Final report for the food stamp participant trafficking study

              oolt-A-ol s jfft.xifyyi
USDA
It of
Agriculture
Food and
Nutrition
Offloaof
An*y*md
EwfcwMon
Synthesis Report for Food
Stamp Trafficking Study
May 1998
^ rt-ottte ¥3 (L-
Contract No.:
MPR Reference No.:
53-3198-3-013
8171-091
FINAL REPORT FOR THE FOOD STAMP
PARTICIPANT TRAFFICKING STUDY
March 1998
Authors:
Anne Ciemnecki
Lara Hulsey
James Ohls
Irving Piliavin
Mercer Sullivan
Josh Rossol
Submitted to:
Office of Analysis and Evaluation
USDA Food and Consumer Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Project Officer:
Sharron Cristofar, Program Analyst
Submitted by:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 2393
Princeton, NJ 08543-2393
(609) 799-3535
Project Director:
James Ohls
Survey Director:
Anne Ciemnecki
USDA non-discrimination Statement:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis ofrace, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability
political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC
20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
u
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sharron Cristofar, the United States Department of Agriculture project officer for the study, has
provided continuing important input throughout the design, survey, and analysis of the project.
Useful input has also been obtained from her colleagues, Ted Macaluso, Steven Carlson, and
Margaret Andrews.
At Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Linda Mendenko contributed extensively to every phase
of the study and efficiently managed the field data collection. Lynn Mackenzie served as an
effective field supervisor. John Burghardt reviewed the report and provided valuable suggestions
and help with revisions. The text was much improved through the editing of Roy Grisham, Jane S.
Miller, and Marjorie Mitchell. Cathy Harper, Cynthia Castro, Monica Capizzi. and Jennifer
Baskwell produced the final document.
We are indebted to two field ethnographers who collected valuable data for the project Steven
Koester and Owen Murdoch, as well as to RIVA Market Research, Inc., for carrying out the post-survey
focus groups.
We also thank the survey respondents for their time in participating in the data collection.
111
M»»&Mf
USDA
UnM*d
AfrieuNura
Food and
Consumer
Service
3101 Park
Center Drive
Alexandria. VA
22302-1500
Final Report for the Food Stamp Participant Trafficking Study
Jury 1998
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the "Final Report for the Food Stamp Participant
Trafficking Study." Food stamp trafficking occurs when someone sells their coupons for
cash at a discount, rather than using them to buy food. The Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) treats trafficking as a serious violation of program integrity both because it is illegal
and because it undermines the nutritional goals of the program.
FNS fights trafficking through undercover investigations of food retailers that are suspected
of engaging in trafficking. The reason for this is that authorized food retailers are the only
ones who can redeem coupons for cash from the Government. FNS also works with State
Food Stamp Agencies, who are responsible for investigating trafficking by participants, and
has received requests to conduct survey research studies on the trafficking behavior of
participants.
The enclosed report presents the results of a methodological test of whether it is possible
to obtain reliable and valid information about participant food stamp trafficking through
a survey of active participants. We reviewed procedures used in other survey research
studies of illegal behavior and tested the approach which appeared to work best in those
other surveys. However, we found that the method does not work reliably for food stamp
trafficking.
The report is a valuable methodological contribution that will be of interest to individuals
who study program integrity and law enforcement issues. In addition to the feasibility
test of survey research methods, the report presents results of focus groups with food
stamp participants. The focus group results discuss the terminology participants use to
refer to trafficking and suggest hypotheses that might be tested in future research.
Ifyou have questions regarding this report, please contact Dr. Theodore F. Macaluso, Chief,
Food Stamp Evaluation Research Branch, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation at
(703)305-2019.
Enclosure
AM EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER W
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
I INTRODUCTION 1
A. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 2
B. OVERVIEW OF REPORT 3
II DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED FOR THE STUDY 5
A. PRE-SURVEY FOCUS GROUPS 5
1. Material Covered 5
2. Sampling and Recruiting 6
3. Fielding 6
B. THE PARTICIPANT SURVEY 7
1. Survey Content 7
2. Approach to Data Collection g
3. Sampling 10
4. Fielding Procedures 11
5. Fielding Results 12
C POST-SURVEY FOCUS GROUPS 12
1. Material Covered 12
2. Fielding 13
D. ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH 14
1. Approach 14
2. Content 15
3. Fielding 15
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Page
HI ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER THE PARTICIPANT
SURVEY ELICITED ACCURATE SELF-REPORTS
OF TRAFFICKING 17
A. THE SURVEY SELF-REPORT DATA ON TRAFFICKING 18
B. COMPARISON TO OTHER AVAILABLE INFORMATION 20
1. Comparisons with Survey Data on Neighborhood
Prevalence and of Trafficking by Friends 20
2. Pre-Survey Focus Groups 23
3. Post-Survey Focus Groups 23
4. An External Estimate of Trafficking Incidence 24
IV OTHER HYPOTHESES SUGGESTED BY STUDY RESULTS 25
1. Many Buyers in Food Stamp Trafficking Transactions May Buy
the Coupons for Their Own Use; Sometimes, They Themselves
May Be Food Stamp Program Participants 25
2. There Is No Clear "Profile" of Characteristics of People
Who Traffic 26
3. "Middlemen" May Not Be a Major Factor in Trafficking 27
REFERENCES 31
APPENDIX A: SURVEY METHODOLOGY 33
APPENDIX B: FOOD STAMP SURVEY 55
vi
TABLES
Table Page
111.1 REPORTED PARTICIPATION IN TRAFFICKING 19
111.2 PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE EASE AND PREVALENCE OF
FOOD STAMP TRAFFICKING 21
A. 1 RECIPIENT FOOD STAMP TRAFFICKING STUDY RESPONSE
AND ELIGIBILITY RATES, BY SITE 46
A.2 RECIPIENT FOOD STAMP TRAFFICKING STUDY RESPONSE
ELIGIBILITY RATES, BY STRATUM 48
Vll
/HI mmp«
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Exchanging food stamps for cash or for nonfood goods and services (food stamp trafficking)
is a serious federal policy concern. Unauthorized use offood stamps weakens the ability of the Food
Stamp Program (FSP) to accomplish its objective of encouraging nutritious food use by program
participants, and trafficking undermines confidence in the program among the general population.
Most investigations of food stamp trafficking focus on food retailers as they are the only ones who
can obtain cash from the government for food stamps. A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) study of authorized food stores suggests that between
three and four percent of food stamps are exchanged for cash or nonfood items (Macaluso 1995).
Because of extensive anecdotal evidence suggesting that food stamp trafficking is common, the
USDA contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) to conduct an exploratory study
of food stamp trafficking, focusing on the motivations and dynamics oftrafficking from the point
ofview of FSP participants. This report summarizes the findings from that study.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The present study was conceived as an exploratory research project, designed to obtain
preliminary information about trafficking by food stamp participants and to examine the feasibility
of further research. In that vein, one key objective of the project was to test the feasibility of
obtaining accurate survey information from FSP participants about their trafficking experiences. A
second goal was to obtain preliminary data on the characteristics and motivations of people who
exchange their food stamps for cash or for goods, so as to help devise deterrence strategies that the
government could employ to reduce trafficking.
DATA COLLECTION
Several different data collection activities were undertaken as part ofthe research:
A series of focus groups was conducted with FSP participants in three metropolitan
areas in different parts ofthe country. The goal was to obtain information that would
help in designing a survey of participants, asking them about their attitudes toward
trafficking, their trafficking behavior, and the dynamics of trafficking in their
neighborhoods. The focus groups included an explicit discussion of whether the
participants would be willing to share information about their trafficking behavior in an
interview.
A survey of720 FSP participants was conducted in those same three metropolitan areas
and in nearby rural areas. This survey obtained information about respondent household
characteristics, household income and expenditures, attitudes and opinions about
ix
trafficking; respondents' social support systems; and respondents' actual experiences
with trafficking. One part of the interview tested an innovative approach to obtaining
survey data about trafficking, under which respondents listened to questions on an audio
tape and wrote down the answers on a one-page answer sheet. Based on a review of
methods employed with similar difficult survey situations, this method had seemed the
most promising available, because it had been used with apparent success in survey
applications involving illegal behavior. It was hoped that by ensuring that the
interviewer would not know their answers, respondents would answer honestly.
Post-survey focus groups wen; conducted at two of the three survey sites with
respondents in the survey. These focus groups discussed the survey findings (see
below) with participants in an attempt to gain additional insight into the response
patterns seen.
Ethnographic research was conducted at two of the survey sites. In this work, researchers with
extensive "street-lever contacts in low-income areas attempted to identify and interview buyers of
food stamps, to discuss their experiences with trafficking and to obtain additional insight into the
dynamics of trafficking and the motivations of food stamp sellers.
SAMPLING
In light of the exploratory nature of the research, we decided not to allocate the resources that
would have been required to obtain a nationally representative sample of FSP participants.
However, the three metropolitan areas selected for the field work were chosen through a combination
of purposive and random methods, so that a reasonable cross-section of sites would be ensured in
terms of area of the country, size of the metropolitan area, and use of electronic benefit transfer
(EBT) food stamp issuance methods. For each of the three metropolitan areas, we chose four
different survey locations to achieve a mix of poverty densities and urban/rural locations. We chose
respondents randomly from among FSP participants living in those areas.
FINDINGS CONCERNING THE FEASIBILITY OF OBTAINING ACCURATE SELF-REPORTS
OF TRAFFICKING
Despite success elsewhere, the method of using audio tapes to ask questions about food stamp
trafficking does not appear to measure the phenomenon accurately. In the current survey, the weight
of the evidence suggests that there was significant underreporting of trafficking behavior.
Overall, approximately 5.1 percent of the survey respondents reported selling food stamps in
the previous month. Together with survey data on the average amount of benefits sold per
transaction, this implies that approximately two percent of dollar benefits were sold. While there
is no "gold standard" comparison with which to test the validity of these estimates, they appear to
be low when compared to the following sources:
Respondents were asked a series of questions about how common they thought
trafficking was in their neighborhoods. While the answers reflect only opinions and are
difficult to quantify, the pattern of responses suggests a considerably higher prevalence
of trafficking than the survey indicates.
Similarly, during the pre-survey focus groups, participants were asked how common
they believed trafficking was. The general discussion suggested greater incidence of
trafficking than the survey answers showed.
During the post-survey focus groups, which were conducted with survey respondents,
the participants were asked whether they had felt "safe" in replying honestly to the
questions on trafficking. Several reported feeling that being fully candid during the
survey was unsafe. It was apparent that they had replied negatively to many questions
when the truthful answer was affirmative.
The survey-based estimates are lower than would be expected, according to the findings
of a 1995 FNS analysis of trafficking. The FNS analysis, which did not include all
forms of trafficking, estimated that at least 3.8 percent of coupons were trafficked in
1993, well above the estimates from the survey.
None of these sources is conclusive. The totality of the evidence, however, suggests that it is
quite likely that there is significant underreporting in the survey.
HYPOTHESES ABOUT TRAFFICKING SUGGESTED BY THE STUDY
The evidence from the focus groups, the survey, and the ethnographic research, taken together,
gives rise to a number of interesting hypotheses about trafficking. Because ofthe limited scope of
this preliminary study, with data collection in only three areas of the country, none of these findings
can be viewed as conclusive. All, however, appear quite likely from the evidence generated by the
study. Following are key hypotheses:
Many buyers in food stamp trafficking transactions may purchase the a»tponsfor
their owt use; sometimes, they themselves may be FSPparticipants. Participants in
the pre-survey focus groups repeatedly voiced their belief that the buyer in a food stamp
trafficking transaction is often a food stamp recipient, and that many buyers use the
stamps themselves at the grocery store. Focus group members reported that, as a way
of stretching their food budgets, they and their friends often bought f od stamps from
people who wanted to sell them, with several viewing this practice as simply prudent
household management. They also reported that it was common for a recipient to be
both a buyer and a seller over the course of a month, perhaps selling coupons initially
to obtain cash for some high-priority use and then, if cash became available later, using
it to buy coupons at a discount and gain access to food more cheaply.
XI
There is no clear "profile "ofcharacteristics of people who traffic. During preliminary
analysis of the survey data, we examined whether self-reports of trafficking were
correlated with demographic, social, or economic characteristics of respondents. While
some weak possible correlations were identified, no single characteristic or set of
characteristics stood out as being highly predictive of trafficking behavior. To be sure,
as noted earlier, there is evidence that trafficking was substantially underreported in the
survey, and this weakens our ability to identify significant correlations, if in fact they
exist.
Electronic benefit transfer (EBT) may change the dynamics ofthe transaction. One
of the three study sites had been issuing food benefits under an EBT system for several
months prior to the study. A number of respondents at that site reported trafficking, and
the focus group discussions yielded insights as to how this trafficking took place.
The dynamics of the trafficking under EBT are apparently quite different from
trafficking in food coupons. The buyer and seller reportedly often go to the store
together, because the buyer wants to avoid (1) prepaying for an EBT card on which
benefits have been depleted, and (2) prepaying for an EBT card that has been reported
as lost or stolen. The general feeling about EBT as it relates to trafficking was that
"where there is a will there is a way."
Focus group respondents reported that the cycle with which benefits were posted to the
EBT cards contributed to selling benefits. In the EBT site, the AFDC benefit was credited
early in the month. At this time, recipients needed food and spent the welfare benefit on
groceries. The food benefit was credited four or five days later. By the time the food
benefit was credited, food had been purchased and recipients needed cash.
"Middlemen ' may not be a majorfactor in trafficking. One issue of considerable
interest in the current study was the role of "middlemen" who buy coupons and then sell
them at a profit, either to people who plan to use them for food or to stores that can
"launder" diem. It was believed at the jutset of the study that such middlemen might
represent a significant share of buyers. However, no evidence emerged from the
research to suggest this. During the pre-survey focus groups, participants were asked
to talk about what categories of people bought food stamps. The group participants
tended to focus on two types of buyers: (1) retail stores that cashed the coupons at
banks, and (2) low-income people who intended to use the coupons to purchase food (as
discussed in Section 1, above). The existence of middlemen who bought the coupons
to make money by reselling them was seldom mentioned by the focus group
participants, even after direct probing. Similar findings were obtained during the
ethnographic research. The ethnographers probed extensively about middlemen and
found virtually no evidence that they exist. None of the 10 respondents interviewed, all
ofwhom had themselves been buyers of food stamps tot various reasons, reported ever
having bought coupons and reselling them for cash.
xn
I. INTRODUCTION
The Food Stamp Program (FSP) represents a key component of America's "safety net" for low-income
households. With annual outlays in benefits of more than $19 billion in 1997, it has an
average caseload of more than 22 million people each month. The program is thus an important
source of support for America's poorest households. Furthermore, by distributing benefits either as
coupons or through electronic benefit transfer (EBT) accounts, both of which can legally be used
only to purchase food, the FSP helps assure that America's poor have access to nutritious meals.
In light of the importance of the program, food stamp trafficking-particularly program
participants exchanging food stamps for cash-represents a serious concern. Trafficking weakens
the ability of the FSP to encourage nutritious food use by program participants, and it undermines
confidence in the program among the general public.
Unfortunately, the very nature of trafficking makes the practice difficult to study. In most
contexts, asking respondents in a survey to report on their socially unacceptable behavior runs the
risk of underreporting, since respondents do not want the interviewers to think badly of them. In the
case of trafficking, this problem is greatly exacerbated by the illegality of the actions being asked
about. Because trafficking is illegal, FSP participants are understandably reluctant to discuss any
trafficking activities in which they may be involved. In particular, they are often skeptical about
confidentiality pledges and fearful that admitting to selling coupons could lead to loss of benefits
or even criminal prosecution.
This report summarizes the results of a research study that attempted to overcome these barriers
and to learn more about trafficking, with a particular focus on the participant side of the trafficking
transaction. Recognizing that obtaining accurate information from participants was likely to be
1
difficult, the study was designed with several different components. Data collection activities used
both qualitative and quantitative techniques. One component of the study-a survey of a total of
more than 700 program participants living in three different parts ofthe country-was designed to
test a promising method for obtaining self-reports from participants concerning whether and how
they had engaged in trafficking. In addition, the survey was designed to obtain preliminary
information about trafficking with which to develop hypotheses that could be examined in later
research.
Supporting the survey were several other types of data collection: (1) pre-survey focus groups,
conducted to help develop the survey instrument by obtaining information about trafficking from
recipients; (2) post-survey focus groups of respondents to probe further about bow they answered
the survey questions and ascertain the motivations that determined their responses; and (3)
ethnographic interviews with purchasers of food stamps to ask them about trafficking activity and
about the characteristics and apparent motivations of traffickers.
This report summarizes the findings ofthe study.
A. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Several significant methodological limitations, many of which were recognized from the outset
of the study, must be kept in mind when assessing the results in this report.
The project was designed as an exploratory study, not as a definitive analysis of participant
trafficking. Because at the outset so little information was available about either participant
trafficking behavior or about how to obtain information from participants about trafficking, it was
felt that a full, detailed study oftrafficking on a national basis was not warranted. Rather, the goals
ofthe study were more modest and focused on obtaining information that could help shape further
studies.
In light ofits objectives, the study was limited to three areas ofthe country. While an effort was
made to choose geographically separate areas with different characteristics, the clustering ofdata
collection into three areas precludes making valid national generalizations ofthe results. While the
results may be suggestive about hypotheses concerning trafficking for the country as a whole, we
cannot assess the representativeness of the three areas chosen for the study and therefore cannot
formally generalize the results.
Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter III, there is considerable evidence that techniques used in
the survey were less successful than had been hoped in eliciting accurate reports oftrafficking. It
is likely that a number of respondents in fact engaged in trafficking but did not admit during the
survey to having done so. Furthermore, we are not able to determine whether the traffickers who
did say they trafficked are systematically different from the traffickers who did not admit to
trafficking. It is thus not possible to make reliable generalizations about traffickers from the survey
results, even leaving aside the high degree of clustering in the survey.
B. OVERVIEW OF REPORT
Chapter II provides details about the data collection activities undertaken for the study. Chapter
III assesses the degree to which it was possible to elicit accurate self-reports of trafficking during
the participant survey. Chapter IV highlights a number of other hypotheses about participant
trafficking that have emerged from one or more of the data collection activities. Appendix A
provides details about the data collection work, and Appendix B reproduces the data collection
instrument used in the participant survey.
< "O
y mmm
D. DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED FOR THE STUDY
It was felt that a multifaceted data collection strategy would best serve the objectives of the
study. Details of the methods used follow.
A. PRE-SURVEY FOCUS GROUPS
Two pre-survey focus groups were conducted with FSP participants in each ofthe three primary
areas where the survey was to be done (see below).1 These sessions were intended to help die project
team learn more about the trafficking process and about how participants thought about and talked
about trafficking. It was anticipated that this would be useful both in suggesting topics to be covered
during the surveys and in wording items as clearly as possible to respondents.
1. Material Covered
The exact topics covered in the focus groups evolved slighUy over time, as we drew from the
outcomes ofthe earlier groups in planning later ones. In general, however, the following seven areas
were included:
1. Introductory Material The opening material was designed to explain the purposes of
and ground rules for the focus groups. Also included was an exercise to facilitate self-introductions
by participant group members and to get them started talking to one
another.
2. Using Food Stomps. The first substantive part of the focus groups elicited information
about how respondents use their food stamps, including their experience at stores. This
provided a nonthreatening way of opening the discussion ofalternative ways coupons
can be used.
'Details about how the three areas for data collection were selected and about the other aspects
ofthe data collection—particularly, the household survey-are presented in Appendix A.
3. Coping Experiences. This discussion focused on how food stamp recipients cope with
unexpected expenses that may arise during the month. It provided a context for the
discussion oftrafficking to follow.
4. Trafficking. The discussion asked how commonly trafficking was believed to occur in
the neighborhoods of the group participants. It also asked about the mechanics of
trafficking, in terms of how buyers and sellers find each other, what types of people are
buyers, and how much coupons sell for. This discussion also focused on what types of
goods and services could be bought with food stamps and participants' general attitudes
toward trafficking. Motivations for trafficking also were discussed.
5. Trial of Taped Interview. To see how well it would work, we gave respondents the
taped interview that was planned for the general survey. While the sample sizes were
too small to test the success of the method in eliciting accurate response, it was possible
to test the logistics of the self-administered audiotape-based interviewing process.
6. Discussion of Willingness to Share Personal Information About Trafficking. A
discussion was initiated concerning whether and under what circumstances focus group
participants would be willing to provide accurate information about their trafficking
experiences.
7. Closing. In closing, group participants were thanked for their help and were given their
payments for participating.
2. Sampling and Recruiting
The focus group participants were randomly sampled from lists of active participants provided
by the state food stamp offices and were recruited in advance from MPR's survey telephone center.
The focus groups had approximately 12 members each.
3. Fielding
Each focus group was held in a "neutral" location, such as a community center or a hotel, which
was convenient for the group participants to reach. Each was moderated by a senior MPR staff
member with extensive experience in conducting focus groups. At least one assistant was also
present at each group. The interview were taped, and transcripts were prepared.
B. THE PARTICIPANT SURVEY
The participant survey had two overall objectives. The first was to test a strategy for obtaining
accurate self-reports oftrafficking behavior from participants. (See Section 2.) The second was to
obtain information with which to develop hypotheses about participant trafficking, such as the
characteristics of traffickers, their motivations, and the particular circumstances that lead them to
traffic. To some degree, accomplishing the second of these objectives depended on accomplishing
the first, since accurate self-reports about who trafficks are necessary to describe the respondent
characteristics associated with trafficking.
1. Survey Content
The data collection instrument consisted ofa series of modules designed to obtain information
about the respondents themselves and their knowledge of and participation in trafficking. The
following information was obtained:
• Household Information and Food Stamp Benefit Receipt Module A collected
background information on the respondent's age and marital status. It also covered
number and ages of other people in the household, number of people covered by the
food stamp benefit, availability of adequate cooking and food storage appliances, date
and amount of most recent food stamp benefit, responsibility for food stamp benefit
spending, and typical food stamp spending pattern.
• Household Income and Expenditure. Module B collected information about the
respondent's income and expenses, food shopping trips and expenses over the past week
and month, employment status and earnings ofhousehold members, participation in Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other government programs, recent
hardships experienced, and food sufficiency.2
• Attitudes, Opinions, and Beliefs About Foot* Stamp Trafficking. Module C collected
information about the respondent's beliefs and opinions in several areas, including
2AFDC has since been replaced by the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF)
program.
outlook for the future, the public assistance system, consequences of lying to an AFDC
worker, and the consequences of selling food stamps.
Social Support. Module D collected information about the respondent's connection to
friends, family, and other support networks in the community. Some questions were
designed to elicit the degree to which the respondent was stable and established in the
community; others probed whether and how respondents were recently victimized by
crimes.
Buying and Selling Food Stamps. Module E contained questions about the
respondent's general knowledge and perception oftrafficking activity in the community:
the ease or difficulty with which trafficking occurs, which store types and which people
are involved in trafficking, ethical and moral views on trafficking, consequences of
selling food stamps, and items that are exchanged for food stamps. At the end of this
module, the respondent used an audiotape to answer a self-administered series of
questions about whether he or she had bought or sold food stamps during the previous
month and, if so, the value of the coupons transacted.
Demographic Characteristics. Module F collected information on the respondent's
ethnicity and racial background, gender, educational attainment, and history ofpublic
assistance participation. It also solicited the respondent's opinions for ways in which
the FSP might be improved and invited the respondents to possibly participate in a post-survey
focus group.
Interviewer Observation. The final section of the questionnaire required the
interviewer's observation of the physical environment.
2. Approach to Data Collection
Most of the data collection instrument was administered using standard in-person interviewing
methods, with the interviewer reading each question, probing as necessary, and then recording the
answer on a questionnaire. However, 14 questions-those concerning the respondent's own
experiences buying and selling food stamps-were administered using an audio recording and
headphones. The respondent listened to the prerecorded questions through headphones and then
recorded his or her answers on a self-administered answer sheet, which was then sealed inside an
envelope. The interviewer then signed the back of the envelope over the seal, which was not to be
broken until the survey center of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) received the envelope
for data processing.
The decision to use audiotape recordings reflected two major considerations. First, the survey
literature contains considerable evidence that respondents are more likely to report sensitive or
illegal behaviors in a self-administered questionnaire format than in an oral interview. Apparently,
an audiotape interview provides a sufficient feeling of anonymity to respondents that they answer
honestly about any involvement in illegal activities. In a study of alternative ways of measuring
drug use, Turner et al. (1992) found that "the self-administered questionnaire yielded higher
estimated prevalence rates. As predicted, examination ofthe ratios indicates that the advantage of
the self-administered questionnaire increases with the presumed sensitivity ofthe drug in question."
Similarly, Gfroerer and Hughes (1992) conclude that "for sensitive question such as those on the use
of illicit drugs, it is likely that people will be more willing to reveal their drug use on a self-administered
answer sheet than in a verbal response—whether by telephone or in person—to an
interviewer."
Hay (1990) compared standard interview and self-administered techniques and found that the
frequency distributions indicated that a significantly higher percentage of the questionnaire
respondents reported ever having more than a sip or taste of an alcoholic beverage. Similarly
statistically significant differentials were observed between the interview and questionnaire
respondents on reported smoking."
However, because the study population for the current research was expected to have low levels
of reading ability, there was concern that a traditional self administered instrument might lead to
considerable confusion on the part cf respondents, thus reducing our ability to obtain accurate
replies.3 Thcretv re, we decided to have respondents listen to a self-administered audiotape and then
mark their response on a simple answer sheet. A study by Camburn et al. (1991) provided evidence
that this can be an effective approach. In particular, this study had good success in using audiotapes
to ask respondents who were 12 to 21 years old a set of questions about such sensitive issues as drug
use, alcohol use, sexual practices, and eating disorders.
3. Sampling
Because the study was exploratory, the survey was limited to three areas of the country. A
combination of random and purposive sampling was used to assure diversity among the areas in
terms ofsize ofpopulation, geographical location, and food stamp issuance methods. The following
areas were selected for data collection: Baltimore, Maryland; Denver, Colorado; and Spokane,
Washington.
Within each of these three primary areas, urbanized zip code areas were stratified into four
groups, based on the percentage ofhouseholds below the poverty level in the zip code areas.4 One
zip code was then randomly selected from three of the four strata (The stratum with the lowsst
concentration ofpoverty was not sampled.) Furthermore, for each of the three primary areas initially
chosen (Baltimore, Denver, and Spokane), the rural counties contiguous to the urban area were
listed. One of the counties in each primary sampling area was then randomly chosen.
3About 10 to 20 percent of U.S. adults and a higher percentage of food stamp recipients have
reading difficulties. The percentage ofU.S. adults who completed high school is 71 percent Fifty-six
percent ofthe food stamp recipients in die San Diego Food Stamp Cash-Out Demonstration and
41 percent in the Alabama Food Stamp Cash-Out Demonstration completed high school.
4These were defined as zip code areas where at least 80 percent ofthe population was in areas
classified by the Census Bureau as urban.
10
Overall, therefore, four subareas were chosen from each ofthe primary sampling areas. Three
ofthese were urbanized, with varying poverty concentrations; the fourth was rural but adjacent to
the urban area.
Once the local sampling areas had been defined, either in terms of zip codes or in terms of the
designated rural counties, MPR obtained, from the state food stamp offices, lists offood stamp cases
in these local areas. Respondents were then randomly sampled from these case lists. Because many
ofthe study objectives required having a substantial representation oftraffickers in the sample, and
because it was believed that the likelihood oftrafficking might be correlated with the amount ofthe
food stamp benefit, households were sampled with probabilities of selection proportional to the
amount of the benefit, as listed in the sampling frames.
4. Fielding Procedures
Interviewers were hired and trained for the project at each of the three primary sites. The
selection criteria for hiring interviewers included strong verbal skills, an ability to work effectively
with low-income respondents, and good organizational skills. All but 2 of the 26 interviewers hired
had interviewing experience.
Interviewer training began with advance study and completion of written training exercises. In-person
training, held at local hotels, then lasted eight hours. Trainers explained the background and
purpose of the study, reviewed the screener and the interviewer- and self-administered
questionnaires, provided instructions for asking each question, discussed methods for contacting
respondents, addressed sensitivities about criminal behavior, and went over administrative
procedures. After the main session, interviewers finished their training by completing mock
interviews with a supervisor.
11
The interviewing was conducted between December 1995 and April 1996. An experienced
supervisor managed the interviewers by telephone. The interviewers returned their data to MPR's
main survey operation center near Princeton, New Jersey, for logging, data entry, and verification.
5. Fielding Results
A total of 720 interviews were completed: 245 in Baltimore, 221 in Denver, and 254 in
Spokane.3 The overall response rate among eligible respondents was 77 percent. The main reasons
for nonresponse were interviewer inability to locate the respondent (seven percent); refusal on the
part of the respondent (six percent); and interviewers' inability to complete cases, despite multiple
attempts (six percent). Other reasons for nonresponse included language barriers (two percent) and
poor health ofrespondents (two percent).
C. POST-SURVEY FOCUS GROUPS
An additional round of focus groups was conducted several months after the survey was
completed. Based on resource considerations, we decided to conduct these focus groups at two of
the three survey sites (Denver and Baltimore). The purposes ofthese post-survey focus groups were
(1) to examine apparent discrepancies between data obtained in parts of the survey and other
available information, and (2) to provide more-detailed followup about some ofdie survey findings.
The participants in these focus groups were recruited from among the earlier survey respondents.
1. Material Covered
The seven main areas covered by the post-survey focus groups were the following:
'One interview was subsequently lost in the mail.
12
1. Introduction. The sessions began with a discussion of their purposes and of the ground
rules to be followed. In addition, self-introductions were made.
2. FoodStamps-Baseline Knowledge. The first set of topics was designed to provide a
nonthreatening way to get respondents to talk about the use of their food stamps. To
stimulate the discussion, questions were asked about participants' perceptions of the
mechanics of how the program works and about how food stamps relate to their food
budgeting. Toward the end of this module, participants were asked to give their
reactions to a number of situations in which food stamp recipients were faced with
financial problems that might lead them to traffic.
3. Survey Data: Incidence of Trafficking. The preliminary survey results showing a
relatively low reported incidence oftrafficking were summarized for the members ofthe
focus groups. These participants were then asked whether they thought the survey
results were accurate. They were also asked how they had reacted to the relevant survey
questions and whether, if they had been trafficking, they would have reported having
done so in the interviews that used the recorded tapes.
4. Survey Data: Profiles of Traffickers. In part because no clear profile of trafficker
characteristics had emerged from the preliminary analysis of the survey data, focus
group participants were asked to indicate what characteristics, if any, they would
associate with trafficking.
5. Survey Data: Urban Versus Rural Trafficking. Based on preliminary survey results,
it appeared that trafficking was more common in urban than in rural areas. The focus
group moderator probed for reasons.
6. Survey Data: About the Trafficking Process. Focus group participants were asked to
comment on survey data about the ease with which buyers and sellers of food stamps
could be located in their neighborhoods.
7. Additional Suggestions. Focus group participants were asked for their suggestions as
to how it might be possible to reduce trafficking.
2. Fielding
Two post-survey focus groups were conducted in each of the three primary sampling areas.
Each was moderated by a senior member of MPR's subcontractor, RIVA Market Research, and
observed by an MPR staff member. MPR recruited focus group members from lists of survey
respondents who had expressed an interest in participating in subsequent focus ^groups.
13
D. ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
It was believed that food stamp intermediaries could provide an additional perspective on FSP
participants who trafficked their benefits; therefore, the research design called for interviews of
people who acted as brokers in recipient trafficking exchanges. This work is described here.
1. Approach
Because ofpotential difficulties locating food stamp buyers and getting them to cooperate with
the study, we decided to enlist the help of ethnographic researchers who already had street-level
contacts in the areas where the survey had been conducted. In particular, we identified urban
ethnographers working in both Baltimore and Denver, and we asked them to locate food stamp
buyers and interview them in detail. These two researchers had spent years conducting drug-related
studies in their respective areas and had contacts among residents of neighborhoods with high
poverty rates.
In reviewing this work, it is important to note that the researchers' past experience had focused
on studying drug use. Because of the difficulty of identifying appropriate respondents and the
intensive nature of the data collection, ethnographic research, by its very nature, seldom involves
random samples of subjects. In the current case, the fact that the two researchers involved had
previously studied drug use may have skewed the profile ofrespondents toward people with drug
problems.
In developing this line of data collection, we designed a protocol that described die research
issues to be covered in the interviews and identified die types of respondents we were interested in.
Based on this protocol, each ethnographer drew upon his local contacts to identify suitable
respondents and then conducted the interviews.
14
2. Content
Because of the unstructured nature of ethnographic research, it was not appropriate to develop
detailed specifications as to the exact content of the interviews. Rather, the interviews were allowed
to proceed in whatever directions seemed most fruitful to accomplish the basic research objectives.
In general, however, the interviews covered topics similar to those covered in the household survey
but did so from the perspective of food stamp buyers rather than sellers. Major topics included (1)
the respondents' experiences with trafficking; (2) their perceptions of the motivations of traffickers;
and (3) the logistics of trafficking, including locations where trafficking take place, what prices
coupons sell for, and how buyers and sellers come together. Respondents were asked to report both
their own experiences and their perceptions of common practices regarding trafficking in their
neighborhoods.
3. Fielding
Five interviews were conducted in Baltimore and five in Denver. When field conditions
permitted and respondents were willing, the interviews were taped, and recordings were made of six
of the interviews. In the four instances where taping was not possible, the analysis was based on
interviewer notes from the discussions with respondents.
The results of the individual interviews were then summarized by the two field ethnographers
who conducted them, and a further synthesis was then conducted.
o-^. I
®
// l\\\ n
HI. ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER THE PARTICIPANT SURVEY ELICITED
ACCURATE SELF-REPORTS OF TRAFFICKING
As discussed earlier, a key objective of the project was to assess the feasibility of obtaining
accurate reports oftrafficking by using a survey-based data collection procedure. Based on evidence
from earlier research done on other illegal activities, it seemed reasonable to expect that fairly
accurate responses could be obtained if the respondent listened to a recording ofthe questions using
a headphone and then marked his or her responses on an anonymous answer sheet. This approach
was intended to make the respondent feel "safe" in reporting illegal activities and to reduce
respondents' tendencies to give answers that they think their interviewers viewed as socially
acceptable.
However, based on the survey responses to the questions about whether respondents trafficked,
coupled with other information on the prevalence of trafficking, we believe that there is a high
likelihood that the survey reports significantly understated the prevalence of trafficking. In
particular, it appears that the number of respondents who reported having engaged in trafficking
behavior is lower than we would have expected based on any of the following sources of
information: (1) other questions from the survey related to the general perceived prevalence of
trafficking; (2) information on trafficking from the focus groups conducted for the project; and (3)
an independent estimate of certain types of trafficking made by USDA for the year 1993.
To be sure, these alternative sources ofcomparison information about trafficking prevalence are
themselves subject to error, and as a result our inferences are not conclusive. Nevertheless, the
weight of the evidence strongly suggests underreporting in the survey. The discussion below
17
provides details of these arguments. First, we present the relevant survey self-report data. Then we
examine these data in light of the comparison information.
A. THE SURVEY SELF-REPORT DATA ON TRAFFICKING
Three percent of the survey respondents said that they had sola food stamps for cash the
previous month, and two percent had exchanged them for goods or services (Table 111.1). The
overall reported rate of selling or exchanging food stamps was 5.1 percent The reported cash value
of food stamps sold ranged from $20 to $180. The mean value of benefits sold was $61.08, which
is approximately 41 percent of average household benefits. These data suggest that about two
percent of benefits were sold.'
In contrast, two percent of respondents said that they had bought food stamps; that is, they
obtained food stamps either for cash or in exchange for goods or services. Of these, about one
percent said they received food stamps in exchange for cash and one percent said that they received
food stamps in payment for goods or services. The value of food stamps bought varied from $5 to
$352, with an average of$77.
Most respondents who reported trafficking indicated that they either bought or sold, but very
few reported both. Only about one-half of one percent of the sample bought and sold during the
month.
'Calculated as 5.1 times 0.41, where 5.1 is the probability of selling and 0.41 is the average
percentage sold if the recipient sells.
18
TABLE HI. 1
REPORTED PARTICIPATION IN TRAFFICKING
(Percentages Unless Otherwise Noted)
Full Sample
(N = 719)
Selling Food Stamps
Sold Food Stamps for Cash 3.4
Received Goods or Services in Exchange for Food Stamps 2.1
Received Cash, Goods, or Services for Food Stamps 5.1
Buying Food Stamps
Bought Food Stamps for Cash 1.0
Received Food Stamps in Exchange for Goods or Services 1.0
Received Food Stamps for Cash, Goods, or Services 2.0
Any Trafficking 6.5
Mean Value of Food Stamps Sold (in Dollars)* 61.08
Minimum 20.00
Maximum 180.00
Mean Value of Food Stamps Bought (in Dollars)* 77.05
Minimum 5.00
Maximum 352.00
SOURCE: Food Stamp Trafficking Survey, weighted data.
NOTE: N indicates sample size. Not all sample members responded to all questions. For each
question on this table, between 0 and 9 respondents did not provide responses.
'The value of food stamps bought and sold are calculated based on responses from those who
reported buying or selling food stamps.
19
B. COMPARISON TO OTHER AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Unfortunately, there are no definitive data on the incidence oftrafficking by participants with
which to compare the survey results. Furthermore, even if definitive national data were available,
our ability to assess the accuracy of the survey data would be significantly limited by the fact that
they are drawn from only three areas of the country, and we don't know how nationally
representative these areas are.
Despite these problems, however, a number of comparisons between the self-report data and
other sources are of interest. We present them below.
1. Comparisons with Survey Data on Neighborhood Prevalence and of Trafficking by
Friends
Besides being asked directly about their own trafficking behavior, respondents in the survey
were asked several questions about their perceptions of the prevalence of trafficking in their
communities One survey question, for instance, asked how many food stamp recipients in the
respondents' neighborhoods sold food stamps for cash in any one month; choices included "most
people," "some," "a few," and "nobody." (Note that this question focused specifically on selling for
"cash.")
Approximately 2.8 percent of respondents answered that "most people" that were FSP
participants in their neighborhoods trafficked, and another 7.6 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively,
responded "some" and "a few." (See Table MX) About 9.7 percent said "nobody." Thus the
number of respondents answering "most people" or "some people" exceeded the number selecting
the "nobody" category.
How these results are assessed depends greatly on what is assumed about the 71.3 percent of
respondents who gave a "don't know" response to the question. At one extreme, it is possible that
those answering "don't know" did so because there is no significant trafficking in their
20
TABLE mi
PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE EASE AND PREVALENCE
OF FOOD STAMP TRAFFICKING
(Percentages)
Full Sample
(N-719)
In any one month in your neighborhood, how many food stamp recipients sell
some or all ofthem for cash?
Most people 2.8
Some 7.6
A few 8.5
Nobody 9.7
Don't know 71.3
Refused/missing 0.3
If someone in your neighborhood had cash and wanted food stamps, would it be
easy to find someone to sell them?
Very easy 23.1
Somewhat easy 13.3
Somewhat difficult 8.1
Very difficult 15.6
Don't know 39.5
Refused/missing 0.4
How many of the three food stamp recipients you know best sold food stamps
for cash in the past year?
None 34.0
One 8.2
Two 4.2
Three 5.1
Don't know three food stamp recipients 26.4
Don't know how many sold food stamps 21.9
Missing 0.3
How often did these friends sell benefits in the past year?
Every month 4.9
Nearly every month 2.5
Once in a while 4.3
Question not applicable 82.3
Missing 1.0
SOURCE: Food Stamp Trafficking Survey, weighted data.
NOTE: N indicates sample size.
21
neighborhoods. On the other hand, it is plausible that, despite their answers, the "don't know"
respondents lived in neighborhoods that were quite similar in terms of trafficking to those of the
people who did answer the question. If any significant number ofthe "don't know" respondents live
in neighborhoods where substantial amounts oftrafficking do occur, this would suggest a prevalence
rate higher than that implied by the small number (3.4 percent) of respondents who reported having
themselves sold coupons for cash trafficked in the previous month.
A related survey question asked how easy it would be in the respondent's neighborhood for
someone who had cash and wanted to buy food stamps to find a seller. As shown in Table III.2,36.4
percent of respondents replied that finding a seller would be either "very easy" or "somewhat easy,"
compared to 23.7 percent who indicated that it would be "somewhat difficult" or "very difficult."
(About 40 percent indicated that they didn't know how easy it would be.)
A third relevant questioning sequence asked respondents to think about their three best friends
on food stamps and estimate how many trafficked during a 12-month period. Approximately SO
percent of respondents said that they knew three other food stamp recipients and had an opinion as
to whether the people they knew trafficked. Approximately 17.5 ofrespondents (continuing to use
the overall sample as the base) thought that at least one of the people they knew trafficked.
Furthermore, of those who thought their friends trafficked, most believed that the friends did so
"every month" or "nearly every month." (In these two categories, 7.4 percent responded, compared
to only 4.3 percent responding "once in a while.")
While not conclusive, these findings suggest that the food stamp recipients who responded to
the survey perceive that trafficking occurs frequently in their communities. This is in contrast to
their direct self-reports of trafficking.
22
2. Pre-Survey Focus Groups
As described in Chapter II, the design work for the study included conducting focus groups of
FSP participants in each of the planned survey sites. While it is not possible to quantify the focus
group responses precisely, the general impression gained from both the sessions and the transcripts
was that several of the participants in each session had engaged in trafficking activity and that
virtually all participants were aware of trafficking taking place among their acquaintances.
Respondents were able to speak with some confidence about such details as the cash price of
coupons, the locations in their communities where trafficking often occurred, and what items could
and could not be easily bought with food stamps. As with the written survey, these focus group
sessions provide evidence that trafficking is a much more common phenomenon than suggested by
the self-reports discussed in Section III.A.
3. Post-Survey Focus Groups
To further explore the likely accuracy of the survey responses and to learn respondents'
perceptions about the questions and our interviewing approach, we held focus groups in two ofthe
survey sites several months after the survey. During this second round of focus groups, samples of
the respondents to the earlier survey were assembled and asked to describe their reactions to the
survey, particularly the self-administered taped interview. In addition, the focus group members
were shown the survey results concerning the incidence of trafficking and asked whether they
thought them believable.
The responses strongly suggest that some of the respondents did not provide accurate self-reports
concerning their trafficking activities. Several indicated that they had distrusted the survey
and suspected that it was a "sting" operation to detect food stamp fraud. Furthermore, several focus
group participants explicitly said that the use of the tape recorder did not significantly increase their
23
confidence that their replies would be kept confidential. These focus group responses provide
significant evidence that the incidence oftrafficking is significantly underreported in the survey data.
4. An External Estimate of Trafficking Incidence
A USDA study (Macaluso, 1995) used evidence drawn from federal trafficking investigations
to estimate the approximate level oftrafficking in the United States in 1993. The data include only
trafficked food stamps that were sold directly to stores and therefore were not ultimately spent for
food; they thus exclude sales to people who then used the coupons to obtain food in a store. The
USDA study estimated that food stamp trafficking in 1993 amounted to about $800 million,
approximately 3.8 percent ofall food stamps issued during the year.
As noted earlier, the tabulations from the current survey imply that about two percent ofdollar
benefits are trafficked. This is further evidence that trafficking is significantly underreported in the
survey. In addition, the questions in the current survey asked about all transactions involving selling
food stamps (including selling them to a person who was planning to use them to buy food), whereas
the USDA study, because of the methodology it used, was able to assess sales of food stamps only
to buyers who then "laundered" them through stores. Thus, if the numbers could be put on a
comparable basis, the gap between the survey numbers and the USDA estimates would further
widen. For instance, if, as the survey data suggest, considerable selling takes place to buyers who
buy for their personal use, then adjusting the survey data to exclude mis portion oftrafficking would
reduce the survey-based estimates ofthe value ofcoupons trafficked to well below 2 percent, further
increasing the discrepancy with the USDA estimate of 3.8 percent.
24
IV. OTHER HYPOTHESES SUGGESTED BY STUDY RESULTS
As discussed earlier, the overall project was an exploratory study designed both to assess an
apparently promising technique for surveying food stamp recipients about their trafficking activities
and to identify which other hypotheses about trafficking behavior might warrant further study. As
it turned out, the "headphone" interviewing approach we tested appears not to have been successful
in eliciting reliable reports of trafficking activities. However, the various research activities
conducted for the project, including the survey, the focus groups, and the ethnographic research,
have yielded a number of interesting hypotheses that may warrant further study. Several of these
hypotheses are discussed below, together with their supporting evidence.
1. Many Buyers in Food Stamp Trafficking Transactions May Buy the Coupons for Their
Own Use; Sometimes, They Themselves May Be Food Stamp Program Participants
Participants in the pre-survey focus groups repeatedly voiced their beliefthat the buyer in a food
stamp trafficking transaction is often a food stamp recipient, and that many buyers use the stamps
themselves at the grocery store. Focus group members reported that, as a way of stretching their
food budgets, they and their friends often bought food stamps from people who wanted to sell them,
with several viewing this practice as simply prudent household management. They also reported that
it was common for a recipient to be both a buyer and a seller over the course of a month, perhaps
selling coupons initially to obtain cash for some high-priority use and then, if cash became available
later, using it to buy coupons at a discount and gain access to food more cheaply. This theme of food
stamp recipients buying food stamps for their own use but also selling them came up in the focus
groups in all three cities in which the groups were held.
25
The ethnographic research conducted for the study also found evidence that many buyers of
food stamps are purchasing them for their own use, rather than intending to resell them to stores that
can "launder" them through the regular banking system. In both cities where these interviews were
conducted, respondents indicated that most purchasers they were aware ofwere buying the coupons
because they represented a cheap way ofobtaining food. In Baltimore, for instance, the ethnographic
researchers interviewed a respondent who lived in the suburbs but regularly came into the city to
purchase food stamps at a discount so that she could use them to obtain food. These transactions
were made easier because she had previously lived in the city and retained ties to her old
neighborhood.
In Denver, one ofthe respondents in the ethnographic study was a crack dealer wl occasionally
traded crack for food stamps (about S65 ofcoupons per month) for her own use in buying food but
would not accept more food stamps than she needed for food. In another Denver interview, the
household (a couple) were drug addicts. Usually, they bought food stamps for use only in buying
food, though occasionally they used the stamps to buy drugs.
2. There Is No Clear "Profile" of Characteristics of People Who Traffic
During preliminary analysis ofthe survey data, we examined whether self-reports of trafficking
were correlated with demographic, social, or economic characteristics of respondents. While some
weak possible correlations were identified, no single characteristic or set of characteristics stood out
as being highly predictive oftrafficking behavior. To be sure, as noted earlier, there is evidence that
trafficking was substantially underreported in the survey, and this weakens our ability to identify
significant correlations, if in fact they exist. (Indeed, the apparent underreporting oftrafficking is
the reason that we have not formally analyzed the survey data in greater detail.) However, the fact
26
that no strong correlations were present in the survey data is at least consistent with the conclusion
that traffickers do not fali into readily identifiable groups.
We explored this issue further during the post-survey focus groups, because the preliminary
analysis of the survey data had shown a surprising lack of regularity or patterns in trafficker
characteristics. Focus group participants were asked to discuss among themselves what
characteristics they would expect a person selling food stamps to have and were given several
specific sets of choices (for example, men/women, younger people/older people; people with
kids/people without kids). In general, no strong patterns emerged from these discussions. While
there was some tendency for the groups to focus on certain characteristics, such as being young and
being a woman, it appeared that the discussion group members were really focusing more on the
profile of the food stamp recipients they knew rather than on the characteristics of traffickers from
within that group. Overall, no clear consensus about a pattern of characteristics emerged. This
would be consistent with a hypothesis that many different types of people traffic for many different
reasons.
3. "Middlemen" May Not Be a Major Factor in Trafficking
One issue of considerable interest in the current study was the role of "middlemen" who buy
coupons and then sell them at a profit, either to people who plan to use them for food or to stores
who can "launder" them. It was believed at the outset of the study that such middlemen might
represent a significant share of buyers. However, as discussed below, no evidence emerged from
the research to suggest this.
During the pre-survey focus groups, group members were asked to talk about what groups of
people bought food stamps. The group participants tended to focus on two types of buyers: (1) retail
stores who cashed the coupons in at banks, and (2) low-income people who intended to use the
27
coupons to purchase food (as discussed in Section 1, above). The existence of "middlemen," who
bought the coupons to make money by reselling mem, was seldom mentioned by the focus group
participants. Furthermore, even after direct probing, most of them said that they did not know of
such people.
In addition, in one of the questions on the participant survey (QE7), respondents were asked
what type ofpeople might be likely to buy food stamps. The answer categories, which were all read
by the interviewer, included such responses as "people you live with," friends," "storekeepers," and,
most important for the current discussion, "a middleman who buys food stamps and sells them to
someone else." (Multiple responses were allowed.) Fewer than five percent of the respondents
chose this "middleman" response as one of their replies.
Similar findings were obtained during the ethnographic research. The ethnographers probed
extensively about middlemen and found virtually no evidence that they exist. None of the 10
respondents interviewed, all of whom had themselves been buyers of food stamps for various
reasons, had ever bought coupons and resold them for cash. Furthermore, they were not aware of
people (other than retailers who cashed the coupons in at banks) who did so. Indeed, several ofthese
respondents indicated that they were not able to figure out how a middleman could make money.
In their experience, the discount price of coupons was fixed in any given neighborhood at one rate
(usually SO percent); they felt that, if somebody bought coupons at SO percent, it would be hard to
convince another person or a store to repurchase them at a higher rate. In their experience, coupons
could be bought at the SO percent rate easily, and they didn't see why anybody would pay a
middleman a higher rate.
The fact that these respondents, who were located through street contacts, were not themselves
major middlemen is not surprising, since such people, if they exist, would probably be harder to
28
interview. However, these respondents were being interviewed not only about their own experiences
but also for their perspective on their local social scenes, and the fact that they had not heard of
middlemen is reasonably telling.
4. Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Does Not Completely Prevent Recipient Trafficking bat
Does Change the Dynamics of the Transaction
One of the three study sites had been issuing food benefits under an EBT system for several
months prior to the study. A number of respondents at that site reported trafficking, and the focus
group discussions yielded insights as to how this trafficking took place.
The dynamics of the trafficking under EBT appeared to be quite different from trafficking in
food coupons. Focus group participants indicated that, under EBT, the benefit is usually sold to
someone the seller knows and trusts, since if the transaction is with a stranger, it is riskier and more
time-consuming for both buyer and seller. In general, sellers were said to "spend down" the amount
of the food benefits they needed for themselves before turning t!se EBT card over to a buyer. If the
seller knows the buyer, the buyer may pay in advance and the seller may give out an identification
(PIN) number with the card. If the buyer and seller do not trust each other, the buyer often
accompanies the seller to the store. In this situation, the seller shows his or her own identification
and pays for the groceries as if he or she is shopping; payment is made after the pair leave the store.
The buyer and seller were reported to go to the store together often because the buyer wants to avoid
(1) prepaying for an EBT card on which benefits have been depleted, and (2) prepaying for an EBT
card that has been reported as lost or stolen. The general feeling about EBT as it relates to
trafficking was that "where there is a will there is a way."
Focus group respondents reported that the cycle with which benefits were posted to the EBT
cards contributed to selling benefits. In the EBT site, the AFDC benefit was credited early in the
29
month. At this time, recipients needed food and spent the welfare benefit on groceries. The food
benefit was credited four or five days later. By the time the food benefit was credited, food had been
purchased and recipients needed cash.
30
REFERENCES
Camburn, Donald, Marcie Cynamon, and Yossi Hard. "The Use of Audio Tapes and Wrinen
Questionnaires to Ask Sensitive Questions During Household Interviews." Paper presented at
the National Field Directors Conference and National Field Technologies Conference, San
Diego, May 1991.
Gfroerer, Joseph C, and Arthur L. Hughes. "Collecting Data on Illicit Drug Use by Phone." Survey
Measurement ofDrug Use: Methodological Studies. Rockville, MD: National Institute on
Drug Abuse, 1992.
Hay, David A. "Does the Method Matter on Sensitive Survey Topics?" Survey Methodology, vol.
16, no. 1, June 1990, pp. 131-136.
Macaluso, Theodore F. "The Extent of Trafficking in the Food Stamp Program." Washington, DC:
U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Food and Consumer Service, August 1995.
Turner, Charles F., Judith T. Lester, Barbara J. George, Michael L. Hubbard, and Michael B. Witt.
"Effects of Mode of Administration and Wording on Data Quality." Survey Measurement of
Drug Use: Methodological Studies. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1992.
5 AU 31
M uro mm
APPENDIX A
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
3>3
di
This appendix presents the methods used to select the sample, conduct the Food Stamp
Recipient Trafficking Survey, and process the data.
A. METHODS FOR SELECTING AM) LOCATING RESPONDENTS
1. Sample Design
A combination ofpurposive and probability sampling was used to select three states from which
the survey sample would be drawn. FCS's specifications for the work were that each state be
"stratified by level of urbanization to include one local area food stamp office considered to be
central city, one in a metropolitan area not considered to be central city, one in a suburban area, and
one in a sparsely populated (rural) area." Random probability methods were used to select
respondents from each local office area.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) used a three-stage sample design to implement this
requirement Stage One involved selecting three metropolitan areas in different parts ofthe nation.
Stage Two involved selecting a range ofurban to rural strata within and near each metropolitan area.
Stage Three involved selecting Food Stamp Program (FSP) participants within strata.
a. Stage One, Selecting Metropolitan Areas
• The sample frame consisted of all 134 Metropolitan Statistical Areas for the 48
contiguous states and Washington, DC. The areas were stratified into three geographic
strata based on FCS regions (Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Southeast; Midwest,
Mountain Plains, and Southwest; and West) and three population size groups (more
than 3 million, 1 to 3 million, and 250,000 to 1 million). Areas also were classified as
issuing benefits using or not using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) technology.
• A random number between 0 and 1 was assigned to each area.
• We used the random number to pick die EBT site first Baltimore, Maryland, had tin.
lowest random number and was selected. Baltimore, in the Eastern region, was the
largest stratum.
35
• Next we randomly selected L*,* third region as the second site. Using the lowest random
number, we selected Spokane, Washington, among all the areas in the third region that
were not in the largest size stratum. Spokane was in the smallest size stratum.
• Denver, Colorado, represented the midsized population stratum in the Central region.
b. Stage Two, Selecting Strata Within Metropolitan Areas
• We listed every zip code in each of the three selected metropolitan areas, along with its
total population, population in poverty, and population living within die urban area.
• After excluding zip codes that were less than 80 percent urban, we sorted the remaining
zip codes by the percentage of their households living below the federal poverty level.
• We formed four strata in each area, based on the percentage living in poverty. Thestrata
ranged from the very highest poverty density to no poverty.
• After excluding zip codes in the lowest poverty density strata, we randomly selectedone
zip code from each stratum. The selected zip codes were:
Baltimore
Denver
Spokane
20 percent or more poverty
10 to 20 percent poverty
5 to 10 percent poverty
20 percent or more poverty
10 to 20 percent poverty
5 to 10 percent poverty
20 percent or more poverty
10 to 20 percent poverty
5 to 10 percent poverty
21231
21237
21210
80223
80207
80228
99202
99205
99016
To select a rural area, we listed every rural county contiguous to the metropolitan area
and selected one at random. The rural counties selected were:
Baltimore Kent County
Denver Cleark Creek County
Spokane Pend Oreille County
• The three metropolitan sites and four subsites formed 12 strata.
36
c Stage Three, Selecting Respondents
• MPR asked states for lists ofFSP participants in each stratum (that is. zip code or rural
county). The states sent machine-readable data sets, which an MPR programmer edited.
• The programmer sorted cases in each stratum by size of food stamp benefit. She then
used interval sampling to select a sample proportionate to the size of the monthly
benefit. She selected 150 cases in the Baltimore and Denver strata and 200 cases in the
Spokane strata.' Cases that would have entered the sample with certainty were selected
before applying the interval method.
• In the "less than 10 percent" stratum in Baltimore and Denver, there were not enough
FSP participants to yield 60 completed interviews. For these strata, we supplemented
by adding randomly selected zip codes from the same stratum. We added zip codes
21206 and 21220 to 21210, and zip codes 99223 to 99016. Samples were drawn on the
combinations of zip codes.
2. Obtaining Contact Information for Respondents
Maryland and Colorado sent names and addresses of FSP participants to MPR. Washington
State mailed the sample frame to MPR without names and addresses. MPR selected the survey
sample and sent the results back to the state for the consent mailing. Washington sent a letter to
potential sample members, offering them a two-week period in which to decline to participate. Only
2.3 percent of those to whom letters were mailed objected.
3. Screening Criteria
To be eligible to participate in the study, individuals had to be active food stamp participants
and be living in the stratum from which they were selected. To determine eligibility, interviewers
administered a short screener before conducting the interview. Eligibility rates are discussed in
Section E.
'More cases were needed in Spokane because their Human Research Review Board required a
passive consent procedure before releasing names to MPR.
r
37
B. SELECTION AND TRAINING OF FIELD STAFF
1. Hiring
MPR hired and trained 26 interviewers for this project; 11 worked in Baltimore, 9 in Denver,
and 6 in Spokane. To the extent possible, we hired interviewers who lived in the communities in
which they interviewed. All but two interviewers had prior interviewing experience. The number
of interviewers hired per site depended on the hours per week each could work. In Spokane, where
each interviewer could work more hours per week, we hired fewer interviewers. In Baltimore, where
experienced interviewers had other project commitments, we needed more. The goal was to hire
enough interviewers to have at least 120 hours of labor available each week.
2. Training
Interviewer training had three components. The first was a two-hour self-study module to
prepare for the main training session. We expected interviewers to spend two hours reviewing the
questionnaire and related materials a few days prior to the main training session. We required them
to complete written training exercises to prove that they had mastered the materials. (New
inter, iewers had additional time to view MPR's video, "General Interviewer Training," and to
review lessons with their supervisor.) The main training session lasted eight hours. We held
sessions at a local hotel. Trainers explained the background anc purpose of the study, reviewed the
screener, went over the interviewer- and self-administered questionnaires, provided instructions for
asking each question, discussed methods for contacting respondents, and addressed sensitivities
about criminal behaviors associated with interviewing. Interviewers had ample time for role-playing,
practice interviewing, and administrative procedures. After the main session, interviewers
finished their training by completing mock interviews with a supervisor.
38
MPR trained the Baltimore interviewers on December 2. The Baltimore training session served
as "Trainers* Training." Anne Ciemnecki, the survey director, was the lead trainer. Sharron
Christofar, the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative, discussed the importance of the
project to FCS. Linda Mendenko, MPR's field coordinator, covered administrative materials.
Lynne MacKenzie, MPR's field manager, led the role-playing and mock interviewing. Denver and
Spokane main trainings were held on December 9 and 16. Lynne MacKenzie was the lead trainer
for the Denver and Spokane sessions.
C. METHODS FOR COLLECTING THE DATA
1. Timing of the Field Period
Interviewing began immediately after training in Baltimore and Denver. The Spokane sample
was not available until December 29. We completed interviewing by April 6. Following are the
numbers of interviews completed weekly at each site:
Baltimore Denver Spokiine Total
Week Ending Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
December 9 23 9.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 32
December 16 35 14.2 13 5.9 0 0.0 48 6.7
December 23 21 1.5 3 1.4 0 0.0 24 3.3
December 30 22 9.0 7 32 1 0.4 30 42
January 6 22 9.0 12 5.4 19 7.5 53 7.4
January 13 9 3.7 16 7.2 38 15.0 63 8.8
January 20 20 L2 23 10.4 26 10.2 69 9.6
January 27 17 6.9 16 12 22 8.7 55 7.6
February 3 11 4J 23 10.4 19 7.5 53 73
February 10 13 53 18 8.1 32 12.6 63 8.8
February 17 18 7.3 20 9.0 23 9.0 61 8.5
39
Baltimore Denver Spokane Total
Week Ending Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
February 24 9 3.7 14 6.3 22 8.7 45 63
March 2 11 4.5 9 4.0 13 5.1 33 4.6
March 9 0 0.0 10 4.5 5 2.0 15 2.1
March 16 4 1.6 4 1.8 3 \2 11 IJ
March 23 5 2.0 5 22 6 2.4 16 22
March 30 4 1.6 17 7.7 15 5.9 36 5.0
April 6 1 0.4 11 5.0 10 3.9 22 3.0
Total 245 100.0 221 100.0 254 100.0 720 1M.0
To encourage interviewer productivity at the end ofdie project, MPR offered field interviewers
a bonus of$20 for every interview and $5 for every screener completed after March 22. This kept
interviewers' enthusiasm high when sample was sparse. It also kept interviewers motivated to finish
their assignment rather than to move to easier, newer projects.
2. Ensuring Respondent Confidentiality
Because trafficking in food stamps is illegal, MPR took two important steps to ensure
respondents' confidentiality. First was documenting contacts with the respondents. Usually, we
document information about the respondent (case identification number, name, address, telephone
number, and directions to the home) on a contact sheet detailing the interviewer's attempts to reach
the sample member. For this study, we separated the contact information onto two forms, a Record
of Contacts Form and a Contact Notes Form. The Contact Notes Form contained identifying
information used to locate the sample member and schedule the interview. The Contact Notes Form
was left with the respondent at the end of the interview to assure the respondent that his or her name
would not be linked with data. The Record of Contacts Form contained the case-tracking number
40
and a record ofattempts to reach the respondent (that is, number and time ofcalls, interim case status
codes). Interviewers mailed the form to MPR along with the completed interview. They wrote no
names, addresses, or other information that could identify the sample member in any way on the
Record of Contacts Form.
The second step in ensuring confidentiality was to use an audiotaped interview and self-administered
answer sheet to ask about the sample member's direct involvement in food stamp
trafficking. The respondent used audio headphones to listen to 14 questions about personal buying
or selling of food stamps. He or she recorded answers on a self-administered answer sheet and
sealed them in an envelope. The interviewer signed his or her name across the back ofthe envelope
over the seal. An unbroken signature implied that the envelope had not been opened before receipt
at MPR. The audiotaped interview provided all the advantages ofa self-administered, pencil-paper
questionnaire in increasing reports of illegal or socially disapproved behavior. It was intended to
overcome the suspected barrier of poor reading skills in the food stamp population. Ninety-six
percent ofthe survey respondents used the self-administered audiotape and answer sheet. Those who
did not fell into three categories:
1. People with print impairments (visual disorders, innumeracy, and attention disorders)
who could not focus on the answer sheet well enough to fill it out
2. People whose primary language was not English or Spanish who needed an interpreter
for the interview
3. Those who refused
MPR produced a Spanish language version ofthe audiotape.
41
3. Field Management and Reporting Procedures
Field interviewers received most of their assignments at the beginning of the field period.
Distribution of assignments early allowed interviewers to plan their time and travel efficiently.
Adjustments to assignments were made as data collection progressed. Field interviewers reported
progress to their field supervisor weekly by telephone at prearranged times: hours worked, expenses,
and case-by-case progress. During the reporting session, the supervisor provided interviewers with
feedback from MPR's quality review process, handled administrative needs such as supply orders,
and answered nonurgent questions. Interviewers were encouraged to call supervisors immediately
for urgent matters.
The supervisor reported summaries of field progress and expenses to MPR's field coordinator
weekly to provide management with information that guided staffing and sample-release decisions.
4. Problems Faced During the Field Period
Two serious problems arose during data collection. Six weeks after interviewing began, an
interviewer was robbed at gunpoint at the Highlander Ridge Apartment complex in Baltimore.
Highlander Ridge is a gated public housing project. Because of this incident, MPR mandated that
escorts accompany interviewers working in the Highlander Ridge complex. Escorts may be other
interviewers but are often friends or relatives of the interviewers who travel with interviewers.
Escorts added to the cost of the data collection, but no new incidents were reported after we
established the policy.
The second problem was in the Denver stratum with 10 to 20 percent of the households living
below the federal poverty level. Here, a child was killed in a drive-by shooting during the third week
of interviewing. We advised interviewers to stay out of the area for a few weeks until emotions
cooled and interviewers felt more comfortable working there.
42
D. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND DATA PROCESSING PROCEDURES
Interviewers mailed completed work to MPR weekly. As quality control clerks received field
interviewers' packages, they logged completed work into a questionnaire tracking system. Each
completed interview had:
• A Record of Contacts Form
• The interviewer-administered main questionnaire
• The self-administered answer sheet from the audiotaped interview
The clerks entered the date they received each ofthe three components of a completed interview.
Weekly reports listed cases reported by the interviewer as complete but not received at MPR, and
cases where one or more components were missing. MPR used these reports to track missing
documents. Most of the time, when paper was missing, the work was completed but not mailed.
Two interviewers reported work completed that was not, in fact, done; MPR terminated those
interviewers and reassigned their cases to other staff members. Usually, MPR validates field
interviewer work by calling respondents or mailing a thank-you note with a prepaid return postcard
for respondent to acknowledge that the interview was completed. To protect respondent
confidentiality, we were unable to link contact information with interview data for this study.
Therefore, quality control callbacks and the usual means of verification were not possible. Instead,
we verified interview completion by comparing the sample member's birth date (and age) and
monthly benefit amount from the administrative files provided by the states with the data collected
during the interview. The questionnaire tracking file contained these two variables. As the clerk
logged completed work into the tracking file, she compared the age and monthly benefit amounts
43
recorded in the interview with data on the administrative record. (Record data were not available
to the interviewer.) She assigned codes to indicate the closeness ofthe match. For example:
Birth Date:
Codel
Code 2
Code 3
Code 4
Very strong
match
Probable match
Weak match
No match
Exact date
Month and year correct; day may be incorrect; or day and
year correct; month off by one month or two months; or
month and day correct, year offby up to three years
Two out ofthree elements do not match, but not too far
off
None ofthe three elements match
Age:
Codel
Code 2
Code 3
Code 4
Very strong
match
Probable match
Weak match
No match
Exact age
Off by 1 to 2 years
Offby3to4years
Offby 5 or more years
Benefit Amount:
Codel
Code 2
Code 3
Code 4
Very strong
match
Probable match
Weak match
No match
Respondent amount within S percent of amount on file
Respondent amount within 10 percent of amount on file
Respondent amount within 25 percent of amount on file
Difference greater than 25 percent
We produced weekly reports of verification codes by interviewer and looked for patterns of
Codes 3 and 4 in both age/birth date and benefit amount fields. We uncovered no fraudulent
interviews using this procedure.
44
Besides operating the tracking system, quality control staff reviewed each questionnaire prior
to data entry. They determined whether problems, such as strings of missing data or incorrect
recording of responses, would make data entry impossible. The quality control staff followed a set
ofspecifications set up by the survey director to ensure that recorded values were within a reasonable
range, response codes had been assigned correctly, and the questionnaire had internally consistent
responses. Any errors, missing data, or inconsistencies could not be double-checked with the
respondent because of anonymity requirements, but they were reported to the interviewer. This
feedback made the interviewer aware of his or her errors and helped prevent them from recurring.
After the questionnaires were manually edited and open-ended items were coded, they were
batched and sent to data entry clerks who used programmable key-to-disk data-entry equipment.
An editing program to perform checks on value ranges, questionnaire skip logic, and internal
consistency for the full sample was prepared. Errors were flagged automatically during data entry
and corrected by a senior member of the quality control staff. She reviewed the file and located error
codes flagged by the quality control program. The data editor reviewed the questionnaire and
corrected the error. A second operator rekeyed all the data. As the data were reentered, they were
compared automatically with the first data file. Discrepancies were brought to the operator's
attention. Finally, the survey data were transmitted to the research database.
E. RESPONSE RATES AND OTHER FINAL STATUSES
MPR interviewers completed a total of720 interviews. One was lost in the mail. The remaining
719 interviews were processed for analysis. The overall response rate was 76.7 percent.
45
TABLE A I
RECIPIENT FOOD STAMP TRAFFICKING STUDY
RESPONSE AND ELIGIBILITY RATES. BY SITE
All Sites Baltimore Denver Spokane
Number rcfccntamgc Number Pcfcentaft Number IVTCftitty Number FtfccnUnfc
ENgibtWy Smnty
Status
Completed Interviews
Cannot Locate
720
65
76.7
6.9
245
33
78.3
10.5
221
20
75.7
6.8
254
12
76.0
3.6
Rcfusal/Breakofrs 56 6.0 10 3.2 17 SJ 29 8.7
Multiple Unsuccessful
Attempts
Language Barriers
Health Problem
Other
S3
20
19
6
56
2.1
2.0
0.6
21
0
3
6.7
0.0
19
0.3
IS
9
10
0
51
3.1
3.4
0.0
17
II
6
5
5.1
3.3
1.8
1.5
Total Eligible Saapk 939 199.0 313 100J 292 109J 334 100.0
Eligibility Rates
Eligible Sample
Ineligible Sample
939
375
71.5
28.5
313
87 21.8
292
182
61.6
384
334
106
75.9
2-t.l
Total Saaipk Released 1.314 100.9 400 109.0 474 1MJ 440 1M.0
Reason for
laebgiMHty
Moved from Stratum 154 11.7 63 15.8 S3 17.5 68 15.4
No Longer Participating 214
7
16.3
0.5
22
2
5.5
0.5
96
3
20J
06
36
2
U
0.5
Total Ineligible Sample 373 28J •7 21J 182 ■at 196 24.1
NOTE: Due to rounding, percentages may not equal 100
46
1. Eligibility Rates and Reasons for Ineligibility
MPR released 1,314 cases to field interviewers (see Table A.1). Of these, 375 cases, or 28.5
percent, were ineligible to participate in the survey. Cases were deemed ineligible for one of three
reasons. The most common reason was that the sample member had movedfrom the stratum in
which he or she was selected. Moves accounted for 214 cases, or 16.3 percent of the sample. The
next most common reason for ineligibility was that the sample member no longer participated in
the FoodStamp Program; 154 cases, or 11.7 percent ofthe sample, were not participating in the FSP
when contacted for an interview. (Depending upon the site, contact occurred between 2 and 10
months after the survey sample was drawn from lists of FSP participants.) The third reason for a
case being considered ineligible was death. Seven program participants died before we could
interview them.
2. Eligibility by Site and Strata
Although the overall ineligible rate was 28.5 percent, ineligibility across sites was 21.8 percent
in Baltimore, 38.4 percent in Denver, and 24.1 percent in Spokane. The mobility rate was
remarkably stable across the sites (15.8 percent in Baltimore, 17.5 percent in Denver, and 15.5
percent in Spokane). Differences in eligibility were related to the percentage ofprogram participants
still receiving food stamps when interviewed. In Denver, where the frame consisted of all active
cases in July 1995,20.3 percent of the sample were no longer receiving food stamps. In Spokane
and Baltimore, where the sample was drawn from lists of cases active in October 1995, the
percentages of the sample no longer receiving food stamps were 8.2 and 5.5, respectively.
In the Baltimore site, ineligible rates were remarkably similar across three ofthe four strata (see
Table A.2). The ineligibility rate was 19 percent in Stratum 11 (where more than 20 percent of
households were under the federal poverty level), 21 percent in Stratum 12 (where 10 to 20 percent
of households lived under the federal poverty level), and 19 percent in the rural stratum (Kent
47
TABLE A.2
RECIPIENT FOOD STAMP TRAFFICKING STUDY RESPONSE AND ELIGIBILITY RATES.
BY STRATUM
Stratum II
More than 20 Percent
of Poverty
Stratum 12
10 to 20 Percent of
Poverty
Stratum 13
Less than 10 Percent of
Poverty
Stratum 14
Kent County (Rural)
Baltimore
Total
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
':■:■: -." . ■
Eligibility Survey
Statas
Completed Interviews 61 75J 61 77.2 54 75.0 69 85.2 245 78.3
Cannot Locale 10 113 10 12.7 11 15.3 2J 33 10.5
Refusal/Breakoffs 2 2.5 4 5.1 3 42 1-2 10 3.2
Multiple Unsuccessful
Attempts 8 9.9 4 5.1 3 42 7.4 21 6.7
Language Barriers 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Hearth Problem 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3.7 3 1.0
Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 0.0 1 0.3
Total Eligible Sample SI 100.0 n ItM 72 100.0 SI 100.1 313 IM.t
Eligibility Rates
Eligible Sample
Ineligible Sample
81
19
81.0
19.0
79
21
79.0
21.0
72
28
72.0
280
SI
19
81.0
190
313
87
78.2
21.8
Total Saaiple
Released 1M MM 100 MM 100 MM 1M It* m ito.t
Reasons for
• ■eligibility
Moved from Stratum 12
No Longer Participating 5
Deceased 2
12.0 16 16.0 26 26.0 9 9.0 63 15.8
5.0 5 5.0 2 2.0 10 10.0 22 5.5
2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.5
Total Ineligible
Sample 19 19.0 21 21.0 28 28.0 19 I9J V 2IJ
48
TABLE A2 (commutd)
Stranm2l Stratum 22 Stratum 23 Stratum 24
More than 20 Percent 10 to 20 Percent of Less than 10 Percent of Clear Creek Countv Denver
ofPoverty Poverty Poverty (Rural) Total
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Perec nuge
Ptaim
Eligibility Survey
Statuses
Completed Interviews 63
Cannot Locate 9
Refusal/Breakofrs S
Muhipie Unsuccessful
Attempts S
Language Barriers 5
Health Problem 3
Other 0
656
94
8.3
8.3
5.2
3.1
0.0
62 81.6
5 66
6 7.9
2 2.6
0 0.0
1 IJ
0 0.0
55 833
0 00
1 15
5 7.6
3 4.5
2 3.0
0 0.0
41 75.9 221
6 111 20
2 37 17
0 00 15
1 19 9
4 74 10
0 00 0
75.7
68
5.7
5.1
31
34
00
Total Eligible Saatptt IN.0 76 100.0 66 100.0 54 IMA 292
Eligibility Rates
Eligible Sample
Ineligible Sample
96
41
70.1
299
76
49
60.8
39.2
66
52
559
44 1
54
40
574
426
292
182
616
38 4
Total Sample Released 137 100.0 125 100.0 US 180)4 94 100.0 474 ISM
Moved from Stratum
No Longer Participating
Deceased
33
8
0
24.1
58
0.0
25
24
0
20.0
19.2
0.0
13
39
0
11.0
33.1
0.0
12
25
3
12.8
266
3.2
S3
96
3
17.5
203
06
Tctal ladigiMe
Saapie 41 29.9 49 39.2 52 44.1 40 424 IS2 38.4
49
TABLE A 2 (ctmliimtd)
Stratum3l
More than 20 Percent
of Poverty
Stratum 32
10 to 20 Percent of
Poverty
Stratum 33
Less than 10 Percent of
Poverty
Stratum 34
Pend Oreille Counts
(Rural)
Spokane
Total
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Numbe r Percentage Number rtrccnttfc
aMm
Eligibility Sarvty
Statues
Completed Interviews
Cannot Locale
Rcfusal/Breakoffs
Multiple Unsuccessful
Attempts
Language Barriers
Health Problem
Other
61
1
7
2
2
1
0
824
1.4
9.5
2.7
2.7
1.4
0.0
62
3
9
5
4
4
0
71.3
3.4
I0J
5.7
46
46
0.0
58
13
70.7
2.4
159
37
6.1
IJ
0.0
73
6
0
7
0
0
5
80.2
66
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
5.5
254
12
29
17
II
6
5
76.0
3.6
1.7
5 1
3.3
1.8
0.5
Total Eligible Sample 74 IMJ S7 IMJ 82 IMJ 91 IMJ 334 IMJ
Eiigibihty Rales
Eligible Sample
Ineligible Sample
74
29
71.8
28 2
•7
31
73.7
263
12
32
719
28 1
91
14
86.7
133
334
106
76.0
240
Total Sample Released 163 ion.* US IMJ 114 IMJ 1#5 IMJ 4M IMJ
Reasons for
Ueligibilir)
Moved from Stratum
No Longer Participating
Deceased
19
10
0
114
9.7
00
It
12
1
15.3
10 2
08
22
10
0
193
8.8
00
9
4
1
86
3.8
10
68
36
2
15.5 u
0.5
Total Ineligible
Sample 29 28.1 31 26J 32 28.1 14 13.4 IM 24.1
NOTE: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding
50
County). In Stratum 13 (where less than 10 percent of the households lived below the federal
poverty level), 28 percent of the sample were ineligible (26 percent had moved from the stratum
between the time the sample was drawn and the interview was attempted).
At the Denver site, rates of and reasons for ineligibility differed across the strata. The highest
ineligibility rate was 44 percent in Stratum 23 (where fewer than 10 percent ofthe households lived
below the federal poverty level). One-t rd ofthe sample in this stratum was ineligible because they
were no longer receiving food stamps on the interview day. In Denver's rural stratum (Clear Creek
County), 43 percent were ineligible. One-quarter were no longer participating in the FSP when
interviewed. The county food stamp fraud investigator told MPR that Clear Creek was a highly
mobile county; thus, many nonparticipants may have moved. In Stratum 22 (where 10 to 20 percent
of the households lived under the federal poverty level), the ineligibility rate was 39 percent, split
almost evenly between those who left the FSP (19 percent) and those who moved (20 percent). The
ineligibility rate for Stratum 21 (the poorest of the Denver strata) was 30 percent; one-quarter had
moved out of the stratum.
In the Spokane site, Strata 31 and 33 (more than 20 and fewer than 10 percent of households
living under the federal poverty level, respectively), ineligibility accounted for 28 percent of the
sample released. In both strata, the number of movers was almost double the number ofthose who
no longer participated in the FSP. Ineligibility rates were lower, 26 percent, in Stratum 33 (10 to 20
percent living under the federal poverty ' vel) and much lower. 13 percent, in rural Pend Oreille
County. Despite the lower frequency than in other Spokane strata, the ratio of movers to
nonparticipants in Pend Oreille County was the same-cases were screened out because of moving
twice as often as because of nonparticipation.
51
3. Response Rates and Reasons for Nonresponse
Overall, 77 percent of sample members eligible to participate in the survey completed
interviews. There were three important reasons for nonresponse. First the sample member could
not be located (seven percent). Second, the sample member refused to be interviewed (six percent).
For another six percent of the sample, interviewers could not complete the case despite multiple
telephone and in-person contacts. Other reasons for nonresponse were language barriers (two
percent) and respondents' poor health (two percent).
4. Response Rates and Nonresponse by Site and Strata
Response rates were quite even across the three sites. Baltimore's response rate was 78 percent,
whereas Denver's and Spokane's were 76 percent Baltimore had the highest nonlocatable rate (10
percent) and the lowest refusal rate (3 percent). In Spokane, the nonlocatable rate was six percent,
but the refusal rate was nine percent This pattern of refusal rates increasing with the proportion of
sample located may imply that sample members not easily located for this survey were, in reality,
reluctant respondents.
FSP offices in Denver and Spokane helped MPR with locating by checking administrative
records for address updates during the field period. In the Baltimore site, however, only Kent
County updated addresses. In Baltimore County, where intensive trafficking investigations were
under way independently ofthis study, we were concerned that asking for address updates might hurt
sample members by focusing attention on them; therefore, we did not request address updates in
Baltimore County.
In the Baltimore site, the average response rate in the urban strata was 75.8. The response rate
in the rural county was 85.2 percent. Both refusal rates and the percentage of nonlocatable sample
were lower in the rural area.
52
In Denver, where the overall response rate was 75.7 percent, two ofthe urban strata were well
bove average and one was well below. The response rates for Stratum 22 (10 to 20 percent living
under the federal poverty level) and Stratum 23 (less than 10 percent living under the federal poverty
level) were 81.6 and 83.3 percent, respectively. The lowest response rate in the Denver site. 65.6
percent, occurred in the poorest stratum. In that area, all the components of nonresponse were higher
than average. In the rural stratum, the response rate was 75.9 percent A remarkably high proportion
of rural stratum sample members were either nonlocatable (11.1 percent) or unable to complete the
interview because ofhealth problems (7.4 percent).
In Spokane, the response rates were highest in the most urban and rural strata (82.4 and 80.2
percent, respectively) and lower in the strata with 10 to 20 percent and less than 10 percent of the
households living under the federal poverty level (71.3 and 70.7 percent, respectively). In the three
urban strata, refusal rates increased as the percentage of households living under the federal poverty
level decreased. The rural strata had no refusals, however.
a
f1 OUBBBMH
APPENDIX B
FOOD STAMP SURVEY
/
4 LU!
CASE ID: I—I—l—l_!—!_!
INTERVIEWER ID: I I I I I I •
FOOD STAMP STUDY
A. INTROOUCnOl:
Hello, My name Is and I aa from Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc., a research company in Princeton, New Jersey. We are
conducting a research study for the United States Department of
Agriculture. The study is about (food stamps/Independence food stamp
benefits). You nay have recently received a letter about this study. The
purpose of the study 1s to see how and where people use their (food
stamps/Independence food stamp benefits). We will ask questions about you
and your household, shopping for food with food stamps, and other uses of
food stamps.
You have been selected to be part of this very Important study. He would
l?ke you to help us by participating 1n a 45-m1nute In-person interview.
I can conduct the interview in your home or we can meet at any other place
that is convenient for you.
B. INFORMATION]:
What is this study about?
The purpose of the study is to see how and where people use their (food
stamps/Independence food stamp benefits). He will ask questions about you
and your household, shopping for food with food stamps, and other uses of
Who is sponsoring this study? Who is conducting this study?
The United States Department of Agriculture Food and Consumer Service is
sponsoring this study. Hathematica Policy Research, Inc., an independent
research and survey company located in Princeton, New Jersey is conducting
the study for them.
Why Is Hathematica calling me now?
Hathematica would like you to take part in a 45-minute in-person
interview. The interviewer can come to your home or will meet you any
place that is convenient and comfortable for you.
By discussing how and where you use your (food stamps/Independence food
stamp benefits), you will help the researchers better understand how to
improve the Food Stamp Program.
57
How was I selected?
You havt boon randomly selected from (food stamp/Independence food stamp
benef\tj clients In the (Denver/Baltimore/Spokane) area.
■t
Do I ttmmtto participate? What If I decide not to?
AlthoutpB-your participation is vary Important, it is voluntary. Your
participation will not affect any benefits you get now or in the future.
If I do participate, will the information be confidential?
Yes. All information collected will be kept strictly confidential and
used only for research purposes with no names attached. The results of the
study are for research purposes only.
C. ELIGIBILITY SCREEN:
1. Before I tell you more about this study, I need to confirm that
I am speaking to the person I'm supposed to speak to. Are you
SPEAKING WITH CORRECT SAMPLE MEMBER....01
NOT SPEAKING WITH CORRECT SAMPLE MEMBER - BtD. THANK RESTONOOrr
2. Did ydfi receive food stamps during the month of THIS».MOMW?
IYES 01 - GQ mjt%4
NO 00
3. Did you receive food stamps during the month of LAST MONTH?
YES 01
NO 00 - I'm sony. This aunray to aaJy
for paopto «me raeaivad food
thto month w toot.
Thai* you for your Unto.
58
4. Oo you live in the READ ZIP CODE OR COUNTY FROM CONTACT SHEET (zip
code/county)?
YES 01 -
NO - I'M SORRY. Wo aro wiry interviewing
poopia who two in «M READ (ELKBSLE
CODE/COUNTY) FROM CONTACT SHEET.
Thank you for your ttano.
RECORD SR CODE
ORCOUNTY: !_!_:_i_;_;
OR
KENT 01
CLEAR CREEK 02
RENO d'ORERlE 03
5. IS THIS A TELEPHONE OR IN-PERSON CONTACT?
TELEPHONE - SCHEDULE TINE TO CONDUCT IN-PERSON INTERVIEW
IN-PERSON - GO TO SECTION D
D. AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE:
MARYLAND AND COLORADO:
Before we begin, I would like to tell you how this interview will work.
For the next 45 minutes, I will be is ing questions about you and how you
use your (food stamps/Independence food stamp benefits). The information
you share will be used to improve the Food Stamp Program. All the answers
you give me will be kept completely confidential and will never be
associated with your name. That means no one at the Food Stamp Office or
any other program or agency will know the way you answered these
questions.
Some questions will be private. When it is time to answer the private
questions, I will give you a tape in a Walkman and an answer sheet to fill
out by yourself. No one, not ever. I, will know how you answered the
private questions. When we are all finished, I will ask you to seal your
questionnaire in an envelope. Then, I will leave this sheet [INTERVIEWER:
SHOW CONTACT NOTE FORM] with your name and address with you so that you
know hat your name and answers are separate.
WASHINGTON:
HAND STUDY DESCRIPTION TO SAMPLE MEMBER. ASK SAMPLE MEMBER TO FOLLOW
ALONG AS YOU READ ALOUD.
We are asking you to be in a study that Mathematica Policy Research, an
independent research company, is doing for the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The USDA is the agency that runs the Food Stamp
Program. The study is about how people use food stamps, as well as how
they misuse them, for example, by selling them. The USDA will use the
study findings to improve the Food Stamp Program.
59
If you agree to be in the study, we will ask questions a bout you and your
household, and about how you use you food stamps. Some of the questions
are about illegal uses of food staops. You do not have to answer personal
questions. The interview will take about 45 minutes to complete, and can
be done in your own home or someplace else that you choose.
All of your answers will be completely confidential and will never be
linked with your name. That means no one at the Food Stamp Office or at
any other program or agency will know the way you answered the questions.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You can decide
not to be interviewed, or you can stop the interview at any time, without
any penalty or loss of any benefits you receive now or in the future.
Please understand the following:
• Nothing you say in the interview can or will be used against you by the
State of Washington, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or any other
legal authority. The only exception is that if you give us information
about the abuse or neglect of a child, the interviewer must report this
to the Department of Social and Health Services.
• We will not connect your name, address, or telephone number with
your answers. The interviewer will not keep a record of your name,
address, or telephone number.
• The interviewer has signed a confidentiality pledge that prevents
her from linking your answers with you as an individual. There will
be a report of all the interviews conducted for this study (about
720), but it will be a summary with no names mentioned.
Some que
is time
tape in
not even
question
envelope
name and
separate
stions about your own use of food stamps will be private. When it
to answer the private questions, the interviewer will give you a
a Walkman and an answer sheet to fill out by yourself. No one,
the interviewer, will know how you answered the private
s. When you finish, you should seal your answer sheet in an
Then, the interviewer will leave the Contact Sheet with your
address with you so that you know that your name and answers are
You may also keep a copy of this Study Description.
We hope you will agree to be interviewed. If you have any questions about
the study, now or in the future, you may call the researchers listed on
this form at 1-800-777-0085.
Hay we begin the interview now?
YES
NO.
.01
,00 - RESCHEDULE
60
DATE: | | | - ! | |
TBifli "Bay
START TINE; | | |:| | | AM 01
PM....02
Al. I'd like to begin this interview by finding out about you and your
household. First, when is your birthday? When were you born?
"WJNTTT -HAT- -9 '^H
A2. Are you now .
Married, 01
Living with someone as married, 02
Widowed 03
Divorced, 04
Separated, 05
Or have you never been married? 06
A3. Which of the following best describes where you live now . . .
A pi ace you own, 01
A place you rent, 02
A place where you live rent free, 03
You are homeless, 04—]
You live in a shelter, group home, U SKIP TO A13, PAGE 7
or treatment facility, or 05J
You live in some other
type of place? (SPECIFY) 06
61
A4. Counting yourrelf, how many ptoplt live In your housthold.
INTERVIEWER: COUNT PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE HOUSEHOLD ON A REGULAR
BASIS FOR SIX NORTHS OF THE YEAR OF NORE.
LIVE ALONE 01 - SKIP TO AlO
| | | TOTAL PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD
A5. How many of these people are children under the age of 16?
I | | CHILDREN UNDER 16
INTERVIEWER: AS SOON AS YOU BELIEVE ALL HOUSEHOLD NOSERS ARE
ACCOUNTED FOR, YOU NAY CONFIRM A6 AND/OR A7 WITH
RESPONDENT.
A6. How many of the people in your household are people age 16 and older
who are related to you?
INTERVIEWER: DO NOT COUNT RESPONDENT.
I I | RELATED PEOPLE AGE 16 AND OLDER
A7. How many of the people in your household are people age 16 and older
who are net related to you?
I | | UNRELATED PEOPLE AGE 16 AND OLDER
A8. INTERVIEWER CHECK: DOES A5 ♦ A6 ♦ A7 * 1 • A4?
YES 01
NO - FIX A4- - A7
A9. Including yourself, how many of the FILL A4 people in your household
are covered by your (food stamps/Independence food stamp benefits)?
I | | COVERED BY FOOD STAHP BENEFIT
62
A10. Dots the place where you live have a working refrigerator or freezer
(that you are allowed to use)?
V" 01
W 00 - SKIP TO A12
All. Is the refrigerator or freezer large enough to meet your needs?
YK 01
• 00
A12. Does the place where you live have a working stove, toaster oven, or
microwave oven (that you are allowed to use)?
«■ 01
m 00
A13. On what date did you receive your most recent (food stamps/
Independence Food Stamp benefit)?
PROBE: When was your most recent food benefit credited to your
Independence Card?
'^Tr1"1^1--19 hdk-1
AM. How much did you receive in (food stamps/Independence Food Stamp
benefit) on FILL DATE FROM A13. ^
A15' fuftStt SSi J?]1!" 0f lour !Ind PILL DATE FROM A13 do you have left?«P«nd«"«) food stamp benefits from
PROBE: That is, what is the value of your food stamp benefits that
you have not yet spent?
A16. During the past year, for how many months did you receive (food
stamps/Independence Food Stamp benefits)?
I | | MONTHS OUT OF 12
63
A17. Who takes responsibility for your food stamp benefits each month?
That is, who keeps the (food steeps/Independence card) and decides
how and where the (food stamps/benefits) will be spent?
CIRCLE/CODE ALL THAT APPLY
SAMPLE MEMBER 01
SPOUSE/PARTNER 02
CHIL0/STEPCHILD/6RAM0CHIL0 03
PARENT OR STEPPARENT 04
BROTHER OR SISTER 05
GRANDPARENT 06
OTHER RELATIVE 07 -
NONRELATIVE 08 J
ADMINISTRATOR AT A SHELTER, GROUP
HOME, OR TREATMENT FACILITY 09
A18. INTERVIEWER: IS ONLY THE SAMPLE NOSER COOED IN A17?
YES, SAMPLE MEMBER ONLY 01 - SKIP TO A20
NO, SAMPLE MEMBER ANO/OR OTHERS 00
SAMPLE MEMBER NOT COOED AT ALL -4 - SKIP TO A20
A19. Do you and your FILL RELATIONSHIP(S) FROM A17 agree about how and
where to use the (food stamps/Independence food benefits) . . .
All of the time 01
Most of the time 02
Some of the time, or 03
Hardly ever? 04
64
A20. Within how »any days after you rtctlvt your (food stains/Independence
food stamp benefits) do you begin to spend them?
SAME DAY 01
WITHIN | | | DAYS Oft
BETWEEN I I I AND I I I DAYS
A21. Do you usually spend the entire amount in one or two days or do you
save some for later in the month?
SPEND ALL WITHIN ONE OR TWO DAYS 01 - «or TO SECTION •
OW MM 10.
SAVE SOME FOR LATER IN THE MONTH 02
VARIES/DEPENDS 03
A22. About how much do you usually save for later in the month?
PROBE: On average, what is the value of the (food stamps/Independence
food stamp benefits) that you save for later in the month?
A23. Typically, how long do your (food stamps/Independence food stamp
benefits) last each month?
IF RESPONDENT SAYS BETWEEN X AND Y, CODE Y.
ONE WEEK 01
TWO WEEKS 02
THREE WEEKS 03
ENTIRE MONTH 04
65
Bl. The next questions are about your income and expenses. Let's begin
with housing. What was your monthly (rent/mortgage payment) last
month?
B2. My next questions are about how often your household shopped for food
in the last 7 days at supermarkets, neighborhood grocers, convenience
stores, and specialty stores. I would like you to include all trips-trips
to pick up a few items, as well as major shopping trips by all
household members.
SHOW CARD A
How often in the last 7 days, did your household go to:
B3.
B3a.
B4.
a. Supermarkets?
b. Neighborhood stores?
c. Convenience stores such as 7-11 or stores that sell gas anc
groceries?
d. Specialty stores such as bakeries, vegetable stands, farme s
markets, dairy stores, meat markets, health food stores, c- othc
similar places.
ASK B2a-d BEFORE GOING TO B3. 00 NOT ASK B3-B4 FOR ANY TYPES •
STORES WHERE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS EQUALS ZERO.
During the last 7 days, about how much did your household spenc t
(TYPE OF STORE)? Include all purchases you made, whether you pe z f:
them by check, cash, or (food stamps/your Independence card). K ,'NC
TO NEAREST DOLLAR.
Does the AMOUNT FROM B3 include the dollar value of food purchasec
with (food stamps/your Independence card)?
About how much of this AMOUNT FROM B3 was for non-food items such as
cleaning or paper products, commercially prepared pet food, or tobacco
products? INTERVIEWER NOTE: ALCOHOL IS A FOOD ITEM.
Suoenaarkets
b. Metghoornood norn
e. Convenient* storw
a. Specialty stern
of Tripe
LAST 7MTJ
!_U
is
Tetet
LAST 7MTS
» U_l_l
« l_l_LJ
« U_I_J
* l-l-t l
IfKtl
TIS....01
■0 00 -
Tft 01
m oo -
m—oi
■0 00 -
rts 01
»0 00 -
u
•J
u
11
• l-J_
_LJ
l_l
66
B5. Would you say that the amount your household spent on food in the last
7 days was more, less, or about the same as usual?
MORE 01
LESS 02
ABOUT THE SAME AS USUAL 03
B6. During the last 7 days, what was the dollar value of purchases made
(with food stamps/with your Independence food benefits) by your
household? Consider all (food stamp purchases/Independence food
benefit purchases) by your household, even for just a few items.
B7. Now I'd like to ask about month!v expenditures. First, I am going to
ask about the amount your household spent on food in LAST MONTH.
During LAST MONTH, how much did your household spend in total at
supermarkets, neighborhood grocery stores and convenience stores?
Include all purchases you made, whether you paid for them by cash,
check, or (food stamps/Independence card). Do not include any
expenses for meals eaten away from home or for home-delivered or
carry-out meals.
B7a. About how much of this AMOUNT FROM B7 was for non-food items such as
cleaning and paper products, commercially prepared pet food, or
tobacco products?
B8. During LAST MONTH, how much did your household spend on food at
specialty stores such as bakeries, delicatessens, vegetable stands,
farmers* markets, dairy stores, meat markets, health food stores, and
other similar places?
$11.1111
67
B9. During LAST MONTH, did anyone in your household buy and cat at home
ready-to-eat meals like Chinese food, pizza or "fast food" from
delivery services, carry out places or pick-up windows?
YES.
NO..
.01
.00 - SKIP TO 112
BIO. How much did these cost? Include food, beverages, any delivery
charges, tax and tips.
PROBE FOR ALL INSTANCES OF TAKE OUT « HOME DELIVERED FOOO IN THE PAST
MONTH.
Bll,
B12
B13
Would you say that the amount your household spent on take out and
delivered foods in LAST MONTH was more, less, or about the same as
usual?
MORE 01
LESS 02
ABOUT THE SAME AS USUAL 03
Are you currently working at a job for pay? Include any self-employment.
YES 01
NO 00 - SKIP TO R15
How many hours do you usually work per week (at all jobs)?
| | | HOURS PER WEEK
B14. How much do you earn (at all jobs), before taxes and other deductions?
RECORD HOURLY MARE UNLESS RESPONDENT CAN ONLY PROVIDE SALARY FOR A
DIFFERENT PAY PERIOD. IF HOURLY WAGE IS NOT RECORDED, RECORD BOTH
SALARY AJD PAY PERIOO.
PER HOUR
OR
PER MEEK 01
DAY 02
EVERY TWO WEEKS....03
TWICE A MONTH 04
MONTHLY 05
YEARLY 06
B15. INTERVIEWER: REFER TO A4 ON PACE 6. DOES SAMPLE MEMBER LIVE ALONE?
YES.
NO..
HOMELESS OR IN GROUP HOME.
.01 - SKIP TO BIB
.00
-4 - SKIP TO BIB
B16. Is anyone else in your household currently working at a job for pay?
YES 01
NO 00 - SKIP TO BIB
B17. How much (do they/does (he/she)) earn? Please tell me (the combined)
wages earned before taxes and deductions by all of the others in your
household.
PER HOUR
OR
BVLAM on SHOW CALCULATIONS
PER WEEK 01
OAY 02
EVERY TWO WEEKS....03
TWICE A MONTH 04
MONTHLY 05
YEARLY 06
69
818. During last Month, did you receive AFDC, that is Aid to Families With
Deptndtnt Childrtn/FILL LOCAL NAMES FOR DENVER/SPOKANE/BALTIMORE.
YES 01
NO 00 - SKIP TO B20
B19. How much did you receive from AFDC/LOCAL NAME last month?
B20. How much other income did people in your household (including
yourself) receive last month. Tell me about income from all other
sources such as General Assistance, Unemployment, Social Security,
SSI, retirement benefits or any other income you have. Oo not include
the amount of the food stamp benefit.
PROBE: Please tell me your other income before taxes and other
deductions.
NO OTHER INCOME 00
B21. Generally, over the past six months, did your income change from month
to month?
YES 01
NO 00 - SKIP TO B22
70
B21a. What caused your income to change?
EARNINGS FLUCTUATED 01
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FLUCTUATED...02
GIFTS 03
OTHER (SPECIFY) 04
B21b. Was your Income last month more, less, or about the sane as usual?
MORE ,...01
MS 02
ABOUT THE SAME 00
B22. Now I am going to ask about various events and conditions that happen
to people. I'm interested in those that happened to you during the
last 12 months, that is since NEXT MONTH, 1995. As I ask about the
specific events, please think carefully so I can record things
accurately. First, think about financial matters. Did any of the
following happen to you since NEXT MONTH, 1995?
a. Car, household appliance, or fumrture inniiiiiid 01 00
b. Pawned or sold off valuables to make ends meet 01 00
c Pressured to pay bills by stores, creditors, or Ml collectors 01 00
d. Maior worsening of your financial condroon Q1 00
Now I am going to ask about specific hardships. Did any of the
following happen to you since NEXT MONTH, 1995.
e. Fell behind in paying your rent or mortgage 01 00
f. Evicted from your aoartment/house 01 00
a- Had your utilities (water, heat, or electncrrvl shut off 01 00
h. Unable to purchase needed food 01 00
• Unable to afford needed medical care oi 00
j. Had to temporarily live with others or m a shelter
or on the street* g^ QQ
71
B23. These next questions are about the foods eaten 1n your household.
Which of the following statements best describes the amount of food
eaten in your household—enough food to eat, sometimes not enough to
eat, or often not enough to eat?
ENOUGH FOOO TO EAT 01
SOMETIMES NOT ENOUGH TO EAT... 02—i
OFTEN NOT ENOUGH TO EAT 03_T SKIP T0 B25
B24. Do you have enough of the kinds of food you want to eat, or do you
have enough but no*, always the kinds of food you want to eat?
ENOUGH OF THE KINDS YOU WANT 01
ENOUGH BUT NOT ALWAYS THE
KINDS YOU WANT 02
B25. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should
because there wasn't enough money to buy food?
YES 01
NO 00-,
DOr T KNOW -ij-* *■ T° B28
B26. Did this happen in the last 30 days?
YES 01
NO 00-,
DON'T KNOW .lJ-* SMP T0 BM
B27. In the last 30 days, how many days did you eat less than you felt you
should because there wasn't enough money to buy food?
I I I NUMBER OF DAYS
72
B28. People do different things when they ere running out of money for food
In order to nuke their food money go further.
In the last 30 days, did you or anyone 1n your household . . .
a. get food or borrow money for food from
friends or relatives?
b. put off paying a bill so you would have
money to buy food?
c. get emergency food from a church, food
pantry, or food bank?
d. eat meals at a soup kitchen?
IK NO
01 00
01 00
01 00
01 00
73
raa
Cl. These next questions are about your beliefs. Please tell me if you
strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the
following statements.
SHOW CARD B
a. I worry that I won't be abta to do
the kind of work that I want to do
because I don't have enough
education
b. I have had as much opportunity to
succeed cs people from other
neighborhoods
c. If a parson works hard, s/hs
get ahead
STRONGLY
d. As I get older, things will get
better
e. rt is okay to lie ;f it keeps your
friends out of trouble
f. It is okay to break the law if it
helps put food on your family's
table
g. I like to take chances
h. I get upset when I have to wart
for something
i. I act without stooping to think
I l get bored easily
01
01
01
01
01
UNDEODEP DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
04
05
05
05
05
05
01 02 03 04 OS
01 02 03 04 05
01 02 03 04 05
01 02 03 04 05
01 02 03 04 05
74
C2. Now I'd like to get your opinions about a variety of issues. In the
next set of questions I will read a statement and ask you to tell me
if you strongly agree with the statement, agree with the statement,
disagree with the statement, or strongly disagree with the statement.
SHOW CARD B
a. Public assistance workers (or AFOC
workers) try to give everybody an
even break
b. it is sometimes all right to get around
the r -lies if vou can get away with it.
c. To get ahead, you sometimes have to
do something which may be aoainst
the law
d. Most successful people probably
used illegal means to become
successful
e. People who leave things lying around
outside their house should expect
that some of their things might be
taken or stolen
f. It's okav to steal from someon who
is rich and can easily replace it
B. It's okay to steal from the
government since tne government
has so much money that it won't
hurt them
miONQLY
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
05
05
05
05
03 04 05
03 04 05
03 04 05
C3. Now I'd like to ask you how important some things are
tell me if they are very important, pretty important,
important, not too important, or not important at all,
is it . . .
to you. Please
somewhat
How important
SHOW CARD C
a. ... for you to have a lot
VERY
IMPORTANT
RRETTV
rMRORTANT
SOMEWHAT
NWOftTANT
NOT TOO
MPORTAMT
NOT
BMPORTAMT
AT AU
m n? oa na. n«
b. ... for you to have a good
reputation in the community?
c. ... to plan ahead?
01
01
02
02
03
03
04
04
05
05
75
C4. Please tell me how much you agree with the following statements
Would you sty definitely ys, probably yes, probably no, or
definitely no.
a. If you lit to your public
assistance (or AFDC) worker, you
w« wind up IOW>Q your benefits
b. If you Ml to your public
assistance (or AFDC) worker, you
will wind up being charged by the
police
c. If you lie to your public
assistance (« AFDC) worker, you
win wind uji being tern to court
SHOW CARD D
vis
01
01
01
02
02
02
UNDeCDCD
MMMAMLV
NO
M—W
NO
03 04 05
03 04 05
03 04 05
C5. Now imagine that you get caught selling food stamps. How big a
problem would that cause for you? Would it cause 1 . . .
SHOW CARD E
Very big problem, 01
Big problem, 02
Small problem 03
Very small problem, or 04
No problem at all? 05
C6. Now tell me how much of a problem would it be to have *he following
incidents occur in your life.
... If your friends find out that you had done something that was
against the law? Would it be a . . .
SHOW CARD E
Very big problem 01
Big problem 02
Smal 1 probl em 03
Very small problem, or 04
No pro1-1 em at all? 05
76
C7. ... If your relatives find out that you had done something that was
against the law? Would it be a. . .
SHOW CARD E
Very big problem, 01
Big problem 02
Smal 1 problem, 03
Very small problem, or 04
No problem at all? 05
NOT APPLICABLE (NO RELATIVES OR
NO CONTACT WITH RELATIVES) -4
C8. ... If your children find out that you had done something that was
against the law? Would it be a. . .
SHOW CARD E
Very big problem 01
Big problem, 02
Smal 1 probl em 03
Very small problem, or 04
No problem at all? 05
NOT APPLICABLE (NO CHILDREN) -4
77
01. My next questions ire about getting together with friends end
relatives. Please think about the past year. In a typical week
during the past year, how often did you talk on the telephone with
friends or relatives? Did you talk on the telephone . . .
IF NO REGULAR ACCESS TO A PHONE,
CODE LESS THAN THAT.
Every day, 07
Five or six times a week, 05
Three or four times a week, 03
Once or twice a week, or , 01
Less than that? 00
D2. In a typical week during the past year, how often did you get together
in person with friends, neighbors, or relatives? By get together I
mean going out together or visiting in each other's homes? Did you
get together ...
iv%ry day 07
Five or six times a week, 05
Three or four times a week, 03
Once or twice a week, or 01
Less than that? 00
D3. How often do you attend church or religious services? Do you go
Once a week or more, 01
At least once a month, 02
Once every two or three months 03
Three or four times a year 04
Once or twice a year, or 05
Less than that? 00
D4. Do you belong to any clubs or organizations such as church groups,
unions, tenant associations, athletic grojps or school groups?
^S 01
m 00 - SKIP TO 06
78
05. How often do you attend the meetings of the clubs or organizations to
whi-h you belong? Do you attend meetings. . .
Once a week or more, 01
At least once a month, 02
Once tvry two or three months, 03
Three or four times a year, 04
Once or twice a year, or 05
Less than that? 00
06. How long have you lived in this (city/town)?
RECORD TO NEAREST YEAR. IF LESS THAU CUE YEAR, RECORD MONTHS.
I I I YEARS OR | | | MONTHS
D7. How long have you lived at your current address?
RECORD TO NEAREST YEAR. IF LESS THAN ONE YEAR, RECORD MONTHS.
|_|_| YEARS OR |_|_| MONTHS
Please think about the (city/town) where you have lived the longest.
D8. How long did you live there?
RECORD TO NEAREST YEAR. IF LESS THAN ONE YEAR, RECORD MONTHS.
I l__l YEARS OR | I I MONTHS
D9. In the past year, has soreone used a weapon, force, or strong arm
methods to get money, food stamps or something else from you?
YES. .01
m 00 - SKIP TO 012
010. How many times in the past year did this happen?
I I | TIMES IN PAST YEAR
79
Oil. In the most recent event, what was the person trying to get from you?
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY
MONEY 01
DRUGS 02
FOOD STAMPS/OTHER BENEFITS 03
S" 04
OTHER (SPECIFY) 05
012 (In addition to that,) in the past year, have you had your pocket
picked or your purse or wallet sn