U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Demographic Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Dynamics of Economic Well-Being:

Program Participation,1993 to 1995

Who Gets Assistance? 

Household Economic Studies

Issued September 2001

Current

Population

Reports

Jan Tin

Charita Castro

P70-77

INTRODUCTION • Aid to Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC) The August 1996 passage of the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity • General assistance (GA)

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), also known • Food stamps as welfare reform, gave states considerable flexibility and greater responsibility • Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

in formulating and implementing initiatives to reduce welfare dependency and • Medicaid

to encourage employment for members of • Housing assistance low-income families with children. Under

the PRWORA, most welfare recipients face The data cover calendar years 1993 and

a 60-month time limit in federal funding 1994, and the first 9 calendar months of

and must meet certain work requirements 1995 (January to September),2 a time just

to receive assistance. Even prior to the before federal welfare reform was enactenactment of PRWORA, however, several ed. The data provide a set of baseline

states modified their welfare programs estimates for the study of the effects of

under waivers granted by the federal gov- the reforms.3

ernment, which allowed them to implement innovative demonstration projects

to move people from welfare to work. 2

This report is an update of Randy Sherrod (1999),

Changes in the welfare system, both "Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Program

Participation, Who Gets Assistance? 1993 to 1994" under waivers and the PRWORA, have Current Population Reports, P70-69, Washington, DC:

increased the interest in information U.S. Census Bureau.

about the degree to which certain groups 3

Data from the 1996 and later panels of SIPP will be

used to study program participation in the post-reform of people are involved in assistance pro- era. Part of the PRWORA law directed the Census

grams, about the characteristics of pro- Bureau to field a new survey, whose purpose is to collect the data necessary to evaluate the impact of the gram participants, about the kinds of pro- change. To carry out that directive, the Census Bureau

grams they use, and about the intensity began conducting the Survey of Program Dynamics

(SPD). The SPD will simultaneously describe the full and extent of their participation. Of par- range of state welfare programs along with social, ecoticular interest is how people’s participa- nomic, demographic, and family changes that will help

or limit the effectiveness of the reforms. The Census tion extends over time. Bureau is collecting data for households previously

interviewed in the Survey of Income and Program

This report focuses on participation and Participation (SIPP) from 1992-94 or 1993-95 for each of

on the characteristics of participants in the 6 years from 1996 through 2001. Cross-sectional

data from SPD were released after the 1997, 1998, and the following means-tested public-assis- 1999 surveys. The first longitudinal file from SPD was

tance programs:1 released in the summer of 2001. For more information

about SPD, see the SPD Web site, at

www.sipp.census.gov/spd/ 

1

Means-tested programs are those that require

income and/or assets of the individual or family to be

below specified thresholds in order to qualify for benefits. These programs provide cash and noncash assistance to eligible individuals and families.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

The data come from the 1993 panel

of the Survey of Income and

Participation (SIPP).4 SIPP is a longitudinal survey, which means that,

unlike periodic point-in-time surveys, such as the Current

Population Survey, SIPP follows the

same people over time, or longitudinally.5 This longitudinality enables

SIPP to study a subject from two

perspectives. First, it can look back

at the history of a group of people

over a span of time. Second, it can

take cross-sectional views of a population of interest at regular intervals, such as monthly. SIPP is analogous to a video cassette recorder

with a freeze-frame function. 

SIPP’s historical perspective is useful

for examining a variety of concepts.

One is gross-activity levels, such as

how many people ever used a particular assistance program in a

given year, even though not all of

them used it at any particular time.

Another is cumulative amounts,

such as the number of months

within a time period that an individual participated in one or more

assistance programs. Yet another

approach is to examine the number,

timing, and duration of flows of

people into and out of particular situations within a given time span,

such as the length of time an individual continuously participates in a

particular program or in assistance

in general. SIPP’s cross-sectional

4

The sample of households in SIPP is divided

into four interview groups called rotation

groups. Each month, one of the four rotation

groups is interviewed about the previous 

4 months (the reference period). The 1993 SIPP

panel covered the period from October 1992 to

December 1995, but the data in this report

cover only the months in which the full sample

is present. Data for all four rotation groups (the

full sample) are available only for 33 continuous reference months, the calendar months of

January 1993 through September 1995. The

Census Bureau will continue to follow the families who participated in the 1992 and 1993 SIPP

panels in the Survey of Program Dynamics to

provide post-reform longitudinal data. 5

To ensure that the sample remains representative of the noninstitutionalized population of the United States, the survey attempts

to follow people in the panel who move.

perspective captures changes over

time in the level of an activity, such

as in the proportion of the population receiving assistance in a given

month. Each of these perspectives

can be used to study populations,

or segments of populations, existing at selected points in time. 

The longitudinal properties of SIPP

come at a cost, however. Over time,

attrition reduces the available sample size; and, to the extent that it

takes a larger bite out of certain

kinds of sample members, the survey may grow increasingly unrepresentative of the population, leading

to biases in the results. Statistical

techniques (primarily reweighting)

cannot entirely redress these potential imbalances. In terms of a video

analogy, differential attrition not

only causes the picture to become

increasingly grainy, but increasingly

distorted as well (see Appendix B

for a fuller discussion of the potential effects of attrition). The data in

this report are particularly susceptible to such effects because, as discussed later, poverty is associated

with program participation, and longitudinal surveys tend to lose relatively more poor people than higher

income people. 

These limitations may call for extra

care in interpreting the longitudinal

data in this report, but they do not

destroy their usefulness. Absolute

estimates (such as the number of

program participants, the level of a

participation rate, or the size of a

monthly benefit) may not exactly

reflect reality,6 but they do suggest

a minimum or maximum value for

6

For example, research on data for 1985

through 1993 shows that SIPP estimates of the

numbers of recipients for AFDC (and also for

food stamps) are lower than the numbers based

on administrative data, and the extent of underestimation may have increased over time. See

the source cited in Appendix B. 

Accuracy of the Estimates

Statistics from sample surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling

error. All comparisons presented in this report have taken sampling

error into account and meet Census Bureau standards for statistical significance. Nonsampling errors in surveys may be attributed to a variety

of sources, such as how the survey was designed, how respondents

interpret questions, how able and willing respondents are to provide

correct answers, and how accurately answers are coded and classified.

The Census Bureau employs quality control procedures throughout the

production process, including the overall design of surveys, the testing

of the wording of questions, the review of the work of interviewers and

coders, and the statistical review of reports.

The SIPP employs ratio estimation, whereby sample estimates are

adjusted to independent estimates of the national population by age,

race, sex, and Hispanic origin. This weighting partially corrects for bias

due to undercoverage, but how it affects different variables in the survey is not precisely known. Moreover, biases may also be present when

people who are missed in the survey differ from those interviewed in

ways other than the categories used in weighting (age, race, sex, and

Hispanic origin). All of these considerations affect comparisons across

different surveys or data sources.

Sample attrition, a type of nonresponse error, is another major concern

in SIPP because of the need to follow the same people over time.

Attrition reduces the available sample size. To the extent that those

leaving the sample are systematically different from those who remain

in the sample, survey estimates will be biased. 
U.S. Census Bureau 3

the object under study. More measures of central tendency, are

importantly, though individual esti- somewhat protected from the dismates of the levels of a quantity at tortions that may affect their comsuccessive times may each miss ponents. Relative measures (such as

their mark, they often miss it by a the relative size of the participation

consistent degree, so that differ- rate for men compared with that for

ences between them can reliably women, or the ratio of the number

describe the timing and size of of food stamp participants to the

changes in the quantity. Averages number of medicaid participants)

of estimates (such as the “average suggest the true nature of relationmonthly participation rate”), being ships. Both absolute and relative

measures can reveal the broad outlines, directions, size, and strength

of trends and patterns, especially

when they are applied as here (for

the “length of participation” and

“median spell length” measures) to

the history of a group of people

existing at a particular point in time. 

The first section of the report

examines the degree and scope of

the involvement of groups of people in assistance programs. The

second section looks at the duration of attachment to assistance

and at the monthly benefits of program participants. Appendix A displays the detailed statistical tables

analyzed in this report.

HIGHLIGHTS

• About 40 million people (or 

15 percent of the population)

participated in major meanstested assistance programs in

each month, on average, in

1995.7

• In 1995, individuals were more

likely to participate in medicaid

than in any of the other programs

examined. Eleven percent of

individuals participated in medicaid in an average month in

1995.

• The poor, in 1995, were much

more likely to receive at least

one type of major means-tested

benefit than individuals who

were not in poor families.

About three in four of the poor

received benefits in at least one

month in 1995 compared with

only one in eleven of the nonpoor.

• Differences in the participation

rates among various demographic groups are largely asso7

Throughout this report, data for 1995 refer

not to the entire calendar year, but to the 

9 months from January through September.

Description of Concepts

Average monthly participation rate for (a specified year): this is

an annual-average measure of the monthly percentage of people who

participated in at least one major means-tested program; it represents a

weighted average of the 12 monthly (9 for 1995) participation rates for

the year. People who participated in more than one program in a month

are only counted once in the total number of participants for that month.

Participated 1 or more months in (a specified year): the percentage of people who ever participated at any time in at least one major

means-tested program during a specified year.

Participated between 1 and 11 months: the percentage of people

who participated in at least one program or another for a total of

between 1 and 11 months (not necessarily consecutive) during the

January 1993-September 1995 period. 

Participated 12 or more months: the percentage of people who participated in at least one program or another for a total of 12 or more

months (not necessarily consecutive) during the January 1993-September

1995 period, including people who participated in all 33 months of the

period. 

Participated all 33 months: the percentage of people who participated in at least one program or another for all 33 months of the January

1993-September 1995 period.

Spell of participation: an uninterrupted period of months in which an

individual receives means-tested assistance, and which is preceded by 

1 or more months of nonparticipation; a month is included in a spell if

the individual receives assistance for all or any part of the month.

Median spell duration: that value for spell length that divides the distribution of spells by duration in half, one-half being shorter and onehalf longer than the median.

Median monthly family benefit: that value that divides in half the

distribution of the recipients of assistance, by their monthly family benefit amount in a specified year: one-half of the people in the distribution

have benefits below the median, the other half have benefits above it.

The monthly family benefit amount for an individual in a given year represents the amount for the last month in that year for which the family’s receipt of the benefit was reported (not necessarily December); if

the family participated in a program for only part of that month, then

the benefit amount could underestimate the usual monthly benefit

received by the family from that program. 
4 U.S. Census Bureau

ciated with differences in their

poverty rates.

• Individuals in households maintained by women were approximately five times as likely to

participate in means-tested programs, in an average month in

1995, as individuals in marriedcouple households (44 percent

versus 9 percent).

• Adults (people age 18 and over)

without a high school diploma

were more than twice as likely

as high school graduates, and

more than five times as likely as

those with some college, to

participate in some type of

means-tested programs in an

average month in 1995 (participation rates were 25 percent,

10 percent, and 5 percent,

respectively, for these groups).

• Unemployed people were much

more likely to receive meanstested benefits in an average

month in1995 than were people

with full-time jobs (26 percent

compared with 4 percent).

• Children (people under 18 years

of age) were more likely than

people in other age groups to

be long-term recipients of assistance programs (“long term”

being defined as participating in

all 33 months of the 1993-95

period examined in this report).

• Recipients of means-tested programs participated in housing

assistance for a longer period of

time (median duration of 

7.8 months) than they did in

food stamps or medicaid in the

1993-95 period.

• Within selected demographic

groups (such as age groups and

family types), higher average

monthly program participation

rates tended to be associated

with the receipt of higher median family benefits.

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

The focus in this section is on

groups of people in the population

at large. The discussion investigate

their degree of involvement in

assistance programs using three

concepts, each of which explores a

different aspect of program participation.8

• The “average monthly program participation rate:”

These are annual-average

rates—one for each of the years

1993, 1994, and 1995. The

rate represents a weighted average of the twelve (nine for

1995) monthly (cross-sectional)

measurements taken in the

specified year of the proportion

of people in the group who

participated in assistance programs. (Rates are shown for

1995 even though they are 

9-month averages because this

number of months is sufficient

to make them reasonably comparable to the 12-month averages for 1993 and 1994). Each

of the component monthly rates

in the average corresponds to

the population existing in the

month the measurement was

taken. The measure tells what

share of the group is on assistance, on average, in any

given month during the year

in question.

• The percentage of a group who

“participated 1 or more

months in a (specified)

year:” These percentages are

presented for each year 1993

and 1994. The measure repres

8

A person is considered to participate in a

program if the person individually receives benefits from the program or is covered under the

allotment of another person. If, for example, in

a given month two people in a household

received food stamps and two additional people in the household were covered by the food

stamp program, then the number of people

from that household who participated in the

food stamp program for that month would be

counted as "4."

sents the proportion of people

in a group who ever took part in

any program at any time in a

year. It is a measure of gross

activity, and corresponds to the

population existing at the end

of the year in question. Data are

not shown for 1995 because,

unlike the data for 1993 and

1994, they had not achieved

their full potential growth when

their time base was truncated.

The figure represents the share

of the group that participated in

assistance at some time during the specified year.

• The percentage of the population that “participated for a

(specified) number of

months in the 33-month

period between January

1993 and September 1995:”

This measure is based on the

number of accumulated (not

necessarily consecutive )

months spent in assistance programs throughout the entire

33-month time span. It relates

to the population existing at the

end of the 33 months. 

Program Usage: 

1993 to 1995

Of the estimated 263 million noninstitutionalized civilians living in the

United States in 1995, approximately 40 million, or 14.9 percent, participated in one or more major

means-tested assistance programs,

on average, during each of the first

9 months of 1995. As Figure 1

shows, the annual-average monthly

participation rate increased noticeably from about 11 percent in the

1987-90 period to 15.2 percent in

1993 and 1994. The average

monthly participation rate in 1995

was 14.9 percent.9

9

The difference between the participation

rates in 1994 and 1995 is not statistically significant.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

A small proportion of the population existing at the end of the

1993-95 period participated in

means-tested programs on a longterm basis, with about 9.0 percent

having participated in each month

of the period (Figure 2). About 

15 percent of people under 18 years

old participated each month of the

1993-95 period, compared with 

6.2 percent of people 18 to 64

years old, and 9.7 percent of people 65 years and older (Figure 3). 

Medicaid Has the Highest

Participation Rate

As Figure 4 illustrates, individuals

were more likely to participate in

medicaid than in any of the other

programs examined in this report.

In 1993, 13.6 percent of the population participated in medicaid in at

least 1 month; in 1994, 14.1 percent of people did so (Figure 4).

Continuing a relationship observed

for 1993 and 1994, the average

monthly participation rate in 1995

for medicaid (11.2 percent) was

higher than that for AFDC or GA,

food stamps, housing assistance, or

SSI (Figure 5). More people (about

5.9 percent of the population) participated in medicaid in all 

33 months than in any other program (see Figure 2).10

An estimated 29 million people

received medicaid benefits in an

average month of 1995; almost 

16 million of these recipients were

children. In fact, 22.0 percent of

children under age 18 received

medicaid, compared with 7.0 percent of people 18 to 64 years, and

8.0 percent of people 65 years old 

10There is no statistical difference in medicaid participation for 1 or more months

between 1993 and 1994. The average participation rate for housing assistance in 1995 and

the long-term participation rate for food stamps

in the 1993-95 period were not significantly different. 

1987 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

11.4 11.2 11.5 12.7 13.5

15.2 15.2 14.9

Figure 1.

Average Monthly Participation Rate in Major

Means-Tested Programs: 1987-88 and 1990-95

(Percent)

Note: The 1989 SIPP data are not available for analysis, while the 1995 SIPP data are available only from

January to September.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Housing SSI

assistance

Food AFDC/GA

stamps

One or more Medicaid

major assistance 

programs

3.3

11.6 9.0

2.5

8.0 5.9 2.8 7.0 4.5 1.4 4.0 2.4 1.0 4.0 3.0 0.1 1.6 1.4

Figure 2.

Program Participation Rates

for Means-Tested Programs:

January 1993-September 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated between 1 and 11 months

of January 1993-September 1995

Participated 12 or more months of

January 1993-September 1995

Participated all 33 months of 

January 1993-September 1995

Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years

5.3

19.6 14.8

2.8 8.1 6.2 1.0

10.8 9.7

Figure 3.

Program Participation 

Rates by Age: 

January 1993-September 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated between 1 and 11 months

of January 1993-September 1995

Participated 12 or more months of

January 1993-September 1995

Participated all 33 months of 

January 1993-September 1995
6 U.S. Census Bureau

and over (see Appendix A, 

Table A-5).11

Between Half and Three

Quarters of the Poor

Receive Means-Tested

Assistance

Figure 6 shows that 77.2 percent

and 75.1 percent, respectively, of

the poor (those with family incomes

under the poverty thresholds12)

received benefits during at least

one month of 1993 and 1994, compared with 10.0 percent and 

10.5 percent of the nonpoor.

Additionally, 60.2 percent of the

poor received at least one type of

major means-tested benefit in an

average month of 1995, compared

with 6.9 percent of the nonpoor

(Figure 7).13

The poor also tended to be longterm participants in means-tested

programs: 65.0 percent of the poor,

compared with 4.7 percent of the

nonpoor, participated in 12 or more

months; and 55.6 percent of the

poor, compared with 3.0 percent of

the nonpoor, participated in all 

33 months during the period of

January 1993-September 1995

(Figure 8).

Program Participation

Varies by Race and Ethnic

Origin

The likelihood of receiving meanstested assistance and of being in

the programs for various times differed among racial groups. In 1993

11There is no statistical difference between

the percentage of people age 18 to 64 and the

percentage of people age 65 years and older

who received medicaid benefits.

12The poverty threshold for a family of three

with one related child was $11,631 in 1993,

$11,929 in 1994, and $12,267 in 1995. Data

on poverty thresholds by family size and number of related children under 18 years for the

reported years can be found at

www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshold.html.

13There is no statistical difference in program participation rates of the non-poor

between 1993 and 1994.

Housing SSI

assistance

Food AFDC/GA

stamps

One or more Medicaid

major assistance 

programs

18.9 18.9 13.6 14.1 12.8 12.5 7.2 7.2 6.3 5.9 2.2 2.3

Figure 4.

Program Participation Rates

for Means-Tested Programs:

1993 and 1994

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated 1 or more months in

1993

Participated 1 or more months in

1994

Housing SSI

assistance

Medicaid Food stamps AFDC/GA

10.911.3 11.2 10.0 9.7 9.2 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.1 4.7 4.6 1.9 2.0 2.0

Figure 5.

Average Monthly

Participation Rate for

Means-Tested Programs:

1993, 1994 and 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly participation rate

for 1993

Average monthly participation rate

for 1994

Average monthly participation rate

for January 1995-September 1995

Poor Nonpoor

77.2 75.1

10.0 10.5

Figure 6.

Program Participation Rates

by Poverty Status: 

1993 and 1994

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated 1 or more months in

1993

Participated 1 or more months in

1994
U.S. Census Bureau 7

and 1994, about 41 percent of

Blacks and 12 percent of White nonHispanics participated in a meanstested program for at least 1 month

(Figure 9). In 1995, the average

monthly participation rate for

Blacks, 35.0 percent, was almost

four times that of White nonHispanics, 9.2 percent (Figure 10).14

The percentage of Blacks receiving

assistance in all 33 months of the

1993-95 period was far greater than

the percentage of White nonHispanics: 24.8 percent compared

with 4.6 percent (Figure 11). The

corresponding figures for 12 or

more months of participation were

30.4 percent for Blacks and 6.4 percent for White non-Hispanics.

The likelihood of receiving meanstested assistance also varied by

Hispanic-origin status.15 Individuals

of Hispanic origin were around three

times as likely as White nonHispanics to receive benefits for at

least 1 month in 1993 and 1994

(see Figure 9). In 1994, for example,

38.4 percent of Hispanics participated for at least 1 month in a program

compared with 12.4 percent of

White non-Hispanics. Similarly, the

average monthly participation rate

in 1995 for people of Hispanic origin, 30.6 percent, was over three

times that of White non-Hispanics,

9.2 percent (Figure 10). As shown in

Figure 11, people of Hispanic origin

were much more likely than White

non-Hispanics to be long-term participants, with 20.4 percent of

Hispanics participating all 33 months

compared with only 4.6 percent of

White non-Hispanics.16

14There is no statistical difference in program participation rates for Whites or Blacks

between 1993 and 1994.

15Hispanics may be of any race. The information on the Hispanic population shown in

this report was collected in the 50 states and

the District of Columbia and therefore does not

include residents of Puerto Rico.

16The participation rates in 1993 and 1994

are not statistically different for non-Hispanic

Whites. The same statement is true for Hispanics.

Poor Nonpoor

60.5 60.3 60.2

6.7 7.0 6.9

Figure 7.

Average Monthly Participation

Rate by Poverty Status:

1993, 1994, and 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly participation rate

for 1993

Average monthly participation rate

for 1994

Average monthly participation rate

for January 1995-September 1995

Poor Nonpoor

7.3

65.0

55.6

2.8 4.7 3.0

Figure 8.

Program Participation Rates

by Poverty Status: 

January 1993-September 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated between 1 and 11 months

of January 1993-September 1995

Participated 12 or more months of

January 1993-September 1995

Participated all 33 months of 

January 1993-September 1995

Hispanic origin1 White non-Hispanic Black

12.5 12.4

41.9 41.4 39.2 38.4

Figure 9.

Program Participation Rates

by Race and Hispanic

Origin: 1993 and 1994

(Percent)

1

Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated 1 or more months in

1993

Participated 1 or more months in

1994
8 U.S. Census Bureau

Although Blacks and Hispanics have

significantly higher program participation rates than White nonHispanics, the actual number of

White non-Hispanics receiving

means-tested assistance exceeded

the separate numbers of Blacks and

Hispanics. In 1994, about 13 million Blacks and 10 million Hispanics

participated in a program for at

least 1 month, compared with 

24 million White non-Hispanics.

Similarly, during the 1993-95 period, approximately 9.5 million

Blacks and 6 million Hispanics

received means-tested assistance

for 12 or more months, compared

with 12 million White nonHispanics.

Differences among the racial and

Hispanic-origin groups in program

participation can, in part, be

explained by differences in poverty

rates. Poverty and participation in

major means-tested assistance programs are closely related (see

Figure 7 and 8). In 1995, the average monthly poverty rates for

Blacks, 31.1 percent, and for people

of Hispanic origin, 29.7 percent,

were about three times the poverty

rate for White non-Hispanics, 

10.0 percent (Figure 12).17

Moreover, Figure 13 illustrates that

Blacks (12.5 percent) and people of

Hispanic origin (11.0 percent) were

more likely than White nonHispanics (2.2 percent) to be poor

for all 33 months of 1993-95.

17There is no statistical difference between

the average monthly poverty rates for Blacks

and Hispanics.

Hispanic origin1 White non-Hispanic Black

9.4 9.4 9.2

36.6 36.0 35.0 32.3 31.7 30.6

Figure 10.

Average Monthly Participation

Rate by Race and Hispanic

Origin: 1993, 1994, and 1995

(Percent)

1

Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly participation rate

for 1993

Average monthly participation rate

for 1994

Average monthly participation rate

for January 1995-September 1995

Hispanic origin1 White non-Hispanic Black

2.6 6.4 4.6 5.8

30.4 24.8

6.0

25.9 20.4

Figure 11.

Program Participation Rates

for Means-Tested Programs:

January 1993-September 1995

(Percent)

1

Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated between 1 and 11

months of January 1993-September

1995

Participated 12 or more months of

January 1993-September 1995

Participated all 33 months of

January 1993-September 1995

Hispanic origin1 White non-Hispanic Black

10.6 10.4 10.0

32.3 31.2 31.1 33.1 31.4 29.7

Figure 12.

Average Monthly Poverty

Rate by Race and Hispanic

Origin: 1993, 1994, and 1995

(Percent)

1

Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly poverty rate for

1993

Average monthly poverty rate for

1994

Average monthly poverty rate for

January 1995-September 1995
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Children Under 18 Years

Are More Likely to Receive

Means-Tested Assistance

Than People in Other Age

Groups

Figure 14 illustrates that children

under 18 years of age were more

than twice as likely to receive

means-tested benefits as people in

the other age groups. In an average month during 1995, 26.1 percent (18 million) children received

some type of means-tested benefit,

compared with 10.5 percent 

(17 million) people aged 18 to 64

years old and 11.6 percent (4 million) people 65 years and older.18

Children also tended to be longterm participants, with 19.6 percent

(13 million) collecting benefits in 

12 or more months, and 14.8 percent (10 million) collecting benefits

in all 33 months of the 1993-95 period (see Figure 3). 

Men and Women Differ in

Program Participation

Women were more likely than men

to receive means-tested benefits.

Figure 15 shows that in 1995, 

17.1 percent of women (23 million)

participated in an average month,

compared with 12.5 percent of men

(16 million). Women were also more

likely than men to receive meanstested benefits in each month of the

1993-95 period—10.5 percent compared with 7.3 percent (Figure 16). 

18There is no statistical difference between

the percentage of people age 18 to 64 and the

percentage of people age 65 years and older

who received means-tested benefits.

Hispanic origin1 White non-Hispanic Black

6.6 4.1 2.2

12.0

18.7

12.5 16.5 17.4

11.0

Figure 13.

Poverty Rates by Race and

Hispanic Origin: 

January 1993-September 1995

(Percent)

1

Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Poor between 1 and 11 months of

January 1993-September 1995

Poor 12 or more months of

January 1993-September 1995

Poor all 33 months of January 

1993-September 1995

Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over

26.2 26.5 26.1

11.0 10.8 10.5 12.0 11.7 11.6

Figure 14.

Average Monthly Participation

Rate by Age of Individual:

1993, 1994, and 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly participation rate

for 1993

Average monthly participation rate

for 1994

Average monthly participation rate

for January 1995-September 1995

Male Female

13.0 13.0 12.5 17.2 17.3 17.1

Figure 15.

Average Monthly

Participation Rate by Sex:

1993, 1994, and 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly participation rate

for 1993

Average monthly participation rate

for 1994

Average monthly participation rate

for January 1995-September 1995
10 U.S. Census Bureau

Families Maintained by

Women Have Higher

Participation Rates

Families maintained by women with

no spouse present have higher

poverty rates and lower incomes

than married-couple families.

During January-September 1995,

households maintained by women

had an average monthly poverty

rate of 39.0 percent, compared with

an average monthly poverty rate of

8.2 percent for people in marriedcouple families (Figure 17).

Reflecting this finding, individuals

in female-maintained families were

much more likely to participate in

major means-tested programs, in

an average month in 1995, than

were people in married-couple families—44.2 percent compared with

8.6 percent (Figure 18).19 Similarly,

about half (50.1 percent) of individuals in families maintained by

women participated in means-tested programs for at least 1 month of

1994, in contrast with 12.3 percent

of individuals in married-couple

families (Figure 19). Furthermore,

individuals in families maintained

by women were about six times as

likely as individuals in married-couple families to receive benefits in all

33 months of the 1993-95 period—

29.6 percent compared with 

4.6 percent (Figure 20).

Those With Less Education

Have Higher Participation

Rates

For people age 18 and over, lower

educational attainment was associated with greater program participation. The percentage of individuals with less than 4 years of high

school receiving benefits in at least

1 month of 1994 (30.9 percent)

19There is no statistical significance between

the average monthly participation rate and

average monthly poverty rate for married-couple families.

Male Female

3.0

9.7 7.3 3.5

13.3 10.5

Figure 16.

Program Participation 

Rates by Sex: 

January 1993-September 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated between 1 and 11 months

of January 1993-September 1995

Participated 12 or more months of

January 1993-September 1995

Participated all 33 months of 

January 1993-September 1995

Families with female householder, 

no spouse present

Married-couple families

8.8 8.4 8.2

40.8 39.9 39.0

Figure 17.

Average Monthly Poverty Rate

by Family Type: 

1993, 1994, and 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly poverty rate for

1993

Average monthly poverty rate for

1994

Average monthly poverty rate for

January 1995-September 1995

Families with female householder, 

no spouse present

Married-couple families

9.1 8.9 8.6

44.3 44.3 44.2

Figure 18.

Average Monthly Participation

Rate by Family Type: 

1993, 1994, and 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly participation rate

for 1993

Average monthly participation rate

for 1994

Average monthly participation rate

for January 1995-September 1995
U.S. Census Bureau 11

was a little more than double the

corresponding percentage of high

school graduates (13.8 percent)

(Figure 21). During an average

month of 1995, about 1 in 4 people

(24.8 percent) with less than 4 years

of high school received means-tested benefits, compared with 1 in 

10 high school graduates (10.3 percent) and less than 1 in 20 individuals (4.5 percent) with at least 1 year

of college (Figure 22). Individuals

who did not graduate from high

school also were more likely than

high school graduates and people

with at least some college to receive

benefits during the entire 33-month

period of 1993-95 —18.9 percent

compared with 5.6 percent and 

2.1 percent (Figure 23). 

The Unemployed and Those

Out of the Labor Force Are

More Likely Than the

Employed to Receive MeansTested Benefits

People without jobs—unemployed or

out of the labor force—were much

more likely to receive means-tested

benefits in an average month of

1995 than were either full-time workers or part-time workers. For people

18 years and older, nearly 26 percent

of the unemployed received meanstested benefits in an average month

of 1995, compared with 21.0 percent

of those out of the labor force, 

3.7 percent of full-time workers, and

9.3 percent of part-time workers

(Figure 24).

In addition to receiving means-tested benefits, the unemployed may

also receive unemployment compensation. In an average month of

1995, only 18.5 percent of the

unemployed received unemployment compensation, but 10.6 percent received AFDC or GA, 2.4 percent received SSI, 17.6 percent

received food stamps, 16.7 percent

Families with female householder, 

no spouse present

Married-couple families

12.4 12.3

50.6 50.1

Figure 19.

Program Participation Rates

by Family Type: 1993, 1994,

and 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated 1 or more months in

1993

Participated 1 or more months in

1994

Families with female householder, 

no spouse present

Married-couple families

2.7 6.5 4.6 6.8

36.6

29.6

Figure 20.

Program Participation 

Rates by Family Type: 

January 1993-September 1995

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated between 1 and 11 months

of January 1993-September 1995

Participated 12 or more months of

January 1993-September 1995

Participated all 33 months of 

January 1993-September 1995

1 or more years 

of college

High school graduate, 

no college

Less than 4 years 

of high school

31.4 30.9

13.7 13.8

6.3 6.0

Figure 21.

Program Participation Rates

by Educational Attainment:

1993 and 1994 (People 

18 Years and Older)

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated 1 or more months in

1993

Participated 1 or more months in

1994
12 U.S. Census Bureau

received medicaid, and 9.8 percent

received housing assistance.20

PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

This section looks at the characteristics of the recipients of assistance.

Two concepts are examined: 

• Median duration of program

participation for the 1993-95

period: This is a measure of

average spell length. A spell is

an uninterrupted period of time

(measured in months) in which

an individual receives meanstested assistance, and which is

preceded by a month or more of

nonparticipation. Each recipient

has one or more such spells.21

The measure examines all the

spells throughout the 33-month

period of the recipients in the

population existing at the end of

the period. The median is the

value for spell length that

divides the distribution of spells

(not recipients) into two equal

parts.22 The data address the

question: “how long, on average,

do recipients stay in programs

continuously once they enter

them.”

• Median monthly family benefits in (specified year): The

monthly benefit amount for each

recipient represents the amount

of the benefit received by the

individual’s family in the last

month for which they reported 

20There is no statistical significance between

the average monthly participation rates for

AFDC/GA and housing assistance. The participation rates for medicaid, food stamps, and

unemployment compensation do not differ significantly. 

21Median duration for each program is

derived only for those who begin participating

in each program at some point in the survey,

while those who are already in the program

before the start of the survey (i.e., the left-censored cases) are excluded from the analysis. 

22The median for a group of recipients cannot be computed when more than half of the

spells for the group were continuing in the 

33rd month. 

1 or more years 

of college

High school 

graduate, no college

Less than 4 years 

of high school

25.8 25.6 24.8

10.5 10.5 10.3

4.6 4.5 4.5

Figure 22.

Average Monthly Participation

Rate by Educational

Attainment: 1993, 1994, and

1995 (People 18 Years and

Older)

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly participation rate

for 1993

Average monthly participation rate

for 1994

Average monthly participation rate

for January 1995-September 1995

1 or more years 

of college

High school 

graduate, no college

Less than 4 years 

of high school

4.7

22.3 18.9

2.7 7.6 5.6 1.4 3.0 2.1

Figure 23.

Average Monthly Participation

Rate by Educational Attainment: 1993, 1994, and 1995

(People 18 Years and Older)

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Participated between 1 and 11 months

of January 1993-September 1995

Participated 12 or more months of

January 1993-September 1995

Participated all 33 months of January

1993-September 1995

Full-time workers Part-time workers Unemployed Out of labor force

4.0 3.8 3.7 8.6 9.2 9.3

26.6 26.9 25.7 21.3 21.3 21.0

Figure 24.

Average Monthly Participation

Rate by Employment Status: 

1993, 1994, and 1995

(People 18 Years and Older)

(Percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.

Average monthly participation rate

for 1993

Average monthly participation rate

for 1994

Average monthly participation rate

for January 1995 - September

1995
that they received benefits.23 The

data are restricted to recipients

who are members of families

(data are shown for 1995

because the definition of

“monthly benefit amount” means

that the 1995 data are reasonably comparable with the data

for 1993 and 1994) . The median

is the amount that divides recipients into two equally-sized

groups, one consisting of those

whose monthly family benefit

falls below the median, the

other of recipients whose benefit

rises above it. The data refer to

the population of recipients living in families existing at the

end of the year specified. 

U.S. Census Bureau 13

23It is not known how the data are affected

by families who do not participate in the program for the entire last month for which they

report that they received benefits from the program. If partial-month participation is associated with partial receipt of benefits, then the use

of such partial amounts to represent an "average" or "usual" monthly benefit would result in

a downward bias in the data. 

Median Duration of

Participation Differs by

Program

For people who received assistance

during the 1993-1995 period, Table

A-7 in Appendix A presents data on

the median duration of spells of

program participation over the

course of the 33 months, by type of

program and selected demographic

characteristics of participants.

The data on spell length must be

used with caution, because duration of program participation for a

means-tested program is derived

only for persons who began participating in the program at some

point in the life of the SIPP survey.

Persons already on programs at the

start of the survey are excluded

from the analysis. How this exclusion affects the data is not known.

As shown in Figure 25, among all

program participants, the median

spell length for participation in general was 5.0 months. The median

spell length for housing assistance

was 7.8 months, significantly

longer than that for food stamps or

medicaid, but not significantly different from the median for

AFDC/GA.24 

Within specific groups of participants, housing assistance was the

longest continuously used program

for Hispanics (12.6 months), children under 18 years old 

(12.4 months), people in families

with a female householder with no

spouse present (13.1 months), and

poor people (13.5 months).25

Spell Duration Also Differs

by Demographic Group

Table A-7 also reveals that the

median spell length for participation in general in means-tested

assistance programs varied by

demographic group. People 

65 years and over had the highest

median duration, 7.7 months, compared with 5.1 months for people

aged 18 to 64 years, and 4.6 months

for people under 18 years. By education, individuals who did not

graduate from high school

remained on means-tested programs longer (7.1 months) than

high school graduates (4.9 months)

and people with at least some college (4 months).26

People in families maintained by a

female householder, with no spouse

present, had a median spell duration of 7.2 months, which was

greater than the 4 months for people in married-couple families. Not

24The median spell duration for SSI was not

determined, because more than half of the

spells were still in progress at the end of the

survey. The overall median spell duration does

not differ from those of food stamps and medicaid. The medians for housing assistance and

AFDC/GA do not differ statistically.

25There are no statistical differences among

the median spell durations for housing assistance for any of the demographic groups specified here. 

26There is no statistical difference between

the median spell duration for people under 

18 years of age and the medians for those 18

to 64 years of age, high school graduates, and

those with at least 1 year of college education.

The medians for the elderly and those without

a high school degree do not differ statistically. 

Housing assistance

Medicaid

Food stamps

Aid to Families with Dependent

Children/General assistance

Any means-tested

program

7.8

4.9

5.8

7.3

5.0

Figure 25.

Median Spell Length (in months) by Program:

January 1993-September 1995

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
14 U.S. Census Bureau

surprisingly, the median for people

who were not in the labor force 

(7.5 months) was greater than that

for people employed full-time 

(3.8 months).27

Variations across demographic

groups in median spell durations

were evident as well for specific

programs. Children remained on

food stamps (7.2 months) and

housing assistance (12.4 months)

longer than people 18 to 64 did

(5.0 months and 7.1 months,

respectively); people 65 and over

participated in medicaid the longest

(7.8 months) of any age group.28

By race and Hispanic origin, White

non-Hispanics had shorter stays on

AFDC/GA and housing assistance

(5.4 months and 7.1 months,

respectively) than did Blacks 

(8 months and 11.8 months, respectively) or Hispanics (7.6 months and

12.6 months, respectively). They

also spent less time at a stretch in

the food stamp program (5.3 months)

than Blacks (7.6 months).29

By educational attainment, people

with at least a year of college spent

less time than people with lower

27The median for those in families maintained by female householders does not differ

from the median for those who are not in the

labor force. The medians for those in marriedcouple families and those who are employed

full time are not significantly different.

28The median for food stamps for children

does not differ statistically from the median for

housing assistance for those age 18 to 64 years

and the median for medicaid for persons 65

and over. The medians of food stamps and

housing assistance for people 18 to 64 do not

differ statistically from each other. The median

of food stamps for persons age 18 to 64 years

does not differ from the medians of medicaid

for children and for adults age 18 to 64 years. 

29The median of AFDC/GA for non-Hispanic

Whites does not differ from their median for

food stamps nor from the median of food

stamps for Hispanics. The median of AFDC/GA

for Blacks does not differ from that for

Hispanics and does not differ from their median

of food stamps or the median of housing assistance for Whites. The median of AFDC/GA for

Hispanic does not differ statistically from their

median for food stamps nor the median of food

stamps for blacks or the housing assistance for

non-Hispanic Whites. The median of housing

assistance for blacks and Hispanics do not differ significantly.

educational levels in the medicaid

program. The median spell duration

of medicaid for those with at least a

year of college education was 

4.0 months, compared with 

7.1 months and 5.4 months for

those who did not graduate from

high school and those who graduated from high school but had no college. The median spell length of

housing assistance for persons with

college attainment was also shorter

than the median for those who did

not graduate from high school.30 

Individuals in families maintained by

female householders, no spouse

present, remained in the AFDC/GA

(7.9 months), food stamps 

(7.6 months), and medicaid

(5.5 months) programs longer than

their counterparts in married-couple

30The median of medicaid for those without

a high school diploma did not differ significantly from the median for those who were high

school graduates nor from their median of

housing assistance. The median of medicaid for

high school graduates and the median of housing assistance for those who did not graduate

from high school did not differ significantly.

families( 5.9 months, 4.8 months,

and 4.0 months, respectively).31

Higher Monthly Benefit

Amounts Are Associated

With Higher Average

Monthly Participation

Table A-8 shows the median monthly family benefit amounts received

in 1993, 1994, and 1995 by the

groups of program participants listed in Table A-1.32 For many of the

groups, higher average monthly

participation rates for assistance

programs in general were associated with higher median monthly

31The median of AFDC/GA for people in

married couple families does not differ from

their median of food stamps and housing assistance nor from the median of food stamps and

medicaid for families maintained by female

householders. The median of food stamps for

married-couple families does not differ from

that of medicaid for persons in families maintained by a female householder. The medians of

AFDC/GA and food stamps for persons in families maintained by a female householder do not

differ significantly.

32Median monthly benefit amounts include

AFDC/GA, SSI, and food stamps only. The

Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) compiled by the

Bureau of Labor Statistics was used to express

the 1993 and 1994 monthly benefit amounts in

terms of 1995 dollars.

In married-couple families

In families with a female householder,

no spouse present

Under 18 years

18 to 64 years

65 years and over

White non-Hispanic

Black

Hispanic

$606

$394

$565

$601

$457

$198

$552

$400

Figure 26.

Median Monthly Benefits in 1995 for People

Receiving Benefits by Selected Characteristics 

(in dollars)

Note: Amounts include only Aid to Families with Dependent Children, General Assistance, Supplemental

Security Income, and food stamps.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

family benefits in 1995, a consequence, perhaps, of the likely relationship of both of these measures

to lower family incomes and higher

poverty rates. For example, Figure

26 shows that in 1995 Blacks,

whose average monthly participation rate was 35.0 percent, had a

median monthly family benefit of

$552, significantly greater that the

$400 for White non-Hispanics

whose average monthly participation rate was 9.2 percent.

Likewise, children under 18 years

old, whose average monthly participation rate was 26.1 percent,

received a median monthly family

benefit of $601, significantly

greater than the $198 for the elderly whose average monthly participation rate was 11.6 percent. In

1995, people in families with a

female householder, no spouse

present, had an average monthly

participation rate of 44.2 percent

and received a median monthly

family benefit of $606; in comparison, people in married-couple families had an average monthly participation rate of only 8.6 percent and

a median monthly benefit of $394.33

33The median monthly family benefits for

White non-Hispanics and married-couple families do not differ significantly. The medians for

children and those in families maintained by

female householders are also not statistically

different. 

COMMENTS FROM DATA For further information on statistiUSERS cal standards and the computation

and use of standard errors, contact The Census Bureau welcomes the

comments and advice of data users. Reid A. Rottach

If you have suggestions or com- Demographic Statistical Methods

ments, please write to: Division

U.S. Bureau of the Census Daniel Weinberg 301-457-4228 Chief, Housing and Household Reid.A.Rottach@census.gov Economic Statistics Division

U. S. Bureau of the Census

Washington, DC 20233-8500

or contact

Jan Tin

Labor Force and Transfer Program

Statistics Branch

Housing and Household Economic

Statistics Division

U.S. Bureau of the Census

301-457-3230

Jan.Siang.Tin@census.gov
16 U.S. Census Bureau

APPENDIX A.

Table A-1.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Any Means-Tested Programs by

Selected Characteristics: 1993-95

Characteristics

Program participation rates (in percent)

1 Any major means-tested programs

1993

Standard Standard

error 1994 error 1995

Standard

error

Total number of recipients2

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

As percent of the population . . . . . . . ...................

Race and Hispanic Origin3

White .............................................

Not of Hispanic origin ..............................

Black..............................................

Hispanic origin......................................

Not of Hispanic origin . ...............................

Age

Under 18 years .....................................

18 to 64 years ......................................

65 years and over...................................

Sex

Men. ..............................................

Women............................................

Educational Attainment (people 18 years and over)

Less than 4 years of high school ......................

High school graduate, no college ......................

1 or more years of college............................

Disability Status (people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability ................................

With no work disability ...............................

Residence

Metropolitan ........................................

Central city.......................................

Noncentral city. . . . ................................

Nonmetropolitan ....................................

Region

Northeast . . ........................................

Midwest ...........................................

South .............................................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family Status

In families..........................................

In married-couple families ..........................

In families with a female householder, no spouse

present .........................................

Unrelated individuals . . . .............................

Employment and Labor Force Status (people 18

years and over)

Employed full-time. ..................................

Employed part-time..................................

Unemployed........................................

Not in labor force . . . . . . . ............................

Marital Status (people 18 years and over)

Married............................................

Separated, divorced, or widowed ......................

Never married ......................................

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Under 1.00.........................................

1.00 and over . . . . . . . . . .............................

39,162

15.2

11.7

9.4

36.6

32.3

26.2

11.0

12.0

13.0

17.2

25.8

10.5

4.6

25.0

8.7

14.7

23.0

9.3

17.0

14.8

12.5

16.5

16.7

15.6

9.1

44.3

12.8

4.0

8.6

26.6

21.3

6.6

19.6

15.6

60.5

6.7

670

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.9

1.1

0.0

0.6

0.3

0.7

0.4

0.4

0.9

0.4

0.3

1.0

0.3

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.3

0.3

1.0

0.7

0.2

0.7

1.9

0.6

0.3

0.8

0.7

0.9

0.2

39,514

15.2

11.8

9.4

36.0

31.7

13.2

26.5

10.8

11.7

13.0

17.3

25.6

10.5

4.5

25.5

8.5

14.7

22.4

9.5

16.6

14.6

12.6

16.4

16.8

15.6

8.9

44.3

12.4

3.8

9.2

26.9

21.3

6.2

19.6

15.6

60.3

7.0

669

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.9

1.1

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.7

0.4

0.4

0.9

0.4

0.3

1.0

0.3

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.9

0.7

0.2

0.7

2.2

0.6

0.3

0.8

0.7

0.9

0.2

38,995

14.9

11.6

9.2

35.0

30.6

12.6

26.1

10.6

11.6

12.5

17.1

24.8

10.3

4.5

25.3

8.3

14.5

22.0

9.2

16.1

14.5

12.2

16.0

16.5

15.3

8.6

44.2

12.3

3.7

9.3

25.7

21.0

5.9

19.1

15.6

60.2

6.9

682

0.3

0.3

0.6

0.4

1.1

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.7

0.4

0.4

0.9

0.4

0.3

1.0

0.3

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.3

0.3

1.0

0.4

0.2

0.8

2.3

0.6

0.3

0.8

0.7

1.0

0.2

1

Major means-tested programs include Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), General Assistance, Supplemental Security

Income, food stamps, medicaid, and housing assistance. 2

In thousands.

3

People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
U.S. Census Bureau 17

Table A2.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Aid to Families With Dependent

Children or General Assistance by Selected Characteristics: 1993-95

Program participation rates (in percent)

Aid to Families with Dependent Children/General Assistance Characteristic

Standard Standard Standard

1993 error 1994 error 1995 error

Total number of recipients1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,675 446 14,438 441 13,755 441

As percent of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 0.2 5.5 0.2 5.2 0.2

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 0.2 3.7 0.2 3.4 0.2

Not of Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.4 0.3

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 0.7 16.4 0.7 15.6 0.3

Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7 0.8 12.9 0.8 12.3 0.8

Not of Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 0.2 4.7 0.2 4.3 0.2

Age

Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 0.5 12.9 0.5 12.5 0.5

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 0.2 3.3 0.2 3.0 0.2

65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 0.2 4.3 0.2 4.1 0.2

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 0.3 6.7 0.3 6.3 0.3

Educational Attainment (people 18 years and over)

Less than 4 years of high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 0.5 5.9 0.5 5.5 0.5

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 0.2 3.0 0.2 2.7 0.2

1 or more years of college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.1 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.1

Disability Status (people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 0.6 6.3 0.5 5.5 0.5

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 0.2 3.1 0.2 3.0 0.2

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 0.2 5.9 0.2 5.6 0.2

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 0.4 9.9 0.4 9.7 0.4

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 0.2 3.2 0.2 2.8 0.2

Nonmetropolitan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 0.3 4.4 0.3 3.9 0.3

Region

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 0.4 6.0 0.4 5.9 0.4

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 0.3 5.3 0.3 4.9 0.3

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 0.3 4.3 0.3 4.0 0.3

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 0.4 7.4 0.4 7.0 0.4

Family Status

In families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 0.2 6.4 0.2 6.1 0.2

In married-couple families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.1 2.0 0.1

In families with a female householder, no spouse

present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3 0.9 24.9 0.8 24.1 0.8

Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1

Employment and Labor Force Status (people 18

years and over)

Employed full-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1

Employed part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.3 2.0 0.4 1.8 0.4

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 1.3 11.3 1.5 10.6 1.6

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 0.4 6.0 0.4 5.5 0.4

Marital Status (people 18 years and over)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.2 0.1

Separated, divorced, or widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 0.4 4.8 0.4 4.3 0.4

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 0.4 4.9 0.4 4.5 0.4

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Under 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 0.9 28.3 0.9 27.6 0.9

1.00 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.1

1

In thousands.

2

People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
18 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A3.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Supplemental Security Income by

Selected Characteristics: 1993-95

Program participation rates (in percent)

Supplemental Security Income Characteristic

Standard Standard Standard

1993 error 1994 error 1995 error

Total number of recipients1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,841 264 5,106 270 5,275 281

As percent of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.1 2.0 0.1 2.0 0.1

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.1

Not of Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.4 0.2

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 0.4 4.7 0.4 4.9 0.2

Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 0.4 2.9 0.4 3.0 0.4

Not of Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.1

Age

Under 18 years .................................... - - - - - -

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.1 2.1 0.1 2.2 0.1

65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 0.5 5.4 0.5 5.3 0.5

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.1

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.7 0.2

Educational Attainment (people 18 years and over)

Less than 4 years of high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 0.5 7.7 0.5 7.7 0.5

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.2 0.2

1 or more years of college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1

Disability Status (people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 0.7 10.0 0.7 10.6 0.7

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.1

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.8 0.2

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.1

Nonmetropolitan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.4 0.2

Region

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.2 1.9 0.2 1.9 0.2

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.2 1.3 0.2 1.3 0.2

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.6 0.2

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.1 0.2

Family Status

In families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.1

In married-couple families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.1

In families with a female householder, no spouse

present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 0.4 3.4 0.3 3.7 0.4

Unrelated individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 0.4 4.7 0.4 4.8 0.3

Employment and Labor Force Status (people 18

years and over)

Employed full-time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1

Employed part-time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.2 1.1 0.3 1.2 0.3

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.6 1.5 0.6 2.4 0.8

Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 0.4 7.1 0.4 7.3 0.4

Marital Status (people 18 years and over)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1

Separated, divorced, or widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 0.5 6.1 0.5 6.3 0.5

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.3 3.8 0.4 4.8 0.4

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Under 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 0.5 6.7 0.5 7.3 0.5

1.00 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1

- The sample size is too small for analysis.

1

In thousands.

2

People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
U.S. Census Bureau 19

Table A-4.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Food Stamps by Selected

Characteristics: 1993-95

Program participation rates (in percent)

Food stamps Characteristic

Standard Standard Standard

1993 error 1994 error 1995 error

Total number of recipients1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,713 570 25,383 564 24,072 565

As percent of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 0.2 9.7 0.2 9.2 0.2

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 0.2 7.2 0.2 6.8 0.2

Not of Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 0.2 5.4 0.2 5.0 0.4

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 0.9 25.6 0.8 23.7 0.3

Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 1.0 21.9 1.0 21.0 1.0

Not of Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 0.2 8.3 0.2 7.6 0.2

Age

Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.6 0.6 19.3 0.6 18.2 0.6

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 0.2 6.6 0.2 6.2 0.2

65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.4 4.1 0.4 3.9 0.4

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 0.3 8.2 0.3 7.7 0.3

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 0.3 11.2 0.3 10.6 0.3

Educational Attainment (people 18 years and over)

Less than 4 years of high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 0.7 14.8 0.7 14.0 0.7

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 0.3 6.1 0.3 5.8 0.3

1 or more years of college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.1 0.2

Disability Status (people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 0.8 14.6 0.8 14.2 0.8

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 0.2 5.6 0.2 5.2 0.2

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 0.3 9.4 0.2 9.0 0.2

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 0.5 15.2 0.5 14.4 0.5

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 0.3 5.5 0.3 5.1 0.3

Nonmetropolitan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 0.5 10.7 0.5 9.8 0.5

Region

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 0.5 8.6 0.5 8.6 0.5

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 0.4 8.5 0.4 7.8 0.4

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 0.4 11.4 0.4 10.6 0.4

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 0.5 9.6 0.5 9.1 0.5

Family Status

In families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 0.3 10.6 0.2 9.9 0.2

In married-couple families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 0.2 5.2 0.2 4.8 0.2

In families with a female householder, no spouse

present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.9 0.9 33.8 0.9 32.4 0.9

Unrelated individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 0.4 4.9 0.4 4.7 0.3

Employment and Labor Force Status (people 18

years and over)

Employed full-time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.2 1.7 0.2 1.6 0.2

Employed part-time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.6 5.4 0.6 4.9 0.6

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.9 1.8 20.2 2.0 17.6 2.0

Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 0.5 12.3 0.5 11.9 0.5

Marital Status (people 18 years and over)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 0.2 3.7 0.2 3.3 0.2

Separated, divorced, or widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 0.6 11.1 0.6 10.4 0.6

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 0.5 8.6 0.5 8.3 0.5

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Under 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.6 1.0 48.3 1.0 47.2 1.0

1.00 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.1 2.8 0.1 2.5 0.1

1

In thousands.

2

People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
20 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A-5.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Medicaid by Selected Characteristics:

1993-95

Characteristic

Program participation rates (in percent)

Medicaid

1993

Standard Standard

error 1994 error 1995

Standard

error

Total number of recipients1 ......................

As percent of the population .........................

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not of Hispanic origin . ............................

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hispanic origin . . . ..................................

Not of Hispanic origin ...............................

Age

Under 18 years ....................................

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Women ...........................................

Educational Attainment (people 18 years and over)

Less than 4 years of high school .....................

High school graduate, no college.....................

1 or more years of college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Disability Status (people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . ............................

With no work disability ..............................

Residence

Metropolitan .......................................

Central city ......................................

Noncentral city ...................................

Nonmetropolitan. ...................................

Region

Northeast. .........................................

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South .............................................

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family Status

In families .........................................

In married-couple families . . .......................

In families with a female householder, no spouse

present ..........................................

Unrelated individuals................................

Employment and Labor Force Status (people 18

years and over)

Employed full-time..................................

Employed part-time.................................

Unemployed . . . ....................................

Not in labor force. . . ................................

Marital Status (people 18 years and over)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Separated, divorced, or widowed .....................

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Under 1.00 ........................................

1.00 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27,984

10.9

8.1

6.4

26.8

23.4

9.4

21.2

6.8

8.1

8.8

12.8

17.5

6.4

2.7

18.9

4.8

10.6

17.0

6.5

11.6

10.9

9.1

10.5

13.4

11.4

5.8

36.1

7.7

1.2

4.6

16.0

15.9

3.5

13.6

10.5

47.0

4.1

590

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.9

1.0

0.2

0.6

0.2

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.9

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.9

0.5

0.1

0.5

1.6

0.6

0.2

0.7

0.6

0.9

0.2

29,332

11.3

8.5

6.8

27.5

23.0

9.9

22.1

7.1

8.0

9.2

13.2

17.8

6.7

2.8

20.0

5.0

11.1

17.0

7.0

11.9

10.9

9.5

11.1

13.9

11.8

6.1

36.3

7.9

1.4

5.4

17.0

16.1

3.5

13.9

11.0

47.7

4.6

598

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.9

1.0

0.2

0.6

0.2

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.9

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.9

0.5

0.1

0.6

1.8

0.6

0.2

0.7

0.6

1.0

0.3

29,370

11.2

8.5

6.8

27.2

22.2

9.5

22.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

13.2

17.4

7.0

8.0

20.3

5.0

11.1

17.1

6.9

11.6

10.9

9.5

11.0

13.8

11.7

6.0

36.3

8.2

1.4

5.8

16.7

16.0

3.5

13.7

11.0

48.4

4.7

612

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.3

1.0

0.2

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.9

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.9

0.3

0.1

0.6

2.0

0.6

0.2

0.7

0.6

1.0

0.3

1

In thousands.

2

People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
U.S. Census Bureau 21

Table A6.

Average Monthly Program Participation Rates for Housing Assistance by Selected

Characteristics: 1993-95

Program participation rates (in percent)

Housing assistance Characteristic

Standard Standard Standard

1993 error 1994 error 1995 error

Total number of recipients1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,044 423 12,206 408 12,159 417

As percent of the population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 0.2 4.7 0.2 4.6 0.2

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.2 3.3 0.1 3.3 0.2

Not of Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.6 0.3

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9 0.7 13.2 0.7 12.6 0.3

Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9 0.7 10.0 0.7 9.5 0.7

Not of Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.2 4.1 0.2 4.0 0.2

Age

Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 0.4 7.4 0.4 7.3 0.4

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 0.2 3.4 0.2 3.3 0.2

65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 0.5 5.2 0.5 5.2 0.5

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.2 3.9 0.2 3.8 0.2

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 0.2 5.4 0.2 5.4 0.2

Educational Attainment (people 18 years and over)

Less than 4 years of high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 0.6 8.4 0.5 8.1 0.5

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.3 3.5 0.3 3.4 0.3

1 or more years of college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.2 1.7 0.2 1.7 0.2

Disability Status (people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 0.6 6.5 0.6 6.5 0.6

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 0.2 3.0 0.2 2.9 0.2

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 0.2 4.9 0.2 4.9 0.2

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 0.4 8.3 0.4 8.1 0.4

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 0.2 2.6 0.2 2.6 0.2

Nonmetropolitan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.3 3.9 0.3 3.9 0.3

Region

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 0.4 5.6 0.4 5.7 0.4

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 0.3 4.4 0.3 4.2 0.3

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 0.3 4.2 0.3 4.1 0.3

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.4 4.9 0.4 5.0 0.4

Family Status

In families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2

In married-couple families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.1 2.0 0.1 2.0 0.1

In families with a female householder, no spouse

present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4 0.7 15.0 0.7 15.4 0.7

Unrelated individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 0.5 6.1 0.5 5.9 0.3

Employment and Labor Force Status (people 18

years and over)

Employed full-time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.2 1.6 0.2 1.5 0.2

Employed part-time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 0.4 3.0 0.4 3.1 0.5

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 1.3 9.0 1.4 9.8 1.6

Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 0.4 6.7 0.4 6.7 0.4

Marital Status (people 18 years and over)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.2 1.7 0.1 1.6 0.1

Separated, divorced, or widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 0.5 7.3 0.5 7.3 0.5

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 0.4 5.6 0.4 5.6 0.4

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Under 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.8 0.8 20.0 0.8 20.0 0.8

1.00 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.1

1

In thousands.

2 People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
22 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A7.

Median Duration of Spells of Program Participation and Standard Errors by Program:

1993-95

[In months]

Characteristic

Any

Means-tested1 programs

AFDC/GA

Supplemental

Security

Income2

Food stamps Medicaid Housing

assistance

Standard

Median error

Standard

Median error

Standard

Median error

Standard

Median error

Standard

Median error

Standard

Median error

All recipients3 ...............

Race and Hispanic Origin

White ........................

Not of Hispanic origin4 ........

Black.........................

Hispanic origin4 ................

Not of Hispanic origin ...........

5 Age

Under 18 years ................

18 to 64 years .................

65 years and over ..............

Sex

Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Women .......................

Educational Attainment

(people 18 years and over)

Less than 4 years of high school. .

High school graduate, no

college ......................

1 or more years of college .......

Disability Status (people 15 to

64 years old)

With a work disability ...........

With no work disability ..........

Residence

Metropolitan ...................

Central city ..................

Noncentral city ...............

Nonmetropolitan ...............

Region

Northeast .....................

Midwest ......................

South ........................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family Status

In families .....................

In married-couple families ......

In families with a female

householder, no spouse

present ......................

Unrelated individuals ............

Employment and Labor Force

Status (people 18 years and

over)

Employed full-time..............

Employed part-time .............

Unemployed ...................

Not in labor force...............

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Under 1.00 ....................

1.00 and over..................

5.0

4.8

4.8

6.1

4.9

5.0

4.6

5.1

7.7

4.4

5.6

7.1

4.9

4.0

7.4

4.3

5.3

5.7

4.9

4.5

4.0

4.4

5.1

6.2

4.9

4.0

7.2

5.7

3.8

6.2

6.1

7.5

7.4

3.9

0.4

0.4

0.4

1.1

1.3

0.4

0.6

0.5

0.9

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.7

0.1

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.1

0.7

0.7

1.6

0.4

0.1

0.4

2.2

0.1

1.9

1.8

0.4

0.4

0.1

7.3

5.9

5.4

8

7.6

7.2

7.7

6.3

(B)

5.8

7.8

6.3

6.7

4.6

6.7

6.0

7.6

7.7

7.2

4.9

7.7

7.1

6.0

7.7

7.4

5.9

7.9

3.8

3.8

6.7

7.7

7.4

7.8

5.5

0.4

0.7

0.8

0.3

0.8

0.4

0.5

1.8

(B)

0.8

0.5

1.8

4.3

1.9

4.5

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.8

2.2

0.7

0.4

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.2

1.6

1.0

0.7

0.5

0.9

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

(X)

5.8

5.3

5.3

7.6

5.5

5.8

7.2

5.0

5.6

5.2

6.4

5.9

4.8

4.1

6.7

4.7

6.6

7.3

5.6

4.7

6.2

5.2

6.3

5.6

5.8

4.8

7.6

5.8

3.7

4.6

6.7

7.0

7.5

4.1

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.3

1.3

0.4

0.6

0.5

2.8

0.7

1.1

0.8

0.5

1.0

1.9

0.5

1.0

0.4

0.5

0.6

1.5

0.8

1.1

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.6

4.0

0.2

0.7

2.4

0.6

0.4

0.5

4.9

4.8

5.2

5.3

3.9

5.3

4.3

5.2

7.8

4.2

5.4

7.1

5.4

4.0

7.5

3.9

5.4

6.0

4.8

4.2

4.9

5.9

4.0

6.9

4.6

4.0

5.5

7.8

3.7

6.6

4.8

7.4

7.2

3.9

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.1

0.5

0.9

0.7

0.6

0.9

0.7

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.7

1.0

1.0

0.8

3.5

1

0.1

1.7

0.6

0.1

0.8

0.5

0.1

2.3

2.9

0.3

0.3

0.1

7.8

7.3

7.1

11.8

12.6

7.6

12.4

7.1

7.9

7.1

9.4

10.2

6.0

5.5

10.9

5.8

9.8

11.3

6.9

6.3

8.9

7.5

5.3

13.2

8

5.0

13.1

7.4

3.9

8.0

7.9

11.2

13.5

4.0

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.8

2.0

0.6

1.5

0.6

1.3

0.9

2.8

1.7

2.3

3.1

1.2

1.6

5.1

1.2

6.4

7.4

3.0

0.7

1.5

1.5

0.7

1.7

0.7

0.9

0.1

2.1

2.3

1.0

0.9

0.1

X Not applicable.

1

Major means-tested programs include Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), General Assistance, Supplemental Security Income

(SSI), food stamps, medicaid, and housing assistance. 2

Median duration cannot be computed when more than half of the spells are continuing in the last month of data collection. (This situation is

especially likely to occur for elderly recipients whose incomes from other sources are unlikely to rise over time.) 3

Median duration for each program is derived only for those who begin participating in each program at some point in the survey, while those who

are already in the program before the start of the survey (i.e., the left-censored cases) are excluded from the analysis. 4

Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

5

Age, educational attainment, and other variables are measured at the time the spells begin.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
U.S. Census Bureau 23

Table A8.

Median Monthly Family Benefits of Program Participants (in 1995 Dollars) by Selected

Characteristics: 1993-95

Monthly Family Benefits (in 1995 dollars)

1993 1994 1995 Characteristic

Standard Standard Standard

Median error Median error Median error

All recipients1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 4.0 489 3.5 490 3.5

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 5.0 447 3.5 457 3.0

Not of Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 6.5 410 4.5 400 9.5

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 4.0 557 9.5 552 6.5

Hispanic origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573 18.5 572 13.0 565 10.0

Age

Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 4.5 604 6.5 601 3.5

18 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 2.0 456 3.5 457 3.0

65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 3.5 206 4.5 198 10.0

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 8.0 493 5.5 510 11.5

Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 5.5 486 6.0 487 3.5

Educational Attainment (people 18 years and over)

Less than 4 years of high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 7.0 445 5.5 440 8.5

High school graduate, no college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 11.0 397 10.5 416 15.0

1 or more years of college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 13.0 445 11.0 419 17.0

Disability Status (people 15 to 64 years old)

With a work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472 5.0 467 7.0 457 1.5

With no work disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479 9.5 461 7.0 474 10.5

Residence

Metropolitan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 6.0 536 6.0 542 10.0

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 7.5 580 5.0 580 8.5

Noncentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 5.0 460 8.0 473 12.0

Nonmetropolitan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 10.0 364 6.5 362 10.5

Region

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 11.5 627 13.5 601 14.0

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554 9.5 500 5.0 521 19.5

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 2.0 378 6.0 374 7.5

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 7.0 642 7.5 620 10.5

Family Status

In families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 6.5 527 7.0 534 9.5

In married-couple families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 2.0 391 4.5 394 7.0

In families with a female householder, no spouse

present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 4.5 616 3.0 606 2.5

Unrelated individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 13.5 193 13.0 189 10.5

Employment and Labor Force Status (people 18

years and over)

Employed full-time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 7.0 246 10.5 260 9.5

Employed part-time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 6.0 307 6.5 312 13.0

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 6.5 459 9.0 517 26.0

Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 3.5 471 3.5 457 -

Marital Status (people 18 years and over)

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 8.0 604 9.5 601 6.0

Separated, divorced, or widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 11.0 369 7.5 371 12.0

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 12.0 382 10.0 356 16.0

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Under 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 7.0 556 7.0 559 7.5

1.00 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 11.5 374 8.0 377 8.5

- The sample size is too small for analysis.

1

Median monthly family benefits are calculated only for recipients who have reported or imputed amounts for AFDC, General Assistance,

SSI, and food stamps only and are expressed in 1995 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). 2

People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 Panel.
Appendix B.

THE EFFECT OF SAMPLE ATTRITION ON PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATES

SIPP contains nonsampling errors

common to most surveys, as well

as errors that stem from SIPP’s longitudinal design. Undercoverage in

household surveys is primarily due

to within-household omissions,

with the omission of entire households being less frequent. SIPP

experiences some differential

undercoverage of demographic subgroups; for example, the coverage

ratio of Black men over 15 years of

age is much lower than that for

White men in the same age group.34

Sample attrition, a type of nonresponse error, is another major concern in SIPP because of the need to

follow the same people over time.

Attrition reduces the available sample size as the survey progresses.

To the extent that those leaving the

sample are systematically different

34U.S. Census Bureau. Survey of Income and

Program Participation User’s Guide 2001, 3rd

Edition. Washington, DC.

from those who remain in the sample, survey estimates will be

biased. Of particular concern in

this report, is the number of lowincome households. Panel data

generally yield a lower estimate of

the number of low-income households over time.35 Because of the

association between low household

income and program participation

(as described in this report), a disproportionate and continuing loss

from the sample over time of people in low-income households could

result in a growing understatement

of both the absolute and relative

estimates of the program-participant universe. This potential

understatement could introduce

errors into intertemporal comparisons of program participation data,

such as those described in this

report.

35Sae-Ung, Smanchai and Franklin Winters

(1998). “Analysis of Nonresponse Effects on

Income and Poverty Time Data from SIPP.”

Draft Paper. 

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Washington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Census Bureau

Permit No. G-58

A considerable amount of research

has been conducted to investigate

the various sources of nonsampling

error in SIPP. The results of the

research are summarized in the SIPP

Quality Profile (1998).36 The

research includes, for example, the

SIPP Record Check Studies (Marquis

and Moore, 1989a,b, 1990; Marquis

et al., 1990) that compared SIPP

responses on program participation

with administrative records. Using

point-in-time estimates of underreporting in January of each year, for

1985 through 1993, results show

that SIPP estimates of the numbers

of recipients for AFDC (and also for

food stamps) are much lower than

the numbers based on administrative data, and the extent of underestimation may have increased over

time.37

36 For methodology surrounding SIPP, see

Source and Accuracy Statement for the Survey

of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 1992

Panel 7-Wave Longitudinal File (www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/sourceac/sourceac.htm) and SIPP

Quality Profile 1998, SIPP Working Papers,

Number 230, 3rd Edition, U.S. Census Bureau,

Washington, DC. 

(www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/workpapr/wp230.pdf)

37 Shea, M. (1995). “SIPP Data Quality,”

Internal Census Bureau memorandum to V.J.

Huggins, February 10.