut back on food for herself, not eating until dinner, so that her 

sons could eat. That her sons were fed both breakfast and lunch at school also helped her 

tremendously. Tamara tried to monitor the amount of food her six and eight year old daughters 

consumed and was hoping to train them to be conscious of how much they were consuming. She 

said, “I limit, you know, their amount of food and stuff, not so much limit it, but I make them 

well aware, okay, we ain’t got that much money like that, you know. Ya’ll need to stop eating so 

 

16 In at least three cases, women told their interviewer that they currently had no money or food in their home and 

would use their respondent payment to go grocery shopping immediately after the interview ended. 

39 
much of this. It’s expensive.” Thus, her children were being socialized to control the amount of 

food they ate for financial reasons. 

Two women reported relying on other people’s food stamps to get them through periods 

when they ran out of money for food. In the summer of 2008, when Erica ran out of money and 

food, she sent her children to their father’s house, because he also received food stamps for 

himself. Although her ex-partner would not feed Erica, he would provide food for the children, 

at least for a week or two. When Maria’s children were removed from her home by Child 

Protective Services, she stopped receiving food stamps on their behalf. Maria then took in an 

older gentleman as a boarder. In exchange for a room, he turned over his food stamp EBT card 

to her. Then, in turn, she shopped and cooked for both of them. 

Finally, about a dozen women reported that trading food stamps for cash at the grocery 

store was a fairly common occurrence in their communities, although only Erica admitted to 

engaging in this practice herself. Implementation of the EBT card was in part meant to thwart 

the practice of selling food stamps. However, people who are low on cash, like Erica, find 

someone who is purchasing groceries with cash (either a friend or someone recruited outside of 

the store). The food stamp recipient then uses his/her EBT card and receives cash from the other 

person. Mona, one of the higher income women in this study (and thus not a part of the analyses 

in this report), said that she often “bought” her groceries with other people’s food stamps, and 

gave the exact amount of cash to the recipient. However, women told us that these types 

transactions were not always a dollar for dollar exchange 

Factors Perceived to Contribute to Food Hardships

We asked women to talk about what was happening during times when they ran out of 

money for food and to speculate on the factors that might have led to this hardship. A few 

40 
women pointed to concrete causes. Erica, for example, attributed her lack of money 

management skills as the cause of not having food. She said, “You know, sometimes I don’t 

know what I be doing with my money.” Tanya, who works at a school during the academic year, 

knew that she would run low on money for food once school was over and applied for food 

stamps in order to tide her over. However, while waiting for her eligibility to be determined, she 

ran out of food. 

The majority of those who said that they ran out of food reported that they simply did not 

have enough money or that finances were “tight.” In examining women’s narratives more 

closely, it becomes clear that for those who receive it, food stamps is the only stable and 

relatively non-varying source of monthly income support. Very few women receive TANF. As 

noted earlier, employment is frequently unstable, with 16 of the 35 women having at least one 

spell of unemployment during the 2006 to mid-2008 period. When women lose jobs, they are 

usually not eligible for Unemployment Insurance and may go several months before finding a 

new job. Even when employment is maintained, women often do not work consistent hours, so 

their monthly earnings vary. Some months, then, money may run out, particularly as prices for 

food and other goods rise. 

From a demographic standpoint, women who ran out of food tended to have more 

children living with them—on average, three—compared to women who did not run out of food 

who had fewer children living with them – on average, two. Among those running out of food, 

half had at least one unemployed adult child living with them. Yvette’s family met both of these 

criteria. When we first met her, all five of her children, two of whom were unemployed young 

adults, lived with her. Not only did her older sons eat a lot of food, but while Yvette was at work, 

they brought in other young men from the neighborhood who helped themselves to whatever 

41 
food was in the house. Further, when Yvette would get home from work later in the evening, she 

usually found the house, and particularly the kitchen, “torn up,” with trash everywhere. Tired 

and not wanting to cook in an unclean kitchen, Yvette often purchased fast food for herself and 

her younger children, a practice she acknowledged contributed to her running out of money later 

in the month. In 2008, she moved out of the city of Detroit and prohibited the eldest two from 

moving along with her. With only her younger children with her she said, “I don’t have to worry 

about somebody eating up all the foods in two days. I got food that last, um you know, two 

weeks now.” 

Summary

Food-related hardships are very common among this sample. Just under half of the 

sample reported running out of food at some point during the year (in some cases multiple 

times), and all but a few women said that they had to make some adjustments to their eating 

habits, including forgoing certain types of food and eating less nutritious food toward the end of 

the month. Among those who ran out of food, 12 of the 16 were able to receive food or money 

from friends and family or use food banks or pantries. Two reported engaging in strategies that 

involved using other people’s food stamps. While in a couple of cases, running out of food was 

linked to specific incidents, most women attributed the cause to lack of money and tight 

finances, which in turn are linked to unstable employment and low earnings. 

42 
VI. Implications for Policy 

The experiences of the women in this study provide a backdrop against which issues 

related to program use, food expenditures, and food hardships can be considered. The limited 

size of the study sample and geographic concentration in a single area limit the extent to which 

national policy implications can be made. Yet within these limitations, the knowledge gained 

from the qualitative data analyzed I this study suggests some policy approaches that might 

deserve consideration. 

First, many women stated that they would like to purchase and consume healthier foods, 

including leaner meat, fruits, and vegetables, but they perceived that the prices of these items 

were often outside of their budgets. Given Americans’ low levels of fruit and vegetable 

consumption, and the particularly low amount consumed by low-income households, USDA 

researchers have become interested in how to promote more healthful eating. 

Several potential options, suggested by USDA, that might work well include providing 

vouchers or bonuses to food stamp recipients that would go toward the purchase of fruits and 

vegetables. In effect, these types of policies would reduce the price of these items, which might 

induce recipients to purchase increased quantities (Guthrie et al., 2007). Since many women in 

our sample expressed a desire to eat more fruits and vegetables and noted that fruits in particular 

seemed to be priced very high, such a strategy may be worth testing. 

Providing nutrition education is another option (Guthrie et al., 2007). Currently, states 

use USDA funds to operate a variety of educational activities, ranging from nutrition education 

classes, to providing pamphlets, to investing in marketing campaigns and advertising through 

radio and newspapers (Guthrie and Variyam, 2007). We cannot say definitively from our study 

whether or not more or different types of nutrition education would increase these families’ fruit 

43 
and vegetable consumption. Recall that eight women were “sale shoppers” who placed price 

above all other considerations when shopping for the family. Further, as ERS researchers note, 

even though studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between having more nutritional 

information and making nutritious food choices, it is not clear that such information would 

demonstrate the same relationship with low-income individuals (Guthrie and Variyam, 2007). 

However, the larger issue, at least for the women in this study, is inconsistent earnings 

and employment and the attendant problems that poses for families in managing their budgets. 

In fact food stamps (now SNAP benefits) may be the only consistent source of support, month to 

month, for many women. While there is concern about the role that income volatility plays in 

relation to eligibility for food programs (see Jolliffe and Ziliak, 2008), it is not clear that it is the 

responsibility of SNAP alone to provide the solution to this problem. Much of the instability in 

women’s earnings comes from fluctuations in hours and job loss. Yet, income support programs 

in the U.S. have not kept up to reflect the reality of low-income families. TANF, with its work 

requirements and, in some states, strong diversionary practices, provides support to very few 

poor families. 

The Unemployment Insurance system (UI) also has gaps. UI does not cover as many 

low-wage workers as it does higher-wage workers (Simms, 2008). The UI program requires that 

workers have earned a certain amount of wages and have lost their job due to a “good cause” 

(such as layoffs).17 Low wage workers may cycle through jobs more quickly, thus not meeting 

wage requirements, and they are more likely to lose work because of illness or other family 

problems. Simms suggests several possible legislative options, including changing the wage 

requirement to one that reflects tenure on the job, so that more low earners may qualify for 

benefits. 

 

17 Specific eligibility requirements vary by state. 

44 
Finally, programs in general might look for ways to become more responsive to rapid 

changes in families’ economic circumstances. For example, could procedures be put in place to 

quickly increase benefits in the event of job loss for those already receiving SNAP benefits? 

There are some tradeoffs to consider. As Boadway, Cuff, and Marceau (2008) note, the need for 

timely delivery of the support (which implies swift determination of eligibility) must be balanced 

against the need to ensure that only those who are in need of assistance receive it. 

However, as the stories of the women in this study demonstrate, low-income families are 

living with very little margin of error in their budgets. Job losses, cutbacks in work hours, and 

disabilities happened quickly, but the responsiveness of a number of assistance programs, 

according to women’s accounts, was slow, if it occurred at all. Particularly in bad economic 

times, a safety net—and not just food programs-- should do more to prevent the types of 

hardships, such as running very low on food or simply “going without,” experienced by many 

women in this study. 

45 
Citations 

Andrews, Margaret S. and Mark A. Prell. 2001. “Second Food Security and Research 

Measurement Conference, Volume II: Papers.” FANRR11-2, USDA, Economic Research 

Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/Fanrr11-2/ (Accessed 6/09). 

Bartlett, Susan and Nancy Burstein. 2004. “Food Stamp Program Access Study: Impact of 

Local Office Policies and Practices on Participation.” Washington, D.C.: Abt Associates. 

Blank, Rebecca and Lucie Schmidt. 2001. “Work, Wages and Welfare.” The New World of 

Welfare. Rebecca Blank and Ronald Haskins, eds. Washington, D.C.: Brookings 

Institution Press. 

Boadway, Robin Katherine Cuff, and Nicolas Marceau. 2008. “Design of Food Assistance 

Programs to Address Real Income Volatility.” Income Volatility and Food Assistance in 

the United States. Dean Jolliffe and James Ziliak, eds. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn 

Institute for Employment Research. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. “Comparing characteristics and expenditures of consumer 

units in selected income ranges.” Available at: 

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils54.pdf (Accessed 11/08). 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. “2009 Consumer Price Index Detailed Report Tables.” 

Available at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm#2009. (Accessed 6/09). 

Castner, Laura A. and Allen A Schirm. 2006. “Researching Those In Need: State Food Stamp 

Participation Rates in 2003.” Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research. 

Cawley, John. 2006. “Markets and Childhood Obesity Policy.” The Future of Children, 16:1, 

69-88. 

Census Bureau. 2007. American Community Survey: Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, Selected Housing Characteristics: 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Census Bureau. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-state=adp&-context=adp&-

qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_DP4&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-

tree_id=307&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=31200US198202622000&-

format=&-_lang=en (Accessed 6/09). 

Center for Housing Policy. 2009. “Paycheck to Paycheck.” Washington, D.C.: National Housing 

Conference. Available at: http://www.nhc.org/chp/p2p/ (Accessed 6/09) 

46 
Chapman, Jeff and Jared Bernstein. 2003. “Falling through the Safety Net: Low-income Single 

Mothers and the Jobless Recovery.” Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. 

Available at: http://www.epi.org/Issuebriefs/ib191/ib191.pdf (Accessed 10/08). 

Danielson, Caroline and Jacob Klerman. 2006. “Why did the Food Stamp Caseload Decline 

(And Rise?)” WR-386. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. 

Edin, Kathryn. 2003. “Client-based ethnographic research.” Policy Into Action. Mary Claire. 

Lennon and Tom Corbett, eds. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. 

Farley, Reynolds, Sheldon Danziger, and Harry Holzer. 2000. Detroit Divided. New York: 

Russell Sage. 

Food Research and Action Center. 2008. “Prevalence of Household-Level Food Insecurity by 

State 2005-2007 (Average).” Available at: 

http://www.frac.org/pdf/2007rank_food_insecurity.pdf (Accessed 5/09) 

Guthrie Joanne and Jayachandran N. Variyam. 2007. “Can Food Stamps Do More to Improve 

Food Choices? An Economic Perspective—Nutrition Information: Can It Improve the 

Diets of Low-Income Households?” Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture. 

Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib29/eib29-6/ (Accessed 2/09). 

Guthrie Joanne, Margaret Andrews, Elizabeth Frazao, Ephraim Leibtag, Biing-Hwan Lin, Lisa 

Mancino, Mark Nord, Mark Prell, David Smallwood, Jayachandran Variyam, and 

Michele Ver Ploeg 2007. “Can Food Stamps Do More To Improve Food Choices? An 

Economic Perspective” Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture. Available 

at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB29/ (Accessed 11/08). 

Hetling, Andrea, Pamela Ovwigho and Catherine Born. 2007. “Do Welfare Avoidance Grants 

Prevent Cash Assistance?” Social Service Review, 81:4, 609-31. 

Jolliffe, Dean and James Ziliak. 2008. “Introduction.” Income Volatility and Food Assistance 

in the United States. Dean Jolliffe and James Ziliak, eds. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn 

Institute for Employment Research. 

Kabbani, Nader S. and Parke E. Wilde. 2003. “Short Re-certification period in the U.S. Food 

Stamp Program: Causes and Consequences.” Focus: 22:2, 64-66. 

Kaushal, Neeraj, Qin Gao, and Jane Waldfogel. 2007. “Welfare Reform and Expenditures on 

Children.” Social Service Review, 81:3, 369-398. 

Lerman, Robert. 2005. “How did the 2001 Recession Affect Single Mothers?” Washington, 

D.C.: The Urban Institute. Available at: 

http://www.urban.org/publications/311128.html. (Accessed 11/08). 

47 
Lin, Biing-Hwan, Joanne Guthrie and Elizabeth Frazao. 1999. “Away-From-Home Foods 

Increasingly Important to Quality of American Diet.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB749/ 

(Accessed 12/08) 

McGranahan, Leslie. 2008. “Food inflation and the consumption patterns of U.S households.” 

Chicago Fed Letter. Oct 2008. 

Miles, Matthew B. and Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded 

sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Moffitt, Robert. 2003. "The Role of the Nonfinancial Factors in Exit and Entry in the TANF 

Program." Journal of Human Resources 38(S):1221-1254. 

Newman, Constance. 2006. “The Income Volatility See-Saw.” Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err23/ (Accessed on 11/08). 

Newman, Constance and Katherine Rolston. 2007. National School Lunch Program Fills Food 

Assistance Gaps. Amber Waves. Feb 2007. Available at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February07/Findings/National.htm (Accessed 

5/09) 

Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. 2007. Household Food Security in the 

United States, 2006. ERR-49, USDA, Economic Research Service. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err49 

(Accessed 12/08). 

Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage . 

Pavetti, LaDonna. and Dan Bloom. 2001. “State sanctions and time limits.” In The New World 

of Welfare. Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins, eds. Washington, DC: Brookings 

Institution. 

Primus, Wendell. 2001. “Comment on: ‘Effects of Welfare Reform on Family Income and 

Poverty’ by Ron Haskins.” In The New World of Welfare. Rebecca Blank and Ron 

Haskins, eds. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 

Ratcliffe, Caroline, Signe-Mary McKernan, and Kenneth Finegold. 2008. “Effect of State food 

Stamp and TANF Policies on Food Stamp Program Participation.” CCR-36, USDA, 

Economic Research Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/CCR36/ (Accessed 5/09). 

Ridzi, Frank and Andrew S. London. 2006. “‘It’s Great When People Don’t Even Have Their 

Welfare Cases Opened’: TANF Diversion as Process and Lesson.” Review of Policy 

Research 23(2): 725-743. 

48 
Scott, Ellen K., Kathryn Edin, Andrew S. London, and Rebecca Joyce Kissane. 2004. “Unstable 

Work, Unstable Income: Implications for Family Well-Being in the Era of Time-Limited 

Welfare.” Journal of Poverty 8 (1): 61-88. 

Seefeldt, Kristin S. 2008. Working After Welfare: How Women Balance Jobs and Family in the 

Wake of Welfare Reform. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment 

Research. 

Simms, Margaret. 2008. “Weathering Job Loss.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. 

Available at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411730_job_loss.pdf (Accessed 

12/08). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. “Food Stamp Program State Options Report, 2003.” 

Washington, D.C.: USDA Available at: 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Memo/Support/State_Options/4-

State_Options.pdf#xml=http://65.216.150.153/texis/search/pdfhi.txt?query=Food+Stamp

+Program%3A+State+Options+Report%2C+Fourth+Edition&pr=FNS%order=r&cq=&i

d=4919e02311. (Accessed 11/08). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. “Food Stamp Program State Options Report, 2007.” 

Washington, D.C.: USDA Available at: 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Memo/Support/State_Options/7-State_Options.pdf 

(Accessed 2/09). 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. Administration for Children and 

Families. TANF: Total Number of Families, Fiscal and Calendar Year 2008. Available 

at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/2008/2008_ 

family_tan.htm (Accessed 6/09). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. National 

Level Annual Summary. Washington, D.C.: USDA Available at: 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm. (Accessed 1/09) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP 

Monthly Data. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm. 

(Accessed 6/09). 

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. “Food CPI, Pricing and Expenditures.” Washington, 

D.C.: USDA. Available at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/cpiforecasts.htm 

(Accessed 2/09). 

Weaver, R. Kent. 2000. Ending Welfare as We Knew It. Washington, D.C.: Brookings 

Institution Press. 

49 
50 

Women’s Bureau. 2007. Women in the Labor Force: A Databook. Washington, D.C.: 

Department of Labor. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2007.pdf 

(Accessed 4/09) 

Zedlewski, Sheila, Pamela Holcomb, and Amy-Ellen Duke. 1998. “Cash assistance in transition: 

The story of 13 states.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute