Trends in FSP participation rates focus on August 1995

              pecosOTi 007^-A-oi ft^XTH^e,
MATHEMATICA
Policy Research, Inc.
i ?*- 0/073-7
(L,
[No.:
MPR Reference No.:
53-3198-6-017
8370-019
TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES:
FOCUS ON AUGUST 1996
October 17,1997
Authors:
Scott Cody
Carole Trippe
Submitted to:
U.S. Department ofAgriculture
Food arid Consumer Services
3101 Park Center Drive
2* Floor
Alexandria, VA 22302
Submitted by:
Mathematics Policy Research, Inc.
600 Maryland Ave„ SW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20024-2512
(202)484-9220
.Project Director:
Carole Trippe
Thai wo* was prepared as one task ofs9m9$m*bmm*i90*m;1mmimmm***
l k S2.l99.8I9.
OTi n-, n. r.
ir mmmm
MM.
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi
TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES: FOCUS ON AUGUST 1995 1
A. TRENDS IN AGGREGATE RATES 3
1. Rates for Individuals Fell, Spurred by a Decrease in Participants 4
2. Household Rate Showed Little Change Between 1994 and 1995 5
3. Benefit Rate Showed Little Change Between 1994 and 1995 5
B. REASONS FOR THE DECLINE IN AGGREGATE RATES 9
C. TRENDS IN RATES FOR SUBGROUPS OF THE ELIGIBLE
POPULATION 13
1. Demographic Subgroups 13
2. Economic Subgroups 16
D. METHODOLOGY 30
1. Changes to Methodology from the Original August 1994
Estimates to the Revised August 1995 Estimates 31
2. Determining FSP EHgibles 34
3. Determining the Number of FSP Participants 37
4. Calculating FSP Participation Rates 38
REFERENCES 43
iii
■I
^IM^aHMH»il^M^MMHHH_iMHni
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDIX A: SELECTED FEATURES OF THE CPS-BASED TRENDS FILE
APPENDDC B: SELECTED FEATURES OF THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
UNDER PAST AND CURRENT LEGISLATION
APPENDDC C: UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE IQCS CASE RECORDS
AND UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE CPS
APPENDDC D: NUMBERS OF FSP PARTICIPANTS AND ELIGIBLES USED TO
CALCULATE PARTICIPATION RATES IN 1990 THROUGH 1995
I
iv
TABLES
Table Page
1 MONTHLY NUMBER OF ELIGIBLES, PARTICIPANTS,
AND PARTICIPATION RATES FOR INDIVIDUALS,
HOUSEHOLDS, AND BENEFITS 6
2 CHANGE IN INDIVIDUAL FSP PARTICIPATION RATES 7
3 MAJOR ECONOMIC INDICATORS, CALENDAR YEARS
1986-1995 11
4 HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD
SIZE 20
5 INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 21
6 INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 22
7 SIPP-BASED FSP PARTICIPATION RATES 39
8 IMPACT OF METHODOLOGY CHANGES ON CPS-BASED
ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBLES RELATIVE TO SIPP-BASED
ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBLES 40
M
TRENDS IN FOOD STAMP PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATES:
FOCUS ON AUGUST 1995
Enclosed is a copy of Trends in FoodStamp Program Participation Rates: Focus on
August 1995. This report presents the latest changes in the trends in Food Stamp
Program participation rates, focusing on changes from 1994 to 1995. It shows that FSP
participation rates fell slightly between 1994 aid 1995. Participation rates fell uV most
for two-parent households and for households with incomes slightly above the poverty
level. Rates increased for single-parent households and for elderly persons living
alone.
Ifyou have questions about the content ofthis report or need additional copies, please
contact the following:
Office ofAnalysis and Evaluation
Food and Consumer Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, Virginia 22302
Phone (703) 305-2133
ENCLOSURE
A
FIGURES
Figure Page
TRENDS IN MONTHLY FSP PARTICIPATION
RATES 8
TRENDS IN THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLES AND
PARTICIPANTS 12
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES, POVERTY
RATES, AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 23
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY
HOUSEHOLDSIZE 24
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY
AGE GROUP 25
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY
RACE/ETHNICITY OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 25
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 27
8 TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION
RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLD 28
9 TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION
RATES BY HOUSEHOLD BENEFIT LEVEL
AS A PERCENT OF MAXIMUM BENEFIT 29
10 TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION
RATES BY DATA SOURCE 40
. '0
vii
„__a mt ____
I
//// UIK
PREFACE
The Food Stamp Program has undergone major changes since August 1995 due to the passage of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). This
legislation, enacted August 22, 1996, makes the following significant modifications to the FSP:
* Most legal permanent resident aliens are disqualified from the FSP
* Most able-bodied, non-working, childless adults are limited to three months of FSP
benefits in any 36-month period
* The maximum food stamp benefit is reduced from 103 percent to 100 percent of the
Thrifty Food Plan
* The standard deduction is frozen at fiscal 1996 levels indefinitely
* New shelter deduction caps are established for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, with the
cap frozen at fiscal year 2001 levels in subsequent years
Because these changes were not in effect in fiscal year 1995, they are not reflected in this report.
Specifically, FSP participation counts include individuals who were participants in August of 1995
but would be disqualified under PRWORA, and discussions of program eligibility and benefit
computation rules refer to the status of these rules in fiscal year 1995. Future reports in this series
will incorporate descriptions ofPRWORA rules as they are implemented.
IX
_.
mmmm
_
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the latest trends in Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation rates. It adds
one more year of information, 1995, to the series of reports on FSP participation rates based on
March Current Population Survey (CPS) data for eligibles and FSP administrative data for
participants. Participation rates are calculated as the percentage of the total eligible population that
participate in the FSP. Although the report focuses on changes in rates from 1988 to 1995, it also
examines longer-term trends beginning with 1976. Trends in aggregate rates and trends for
subgroups of the eligible population are summarized in the text that follows and described fully in the
body of this report.
HIGHLIGHTS OF CHANGES IN RATES SINCE 1994
FSP participation rates fell slightly between 1994 and 1995. Participation rates for individuals
fell by 1.2 percentage points; for households, by 0.3 percentage points; and for benefits, by 0.4
percentage points. However, there were some noteworthy changes in rates, especially for certain
subgroups of the population. Below, we highlight some of the key changes:
* Participation rates for individuals declined slightly. The participation rates for
individuals fell about 1 percentage point between 1994 and 1995. The number of
participating individuals fell by 4 percentage points while the number of eligible
individuals fell by 2 percentage points. Most likely, the small drop in individual
participation rates between 1994 and 1995 is a continuation of a flattening trend in
participation rates.
* Ratesfellfor households with income above the poverty line. The participation rate
for households above poverty fell by more than 5 percentage points between 1994 and
1995. The rate for households in poverty increased slightly (by 0.5 percentage points).
The participation rate for households with earnings fell by 6 percentage points.
* Ratesfellfor two-parent households, but surgedfor single-parent households. The
participation rate for persons in households with multiple adults and children dropped
by almost 11 percentage points. At the same time, the participation rate for persons in
single-parent households increased by almost 7 percentage points between 1994 and
1995.
* Ratesfor elderly living alone increased substantially. Although the participation rates
for all elderly fell (by 2 percentage points) between 1994 and 1995, the rates for elderly
persons living alone jumped by almost 10 percentage points.
XI
GENERAL TRENDS
FSP participation rates rose steadily between 1988 and 1994, but by increasingly smaller
amounts each year. Rates for eligible persons increased by 6 points from 1988 to 1990, by 3 points
from 1990 to 1991, by 2 points from 1991 to 1992, and by 1 point from both 1992 to 1993 and 1993
to 1994. Rates fell by 1 percentage point from 1994 to 1995. The rise in rates since 1988 came after
a slight decline in rates in the early 1980s and no change between 1986 and 1988. A previous surge
in rates occurred in the late 1970s, when they went up by more than 16 points between 1978 and
1980 with the elimination ofthe purchase requirement.
The substantial rise in participation rates between 1988 and 1993 was the result of a surge in
FSP participants relative to only a modest rise in eligibles. The number ofparticipants rose by 48
percent compared with only 22 percent for eligibles. About half of the rise in participants between
1988 and 1993 was a result of a higher participation rate among eligibles. The small decrease in
rates between 1994 and 1995 was due to a drop in the number ofparticipants that was slightly larger
than the drop in the number of eligibles.
TRENDS IN FSP MONTHLY PARTICIPATION RATES,
1976-1995
100%
Participation Rata
Indtvkknto
o% J L
^ / • # # f K* K# f s# <rV s4*
• <* t#i* ^ S / S i* f + + S
Sourer Food Stamp
• Thara « a break in tha bma
Oparaiona data. March CPS data lor tha yaara ahown
aartaa in August 1984 dua to ravWona In tha mattwdotooy tor
Xll
TRENDS FOR SUBGROUPS
Trends in participation rates for subgroups tend to follow overall trends. Most rates for
subgroups have experienced an overall increase from 1988 to 1995. However, rates for some
subgroups have increased substantially more or less than rates for other subgroups.
* Ratesfor small households grewfaster than rates for large households. Between
1988 and 1995, participation rates for small households have risen faster than the rates
for large households. Rates for small (one- and two-person) households have risen
steadily since 1988. Rates for large (five or more people) households exhibited minimal
growth from 1998 to 1994, and fell from 1994 to 1995.
* Rates for individuals in poor households increased faster than for others.
Participation rates for persons in households with a gross income below the poverty
level (in poverty) have risen steadily since 1988. These rates exhibited strong growth
from 1988 through 1992, and somewhat slower growth from 1993 through 1995.
Participation rates for persons in households with income below the poverty level have
been consistently and significantly higher than participation rates for persons in
households with income above the poverty level.
* Ratesfor those eligiblefor the highest benefits have risen the most Rates for those
eligible for the highest benefits have risen steadily since 1988, while rates for those
eligible for the lowest benefits have remained relatively low. This is not surprising since
rates for the poorest households have increased more than rates for others, and the
poorest are eligible for the highest benefits.
* Ratesfor individuals in households with Aid to Families with Dependent Children
continue to rise. The participation rate for individuals in households with Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) have risen faster than the rates for
individuals in households with earnings. With the exception of a decline between 1990
and 1991, rates for individuals in AFDC households have exhibited strong growth since
1988
CPS- VS. SIPP-BASED ESTIMATES
This report presents trends in participation rates based on CPS data for the number of eligibles
and FSP administrative data for the number of participants. Although these data sources provide a
good measure of the change in rates over time, prior to 1994 the rates were biased downward
because of limitations in the CPS data.
FSP participation rates based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP) provide a more accurate measure of participation rates at a particular point in time because
SIPP data contain more of the information needed to estimate food stamp eligibility. However,
because SIPP data do not exist prior to 1984, CPS data are used to examine participation rates over
a longer period oftime. While the levels of CPS- and SIPP-based participation rates have differed,
xiii
trends in CPS-based participation rates have been consistent with trends in SIPP-based participation
rates.
The unproved methodology used to derive the 1995 participation rates produces CPS-based
rates that are more in line with the SIPP-based rates. The most recent SIPP-based rates show that
in January 1994,71 percent ofall eligible persons participated in the FSP (Stavrianos 1997). This
is very close to the revised CPS-based rate for August 1994, which is 72 percent
ii
lb
TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION RATES:
FOCUS ON AUGUST 1995
This report presents the latest trends in Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation rates. It adds
one more year of information (1995) to the series of reports on FSP participation rates based on
March Current Population Survey (CPS) data for eligibles and FSP administrative data for
participants.1 Although the report focuses on changes in rates from 1988 to 1995, it also examines
longer-term trends beginning with 1976.
Several changes were made to improve the methodology used to estimate eligibles in the 1995
CPS-based file. These changes substantially improve the CPS-based estimates and make themmore
consistent with SIPP-based estimates.2 These changes:3
Improved the estimate offood stamp units passing the asset test by using an equation
to impute the probability that non-pure public assistance (PA) units will pass the asset
test.4 Previous trends estimates used a proxy for asset balances that substantially
underestimated total assets and thus overestimated total eligibles. The proxy for asset
balances used in previous trends estimates is equal to the income from financial assets
divided by a rate ofreturn of 6.5 percent
• Improved the FSP unit formation algorithm to improve the estimate ofpure PA units.
In previous Trends reports, the food stamp unit was defined as all persons in a dwelling
unit This definition substantially underestimated the number of pure PA units. The
'This report is part ofa continuing time series of rates beginning with 1976. The earlier reports
are listed in the references at the end of this report
2FSP participation rates based on data from the SIPP (Stavrianos 1997) provide a more accurate
measure of participation rates because the SIPP data contain a better measure ofthe income, expense
and asset information used to simulate FSP eligibility. However, because SIPP data do not exist prior
to 1984, we use CPS data to examine rates over a longer period oftime.
'Detailed descriptions ofall of the modifications are provided in Section D.
4Non-pure PA units are units in which at least one person is not covered by AFDC, SSI, or other
assistance such as GA. Pure PA units are FSP units in which all persons are covered by AFDC, SSI
or other assistance such as GA.
1
'
new unit definition is based on FSP rules for unit formation and observed split-off rates
in SIPP and FSP Integrated Quality Control System (IQCS) data.'
Expanded the definition ofpure PA units to include spouses ofAFDC recipients and
elderly or disabled spouses of SSI recipients. This improvement captures those
spouses who would otherwise be considered outside of the AFDC or SSI unit because
oflimitations in the CPS data.
Because the changes made to improve the methodology had a substantial impact on the
estimated participation rates for 1995, we re-estimated the 1994 participation rates. This allows us
to examine the trends in participation rates from 1994 to 1995 without the influence of different
estimation methodologies. The individual participation rate for August 1994 estimated under the
old methodology is 61.4 percent; the individual participation rate for August 1994 estimated under
the revised methodology is 72.1 percent, much closer to the 1994 SIPP-based participation rate of
71.0 percent.
We assume that the changes made to the methodology do not affect the direction or ^'gnfoMV
ofyear to year changes in participation rates. Therefore, trends from 1976 to 1994 can be assessed
using results generated with the old methodology, and trends from 1994 to 1995 can be assessed
using results generated with the new methodology.
In addition to the improvements made to the methodology, we updated the following aspects
ofthe eligibility file:
• The FSP net income screens and asset limit were updated to reflect 1995 FSP
regulations.*
'The IQCS is a survey ofover 50,000 food stamp households.
•Selected features ofthe FSP under current and past legislation can be found in Appendix B.
2
B^B^_«.
• The regression equation used to estimate FSP net income was updated using 1995 QC
data.7
Most ofthe provisions introduced under the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger ReliefAct of 1993
are captured in the net income or asset equations.* However, we explicitly modeled one provision
introduced by the act-the change in the maximum age for which student earnings can be excluded
from income. The MickeyLeland Act raised the age from 17 to 21 beginning in September 1994.
The following discussion covers trends in aggregate rates, trends for subgroups of the eligible
population, and the methodology for estimating the rates. Tables and figures appear at the end of each
section.
A. TRENDS IN AGGREGATE RATES
FSP participation rates, which exhibited a steady rise from 1988 through 1994, fell modestly in
1993. From 1994 to 1995, participation rates for individuals fell by 1.2 percentage points; for
households, by 0.3 percentage points; and for benefits, by 0.4 percentag points (Table 1). Thebenefit
rate was 13 points higher than the household rate and 10 pomtslughet than the individual rate in 1995.
These trends are illustrated in Figure 1. Below we highlight the change in rates between 1994 and
199S, and describe the overall trends in rates since 1988.
7Because net income is estimated using a regression equation, the model does not explicitly
calculate deductions from gross income. Therefore, we do not explicitly implement changes to
deductions, The updated regression equation coefficients are shown in AppendixA.
•For example, the dependent care deduction cap was raised from $160 a IMXIW per depeiident to
S2W fw each chM under tr* age oftwo and $175 f«^^ This change is implicitly
captured in the updated net income regression coefficients.
■>.
1. Rates for Individuals Fell, Sparred by a Decrease in Participants
FSP participation rates for eligible individuals fell slightly between 1994 and 1995 for the first
time since 1988 (Table 2). This decrease was fueled by a drop of 4.3 percent in the number of
participants during the same period. The number of eligibles also fell between 1994 and 199S, but
by only 2 percent Hence, the overall decline in participants was large enough to offset the decline
in eligibles, thus reducing the individual participation rate by 1.2 percentage points.
Growth in individual participation rates has tapered off since an initial surge mat began in 1938.
The participation rate for individuals increased by 6 points from 1988 to 1990, by 3 points from 1990
to 1991, by 2 points from 1991 to 1992, by 1 point from 1992 to 1993, and by 1 point from 1993 to
1994, as shown in the chart below.9 Up to 1993, the slower growth in participation rates was the
result of a closing gap between the increase in the number of participants and the increase in the
number ofeligibles. Between 1993 and 1994, the number ofparticipants and eligibles began to fell,
but the participation rate increased slightly because the number ofeligibles fell more man the number
of participants. Between 1994 and 1995, the number ofparticipants and eligibles continued to fall.
The rate also fell because the number of eligibles fell less than the number of participants. Most
likely, the small drop in individual participation rates between 1994 and 1995 is a continuation of
the flattening trend in participation rates.
2. Household Rate Showed Little Change Between 1994 and 1995
Between 1994 and 1995, the number ofparticipating and eligible households decreased by about
the same amount (3 percent and 2.5 percent respectively) resulting in almost no change in the
•Notice that the 6-point increase between 198S and 1990 U for two years, compared wim the 3-
point increase between 1990 and 1991. If the increase between 1988 and 1990 is evenly divided
between the two years, then participation rates rose 3 points each year between 1988 and 1990, and
mis growth did not begin to slow until after 1991.
1
household rate (-0.3 points). Between 1976 and 1990, the household and individual rates were
nearly identical, as shown in Figure 1. Beginning in 1990, the household rate rose above the person
rate and continued rising much faster than the individual rate through 1993, reflecting the fact that
small households were participating at increasingly higher rates than large households. Between
1993 and 1994, household and individual rates increased by almost the same amount (1 percentage
point), indicating a possible end to the trend in diverging rates. Between 1994 and 1995, the
individual and household rates again changed very little, but the revised methodology increased
participation rates for individuals more than rates for households. The new individual rate is now
3 percentage points higher than the household rate.
3. Benefit Rate Showed Little Change Between 1994 and 1995
The benefit participation rate is the amount of benefits issued as a percentage of the total
benefits that would be payable if all eligibles participate (total eligible benefits). This rate has been
consistently higher than the individual and household rates, and between 1991 and 1994, it rose
faster than the other two (see Figure 1). Between 1994 and 1995, the benefit rate remained almost
constant, decreasing by 0.4 points, compared with a 1.2 point decrease for the individual rate. While
both benefits paid to participants and total eligible benefits fell between 1994 and 1995, the decrease
in benefits to participants (1.6 percent) was slightly greater than the decrease in total eligible benefits
(1.1 percent), causing the decline in the benefit rate. Nevertheless, the continuing gap between the
benefit rate and the individual and household rates implies that households eligible for the highest
benefits are more likely to participate than those eligible for the lowest benefits, as shown in Section
C.
■■
TABLEI
MONTHLY NUMRI R OF ELIGIBLES. PARTICIPANTS, AND PARTICIPATION RATES
FOR INDIVIDUALS. HOUSEHOLDS, AND BENEFITS.
1976-1995'
(Thousands)
EltgiNes (CPS) Participants (Program Operations) Participation Rales (%)
Individuals Households BeneHis Individuals Households Benefits Individuals Households Benefits'
Sept 197* 50.061 I6.2R2 SI.075.119 15.110 5.301 S37S.46I 31 1 32.6 34.9
Feb 1971 40.175 13,914 934.427 15,387 5.216 391,066 313 37.1 42.6
A«| 1910 36.567 14.042 1,101,330 20.115 7.372 689,381 55.2 52.5 62.2
Aug 1912 39,364 14.538 1.352,251 20.541 7.417 715.651 522 SIS SSI
AM*; 1914 31.591 14.194 1.316.231 19.990 7.324 841,442 511 516 607
Aug. 1916 40.061 15.271 1.544.133 19.069 7.102 860,472 47.6 465 55.7
Aug 1911 31.166 I4.S96 1.646.310 11.358 7.016 907.117 411 47.1 SSI
Aug 1990 37.631 14.523 1.905.141 20,396 7.973 1.188,808 542 54.9 62.4
Aug. 1991 40.919 15.574 2.229.403 23,364 9.204 1.471.406 57.0 59.1 660
Aug. 1992 43.474 16.627 2.491.671 25.759 10.238 1.749.051 59.3 61.6 70.2
Aug. 1993 45.241 17.031 2.515.761 27.260 10.900 1,839.469 60.3 64.0 73 1
Aug. 1994(0) 44,327 17.040 2.473.299 27,207 11.005 1.173.953 61.4 64.6 75.1
Aug. I994(r) 36,669 15.945 2.200.066 26,437 10.694 1.780.630 72.1 67.1 •0.9
Aug. 1995 35.663 IS.544 2,175,171 25.299 10.378 I.7SUU 70.9 668 ■0.5
(lW) to 1995) -2.7% •2.5% -IIS •4JH -3.0% •1.6% •1.2 points -0 3 points •0.4pc*tt
SOUKB. FoodStaMpPra
. .. ||U »
■ data. Specialxmmttom jgfjKjCSdata, m*6m*mm*m*mmmmen*mfar the years show*
unit dcftnaian, and m inhancilpuic PA unit definition Theoriginal et4MMac (O) WKS
UMami ■ PP*W U*M* MOT n»fwaBam, an HIBBIUIH m*m Ham
m,iMt*mt*ititiiimttowm*tmtmm<ktittiot).
The bend* m» for 197* and 1971 (pre-E»* periods) is base* *nt). Hence, a* benefit rates are com ttewt ovef M yc«vt.
I
TABLE 2
CHANGE IN INDIVIDUAL FSP PARTICIPATION RATES,
1988 to 1995
Time Period
Change in
Participation Rate
Change in
Participants
Change in
Eligibles
1988-1990 6.1 points 11.1% -1.1%
1990-1991 2.8 points 14.6% 9.1%
1991-1992 2.3 points 10.3% 5.9%
1992-1993 1.1 points 5.8% 4.1%
1993-1994 1.0 points -0.2% -2.0%
1994-1995* -1.2 points -4.3% -2.0%
SOURCE: Food Stamp Program opemkms data. Special tabulations from IQCS data. FSP eligibility files created from
March CPS data for the years shown.
'1994 and 199S participation rates were estimated using the revised methodology.
■....JfiM, , -*A
■ Mi .aassa
FIGURE 1
TRENDS IN MONTHLY FSP PARTICIPATION RATES,
1976-1995
100%
rwuctpmon Kate
20% -
10% -
0% J 1 L
Benefits
Individuals
Households
S / / / / K* / + f/ / ^ ^ ^r ^ ^, S f f Sf f
Source: Food Stamp Program Operations dots, March CPS data for the years shown.
* There Is a break in the bms) series In August 1994 due to revisions in the methodology for determining sNgiblst.
r
m
B. REASONS FOR THE DECLINE IN AGGREGATE RATES
The decline in individual participation rates from 1994 to 1995 is likely a signal that
participation rates are continuing to level off in part because of an improving economy. The
speculation mat rates for individuals are leveling off is supported by the fact that the household and
benefit rates barely changed over the same period.
The leveling off of participation rates began in 1992. The economy was recovering from a
recession at the same time that expansions in Medicaid slowed, thus slowing the rise in new
participants and participation rates. Economic indicators exhibited improving trends after 1991, as
shown in Table 3. Between 1993 and 1994, the poverty rate fell for the first time since 1989 (by 0.6
points), and the unemployment rate fell for the second year in a row (by 0.9 points) (Table 2).
Between 1994 and 1995, the poverty and unemployment rates continued to fall.
Starting in 1993, the number of eligibles and participants began to fall as a result of the
improving economy. Between 1993 and 1994, the number of eligibles fell more than the number
ofparticipants, so the overall participation rate continued to increase. Between 1994 and 1995, the
number of eligibles fell again, primarily because growth in income caused participants to become
ineligible. This resulted in a decline in individual participation rates. A closer examination of
participation rates for subgroups (Section C) reveals that participation rates for households above
the poverty level and for households with earnings both fell substantially. Thus, it appears that
economic growth caused the decrease in individual participation rates in two ways: (1) income
growth caused eligible participants to become ineligible, and (2) participation rates decreased among
eligibles with the highest income.
Historically, trends in aggregate participation rates have been associated with economic
conditions. The surge in participants and participation rates after 1988 was attributed to a worsening
_______
economy and other factors such as expansions in Medicaid, increased access to FSP offices, and
liberalized immigration legislation.10 As shown in Figure 2, the rise in participation rates started
about a year before the recession began.1' This probably happened because Medicaid expansions
began as early as 1988, and the effects of the recession were felt in many areas of the country before
the recession was indicated by national measures.
"See also McConnell( 1991).
"The recession officially began in July 1990 and ended in March 1991, according to the National
Bureau ofEconomic Research.
10
MatB^BMaManaa
TABLE 3
MAJOR ECONOMIC INDICATORS, CALENDAR YEARS 1916-1995
Calendar Yean
1916 1987 1918 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Difference
(1994 to
1995)
Poverty Rale 13.6 13.4 13.0 12.8 13.5 14.2 14.8 IS.I 14.5 13.8 -0.7 points
Unemployment Rate* 7.0 6.2 5.5 5.3 5.6 6.8 7.5 6.9 6.1 5.6 -0.5 points
Inflation Rale* 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.9 3.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 0.2 points
Real GDP Increase* 3. 2.9 3.8 3.4 1.3 -1.0 2.7 2.3 3.5 2.0 -1.5 points
Productivity Increase' 2.5 -0.2 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 3.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 -0.4 points
Number of Persons in Poverty
(thousands)
32,370 32.221 31,745 31,521 33,515 35,708 38,014 39,265 38,059 36,425 •4.3 percent
SOURCE: First and last lines of data: US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Report, Series P60-194.
Second through fifth lines of data: Economic Report ofthe President, Washington, DC, February 1997.
"All civilian workers, Table B.33.
'Change in implicit price deflator for Gross Domestic Product, Appendix Table B.3.
'Percent change from preceding period, Appendix Table B.2.
'Percent change in output per hour, business sector. Appendix Table B.48.
//
FIGURE 2
TRENDS IN THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLES AND PARTICIPANTS,
1976-1995
K> EHpttrtt
f f f f f f J f ff +
^ ^ ^P ^ ^P ^P ^ yP ^^fif f&
801*00: Food
* Thorn to a
scamp rrograni uparauoni ana, Marcn wo i
In August 1994 dua to revWont in tha methodology for datormWng eigibtot. I>
C TRENDS IN RATES FOR SUBGROUPS OF THE ELIGIBLE POPULATION
Trends in participation rates for subgroups followed the aggregate trends in general; rates for
moat subgroups changed only slightly. Existing trends continued in many cases, but possible new
trends appeared in others. This section discusses trends in rates for demographic and economic
subgroups. Supporting data for the trends are shown in Tables 4 through 6 and are illustrated in
Figures 4 through 9.
1. Demographic Subgroups
a. Participation Rates of Small Households Continued to Rise
The participation rate for small households (one or two persons) continued to rise between 1994
and 1995. Spurred by an increase in participation among one-person households, the rate for small
households rose from 59.8 percent in 1994 to 60.1 percent in 1995. The rate for one-person only
households rose by 3.2 percentage points, while the rate for two-person households fell by almost
5 percentage points. This increase in the one-person household participation rate was enough to
offset the decrease in the two-person household participation rate and raise the overall rate for small
households. The rise in the rate for small households is supported by the finding mat the average
size ofparticipating households has declined relative to the size of eligible households, as shown in
Table 4. The ratio ofaverage household size of participants to eligibles has declined from 1988 to
1995.
Prior to 1994, the participation rate for small households was larger than tne participation rate
for large households and was rising. While the rising trend in the participation rate for small
households continued in 1995, the revised methodology for estimating eligibles increased the
participation rates for larger households more than fcr sinaller households. The driving force for the
in rates among larger households is the new asset test iinputation, which significantly
13
reduces the number of eligible households.12 This implies mat proportionately more large
households are reclassified as ineligible as a result ofthe new methodology man small households.
Participation rates for three-person households continued to rise, and remained the highest
participation rate among all household size categories. The participation rate for three-person
households rose by almost one percentage point to 85.2 percent, and the rate for four-person
households rose by two percentage points to 81.1 percent (Table 4).
The participation rate for large households (five or more persons) decreased. The rate for
households with five people only fell by 3.3 percentage points, while the rate for households with
six or more people fell sharply, by 14.3 percentage points.
b. Rates for Meat Age Groups Fell
Participation rates for all eligible children fell slightly from 1994 to 1995. From 1988 to 1994,
all age groups experienced upward trends in participation rates, with preschool-age children
experiencing the most dramatic increase in participation rates (Figure 5). However, rates for
preschool-age children decreased by 2.8 percentage points between 1994 and 199S. Throughout the
entire time series (from 1976 to 1995) rates for all children have been consistently much higher than
rates for adults or elderly persons.
Participation rates for ail eligible elderly persons also fell slightly from 1994 to 1995.
Participation rates for elderly persons have not shown a consistent trend since 1988, as shown in
Figure 5. Rates increased by 3 points between 1988 and 1990, teld steady between 1990 and 1991,
decreased b> 2 points between 1991 and 1992, mcreased by 3 rjomts between 1992 and 1993, held
steady between 1993 and 1994, and decreased between 1994 and 1995. Rates for elderly persons
"For sure mfbnnation on the impact ofthe changes to trie nwthodology for estiniating eligible
FSP participants, see Section D.
14
jL,.**A^^.. . ._,, „ ..-.„.
have changed by no more than 4 points since 1982. Rates for elderly persons living alone have been
consistently higher (by 5 to 7 points since 1988) than rates for elderly persons living with others, and
these rates jumped by 9.5 percentage points from 1994 to 199S.
c Rates for Hispanics Fell While Rates for Blacks Increased
Rates for Hispanics fell by 8.3 percentage points between 1994 and 1995 (Table 5). This is the
second drop in participation rates that the Hispanic subgroup has experienced since rates for
Hispanics began to climb in 19S6 (Figure 6). The first drop occurred between 1991 and 1992.
Between 1992 and 1994, rates for Hispanics surged. Whether the drop between 1994 and 1995 is a
reversal ofthe trend for Hispanics or simply another dip in particirjation rates sirmlar to that in 1992
is unclear at this time.
The sharp increase in the participation rate for Hispanics since 1992 was caused by a sharp
increase (40 percent) in Hispanic participants, compared with only a modest increase (10 percent)
in Hispanic eligibles. The increase in newly participating Hispanics may have been a result ofthe
fact that Hispanics that became legal residents as a result the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA) were eligible to apply for food stamps in 1992 and 1993. Furthermore, Hispanics may have
responded to outreach efforts specifically intended to encourage FSP participation.
Participation rates for blacks increased by 3.7 percentage points after declining slightly from
1992 to 1994. The rates for whiles, which were relatively level from 1991 to 1994, foil by 0.9
percentage points from 1994 to 1995. Overall, rates for blacks have been consistently higher than
rates for whiles or Hispanics.
IS
till II ' in ilin
d. Rates Fall for Pemiis ta Households with Children and Two Adults
The participation rate for persons in households with children and two or more adults decreased
by 10.7 percentage points between 1994 and 1995 (Figure 7). In contrast, the participation rate for
persons in single-parent households increased by 6.7 percentage points between 1994 and 199S.
The participation rate for persons in single-parent households has increased steadily from 1986 to
1995. Rates for households without children continued their relatively steady trend. Overall, rates
for persons in single-parent households have been consistently higher than rates for other households
with children, and rates for both groups have been higher than rates for households without children.
2. Economic Subgroups
a. Rates Were Highest for the Poorest, bat the Pace of the Rise b Slowing
Participation rates ofpersons in households with a gross income at or below the poverty level
(in poverty) continued to be much higher (by 60 points) man rates for households with a gross
income above the poverty level (not in poverty), as shown in Figure 8. Furthermore, participation
rates for those in poverty have increased steadily since 1988, but the rise is slowing down. For
example, rates for those in poverty increased by 4.5 points between 1991 and 1992, by 1 point
between 1992 and 1993, by 0.2 points between 1993 and 1994 and by 0.5 points between 1994 and
1995.
Rates forthose not in poverty fell between 1994 and 1995 by 5.3 percentage points. This may
have been caused by both participants becoming uieligible due to inamx; growm and by particirjanis
with more income choosing not to participate. These rates have fluctuated since 1988. Forexample,
rates for those not in poverty increased by 2 points between 1990 and 1991, decreased by 1.5 points
between 1991 and 1992, held steady between 1992 and 1993, iiicreasedby 5 points between 1993
and 1994, and decreased by 5.3 percentage points between 1994 and 1995.
16
b. Rates Continued to be Highest for Those Eligible for the Highest Benefits
Since those whs die lowest income are eligible for the highest benefits, it is not surprising that
the high participation rates for those in poverty is associated with high participation rates for those
eligible for the highest benefits. For example, in 1995, participation rates for those eligible for the
highest benefits (between 76 and 99 percent ofthe maximum benefit) were 77 points higher than
rates for those eligible for the lowest benefits (between 1 and 25 percent ofthe maximum benefit)
(Figure 9).'3
Furthermore, in most years since 1988, participation rates for those eligible for the highest
benefits increased more than rates for those eligible for the lowest benefits. Only in 1991 and again
in 1994 did rates for those eligible for the highest benefits increase less than rates for those eligible
for the lowest benefits. Between 1994 and 1995, rates for individuals in households eligible for
between 76 percent and 99 percent ofthe maximum benefit increased by 5 percentage points, while
rates for all other individuals decreased. Part of the decrease in rates for those with the lowest
benefits may be a result of the decrease in rates for non-elderly SSI recipients (see below), who tend
to have lower benefits.
That participation rates for households receiving 76 to 99 percent of the maximum benefit
exceed 100 percent may be attributable to sampling error on the CPS data file.14 However, we can
still assess trends in these rates because they are consistently estimated.
"Households receiving the 100 percent ofthe maximum benefit are less likely to participate than
households receiving 76-99 percent ofthe maximum benefit A recent study indicates that households
with zero income (households that would likely be eligible for 100 percent of the maximum benefit)
may face financial circumstances different from those of households with some, but little, income
(Wemmerus and Porter 1996). Because their circumstances are unique and often temporary,
households with zero income may be less likely to comider participating in the FSP.
,4For example, CPS may undersample low income households. Such an error would upwardly
bias the participation tate among households receiving 76 to 99 percent ofthe maximum benefit
17
aaueaa.
c Participation Rates Dropped for Those with Earnings and Jumped for Those with
Unemployment Compensation
The participation rate for individuals in households with earnings decreased substantially (by
6 points) from 1994 to 1995. Prior to 1995. the trend in the participation rate for these individuals
had maintained steady growth. This drop was fueled by both a 5 percent increase in the number of
eligibles and a 7 percent decrease in participants. As with households above the poverty level, this
may be caused by both participants becoming ineligible due to income growth and by participants
with more income choosing not to participate.
The participation rate for persons in households with unemployment compensation jumped by
almost 14 points between 1994 and 1995, after falling by almost 11 points between 1993 and 1994
(Figure 9). Thejump in the participation rate is due to both a 16 percent increase in participants with
a concurrent 15 percent decrease in eligibles.
The rate for persons receiving unemployment compensation has fluctuated widely since 1988,
as shown in Figure 9. The rate increased between 1988 and 1990 (by 6 points), declined between
1990 and 1991 (by 2 points), increased between 1991 and 1993 (by 11 points), declined between
1993 and 1994 (by 11 points), and increased between 1994 and 1995 (by 14 points). The wide
fluctuation may have been partly due to the relatively small and consistently changing sample of
participants with unemployment compensation.
18
ii liiifii i mmmnm^iUMk
A Rates Fell for Nonelderty SSI Recipients and Continued to Rite for Those Receiving
AFDC
Participation rates for persons in households with nonelderly SSI recipients dropped by 3.7
percentage points between 1994 and 1995 after rising by almost 20 points between 1993 and 1994l}
(Table 6). The tell in rates for nonelderly SSI recipients between 1994 and 1995 was due to a 3
percent decrease in FSP-participating nonelderly SSI recipients. The tell in rates between 1994 and
1995 may indicate a reverse in the upward trend that began in 1991.
The rate for persons in households receiving AFDC benefits continued its upward trend,
increasing by 7.7 point,. Participation rates for AFDC recipients have increased every year since
1988 except when they declined between 1990 and 1991. The rate for AFDC recipients rose by 6
points from 1988 to 1990, by 9 points from 1991 to 1992, by 7 points from 1992 to 1993, and by 5
points between 1993 and 1994.
We included rates for persons in households receiving AFDC and SSI benefits for the years
1988 to 1994 despite the substantial unde.reportingofAFDC and SSI income receipts theCPS."
As a result of underreporting, the rates for persons in households receiving AFDC benefits exceeded
100 percent. However, we can still assess trends in these rates because they are consistently
estimated.
"The surge hi participating nonelderly SSI recipients was driven by an increase in children
receiving SSI. The increase in children receiving SSI was lately due to two factors: settlement of
a class action suit that expanded SSI eligibility and craa^ej m related daJdricod disabu^ rcgutewi^
19
-k.
TABLE 4
HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE.
1976-1995
Participation Rales by Household Sb* Average Household Size
I 6+ Total
PanicipauU/
Eligibki Participants Eltgibki
Sept. 1976
Feb. 1978
Aug. 19*0
Aiif. I9t2
Aug. 1984
Aug. 1966
Aug. I9M
Aug. 1990
Aug. 1991
Aug. 1992
Aug. 1993
Aug. 1994(0)=
Aug. I994W
Aug. 1995
Diffctcace (1994<r)
10 1995)
3I.S
33.3
44.6
47.7
50.7
41.2
41.6
47.7
53.1
59.0
59.1
61.3
55.0
51.2
♦ 3.2
35.7 39.0 29.8
38.3 43.7 35.6
49.2 63.5 57.9
45.7 62.9 55.6
45.8 57.2 51.5
44.5 54.7 53.6
47.0 61.4 48.8
60.0 71.1 55.5
63.3 77.1 58.0
63.7 72.8 63.8
71.1 78.6 64.9
71.9 76.8 63.2
61.2 84.3 79.1
63.3 85.2 •1.1
29.9 29.1
42.8 42.2
64.9 61.9
67.0 44.6
59.3 54.7
52.5 45.8
48.5 45.0
62.0 37.0
55.1 47.8
53.8 46.0
49.3 48.7
52.3 46.8
75.3 79.5
72.0 65.2
-4.7 +0.9 +2.0 -3.3 -14.3
32.6
37.8
52.5
SI.S
51.6
46.5
47.1
54.9
59.1
61.6
64.0
64.6
67.1
66.8
■0.3
3.0 2.9
2.8 2.8
2.6 2.6
2.7 2.6
2.7 2.6
2.6 2.6
2.5 2.5
2.6 2.4
2.6 2.4
2.6 2.5
2.7 2.5
2.6 2.5
2.3 2.5
2.3 2.4
0.0 -0.1
0.94
1.00
1.00
0.96
0.96
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.93
0.96
1.09
1.07
-0.02
duu. SpeckJ
IW44»fci»m>liiimHfcplilip
PA-Hill illli Thi i.lgl 1 w—
from KJCS data. FSP eligibility rues created from Man* CPS data lor *e yean shown.
NWogy
.cugiMuy.Tlu.. aacw
!(r)UKS«MMW
Ad
TABLES
INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS. 1976-1993
K>
Individual Participation Rates (Percentage)
St*
1976
Feb.
1971
Aug.
I9M
Aug.
1912
Aug.
1984
Aug.
1986
Aug.
1988
Aog-
1990
Aug.
1991
Aug.
1992
Aug.
1993
At* 1994
Aug.
1993
Difference
(I994(r)
(of (rf 10 1995)
EMerty
Living Alone
Living with Others
22.7
26.3
198
23.3
21.4
19.3
320
370
26.8
282
333
218
294
36.7
21.8
236
28.3
22.4
24.3
29.3
18.1
27.3
31.7
22.2
27.2
31.0
22.5
23.7
32.3
ISO
28.3
33.6
22.0
28.3
34.8
21.1
33.1
29.3
25.3
31.1
38.8
21.2
-2.0
9.5
-4.1
CMMrta
Preschool (under age 5)
School-age (age 5-17)
37.0
33.1
37.1
47.0
42.0
49.0
70.3
73.0
69.4
63.4
64.1
65.6
63.7
63.3
63.9
59.4
623
58.1
598
60.0
59.7
63.6
65.3
65.7
71.4
78.6
67.7
74.9
82.7
70.7
74.6
86.6
68.7
75.9
89.7
69.4
85.2
97.5
79.1
85.3
94.7
81.0
0.1
•2.8
1.9
Adufts Ages IS ta S9 26.3 33.6 49.4 41.6 47.7 44.3 45.7 52.2 52.9 56.3 37.5 59.3 73.1 71.1 -2.0
Single Adults w/ChiWren
1 wo or More Adults with
Children
Households without
Children
32.6
23.1
22.7
34.4
33.9
24.3
72.1
32.3
369
62.5
sot
40.7
61.9
34.0
33.3
56.0
51.2
30.2
62.6
45.9
30.7
70.9
47.4
36.9
70.1
55.3
35.8
73.7
55.1
38.0
73.2
57.4
39.9
76.4
57.8
40.3
89.7
70.4
45.8
96.4
59.7
45.4
6.7
-10.7
•0.4
Wota/lhMrirvofHtor
While Non-Hispanic
Block Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Offer
NA
NA
NA
NA
32.9
32.1
Mi
32.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
36.9
ISO
46.3
61.0
44.3
71.7
46.1
42.6
42.1
63.2
33.3
37.7
43.8
62.3
40.0
37.2
48.8
71.6
46.0
36.2
53.3
67.9
48.8
53.1
53.4
80.0
42.9
63.2
53.3
80.0
51.1
38.0
52.7
78.2
56.3
16.6
67.3
823
62.3
114.9
66.4
86.0
54.0
83.9
-0.9
3.7
-8.3
-31.0
Mote
Female
NA
NA
35.6
403
NA
NA
49.1
33.5
49.4
52.4
43.5
49.2
44.9
30.5
30.7
36.7
53.6
39.4
37.0
61.0
38.6
61.4
60.1
62.3
73.4
71.2
71.1
70.7
-2.3
•0.3
Total 31.1 31.3 33.2 52.2 31.8 47.6 48.1 34.2 37.0 39.3 60.3 61.4 72.1 70.9 •1.2
SOURCE: Food
htatvalooi
(•r
Special tabulations from IOCS data. FSP eligibility flies created from March CPS data for the years shown,
loo many missing values) for 1976 ktd 1980 for mote entries marked as NA.
m*mitm*m.*Uk**mki4t*immtti)ma*XMmm*m*Jk)i).
//
B
TABLE6^
INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD, 1976-1995
Individual Participation Rates (Percentage)
Sept.
1976
Feb.
1978
Aug.
1980
Aug.
1982
Aug.
1984
Aug
1986
Aug.
1988
Aug.
1990
Aug
1991
Aug.
1992
Aug.
1993
Aug. 1994
w Aug.
1995
Difference
(l994(r)to
1995)
HMKIWM IBCMBC M ■ Percentage Ol Poverty
Total < 100% 44.4 53.5 70.9 64.4 63.7 58.5 60.3 66.6 69.4 73.9 75.9 76.1 85.0 85.5 0.5
Total > 100 1.6 10.0 20.4 13.5 13.4 12.1 13.3 17.4 19.4 18.0 18.1 22.7 30.8 25.5 -5.3
InImnLH-HIJ 1 ■ IIIIHV
Earnings
Unemp. Cotnp
AFDC
SSI (non-elderly)
14.6
NA
NA
NA
17.5
29.1
NA
NA
29.1
NA
NA
NA
21.9
232
NA
NA
29.4
23.7
NA
NA
27.7
23.5
NA
NA
27.8
18.9
99.6
64.7
28.7
25.0
106.0
81.0
32.3
22.8
99.4
68.0
34.7
27.0
108.4
74.1
35.4
34.8
114.9
78.9
37.4
24.1
119.6
98.8
53.9
37.4
117.6
109.5
47.9
51.1
125.3
105.8
-6.0
13.7
7.7
-3.7
MMthly HHKWM Benefits as • Perceatage of Maximal BeaefH
1-25%
26-30%
SI -75%
76-99%
100%
112
36.6
502
45.6
11.4
11.0
44.1
60.6
53.4
20.7
27.6
61.6
§3.7
52.4
37.7
27.3
49.7
76.6
74.1
34.5
20.6
52.7
67.5
922
38.3
22.3
45.3
62.8
742
40.0
22.7
46.5
63.7
72.4
36.8
24.7
45.7
63.9
87.6
462
27.5
47.6
62.8
90.6
50.0
30.0
41.6
76.1
96.8
48.4
27.1
44.0
80.7
96.1
52.4
30.7
48.1
77.9
101.8
54.3
31.0
64.9
922
104.9
59.0
32.8
61.9
84.3
109.9
662
-52
•3.0
-7.9
5.0
72
Total 31.1 313 552 522 51.8 47.6 48.1 542 57.0 592 602 61.4 72.1 70.9 12
SOURCE: Food Stamp Program operations data. Special tabulations from IQCS data. FSP eligibility flic* created from March CPS data for the years shown.
NOTE: Participation rates otccedtog 100 percent may be due to reportim and measurement errors in the CPS data file
fyajsjahjptiimliittfsji
for August 1994 due to the revised methodology for
pare PA rniit definition lasoriginal
lllhjttilll). Thisnew
(o)aa
incorporates a new asset lest algorithm, an
to all previous trends studies, while the revised
»>-
Lk&
B
FIGURE 3
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES, POVERTY RATES, AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
1986-1995
100%
00%
80%
70%
00%
50%
40%
30%
rarncipauon Kara
(toft scale)
Poverty Raw
(right scale)
Unsrriptoyment Rate
(right Kate)
1 1
s* f s* ,
^ ^ ^ ^
30%
- 25%
- 20%
- 15%
- 10%
- 5%
0%
/ /
Food Stamp Program Operations dan, March CPS
Canaus. Poputetten Rsports, Sartes P-80. Unemployment
Fabruaty 1007.
for tha yaars shown. Povarty
from "Economic Raport of tha
from US Bureau of the
, vnrSaVaingion, uu,
• Thaw to • break In the lima aeries in August 1004 dua to W0*m*tom*mtmgt1****+*m*1*m.
;>
FIGURE 4
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE,
1976-1995
/ + + / t # / + fj f
yjP fP jP yP y^ ^y^^ f^^ y>^
Sourca:Food
'Tharatoa
Oparationt data. March CP8 data for tfw yaara
hAuQuit1994dualora*a)on§lntwmathodo^ *i
K
FIGURE 5
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY AGE GROUP
1976-1995
100%
Proochool
ChiMnHi
School Ay
Children
s* + S / .
1? f /" /* ¥^
• <* / •/ ^
S S f 1*f S
Source: Food Stamp
it • brook in
Operator* data. March CPSdate forth*
••riot in August 1904 duo to rovWont in tho methodology for determining olg&tet JS
■MiOHOM
w
»
100%
FIGURE 6
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY RACE/ETHNICITY OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD
1976-1996
Participation Rate
0%
/
J 1 I L
Hispanic
f f + f f f f f ff /
- S ^ ^ ^ SJ* ^
Food
toabrookintta
March CPS data for thayaari
In Auouot 1004 duo to rovMona bi titmmml*m****a^*f** X
>4
FIGURE 7
TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
1976-1995
100%
r8fuCS3OU0n nM6
0% 1 1 J I I L
with ChMdran
Total
Two or Mora
CMMran
Without
ChHdran
+* #+ +• +. f f / / *f #
Sourot: Food Stamp
•Triareisabreekinthe
Operations data, March CPS data for the year* shown,
aeries In August 1994 due to revision* In the methodology for *7
s
FIGURE 8
TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLD, 1976-1995
Participation Rale
In Poverty
Total
Compensation
Not In
«* K* / / N* K# / K* •/ /
^ ^^ ^ ,* S f S SS S
Source: Food Stamp Program Operations data, March CP8 data for the years
•Trwro is a break In trio Mrnosortss In August 1 9*
■i
FIGURE 9
TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD BENEFIT LEVEL
AS A PERCENT OF MAXIMUM BENEFIT, 1976-1995
s
110% -
100% -
00% -
00% -
70% -
00% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
6i%-m
Total
100%
1%-60%
/ S J f „
f S f f s* S4?4?+S+f /s+
Souro»: Food Stamp
• Utata to • bmak in tit ftuo
OpmHom data. March GPS data for tat |
fl
D. METHODOLOGY
The August 1995 participation rates were derived from estimates of the number of eligibles
based on March 1996 CPS data rod estimates ofthe number ofparticipants based on the average of
July and August 1995 FSP Program Operations data. Although these data sources provide a good
measure ofthe change in rates over time, the rates were biased downward prior to 1995 because of
limitations in the CPS data. The methodology used to derive the 199$ participation rates was revised
from previous versions to account for some ofmis downward bias. However, for the reasons given
below, the bias in rates and revisions to the methodology still make it necessary to use the CPS-based
series to examine changes in rates and the SIPP-based estimates to examine levels ofrates.
Estimates based on SIPP data are more accurate than estimates based on CPS data for two
reasons. First, SIPP data contain more of the information needed to estimate eligibility for the FSP.
Second, the methodology used to estimate eligibility with SIPP data more closely replicates the
actual FSP eligibility determination process. However, SIPP data do not cover as long a period, and
certain types of SIPP data needed to estimate eligibles are available for only a limited number of
years.
Despite the historical downward bias, the trends identified through the CPS-based data are
consistent with those identified through SIPP-based data (Table 7 and Figure 10). The CPS-based
estimates show a 4-point drop in the individual participation rate from 1984 to 1986, no change in
the me (less than 1 point) from 1986 to 1988, an 11-point rise in the rate from 1988 to 1992, and
a 2-point rise inthe rate from 1992 to 1994. The SIPP-based estimates show a 5-point drop in the
iridivklual participation rate from 1985 to 1988, no change from 1988 to 1989, a 15-point increase
from 1989 to 1992, and a 3-point drop from 1992 to 1994. Although the SIPP-based rates show a
I decline m participation rates between 1992 and 1994(3 points) and the CPS-besed rates show
I1
30
a mail increase (2 points), the changes in rates identified through each database were small during
this time, indicating mat rates leveled off between 1992 and 1994. The recent change in
methodology brings the 1994 CPS-based rates in line with the 1994 SIPP-based rates.
SIPPdata for January 1996 are not yet available. CPS data show a 1.2 percentage point drop
from 1994 to 1995. It is noteworthy (Figure 10) that the revision to the methodology for estimating
eligibles in 1994 and 1995 (discussed below) brings CPS estimates in line with SIPP estimates.
1. Changes to Methodology from the Original August 1994 Estimates to the Revised August
1995 Estiamates
The methodology used to estimate participation rates was changed in several ways. We
improved CPS-based estimates ofeligibles to bring mem in line with MATH SIPP-based estimates
by imputing the probability ofpassing the asset test, improving the food stamp unit definition, and
enhancing the pure PA unit17 definition. We also adjusted the historical estimates of participation
rates to account for the revised weighting process introduced by the Bureau of the Census in the
March 1993 CPS.
a. Imputing the Probability of Passing the Asset Test
The proxy for asset balances in the previous methodology was equal to the income from
financial assets divided by a rate of return of6.5 percent underestimated total assets and therefore
overestimated total eligibles. The August 1994 CPS-based estimates created with the old
methodology for individuals, units, and benefits were 18 percent, 9 percent, and 11 percent higher,
respectively, than the MATH SIPP-based estimates for January 1994.
"Pure PA units are FSP units in which all persons receive AFDC, SSI, or other assistance such
iGA. Non-pure PA units are units in which at least one person does «o/receive AFDC, SSI, or other
such as GA.
31
***• ---•'* -^ -"-
Ill addition, when this proxy was used, about 87 percent ofincome-eligible households with a
gross income at or below 250 percent ofpoverty passed the asset test in the 1994 CPS-based trends
file, compared with about 71 percent in the 1994 MATH SIPP-based file. To improve the estimate
ofhouseholds passing the asset test and thus lower the number ofnon-pure PA units in the Trends
file, we replaced the rate-of-retum proxy with an equation to impute the probability that non-pure
PA units will pass the asset test Pure PA units are automatically eligible for food stamps and thus
are not affected by the asset test
Table 8 shows the impact of this change in methodology on the original 1994 CPS-based
estimates ofeligiWes relative to 1994 SIPP-based estimates. This change significantly decreased the
estimated number of eligibles. This entire decrease came from a decrease in the number of estimated
eligible non-pure PA units. The original 1994 CPS-based estimate of non-pure PA units was 29
percent greater than the SIPP-based estimate; the revised estimate was 10 percent less.
b. Improving the Food Stamp Unit Definition
In addition to overrclimating the number of non-pure PA units, the CPS-based eligible estimates
also underestimate pure PA units. Under the previous methodology, a food stamp unit was defined
as all persons in a dwelling unit (except for SSI recipients in SSI cashout states and persons living
in group quarters). The unit definition in the new methodology is based both on FSP rules for unit
formation and on observed split-off rates in SIPP and IQCSdata." The split-off rates estimate the
probability that a household of a certain type will form one or more subunits.
Table 8 shows the impact ofthe new food stamp unit defimtion combined with the new asset
test imputation on the original 1994 CPS4»sedestiinateofeligibles relative to the 1994 SIPP-based
"ThelQCS is a survey ofo/er 50,000 food stamp households.
32
—
estimate. Combined with the new asset test, the new food stamp unit definition brings thenumber
of eligibles closer to the SIPP-based estimate. Fitimates of both pure and non-pure PA units
increase as a result ofdie new food stamp unit definition.
c. Es*anda«ts* Pure PA Definition
An expanded definition of pure PA units improves the estimates of pure PA units. Unit
definition;,in the previous methodology underestimated the number ofpure PA units. BecauseCPS
data cannot be used to identify persons covered by AFDC or SSI benefits, spouses covered by PA
in pure PA units are not counted in th. PS-bastd estimates of eligibles. That is, the CPS data only
indicate which person in a family receives the check, not which persons are covered by the check.
As a result, when a two-parent family receives AFDC benefits under the AFDC-UP program, for
example, only the person receiving die check is counted toward pure PA status under the old
methodology. Similarly, when an elderly or disabled married couple receives SSI, only the person
receiving the check is counted toward pure PA status. This problem ofnot counting spouses of PA
recipients adds to the underestimate ofpure PA households in Trends. To address this problem, we
expanded the definition of pure PA units to include spouses of AFDC recipients and elderly or
disabled spouses of SSI recipients.
Table 8 shows the impact of the new pure PA unit definition plus the new food stamp unit
definition and the new asset test imputation on the original 1994 CPS-based estimates ofeligibles
relative to 1994 SIPP-based estimates. The new pure PA unit definition raises the number of
efagmaes to oflbet the impact ofthe new asset test imputation. The number ofeligible pure PA units
i a result ofthis change, while the number ofeligible non-pure PA units decreases.
33
■■
The cumulative effect of these first three changes can be seen in Figure 10. The new
methodology brings the CPS-based estimates closer in line with die SIPP-based rstimatre.
d. Adjusting Historical Rates
Historical participation rates are adjusted to account for the revision to the weighting process
introduced by the Bureau of the Census in the March 1993 CPS. Beginning in 1993, this revision
uses 1990 census population controls and includes an adjustment fix- the census undercounL
Previously, we estimated how this revision would have influenced August 1992 participation rates
had it been in effect in 1992." We adjusted all historical participation rates by the percentage-point
difference between the original and revised August 1992 participation rates.
2. Determining FSP Eligibks
We estimated the number of eligibles for the August 199S participation rate with a model mat
simulates the FSP using March 1996 CPS data. In this simulation procedure, FSP eligibility
guidelines mat were in effect in August 1995 ue quantified and applied to each household in the
CPS.20 The FSP guidelines include unit formation rules, asset limits, aui income limits. Because
several types of information needed to determine FSP eligibility are missing from the CPS data, wc
estimated this information to improve the model estimates of the number of eligible households.
This estimation procedure is explained below.
"See Trippe (1996).
"Trippeetal.(1992) includes a detailed discussion of our model of the FSP eligibility
34
ananaaai
a. StaaktiMtlttCoBp«itk»ofifceFoodStaMpUMt
In the FSP, the food stamp unit is defined on the basis ofshared food purchases and preparation
in addition to shared living quarters. In the CPS, the dwelling unit is based only on shared living
quarters. Because the CPS data do not reflect who shares food purchases and preparation within
each dwelling, we simulate the formation of food stamp units within each household. For most
households, we simulate all household members to purchase and prepare food together. Forother
households, we simulate two or more groups of people to form separate food stamp units. The
probability that a household with a certain composition (e.g., the presence of multiple families,
unrelated persons, etc.) will form multiple units is based on observed rates for similar households
from SIPP data. We also use the following rules in identifying food stamp units:
• We excluded from the dwelling unit SSI recipients who receive cash instead of food
stamps in SSI casbout states (California).
• We excluded all persons living in group quarters.
b. Deterauiag Asset Eligibility
A food stamp unit is eligible for FSP benefits if its countable assets are less than $2,000. If the
unit contains an elderly person, the asset limit is $3,000. Since asset balances are not included in
the CPS database, we use an equation to impute the probability that non-pure PA units will pass the
asset test. Pure PA units are automatically eligible for food stamps and are thus not affected by the
asset test
in addition to meeting asset limits, food stamp units must also meet income limits in order to
be eligible for benefits. Food stamp units that do not contain elderly or disabled members must have
a gross income below 130 percent of the monthly FSP net income guidelines. There is no gross
income limit for units that contain elderly or disabled members. In addition, all food stamp units
must have a net income below 100 percent ofthe FSP net income guidelines
Before determining each household's income eligibility, we estimated monthly income and
household net income as follows, thereby extending the CPS data.
• Estimating Monthly Income. The CPS database includes information on annual
income, but eligibility for the FSP is determined according to monthly income.
Therefore, we distributed annual income to months on the basis ofpatterns of income
receipt shown by SIPP data and nuiuoer of weeks worked shown in CPS data. We
then summed the monthly income allocated to August for each person in the unit to
determine each household's gross income for August Simply dividing annual income
by 12 would have caused an overestimate of eligibles in any given month.
Estimating Net Income. The CPS database does not include information on expenses
deductible from gross income mat are used to estimate net income amounts.
Therefore, we use a regression model to estimate net income as a function ofthe unit's
earnings, unearned income, gross income, and geographic location for each year. We
applied the relationship between these unit characteristics and net income in the July
and August 1995 QC data to low-income households in the CPS data. The estimated
relationships (coefficients) are pnsmlcd in Appendix A Table A2.
Using the enhanced CPS data, we determined eligibility for each household in the CPS
according to the program regulations in effect in August 1995 so that our estimates would
correspond to program changes that occurred between August 1994 and August 1995. These
changes involved (1) 1995 update to the food stamp net income screens and the maximum food
stamp benefits as provided by FCS (2) 1995 updates to the net income equation coefficients and (3)
36
an increase in age from 17 to 21 for which student earnings are excluded from income.21 The net
income screens are updated each year according to changes in inflation The maximum food stamp
benefit amounts, also updated each year, are based on 103 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food
Plan."
The unweighted counts ofhouseholds simulated to be eligible for the FSPin August 1995, along
with the original sample size for the March 19% CPS file, are listed in Appendix C, Table C. 1.
3. Determuug the Nuber of FSP Participants
The number of participants for the 1995 participation rate comes from the FSP Statistical
Summary of Operations (Program Operations) data for Jury and August 1995. This database
provides counts of persons and households that were issued benefits and the total dollar value of
these benefits in each month. We use this database because FSP participation is undev-reported in
the CPS data.
We distributed the total number of persons, households, and benefits across subgroups ofthe
population according to the distribution in the sample offood stamp case records in die IQCS. This
was done by multiplying the number ofparticipants in an extract ofthe IQCS data, called QC data,
by the ratio of the Program Operations total to the QC weighted total for persons, households, and
benefits.
MTWs accounts for a provision ofthe Mickey Ldand Childhood Hunger RdiefAct
"These changes are summarized in Appendix A ator« whh odier FSP ehgibUh> crheria in effect
in 1994. FSP guidelines for deductions from gross income in deteimimng reP net income (such as
the maximum dependent care and excess shelter deductions) are imr^kWy Mptured m the regression
model
37
- — - -
We adjusted the estimate of FSP participants by the percent of total participants that were
mdigihie (the error rate), at determined by Program Operations. This is the first year in which
participation rates are adjusted for error rates. We made the adjustment in both the 1995
participation rates and the revised 1994 participation rates so that it would not effect the trends.
4. Calculating FSP Participation Rates
We estimated aggregate participation rates by dividing the number ofparticipants recorded in
the adjusted IQCS data by the number ofeligibtes simulated on the basis of CfS data. Thenumber
ofparticipants and eligibles used to calculate participation rates in 1990 through 1995 is presented
in Appendix D, Tables D. 1 through D.4.
38
TABLE 7
SIPP-BASED FSP PARTICIPATION RATES,
1985-1994
August
1915
January
1992
January
1994
Percent Change
(1992-1994)
csary
■
Persons 21,884 30,973 31,041
Households 11,604 12,292 12,619
Benefits $1,072362 $1334,779 $1,405,636
32,931 37,166 15.0%
13,913 15,749 12.6%
SI.9S1.717 $2347,535 13.4%
illutiputi(rrognuB upenooN)
Persons 18560 18386 18344 24391 26.S72 10.6%
Households 6S94 6.SS2 7,037 9,631 10,840 123%
Benefits $807365 890,158 927391 1,615320 1424,471 12.9%
ommimi
Persons 643 59.0 59.1 73.S 71.0 -2.S points
Households 59.4 56.0 55.5 6S.9 6S.S -0.1 points
Benefits 753 66.7 66.0 SI.5 SI3 -03 points
SOURCE. Food Stamp Program Operations data adjusted for issuance errors and MATH SIPP
39
TABLES
IMPACT OF METHODOLOGY CHANGES ON CPS-BASED ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBLES
RELATIVE TO SPP-BASED ESTIMATES OF ELIGIBLES
Estimate
1994
MATH-SPP
Estimate
Percent Difference Between CPS- and SIPP-Based Ettimaies
OriJMi
1994 CPS
Estimate
New Asset
Test
72T
<i) Nat New
Unit
Definition
w
(2) Phis New
Pure PA
Definition
BiglM* Perms 37.44S.I06
BigiMc Benefits 2029.776.134
11%
IIS
BlgiM* Units 1.367,377 9S
Non-Pure PA Unks 10.160.092 29%
Pure PA Units S.S37.4IS -28%
•14%
•11%
•16%
-10%
•21%
-3%
•3%
0%
3%
-7%
-2%
•2%
1%
0%
4%
SOURCE: MATH SIPP and FSP elirjilhy files created from March CPS data for 1994.
40
FIGURE 10
TRENDS IN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY DATA SOURCE
1976-1995
100%
Participation Rate
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
SIPP-Baaad Rate
i i i i i i i i i LJ LJ LJ LJ 1—L
CPS-Based
Rate
/* +* *+ f* ** +* *+ f* ++ f# £ #
ff t*/' ^ t*/' J*f f* ++ ++ ++ #+ # +
Souroa: Food Stamp Program Operations data, March CPS data for the years shown.
• There ia a break in the time series in Auguet 1994 due to revisions in trw metrwdotogy for determi^
*/
TABLE A. 1
CHANGES IN THE MARCH CPS OVER TIME
Changes in Design or Weighting from Previous Yeir
It
79
90
91
92
93
77
71
79
»
II
12
13
84
IS
•6
17
n
19
90
91
92(r)
93
from age 14 to age 15 New
were ttroduccd for all rotation groups.
were introduced for 2
of families and headship starus. New
; procedure bused on 1910 Census was wtudmed which inert and the overall population
h|11g—gfjhjll
Top coding of i
slightly <<
The Much 1914 file was
the revised
from $50,000 to $73,000.
New Jtfidirjon of group ojuaners. The poverty mdex was modified
farnVnonfarm dimension).
twice. In the second (unofficial) verston. the Bureau of the 0—
procedure developed for the March 1913 CFS.
Revwd weaghring procedural anaciflcBlry. ■» coatrolmtsnwwca was cfcwwd. This caused a slight
i poverty wH laawroannin—i —peasm me Hiapwfc pnpulatiw. —It mmtmi JnihviaWli.
i __ rmJw^aktff uawafat«vakla^M f^tuaknt^aaBai MB, fv^ai fwaMBawananrfM^aa. j~iaf ■
city/nonccntra) city statute..
More metro/noometro changes
None
Revised processing procedures increased income overall and reduced poverty. The poverty rate changed
i severely for Marts and persons in selected age ranges.
None
None
Now
New population controls based on 1990 census and adjusted for the census wowcciunt. The new
popaaattcn uwiuasww m> g^panjnjnj mcrcased the poverty pnpniation The largest
MM were for Hispanic families, families win single female I
Survey was mwproveme of labor force
94
93
of
far
CPS national sample was reduced from 56.000 to 50,000; (he
1996fHeis63.339compared » 72.252 in March 1995. Revised
at ™.Tyr, records IINK wtic topcouM WG
mnlar cnaracstnstks. Revised race edit and
for race MHO four mini race categories was revised to
Cautions urged wluMConguriw 1995 and 1996 data on
for
inline
H>
TABLE A 2
RESULTS FOR THE FOOD STAMP NET INCOME REGRESSION EQUATIONS
(Standard Error Estimate* m Parentheses)
W
Coefficients Estimated Usim AdministraUve DaU For:
ri« i Van. 1976 1971 I9M 1912 19*4 19*6
•60.0313 *
(2.9524)
•62.9407*
(31946)
•123.9960*
(3.5*19)
-115.4315 •
(4.4493)
-169*675 •
(3.4631)
-1*6,375! •
(3.0435)
****
0.7009 •
(0.0101)
0.7422*
(0.0IM)
0.7713 •
(0.0127)
0J254*
(0.0131)
0*062*
(0.0097)
0.7100 •
(0.00*2)
Eaniap Scared •0.000102 *
(0.000013)
•0.000012
(0.000012)
0.000067*
(0.000015)
0.000037*
(0.000013)
0.000044 •
(0.000009)
0.000020*
(0.000004)
Unearned btcow 0.9064*
(0.0137)
0.9233*
(0.0171)
0.9562*
(0.01*7)
1.034**
(0.01*4)
0.9*34*
(0.0124)
0.9440*
(0.0097)
Unearned Income Sobered 0.0000663*
(0.000023)
0.000025
(0.000024)
0.000109 •
(0.00002S)
•0.000026
(0.000022)
0.000073*
(0.000013)
0.000017*
(0.000009)
Flag for Hm»enoid> with Grots Income <
SIM
10.6211 •
(3.64*1)
11.0543 •
(4.4236)
59.950* *
(4.777*)
90*267*
(61122)
92.4235 •
(5.444*)
111*131*
(4.769*)
Flu for llowmnlai RnwdJng in Atasfca MA -60.1073*
(9.7*22)
-20.6251*
(6.H73)
-31.4529 •
(17.3631)
-42.1620*
(14.1771)
•50.91*1*
(124197)
Flag for Homehotk Rending in Hawaii 23.9060*
(1.5449)
5.57*4
(6.5567)
-1.4705
(3J057)
•313475*
(7.4509)
•33.7594 •
(5.7024)
-26.5311*
(•.7310)
Flm for II y Mill ul ■i Residing in fee 24.4276*
(1*605)
I3J77I*
(2.1125)
4J*47*
(11379)
26.6*02 •
(2.9609J
15.9736*
(135*2)
16.3730*
(117**)
Flag for Howhok gnmtS«n* 36.3114*
(1.7100)
33.0194'
(Lf2M)
-0.3296
(24657)
414122 •
(2.62*1)
11.6970*
(12*11)
25.96** •
(2.13*9)
Fn»fcrHo-nmo* gin the Wot 13.9124*
(2.0371)
10.53*4*
(2.44«i)
-16665
(17431)
25JO***
(3.07*3)
1*1717*
(2.603*)
16 116**
(124*11
Sample Sim 10,690 13^*0 3,743 •345 *J4S 10,349
* 0*0*0 0.73*0 1.1240 0*634 0.919* 0.9042
AmmtadR' 0.107* 0.737* 0.923* 0J632 0.9193 0.9041
i «m* .05 fowl i I • two-tail t-test Cocnkients identified m at fee .05 ami are 11.96. *r
TANJA.2
CoefficifU Eatittcri Usinc Admniatrative Data For
rmiMMiiij ***** I9M 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
c— •204.1244 •
(2.9655)
•196.4351 •
(4.0139)
-203.1925 •
(3.9569)
-229.6667 •
(4J64I)
-235.1379*
(4.4156)
-247.02 •
(449)
-231 5542 •
(5.5340)
*"*P 0.7333 •
(O.OOM)
0.7049*
(0.0092)
0.7093*
(0.0017)
0.7027 •
(0.0101)
0.17165*
(0.0094)
0.70*
(0.01)
0.672*
(0.0 111)
*****-*
0.000076*
(0.000008)
0.000076*
(0.000007)
0.000070*
(0.000007)
0.000075*
(0.0000)
0.000059*
(0.0000)
0.06*
(0.00)
0.000071*
(0.0000)
1,11,11 '
1.0016 •
(0.0034)
0.1163*
(0.01319)
0.9036*
(0.01106)
0.9165 •
(0.0123)
0.9144 •
(0.0105)
0.94*
(0.01)
0.1333 *
(0.0141)
B—M<■—■•«■—1 0.000002
(0.000002)
0.00012 *
(0.000012)
0.00014 •
(0.000009)
0.00006"
(0.0000)
0.000069 •
(0.0000)
0.00*
(600)
0.0001*
(0.0000)
Hag farHnaMbw*Grata tacoeae < SIM 126.1343*
(5.6701)
117.1564*
(6.5974)
123.2110*
(61090)
131.5731 •
(•2793)
136.9351 •
(6.1730)
146.47*
(9JO)
139.9977*
(9.1371)
Flat far Howdwtds RcMdMg w AUslu -52 6491 •
(11.1503)
•35.4125 •
(11.9143)
-74.2323 •
(11.9261)
-39.4700*
(15.1555)
-62.6491*
(14.5061)
-46.22*
(15.46)
-24.7211*
(15.9221)
Ffagfarll iiiilliKiiiinhrfawii -39.9692*
(7.6694)
12.7144
(7.9143)
-1.4060
(7.9251)
-5.7395
(IJ4M)
1.6119
(1.6611)
11.21
(••♦7)
5.6995
(9.2695)
Fl»j far III II it IfaiiilligbfatMMw* 16.1722*
(2.4334)
22.1103 •
(2.6500)
20.6143
(2.7497)
32.1191 •
(3.1121)
34.9161 •
(3.2515)
34.05*
(366)
42.4614 •
(3.9347)
Ffaa fartfawlnUi RMMIHJ in *c SON* 32Jt73*
(2J697)
36.7736*
06tS3)
31.1219*
(2.7276)
51.7001 •
(31622)
55 2065*
(3J327)
50.95*
(3J0)
56.6371*
(3.7976)
Ffa«hrll 1 lliwi HgbiaWaal I7.92S4*
(2.3100)
23.4546*
(2.7491)
15.72*2*
(2.9337)
25.7937*
(3.43151
216053*
(3.4147)
26.99 •
(3JO)
416034*
(4 1611)
StaatiSba 9.942 M42 9,743 1,753 M4I 1.164 7.524
i» 0.1930 o.no3 0.6610 01746 0 6694 0» • 1663
A4MR' 01929 0.M0I •.HOT 0.1745 0 6692 Ml • 6661
■ til till itMfc^ll I llilllin CoefBciaas ideatified at uptifkm at the .03 level arc tear, wftk l-vakes
¥f
TABLE A.3
SELECTED FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY PARAMETERS. 1976 TO 1994
AMKmYear
oCjMJoyojBjoicr l™7*
Food SunpAct of 1964
As Amended
Food Sump Act of 1964
As Amended
Ampat /«M Food Stamp Act of
1977; At Amended m 1979 and
1900. Effective late 1970. early
1979
August IU2
OBRA 1901 As Amended in 1901;
Effective 10/11
to—o—flfcpjff* No lot Note* No teat <- 1.3 'Poverty Iine
Net lacoaae Elifibinty <- Maximum Food Samp
IncoMC
<- Maximum Food Stamp <« Poverty Line <- Poverty Line
Aseet Eligibility SI500; $3000 for aged households of* km 2 pOM
- te| N/A N/A .3 .3
Mini ■—Jl Varies by household size Varies by household size Persona Mia
1 $10
2 $10
3+ SO.
Persons Mia
1 $10.
2 $10.
3* SO.
Fliahiay of Pare PA H—QlwHl (AFDC or No Ainoaatfk Eligibility Automatically Eligible No Automatic Eligibility No Automatic Eligibility
Purdue Requires Yes Ya No No
Benefit CalcMlalion Benefit - Maximum benefit (household size) • Purchase
Rcojiiircmcl (huiuchoM size and wet mcomt)
Bjtaeft-Ma«ia»awbta*^(lM»M^
SSI Caahoui States California, Wisconsin, Ml ill 1 II
Monthly Food Stamp Net Unit Size
12349
6
7
0■
f
US AK HI
245 307 273
322 413 407
433 593 900
553 753 740
660 093 000
707 1.073 1.053
073 1.107 1.167
993 1.353 1.333
127 167 166
US AK HI
262 320 206
344 447 427
460 633 607
SOO 007 773
607 960 920
027 1.147 1,100
913 1.273 1^20
1.047 I.4S3 1,393
133 IN 173
US AK HI
316 397 365
410 524 401
520 650 590
621 777 715
723 904 031
025 1.030 940
926 1.157 I.06S
1.020 1,204 1,101
102 127 117
US AK
390 490
519 650
647 010
775 970
904 1.130
1.032 1.290
1.130 1.450
1009 1,610
129 160
HI
450
597
74S
092
1,040
1.107
IJ35
1.402
142
|fc&fj«f«Mv MaxkiMooB Food Unit Size
12343
670♦
US AK Hi
50 « 66
92 124 122
130 170 174
166 226 222
190 260 264
236 322 316
262 356 350
290 406 400
30 SO 50
US AK HJ
52 72 79
96 134 120
130 190 102
174 242 232
206 200 276
240 344 330
274 302 366
314 436 410
40 54 52
US AK III
63 90 04
115 100 ISO
165 250 226
209 327 207
240 300 341
290 466 409
329 SIS 452
376 509 517
47 74 65
US AK
70 100
120 197
103 293
233 359
277 426
332 512
367 565
419 646
S3 01
Hi
95
175
250
310
370
4S3
SOI
S72
72
NOTE: lOxtaSOi 16* District of PuertoRicou ifor 197* and 1971- at be r yean, and Guam and (he Virgin V*
TABLE A3 tamtiimed)
Analysis Year
August IH4
OBRA As Amended in 1912.
Effective I0YS2
August lt$4
Food Security Act of 1915.
Effective 5/16
August I9U
1917 licWfesi Assistance Act.
Ampmlfn
LeUnd rtuaflcrPrcvcation Act of I9M
nniiini 1—I <-l 1 • Poverty Line <-1.3 'Poverty Line <- 1 3 • Poverty Line <- 1 3 • Poverty Line
Net laconic FJipMity <-Poverty Line <-Poverty Line <» Poverty Line <- Poverty Line
Asaet Eligibility SI.500.13,000 lot aged
households of at MM 2 persons
$2000. $3000 for aged
households
S2000. S3000 for iced households $2000. S3000 for aged households
Benef* fleducUon Rale J .3 .3 J
MUmBodk iTnons MM
1 SIO.
2 SIO
3* SO
Persons Mas
1 SIO
2 $10
3+ SO.
Persons Mia
1 $10.
2 SIO
3+ SO.
Persons MM
! $!•
it so.
muMHy offt PA lloidmldj (AFDC or No Automatic Elifibtlity Automatically Eligible Automatically Eligible Automatically Eligible
rm*mmmkmm No No No No
Benefit CalcuiatHa Ml- MaMMMt benefit (household sis) • .3 x Food Stan* Net Income
SSI Caafcout Stales California. Wisconsin,
Massachusetts California, Wisconsin
Monthly Food SUMp Net
Income Scree*
Unit Sue
123
4S6
71♦
US AK 'II
415 320 471
560 701 o45
703 112 III
•50 1.063 971
993 1,244 1.145
1.140 1.425 1.311
1.215 1.605 1.471
1.430 1.716 1.645
145 III 167
US AK
447 559
604 755
760 930
917 1.146
1.074 1.342
1.230 1.531
1.317 1.732
1344 1.930
157 196
HI
SIS
695
175
1.055
1.235
1.415
1.595
1.775
ISO
US AK
459 572
617 770
775 969
934 1.167
1.092 1.365
1.250 1.564
1.409 1.762
1367 1.960
151 I9S
III
526
709
•91
1.074
1.256
1.439
1.621
I.M4
113
US AK
499 624
699 136
•39 1.049
1.009 1.261
1.179 1,474
1,349 1.666
1.519 1.199
1.619 2.111
170 213
HI
573
769
965
1.160
1.356
1.552
1,743
1.944
196
Unit Size
1234S671♦
US AK HI
76 109 101
139 300 191
199 216 213
253 364 360
301 432 427
361 511 513
399 473 567
457 655 641
57 12 II
US AK
•0 III
147 204
211 293
261 372
311 442
312 530
422 516
413 670
60 M
HI
124
221
327
415
493
592
654
741
94
US AK
17 113
159 207
22S 297
290 371
344 441
413 531
457 595
522 6M
65 IS
Hi
133
244
350
444
527
633
700
•00
100
US AK
99 121
112 227
260 325
331 413
393 490
472 SSS
521 650
S96 743
75 93
M
151
276
396
303
591
717
793
906
■■3 1
NOTE:
feral yon.
ac tarts* 50 and the ftstrict of Columbia. Puerto Rico is I for 1976 and 1971m lobe. I rtte Virgin
47
TABLE A3 (cotuimed)
A^uYw
Amputl99l
FACTAof 1991
Ampul 1992
FACTAof 1991 and
Ammmmr
FACTA of 1991 and amendments
Gran Income Eligibility <-1.3'PovertyLine <- 1 3 • Poverty Line <-1.3 •Poverty Line
Net income Eligibly <• Poverty Line <- Poverty Line <-Poverty Line
Ass* Eligibility $2,000. $3,000 lor aged households $2,000. $3,000 for aged households $2,000; $3,000 for aged tmmttUt
Benefit Reduction Rate .3 .3 .3
Minimum Benefit Persons MM
1 $10
2 $10
3+ $0.
PcnoM MM
1 $10
2 $10
3+ SO.
Persons Min
1 $10
2 $10
3+ SO.
Eligibility ofPw PA M—1IMMI (AFDC or SSI) Automatically Eligible Automatically Eligible
(AFDC. SSL arCS)
Automatically Eligible
(AFDC. SSI. ~GA)
Purchase RcojuimiMitl No No No
Bcncnt Calculation Bcncnt - Maximum benefit (household size) • .3 «Food Stamp Net Income
SSI Cashout Slates California, Wisconsin California only California only
Monthly Food Sump Net Income Screen Unit Size US AK
524 634
702 177
U0 1.100
1.059 1,324
1.237 1.547
1.415 1.770
1.594 1.994
1,772 2,217
♦179 +224
HI
Si
1.013
1,211
1,421
1.621
1.133
2.031
♦205
US AK
552 691
740 926
929 1,161
1,117 1.396
1,305 1.631
1.494 1,866
1,612 2.101
1.170 2^36
+119 +235
HI
635
151
1.061
1.215
1.501
1,711
1.935
2.ISI
+217
US AK
561 709
766 957
965 1.205
1.163 1,454
1.361 1,702
1.560 I.9S0
1.751 2.199
1.956 2.447
♦199 +249
HI
653
Ml
1,110
1.331
1.566
1.795
2.023
2.251
♦229
Monthly Maximum Food Stamp Benefit! Unit Size US AK
105 137
193 252
277 361
352 459
411 345
502 6SS
555 723
634 127
♦79 +103
HI
172
316
• 52
574
612
•19
90S
1.034
♦129
US AK
III 142
203 261
292 374
370 475
440 564
521 677
5M 741
667 155
♦•3 +107
III
III
333
477
606
720
164
955
1,091
+136
US AK
III 143
203 262
292 376
370 477
440 567
521 610
514 752
667 S59
+13 +107
HI in
335
410
609
724
161
960
1,097
♦137
NOTE: riigiiilily elm are for the 50 stales and the District of Columbia Puerto Rico is igmmtyaan excluded from data for 1976 and 1971 in order lobe consistent with other years, and Guam and me Virgin Islands tmBmhmmymm.
•A wiactiBaw am mntmiamtiaift between 1992 and 1993 wmprevenkdbymammimitmtoamFoodStampActof I977(PL I02-35I).
«f
TABLE A3 (cauimt*)
AmmuimS
Mickey LAmd Childhood
AaaJyafeYaar Aa&mttU Hunger ReteifAct of 1993
OmUMHHEMgiMily <- 1.3 • Poverty Line <- 1 3 • Poverty Line
NtthMmtBiiMtty <- Poverty Line <■ Poverty Line
AM* ElifiMity $2,000; $3,000 lor afed households $2,000; $3,000 lor ated households
Benefit Rctetm Rate .3 .3
Minimum Benefit PcnoM Mia
1 $10
2 $10
3+ SO.
Persons MM
1 SIO.
2 SIO.
3+ SO.
Bifftiiay of tat PA M—t^JI (AFDC or SSI) Automatically FMgiUe
(AFDC, SSI, trGA)
Automatically Etjamlt
(Afl3C.SSI.trS4)
PurdiMc RcquMTOMfit No No
BcNcfilCalcMWoa Benefit - Maximum benefit (household sue) - .3 x Food SIMM Net Income
SSI Caahotf Stales Cal i font ia only California only
Mntfef Food ISM N*km Un«Si« US AK HI US AK HI
Scrota 1 511 72S 670 614 767 706
2 716 912 90$ 820 1.023 944
991 1.239 1.140 1.027 1,214 1,181
4 1.196 1.493 1.37$ 1.234 1,542 1.419
5 1.401 I.7S2 1.610 1.440 1,800 1,656 i 1.606 2.009 1.845 1,647 2.059 I.S94
7 I.I II 2.265 2.080 1.154 2,317 2.131 | 2.016 2.522 *3S 2.060 2,575 2,369
♦ ♦20$ +237 ♦23$ ♦207 +2$9 +238
MonuVy Maximum Food Stamp UattSoe US AK HI US AK HI
BOMfiU 112 147 187 11$ 147 193
206 271 343 212 271 354
293 311 492 304 318 $08
375 492 62$ 386 492 645
446 SIS 742 439 585 766
$33 702 890 $$0 702 919
$91 77* 9S4 60S 776 1.016
676 SS7 1.123 495 887 1,161
♦S3 ♦III ♦141 ♦87 ♦III + 145
NOTE: are for *e 50
for all years
and (he District of Columbia. Puerto Rico is excluded from data for 1976 and 1978 in order lobe consistent with other years, and Guam and the Vii|in Islands
ff
TABLE A.4
SUMMARY OF MAJOR INFLUENCES ON FSP PARTICIPATION RATES: 1976 to 1995
Period of Puucipabov
Rate Change Mijor Influence
Effect on Number ofParticipants and
Eligibles*
Direction of Change in
Participation Rates
197610 1971 Economy (rising
inflation and
strengthening, economy)
Almost no change in participants.
Substantial decrease in eligibles due to
the improving economy and rising
inflation. Rising inflation resulted in
more restrictive asset and isi-come
guidelines in real lei ins.
Up (by 7 percentage
points)
1971 to 1980 Legislation (Food Stamp
Actofl977)
Substantial inrmair in participants as
a result of eliminating purchase
requirement. Decrease in eligibles as
a result of capping income eligibility.
Up (by 16 percentage
points)
i960 to 1982 Economy (recession) Almost no change in participants.
Substantial increase in eligibles due to
more bouscholOs meeting the income
eligibility guidelines.
Down (by 3 percentage
points)
19*2tolVS4 Economy (recovery) Slight decline in both participants
eligibles.
No change
1914 to 1916 Legislation (1985 Food
Security Act)
Almost no change in participants.
Substantial increase in eligibles due to
the more generous eligibility criteria.
Down (by about 4
percentage pouts)
191610 1981 Economy (growth) Small decline in both participants and
eligibles.
No change
1988 to 1990 Medicaid expansion,
legislation (Homeless
Assistance Act), IRCA,
worsening economy
Increase in participants due to the
expansion in the Medicaid program,
increased outreach and expedited
service, and immigration laws granting
resident status to certain aliens. Small
decline in eligibles.
Up (by 6 percentage
points)
199010 1991 Continued Medicaid
expansion, economy
(Recession)
Increase in participants. Smaller
percent increase in eligibles.
Up (by 3 percentage
points)
1991 to 1992 Continued Medicaid
expansion, economy
(Continued hardship)
Increase in participants. Smaller
percent increase in eligibles.
Up (by 2 percentage
points)
1992 to 1993 Economy (improving) Increase in participants. Smaller
pcrcent increase in eligibles.
Up (by 1 prrrrntagr
point)
1993 lo 1994 Economy (improving) No change in participants. Small drop
in eligibles.
Up (by 1 percentage
point)
1994 to 1995 Economy (improving) Decrease in participants. Relatively
larger dacreaac m eligibles.
Down (by 1 percentage
Point)
The dfcct on the number
the rates for MMdkM*.
ofpartictpantsaiideligiblesarttte
sd
m m
TABLE B.I
SELECTED FEATURES OF THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM UNDER PAST ANDCURRENT LEGISLATION
OBRAofl9ll Food Slimp Farm.
(PL 86-35) and Amendments of Agriculture,
Food Stamp 1912 (PL 97- Conservation
Food Stamp Amendments 253) Effective and Trade
Food Stamp Amendments 10-12 Md 1985 Food 1917 Hunger Act of 1990
Food Stamp Ad of 1977 of 1979 Md MHO* Act of Cclmniig Security Act Homeless Prevention and 1991- The Mickey Letand
Actofl964a. (PL 93-111) 1980 (PL 96- 1981 (PL 97- Resolution of (PL 99-198) Assistance Act of 1988 FACTA Amendments Chddhood Hanger
FSP A—M9i Effective 58 and PL 96- 98) Effective I9C4 Effective Act (PL (PL 100- (PL 101- toFACTAof Relief Act of 1993
Ftetare H-S2S) 1-1-79 249) 10-1-81 (PL 84-473) 5-86 100-97) 435) 624) 1991 (PL 10346)
Maximum Thrifty Food Thrifty Food Thrifty Food Thrifty Food Indexing lo No change No change Incremental No change No change* No Change
Benefit PUn Indexed Plan Plan Indexed Plan Indexing 99% rather than indexing to
since 1971. Indexed annually in frozen until 7- 100% of Thrifty lOJSof
indexed Semiamtually Jan based on 1-83. next Food PI in cosf. Thrifty Food
senuannually baaed on Sept cost of adjnilmrnt 10- Changed back Plan by FY
ftoml973- Thrifty Food Plan 144 based on to 100% by PL 1991 and
1979 based on Plan component! June cost of 98-473 Last thereafter
BLSfbod components PUn step in benefit
price index components calculation
rounded down
1— N**CC«.< Net hj—I
i poverty
Excludes
energy
Gross income s
13 poverty.
Noneiderly and
nondisabtcd
No change No change No change No change No change Earnings of
students are
tm»mm NM assistance as except lor svjject to both excluded from
net income mcome elderly* net and grots income through ant
whkhwas hpjhjphj oaaMco. wno income limiti 21. Previously,
UcdtodK mcome of
inllgilli
aliens less
prorate share
keep previous
act income
Unit
were excluded
through age 17
Excludes as income
100% of vendor
facilities on behalf
of heath is
IGA
for utility
f*~
TABLE B.l(<
OBRAof 1981 Food Stamp Firm.
(PL 86-35) and Amendments of Agriculture,
Food Stamp 1982 (PL 97- Conservation
Food Stamp Amendments 253) Effective and Trade
Food Stamp Amendments and Reauthori- 10-12 and 1913 Food 1917 Hunger Act of 1990
Food Stamp Act of 1977 of 1979 and ntkMAclof Continuing Security Act Homeless Prevention and 1991- The Mickey Leland
Actofl964m (PL 95-113) 1980 (PL 96- 1981 (PL 97- Resolution of (PL 99-191) Assistance Actofl9U FACTA Amendments Childhood Hunger
FSf Amended (PL Effective 51 and PL 96- 91) Effective I9M Effective Act (PL (PL 100- (PL 101- to FACTA of RdiefActofl993
Feature 81-525) 1-1-79 249) 10-1-81 (PL 84-473) 5-86 10047) 435) 624) 1991 (PL 10346)
MM Payroll, 10% 20% of 1910 Act: 11% of Next inflation 20% of Increased Dependent No change No change Increased cap cu
Deductions ofcanumgsto earnings. shelter/ child earnmp. adjustment caramgj. capon care snesscr ccoucnoa
SM.cftnM child care up care cap shelter/child delayed until Separate cap shelter deduction for all households to
ewe. to $75, indexed care cap set at 10-143; limns on shelter deduction increased to $231 after July 1.
education, skelter in annually in $M5with«exl on the use of deduction of for all $160 per 1994 and to $247
Medical over excess of Jan. based on inflatioM standard utility $147. with huueilwilili month per after October 1.
SI0. alimony 50% of net Sept/Sept. adjustment on expense indexed certified tmtpCPJaWIW, 1995. Raised the
or child ■otto exceed change; 1979 7-143. with allowances mcrcam. after rather than dependent care
■fpwt S75w Act: medical
expenses over
foliowing
adjustment 10-
Separate cap
on dependent
October 1.
1917. household
deduction cap to
$200 a month for
losses, shelter with child $35 for elderly 1-84, each Oct care ofSIM. each child under the
in excess of care. Limit A disabled therciner not indexed age of two and
30% ofnet indexed
annually in
July based
on shelter-fuel-
utilities
oftheCPI
allowed,
elderly and
disabled not
subject lo the
shelter
deduction
aMEimum
$175 a month for
aHother
StMOWd Now $60 Indexed No change $89 Next No change No change No change No change No No change
lllnmmnft
ssmuaftyto
CPI-nonlbod
annually in
January based
on Sept to
Sept
miMUon
arrayed until
10-1-83
Bane* Basis of 30% No change No change No change No change No change No change No r^ change
Rat* taHes
(avera«*30%
■on fawn
knU
fi
TABLE B I (confmnrW)
OBRAoflttl Food Soap Farm,
(PI. 16-35) and /mrntrnm of Agriculture,
Food Stamp 1912 (PL 97- Conservation
Food Sump A—i—Mi 253) Effective and Trade
Food SIM* AmcfMiiu.iUs andRraunori- 10-12 and 1915 Food 1917 Hunger Act of 1990
N«i«—p Ad of 1977 of 1979 and zationActof Cmliiiiu Security Act Homeless rTCvcMion and 1991- The Mickey Lcland
Act of 1964 as (PL 95-113) I9S0(PL96- 1911 (PL 97- Resolution of (PL 99-191) Assistance Actofl9M FACTA Amefwneiiis CMldhood HtMgcr
FST tmmmm. Effective 5* and PL 96- 91) Effective I9f4 Effective Act (PL (PL 100- (PL 101- toFACTAof RdiefActofl993
FNM M-S2S) 1-1-79 249) 10 1 II (PL 14-473) 546 100-97) 435) 624) 1991 (PL 103-66)
• ,1,. rKMpCCtlVC Prospective Stales' opt ton Retrospective Migrant Retrospective Exempts No change No change Nochange NoChange
Period prospective or
retrospective
w/monthly
report
becomes
mandatory 10-
1-13 (or some
households.
prospective for
oners
workers, elderly
households
win no
exempt from
monthly
reporting
monthly
reportmg
feojnrcd for
households
with earnings
or work
history except
farmers and
elderly or
drsabted with
from
monthly
reporting
requi-emen
is seasonal
farm
workers
and
households
in which all
arc
homeless
Eligibility AuloaiMictJly Must Meet No change No change Nj change Automatic No change No change Tipndfd Nochange Nochange
ofPuWic eligible IMK eligibility for categorical
Assistance conditions as pureAFDCor eligibility to
■in ,,hHiJ. MCNDCnOMS oiler SSI recipients of
/y
TABLE B I {continued)
OBRAofl98l Food Stamp Farm,
(PL 86-35) and Amendments of Agriculture,
Food Stamp 1982 (PL 97- Conservation
Food Stamp Amendments 253) Effective andTrauc
Food Stamp Amendments and Rcauthon- 10-82 and 1985 Food 1987 Hunger Act of 1990
Food Stamp Act of 1977 of 1979 and zatlon Act of Continuing Security Act Homeless Prevention and 1991- The Mickey Leland
Act of 1964 as (PL 95-113) 1980 (PL 96- 1981 (PL 97- Resolution of (PL 99-198) Assistance Act of 1988 FACTA Amendmerits Childhood Hunger
FSP Amended (PL Effective 58 and PL 96- 98) Effective 1984 Effective Act (PL (PL 100- (PL 101- toFACTAof Relief Act oM993
Feature 88-525) 1-1-79 249) 10-1-81 (PL 84-473) 5-86 100-97) ,.„ „4«i 624) 1991 (PL 103-66)
Asset
Limits
Minimum
Bonus
$1,500,
$3,000 for
elderly
household of
at least two
persons
Minimum
bonus for all,
amount varied
by household
size
$1,750;
$3,000 for
elderly
household of
at least two
persons
SlOforone-and
two-person
households
only
$1,500;
$3,000 for
elderly
household of
at least two
persons.
Excludes
vehicles used
for
handicapped
No change
No hange No change
States' option:
waive asset test
for pure AF'DC
households
passing gross
income lest.
IRA, KEOGH
accounts count
as assets
No change
$2,000;
$3,000 for
households
with elderly
member(s)
(including
one-person
households).
Changed
definition of
countable
resources.
No change No change No change Same limits.
Asset
holding of
AFDCand
SSI
recipients are
not counted
Earned Income Tm
Credits excluded
from consideration
as part of a
household's assets.
Effective September
1,1994.
Raises the vehicular
asset limit to $4,550
on September I,
1994. to $4,600 on
October 1,1995
and $5,000 oa
October 1.1996.
Excludes vehicles
necessary lo carry
food or i
No change No change No change No change No change No change
if
TABLE B I (continued)
OBRA or 1981 Food Stamp Farm,
(PL 86-35) and Amendments of Agriculture,
Food Stamp 1982 (PL 97- Conservation
Food Stamp Amendments 253) Effective and Trade
Food Stamp Amendments and Reauthori- 10-82 and 1985 Food 1917 Hunger Act of 1990
Food Stamp Act of 1977 of 1979 and zstion Act of Continuing Security Act Homeless Prevention and 1991- The Mickey Leund
Act of 1964 as (PL 95-113) 1980 (PL 96- 1981 (PL 97- Resolution of (PL 99-198) Assistance Act of 1988 FACTA Amendments ChilJtood Hunger
FSP Amended (PL Effective 58 and PL 96- 98) Effective 1984 Effective Act (PL (PL 100- (PL 101- to FACTA of Relief Act of l°5»3
Feature 88-525) 1-1-79 249) 10-1-81 (PL 84-473) 5-86 100-97) 435) 624) 1991 (PL I03-6O)
Other Nationwide Elimination Increased state Tighter Incentives for Selected Outreach Expanded Automatic All Title IV Simplifies the
Changes program of purchase incentives for definition of error rate changes efforts for the eligibility payments household
requirement reducing error. household, no reduction. include: new homeless definition of expanded to and Bureau definition by
SSNs extra benefits limits student definition of persons and disabled. pureGA of Indian allowing persons
required. for strikers. eligibility. disabled. other hard- Excluded households. Affairs who live together
Limits on prorated first benefits minor changes to-serve advanced Non-liquid educational but do no I purchase
eligible month benefits. rounded down, in treatment of groups. EITC resources assistance is and prepare food
students; Puerto Rico job search income, Simplified payments as and those excluded together to be in
residents of block grant; requirements. tougher work application income. exempted by from food separate food stamp
shelters for exempt from Puerto Rico requirement process for AFDCand stamp units. Spouses
battered work cashoul provisions. these SSI are not countable must still be in the
women A registration for prohibited. new groups. counted. income same household
disabled in selected persons Household unit employment Expanded Certain types (Higher Effective September
small groups with young definition and training eligibility of Education 1.1994.
may children. altered. No provision, for educational Amendments
participate. initial month
benefit less
than $10 SSI A
SSCOLA
adjustments
disregarded up
to 3 months.
New definition
of disabled
Puerto Rico
block grant
funds,
students in
JTPA exempt
from
categorical
restriction;
residents of
publicly
operated
mental health
centers may
participate
expedited
source.
Moved
annual
adjustment
in income
eligibility
guidelines
to October
1 ofeach
year from
July 1.
assistance
are not
counted as
income.
Rules for
student
cligibility
were
modified.
of 1992 (PL.
102-325).
•A reduction to the maximum benefit was prevented by an amendment to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (PL 102-351).
JZ
APPENDIX C
UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE IQCS CASE
RECORDS AND UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE
SIZES FOR THE CPS
f]
TABLE C-l
UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES
FOR THE IOCS CASE RECORDS
Month/Year IOCS Case Records
September 1976
February 1978
August 1980
August 1982
August 1984
July/August 1986
July/August 1988
July/August 1990
July/August 1991
July/August 1992
July/August 1993
July/August 1994
July/August 1995
11,038
14,211
4,140
7,224
6,918
11,010
10,695
10,639
10,602
9,586
9,389
8,981
8,426
J$
TABLE C-2
UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES
FORTHECPS
Analysis Year'
Eligible
Households*
Eligible
Units6
All
Households
1976 12,276 12,276 68,294
1978 10,122 10,122 68,455
1980 11,372 11,372 81,451
1982 10,335 10,335 73,195
1984 9,719 9,719 74,568
1986 9,953 9,953 73,843
1988 8,751 8,751 70,454
1990 9348 9,348 75,076
1991 9,714 9,714 74,236
1992 10,280 10,280 73,878
1993 10,172 10,172 73,126
1994 (o) 9,992 9,992 72,152
1994 (r) 8,770 9,312 72,152
1995 7,961 8,130 63,339
'There are two estimates for 1994 due to the revised methodology for determining food stamp eligibility.
This new methodology incorporates a new asset test algorithm, an improved food stamp unit definition, and
an enhanced pure PA unit definition. The original estimate (o) is based on the methodology employed in all
previous trends studies, while the revised estimate (r) is based on the new methodology.
The sample sizes of eligible households and of eligible units are identical under the methodology employed
from 1976 until 1994(o) because only one unit could exist per household. Under the revised methodology
that is used in 1994(r) and 1995, some households are simulated to form multiple units.
S7
APPENDIX D
NUMBERS OF FSP PARTICIPANTS AND EUGIBLES
USED TO CALCULATE PARTICIPATION RATES
IN 1990 THROUGH 1995
a
1990 PARTICIPATION RATES
oc crs
AaJMltl OC NMkcrof OCTO
IwMp— NMkcror crs Big** HrtUJmtm
4 fillip I ill! (EUOIBLES) !■<!■»■ Rale lililliii III ■III* Rale
(■#») (1*00) (IjOOO) (IjOOO)
TABU 1: INDIVIDUAL, HOUSEHOLD. AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES
30.73MT7 JOJWjUl 2*3M MJIIJMI 3MII 55.41% 20JH Mjltl 55 41*
7.T73.231 7.973J3I 1,913 I4J0MM 14JW 55.72* 7,t73 14.309 5572*
MtZMijm i.M8jMn.7f» I.IBMOB ijusjajm i*55.5» MOT* MMJOS WS.5» MOT*
2JO 2J4 2J* 2.57 2J7 J J
S7JB5 58» 9929 5041 5041 M 91
TABLB 2: HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
LS47.3* iMVm 2J47 3.33U93
IjMUOf IJOfJOf Ijm 2.98I.43S
\yn/m \ynm un IAIOMS
imum ljntxx not ijnjn
•I2J92 CI2JBZ «I2 1013.5*
377JB52 377,152 371 975.905
TOTAL 7.973231 7.973.231 I4.309.4M
3.331 47.40* *547
Mil •RJ9* IJM
2J9I 7292* uw
I.7M 37.44* 1*32
1J»!43 •042* •12
fTC 31.72% 371
9.391 47JO*
2JBI 4*99%
24*1 72.91%
I.7M 9744%
MM •042*
97» 38.72%
LI
oc QC
OC
(1300)
COS
(EUOIILES)
CFS
QOCPS
efts IjOOO) (IJOOO)
TAMA3: IKT>fVlDUAirAJ»TiarAT10«»ATraiYSFiJ^reDD«4O0RAnflraiARAC-rej(!yn(-5
(IJOOO) 0300)
Toul
IM««Mi<MMft
IMtfAplI
.A* 14*59
MM*Aft
12
12 <
WMM
%
imtm
543.457
IH53MIS
3342J7I
43*43*3
•3*2304
5433M
23743*
3317J*
233383
1313355
44392
•933337
13113*
•374325
7.7903M
330*352
45*3*5
4w>*
10.H9.74I
MltfC
MW3»
J3«.145
41MB
M4I377
123*53*5
M.1II
1325034
554,191
10J45M2
3.4M3M
MUJ4S
M30.79S
354.713
2i».*«l
331*314
13073M
44332
•31*322
13*0305
•3M.42J
7*62,7*1
3335323
•4*344
3N304
1030232*
93753*
42737*
CJ19354
3.79*33*
403340
1.204,401
12.1*1371
19.717
137*
1325
554
10.344
3.4S4
•3«l
4.451
555
2331
5320
1317
44
1320
13*0
1321
7313
3353
10303
9373
427
•390
3300
•304
12.1*1
20
3.71134*
33*2.112
2319.137
153*3377
5373341
10.190,129
15.744,115
0
•311341
•34*373
5347347
1.713392
1.734.977
•
10303.127
10341329
•323331
1343334
•
13.724,752
12*743*
13523*
12374307
10311.974
191301
13.701304
21344337
0
3.711
33*2
2319
2732%
31.42*
22.00%
137*
1325
554
153*4
5374
10.1*0
•7.91*
•733*
10344
3314
Mil
15.7*4
•
3330* M3I
555
1.911
•350
2931* 2431
3320
3347
1.714
1.733
0
3034*
2.40*
7107*
1307
44
•320
13*0
11303
10341
•323
1343
0
4130*
7239*
49.90*
4105*
EUR
MM
73«3
3333
•4*
3M
13.727 7X37* IM03
12*73 74.74* •373
13» 34.11* 417
12371
10312
1*4
4932*
3M5*
MM
3300
404
13.7*4
21343
•
5204*
37.93*
MM
12.1*1
M
S.7P1
334:
2319
2732*
3132*
2230*
153*4
3374
10.1*0
•791%
MOO*
•733*
13.744
•
3330*
MM
M»
2*51%
•4 94%
3347
1.744
0.733
•
3024*
230*
TOJOT*
M3M
10341
•323
1343
•
4030*
7239*
4**0*
42*5*
13.727 7237*
12*73 ^•V^PW
1352 Mil*
12374
M3U
1*4
4932*
3*33*
15.7M
21345
0
3104*
37.93*
(pp
oc
OC
crs
MiinliioC QOCfS
crs
(momni)
(•400) (IJOOO) (IjOOO)
TA3UB4: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY SELECTED RCONOMICCTIARACnBltlSncSOF TIIBINOIVaMJAL-S POOD STAMP UNTT
om
MT*nM*JnV
iMom
1-50
51-m
101-130
131*
1*04*345
U5M3D
74W431
W422.7S7
13403J2
13133*0
Tcm
11.732431 11,733
1.1333**
7.444.7H
IO.I53.OW
1.133
7.447
10.153
I40UM um
1417.I2J
75.707
1407
M
27,435.429
3009441
4.404.405
14.9393*2
4475313
1417424
I.IIM.IM
0
27435 M.K* 11.733 27,435
3J0M
4.404
14.940
70.17%
67.44%
1433
7447
10.153
*47* 17.74% 1413
Mil
1.101
10.20%
«J3%
14W
70
J40?
940*
14441
SUM
70.17%
«7'*%
0470 17.74%
•407
1.100
19.20%
4*3*
Lwel
<-$IO
$11-25
124-50
151-75
$74-100
f101-150
1131-200
$201 ♦
■%«r
417443
407.731
902403
035401
2,132081
2,743.774
3.704427
0422400
479424 479
40IJD27 401
944447 944
920.123 920
2397.913 2JDW
2.7IS43I 2,711
3443.701 3444
94404O3 9.149
l%-23%
31%-73%
2404437
14)12.404
2.120403
2491.434
3.402303
4MI4I9
5412351
14471.9*2
5477475 5302431
4313*3
3402
431
17439420
1374430
2403 19.93% 470
1312 3931% 4M
2.124 43.43% 9*4
24W 4003% 920
3403 33.73% 2401
4402 3137% 2.711
3413 •■4»l^r7»4F 3444
14472 1135% 1440
• BOO •
0 BUR -t
t ERR •
0 BRR t
0 ERR •
17.110 2930% S302
1373 23.74% 431
2403 10.03%
1412 3931%
2420 4335%
24M 4009%
3403 53.73%
4402 3137%
3413 ••-■•^^P
14472 4135%
• BRR
t ERR
t BRR
0 BRR
• BRR
17400 2930%
1473 23.74%
to
1991 PARTICIPATION RATES
oc c»
QC A**** OC IWmt OCTCTS MHbwrf Hafcrcf
NHI inrf crs Buua riiiiii^ain nmiim ■ BUM*
f*lp—i (BJOIMJB) lui Hi* DM UMM IriMM
<M»> (IJOOR) (IW) (MM)
rABLEI: MUVTOUAUEKRJSMDIJ), ANDBB*OTTrARTR3PAT10K RATES
liBlli*(tJM) UISUM 2MHIM 23.3*1 4S.M2JM 4RM3 «.|7» HJM 4t.l«3 SLIT*
ii i utymt ix*m tjHm MM IUHKI IMM SMSW MM 13.334 S».W*
■II illiMjltO) tA*lM*»S l,47l.4»jW0 i.47i.4» tJTUSMn LITLMI CT.M* MTMM UTMSI «T.M»
AilliplllMlfcltlMR 2L2 234 254 2L2 UU II
•IJ» cut aw MM MM a 34
TARLB2: HOUSEHOLD PARTtaPATION RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SOB
tMUNS 2.MMM WO 5.332*72 3.533
2*33J» tJDM* Sjm 3.113.347 J.HJ
lj»MM I4WJ» IJ4B L332.IM 2J32
MMJU IJ34J4I 1.255 2JH4M MM
UMts «H.IM «32 \.tns* I.III
500.142 500.I5* 5M MNJM 1*11
TOTAL MM** MMJB I1J94.I22
SMM) no 3JJJ SMM
MM* MM wo •JM» mm MM ERR
SMMt U» MM SMB»
93.49% •n mi SMM
^w^vW SM I*I *W«*#^^P
^y
oc en
OC A#Mtt OC *M*wtf OOCW NMtorf IMtfrf
Niiiiipiii Mm*11 w m BigM* rntijpitu nmii|nii4 H«#M*
4 r»»iciy»M (EUOIMIB) IMMiwii IUM l»4M4-h IMMiwfc
0*») <IM*7 <IJW> (l/X»)
TAHJI* IftMVtiHIALrAimCMATONIMTESBYSeilXr^
nijwm
IMrfoMt ZM97.M5 22.MUM 21.374.710 11.377 MJD4V.244 MjM9 71.14* 2U7T **49 71.14*
0 \mm l,49W» 1.444.545 1.445 J.4J2j4M J.4J1 42.44* 1*45 MM
1-M 9J4UM 4.170.9J7 MHJM9 MM 1*233*52 MJ94. MM* M7f MX254
5I-14» 1MM.IK" IM37.7W II442J34 11.0*2 lt.MZ.flM MJfJ MM* lljM] MJfJ 47*1*
»MM 2*4*4 W5S.1* 1*7*4 1.994 IIUI3J49 M.II4 HAS* 1*4 NHI4 tttS*
-m UMJM 2*1.552 i.mjm i*t utM* MM MM* MM MM uti*
»•♦ ASM SUM 51,434 52 1.IMJM 1.144 4.45* 51 1*4 4.45*
Ml57175.995
445.999 434*4 431 2*3*2 IMS MM* Ml UM MM*
533*4 511*2 511 l*4JM 1*5 44J9* SM 1*5 MM*
M4.7M 774.342 7M l*V» IJMI MM* 7M t*l MM*
1*3.994 1*9.724 l*t i mm 2*4 44M* l*t UM 44M*
1*4*1 1*2*3 UIS 2*7*7 2*7 SMI* uw UM SMI*
3.441M4 3*7*2 UM 4.441JI2 4.441 MM* 3*4 MM SUM
4.114.337 UMJM 4J7I 4.442*9 MM MM* 4*1 MM $IMM
12*1.735 Il*tl29 HAM 17*1*2 17*4 MM* 11*4 IUM MIS*
I*-19*
SI* -79*
1*4.413 IJM5.MS MM MISJM MI4 17.71* UM MM 17.71*
4*4*1 4.413*5 MIS 9.IIMM tj» 44.42* MIS MM MM*
4.700*7 MMJM MM 9.9f»j997 4.999 44*1* MM MM MM*
UMJM 7JK7M 7JM vmm MM MM* UM Mtt MM*
3*4*2 UMJM UM MMJM MM 51.15* 1S» MM 51.15*
4J44*7 4*4*9 MM 14,132*4 14.132 SUM) MM 14.112 »J4*
477*7 4S5.W4 MS UMJM UM 23** MS UM MJ4*
&f
1992 PARTICIPATION RATES
QC crs
•f QOCTS
■c crs
(EUOrtLES)
<IJ»* {im om (MM)
TABLE b MDtVBUAl* HOUSEHOLD, AI4D rARTiarATION RATES
AN ill I IH
MMUIS 25.75UW nm 4U5i.ni 4W5I «S4» M.7W 41551
nmm nsun nxm M.41UM M.4I1 turn n» K.4I1
umwtjn vmjmjn vmm* MMMUM MHBM TMMt I.MMM MMMI
is in is X* 1S9 1 1
«JI t?Jt «7.«t 57Ji 57Ji • »
7IJM
TAM3£ HOUSEHOLD rAMTiarATIOH RATES BY HOUSEHOLD Stffi
U3USI
UH5tT
•U7J
SHJ»
M«4lt
XMM5I
WL454
uss?
sun
5HJJ7
1441
*»
MM
U*
Ml
5*
jyuMH
t574\<»
5J5t
7LM»
usut
UMum
us
urn
AWft
4T.1
MM 157i
U* MM
441 US
T4J4»
47.
IMIUW
#
TABU!* MWVWULMirnCgAIIONMIMlYaEli^llUII^^
<-H»
1-51
Si-Mi
Mi>M
M-t»
131+
umsjtn
•J37J42
12472477
24754W
UMJM
mm
23,703.557
1.72X210
I2.7DMW
vmjtn
vm.m
•2412
23.7W
1.721
M77
12.701
too*
l.3*»
tJ
314434*5
U3S47S
IU22.98I
M.73XM3
IUM.4M
f.MUM
UK7M
•
31.330
UM
11423
M.7J3
IUM
MM
uis
7343%
30.77%
75.35%
1*23%
•42%
23.7*0
1.723
12.703
UM
to
sum
xm
turn
M.733
IUM
Mt»
Ui5
75.03%
SO.71%
•240%
75.35%
SBL5M
•32.130
tM-IJ
It0l-15»
fl3«-J00
I*
UBL3M
3414404
4J32J25
K427.I33
mum
SM4M
•21.530
•MTV
1.W7.3*
34M.IJ5
iimm
KIK37I
•35
I.IM
xm
4.H0
KI45
1533.135
LMU44
24334M
1257.344
15JJ.70*
•454443
44UI41
SM5.MI
1533
MM
12%
1531
•4SJ
4M2
1313%
47*0%
4*27%
3*30*
Sff
•22
MS
1»
UM
•0.13%
47*0%
mxm
3M0%
5*15%
0*34%
•7.73%
UM
•455 5115%
HMS •7.73%
Mt-25% «MU4t U*M9 UM •473403 •475 3*30% UM un JMB%
34%-M* 42M4M <nuM 417* •441473 •441 42.44% 4IM MM •MOM
SI%-75% wuss WI7JM 7.317 0430.301 MM 7M3% vn MM 7*48%
7*%-»3% 7J37.37J UM.T*? 7.737 74WM 7423 39**% %m 7423 »*•%
MM O0WH 4451*31 <252 •JOUR UN 40J0% on UM 43J0%
IT InMT I....
■MoJop UMJM) UHMf 0.315 IflMUM MJM 33*0% MIS MJM 3540%
0 l'i|i»'»i •717M NUtt M3J 10M.TM 3417 27.70% M3J MM 27.7*%
67
1092 REWEIGHTED PARTICIPATION RATES
QC QC
N—h».tf OOCfl Mater* ItaMUfW
8S (I.W0) <MM
rPArnarAimN RATES
anm.115 nmm BIT* «HHJ5t «MM
M1SMM HZJMM N12N MuOMM NA?
UTWW7JB I.WMMUIS I.T4MM IMUTMII MMJT1
15J 151 151 HI in
«JI MM *?.M 5TJI StM
M5M MOM MvMT MJM
w* urn
mm HJU1
vmym unjm
s I
• 5?
TXM.B* HWMUCD PAWIOffATIOH HATBIT HOU3KHOLDSOT
IMMW %mm MM s*<un SUM! MM
UWH imjii in JUfmzii vm AIM
MH«n WWM MM &KU1* vm 717M
mw unjn u» vmm vm MM
MUTJ wj» Ml ixr.m u*t 5X75*
smm JMMT 5M UMMt MM MM
vm urn MLTM
V* HTM
UM ATM
•
__ OC QC
r* en "SSL* °?^ - Ateg "-E-
<MM <U») <UM <UM
■raviwciiMMc«Mnnoriwi«in«iMisfoo9tmMr«Mr
«-M MMUM HHWII anus? UTM xjmjm n*» «f» njm nun
S.-M a*z*. _» MM- _ = S ££ !S? Hi!
Vm IUW MM
IMJM .
nsmu
tunyn
ill
km
am
unjm
iii
U*UM «0MN vmmt 1M IUMN IUM
mm
Mil
IMUM
aim
•
mun
KjM2
• a
rnnni
u»
*'-" SUM
5E2 nu" ■,tMI ■* MMM
vmm urn vnjn vn mam urn 5
VMJS JL» *«MIJ M» JU» j^
K»Uff KMMH HMJ IUW445 2UM MM
«MU« WMLN» UM 4HMM «M MM UN *1»
~"~ ***« *•*» <"• NMJN nm mm* Am mm
iMun vnjn vn mun MM MM W
UNJN *m u
*7
«NS i»,«ui» nm MJM Mil
fftM mji* «• UNJN un vmm m xsn
OJMN nmm turn nmsa tut? MJM IMM
UN MOUM XM9 MM UN
1993 RATES
§&8- fjgE.. "eggs gu-, Tg£ "*&--
WMMRMHHH1MB
aixifi SUSMM turn «MUtt mm* 4UH «0» tUM «M M0» •MMMM SUM njNjM turn HM IMM •*•» UMM9LW4 UOMMl*# 10MW UftHlW UWM SUM MSMM tmsM nm Iff 191 1» u» HI S s
AM «T.4i •7* SIM JMI •V SI *
vmmt
unjM
•MuMJ
sum
MTMW
MttJSI
Mil
MM
****? vn
M*UI9 wn
MIU9*
USUM van «n»
MM
Mil mam
9d
~ MM »_• Iff *fc-W m -w <MM» T5H luHT
TAMJI* ■BWNWMj^NiBMjiffjMMjMjirMjw^
<-«• BUBJM BJBJM Mj»?.4* 29U07
1-9
»-m
»MJ
oi*
muu
BJB.T4J
1U3U*
MMJI3
MJM.7«
uuuum
mow
MMMM
IUBJM
urn
turn
turn
vm.m
wjmsm
I7.4I1.IW
Mil
IMW
ffjtt
ill
MM
MM
urn
nm
until wnni unm un tltHjM BJB MM« un MM
nja
•
ttM»
tun
•
unm un
M UB.WJ
•
WJM
mi
HUM
UM
ow
M
MM
mi
«-*• MOW won m
**-• BOB MUM M um*| UHf SUM ,„ MIS
JJ-J WO« WOW W UIUW till «JM f» Ull
»'-* WWW MLM Mi OWM mi MM M UN
SJ-S mow oa.*s <i» «NO* m§ »m ow mt
M MH.W MXN mt SIMMS *M *St% M» *M
■♦ BtMtNJW MMIM BJTIJM UI7I HJI7J7J MM WM tWTI
!*-»»
w»-w» ug imi
muw UHM) UN OJTJW OB
MM OWJM on MNJM ' MM
MWJN OMJU OH MJBJB MJB
UWJM WBJM OB OBJM OM
MM 4MM ow MIOM MO
tWOM OWJM MM tunjnt tun
UWJM M0I UM UWJM mt
HBUW HWM MJM IUWJM MM
OB m
OW MB WJM
UB OM MJM
sum o» ow
mi turn MJM
Vm MB MJM
IMJM MJM BJW IMJM
n\
1994 PARTICIPATION RATES
QC QC
QC en
QOCM
(M^i») (PMf^ilUli.)
QC
CUM) (MM) Rtft
TABU I: MXVmKMUOOOrrAltriMT. AND BENEFIT EAETICirATlON MATES
llttl
ruu.iH tumm 4MJMW MJMi 27.M7 HUT «JE%
\\jMjm n.M).ro 17.t».T» MJMt tuns ITjMl font
unijmjn I.TO.MMM MTUM.MI w.7m M»M» MIUM 73.77%
IM 147 JM
•S.IJ MM SSM
TABLE 3: POOD STAMP WBT fARTOPATKM RATE! BY POOD STAMP UMTHZE
TMI
S.TM.I7I MHSM MMlStS *UE« J.TM *.m •US*
MJMM MM.M? MJW33 VLMM M» MS4 TM4H
UMMN MMJII MEMM JUS* MM MM MJS*
I.4H.471 i.M».rn vmjm aim MM MM MJSW
•EMM M7.SII MKMS sum Ml MIS sum
SIMM SIMU IJMJUI3 «.m 311 MM Mjm
ILENLM1 IMBUTf njmjm
t
7^-
QC QC
ujnt.m
•***9
i****
117**
27.sis.i4c
tMiMi
ff" '■) (f»nOf.«*.)
ll.M0.f7S
9*94*19
9**499
I.4SS.I24
•
T«M
IX.9I1.I4I
499.192
9*74*12
9.IHIM
949.419
X7.SIS.I4C
11*99*49
9*24*14
9*71*99
I.49U2I
t
n.4i9.m
12,747*22
492*1
9,192*33
1*7.421
997.929
cn
qccn
IMtaa*
II.9f2.CS4
11.429*14
9437.232
1*1*1
t
44.32C.tfl
17*4*19
15.540.359
2****
I4.l«.ffl
I2.57I.MS
24.192
44J24JfJ
12.79%
7129%
*11%
M.5V%
QC cn
(1*9) a**) »
11*11 21*9 ATS*
•*» 11*29 MM
1*79 91197 *S9%
*J9H
92. UH
3224%
97.71*
4131*
13.424 17*7 **%
I2.7M 19*9 92.14%
432 2*4 912fH
Mil 14,142 97.71%
9*7 12*71 4131%
997 ■
•Hai 11993 Mf 19941
11.474*19 11*47.7*
IC.f3l*2 11*99.197
27*19.147
h*ia*aH*fc4*»o
11*72*71
29,421*19
44*M*n
ce.ijH
C2J!%
11*49
II**
19*73
mm
• 19%
4221%
-' t«fJC*hl» 1~4—12 Y—
05
MODIFIED 1994 PARTICIPATION RATES
QC QC
QC en
FJigiMc
Uatei QCCPS
IWtoi UMbaM
(MUW) (Pf.gOp.IUli.)
QC
(1.000)
era
(1.000)
TABU I: INWVIDUAUFOOD STAMP UNIT. AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES
• IMb
Aw^PnlBfUaRI
Ann* Fw Coital
27.3J3.14* 2*.437.020 36.669.396 7210% 26.437 36,6*9 7Xlf%
11.010.693 I0.6W.1W 13.945.479 67.0634 10.694 13.945 67.46%
! .HI,113.3ft 1,780,629.611 2,100.066.003 tO 94% 1,780,630 2J00.06* PP.T1!^*
230 147 Ut
M.SS 6735 6000
TABLE 2: FOOD STAMP UNIT PARTICIPATION RATES BY FOOD STAMP UNTT SEE
ilMI
•fPtail
3.7M.I7I 3,657.7t9 «j»47^24 55.02% 3,*58 *jm 5502%
2,630.040 W54353 i.mjm *R22% W54 1.744 sum
2.003.f96 l.*4*.22t umj* 84.27% W* 24M •urn
1,410,472 i^cvjn -..731.159 79.14% U» 1.731 79.14%
6f7,f49 6*t.034 str^M nam CM W7 73.31%
512,2*5 497.323 *25.153 79.50% 498 Of 79.30%
1.010.693 I0.*93.f29 15.945.479
7f
QC QC
QC
Vmmmt UMUM* Qccrt
lk*$, IWbarf
| (f™, <**«*»
QC en
(1.000)
TABLE 3: INDIVIDUALMMIOMnON «ATES BY SELECTED HMMMHKCHAKACTERBTtCS
1.9SS.I23 1,960.011 I.M3.2II 3.646.159 33 17% IJO 5.646 33.12%
1.302.992 1.301.231 USM* 3.197.655 3931% 1.237 3,190 3931%
«ss.i:» 655.603 629.9I4 2.444.504 2531% 630 2.019 2331%
tt.9547'<S 13.969.265 I3.42J.907 I3.73t.l34 •517% 13.422 13.750 •517%
3.7.53.112 3.270.929 5.064.394 5.195,196 97 40% 5.064 5.19$ 97.40%
1.699.406 1.703.599 •J64.407 10.562.951 79.19% MM 14,343 79.19%
11.373.693 11.319.000 I!, 134.901 15.225.003 73 14% 11.133 13.225 73.14%
26.613 0 0 0
27.313.146 36.669.396
3.S60443 UM.1M 3.074.796 I.7I5.0I6 57.77% ijm 4,743 57.7m
MMMIS 3.5U.I55 3.444,233 6.440.066 3334% 3.44t «.440 5354%
3.393.023 0 0 1
usnjm 15.225.043
2,162,169 2J09.792 2,123.206 4.t22J5l 44 03% 11X1 4JB 4443%
I.I90J97 1.224.793 I.I76J0I 1.727.300 6113% 1.177 1.117 64!3%
1JUJU9 S.MI.I40 7^22.113 VW.4M 9016% 7.SM un 9016%
1*9.461 0 t t
11.575.693 15.22sjm
V
QC QC
QC
TmmUtm
11*0%
rfk* 4
I^Wfc* IMkarf Umkmd IdMlMfc Qocn QC cm
ItaHarf Mfe Br-rf- IMtoari r.ii in - - 11 i OfMa r.m,,.,,,
"""*■
(!*■■») (**<*. R*.) B~*. RUt <l50t> ojm 1*
M53I.I07 : 1500573 11.223,113 1*5*537 •7.21% II523 1*511 *7.21%
1.020509 9.036.019 1>1I5*0 10.543170 •254% Mt2 10544 1254%
5.27C.044 3.33I.4W 5.129.31* M27J70 •2.34% 5.120 1521 4234%
1.436.474 1.455.124 1.391.109 1.216,111 114.90% I5W 1517 114.00%
357.22* 0 • •
27.513.144 36.66*397
13571593 13.040501 14.540.219 •050% 13.040 14540 •9*1%
12512.141 12,406504 OS 12.404 • out
639.052 433.997 EO 434 • ESI
■574512 7.950.474 11596,13* 7031% 7^31 1150* 7*J1%
3.124^24 4524520 10.750592 4500% 45*4 10.750 4300%
543.415 322.123 •254* 322 n
27.313.144 3*5*959*
11.474,315 1152*531 15530.533 73 34% 11.027 13531 7)50%
16.031532 15.410.312 215315*3 7152% 15.410 21530 7152%
27.5I5.J47 3*5*959*
•n»i tMi i lOW art I904i ■tnlaiallYm
«
QC QC
QC CfS
llHifcli
IMtoi IWlii Qocn
Vmtn IMtoi
(«-») ffWgOpilUlta)
QC
(1*91)
TABLE 4: INDIVIDUAL KAHTKIfATTON RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHAftACTEPJSTICS OF THE INDIVIDUALS POOO OTAMf UNTT
BMB—004
T«
4%
1-50*
SI
Tatal
191-139%
131 %«r
TMlNahrtf
<■ Pvwty
IOO%rf»V»»«ty
M«*iylMB
SWOTLM
SIMS
S9M3
w-ioo
SI0I-I50
SI9MBJ
SStlar
24.713.509 23.745,23* 27.923*79 1504% 23.749 27*24 •5 04%
1.702,001 1*33*11 4.07*014 40 09% 1*33 4*79 49*9%
9*44*43 9.449,749 I9*74*K •urn 9.441 19*74 92*9%
I3.UJ.025 12*49.179 13.549.470 93 22% 11*49 13*09 93*2%
2.001.551 2,491.704 0,745.424 39.71% 2*92 S.749 39 70%
2*73*17 2.570,402 7*37*99 39.33% w\ 1JM 34*3%
124.041 121.102 1.707.144 7 0*% 121 1.741 7.09%
27*19.147 34,4*9.394
439,702 014,713 3.149.772 19.32% m 3,150 1952%
427,905 403,301 1*12*22 59.40% m 1*12 99*9%
1.0*3,011 1*39*99 2*91*94 5122% 1*91 a*n 91*2%
1*14*99 1.143,070 1*44*14 99.14% 1.143 1*97 99.14%
1*52,791 1.203.493 2JIL377 9441% 1.244 UI2 9441%
4.041.420 3.003.045 5.435.547 71.44% 3.003 9*34 7140%
3.771*44 3.430.799 4.017.150 90.30% 3*31 4*17 94*0%
14.970.044 14*17.412 14*23*41 •493% 14207 14*24 04.93%
27.515.147 34.4*9*95
71
QC
Unfai
QC QC
IMki
(MMip) (ProfOjiRMio)
era
QC/CPt
IMbi
QC
(1.000)
en
(1.060)
1-23*
26-39%
51-75%
76-99%
100 %
Total
U*
AFDC
Mil iMrt) W
2.742.252 2.634.002 6.937.143 37.91% 2*33 6J37 37.91%
4.6?1.«50 4.495.326 6.927.605 64.19% 4.493 6.921 64.19%
7.492439 7.190.971 7.007.671 9120% 7.199 7.101 92 20%
7.763.943 7,461*30 7.113^17 10416% 7.462 7.116 104 06%
4.135.742 4.646,263 7.MI.360 5195% 4.646 vm 31.93%
27.SIS.I4C 36,669.396
7.930,452 7.619.713 14.131.294 33.19% 1jO» I4.IM 33.19%
631.091 613.093 1.631.774 37.41% 613 1.639 37.41%
IJ.l2t.O0l 13,215.025 ll.J0l.049 117.36% 13.213 11.301 117.36%
IHM4S 3.767.903 3 442.702 109.43% 3,761 3*43 109.45%
•
1995 PARTICIPATION RATES
QC QC
QC
IWtoi IMi
IMtoi
) (PNtOpRtfte)
CM
QC/CW
IMhai
QC
(1.000)
crs
(1.000)
TABLE I: MBPOBUMUPOODSTAMP UNIT. AND BENEFIT PARTICIPATION RATES
fmil ttMk
2?.m.«4 25,299.091 33.663.4t3 70 94% 23.199 35.443 -70.94%
10.610.477 10.377,306 13.544.496 66 76% 1*371 15.344 66 76%
1.794.924.230 1,752.231.030 2,175.871.337 •053% union xtnjni •053%
144 2.44 129
6935 69 26 6101
TABLE 2: POOD STAMP UNIT PARTICIPATION RATES BY POOD ITAMP UNIT SEE
tlMI
rfPaail
3.842.171 3.737.tlO 4.456.479 58.20% 3.7SS 6,436 3820%
2.434,924 2481,463 3.751.952 63.47% U8I 3.7S2 4347%
vajm 1.919,968 2J52.642 85 23% M» vss 85.23%
1305.414 1.276,820 1.375433 8106% \xn \jm 81.06%
633.971 420.03t •61.620 7196% 620 m 71.96%
430.141 421,387 646.369 6517% 421 647 65.17%
IO.6IC.47t 10,377.306 15.344.495
11
QC QC
QC en
lk*md UWto«4
i) (frofO^R-b.)
Qccn
Ummmd
QC
(1.000)
en
(1400) n*.
TABLE 3: NDMDIIAL PAST1C1PATWW RATES BY SELECTED DEMOOttAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
1.733.479 1.737492 1.717.670 5.514.931 31.13% vm S4I7 31.13*
1.237.374 1443.931 1.214.900 3.129.400 30023* I41S Jvl» 30 02*
511.103 311.499 504.009 24*7443 21.23* 397 2400 2143*
13.174.402 13.I9I.2S1 12,093.930 13.112.041 0532* 12494 IS.IU •342*
4.602,414 4497424 4.591.414 4439,799 94.43* 4491 4431 9443*
1.494.060 0.500.34* 0.300.5W 194*1491 00.97* ■499 10441 00 97*
10.923.003 I0.W7.154 10,490.555 13.034.442 71.11* 10.491 13434 71.11*
29,792 • • 1
Kjmjm 33.443.403
3.799434 3,434423 343144* 0,332,349 42.34* S4SI 9433 4234*
2434441 3J40.445 34K4W 4,401.074 3040* X3B3 9493 3949*
4.T99439 • 9 -1
I0.W3.003 13.034.442
2,097.904 2.150,132 2.109.473 3414444 4X97* 2.199 5.015 4X97*
I.I 10.03 J '.141.934 I.I 14400 1.351494 71.93* I.IM 1451 7149*
7.419499 7.423.715 7431423 0,440400 07.99* 7.43a •499 97.99*
305.353 • 9 9
I0.W3.003 13.034.442 a
QC
QC cw
Vmttmd
(Urnrnm) (TracOpRMio)
QOCfS QC
(1.000) (MM)
T—N—fc-rf
► U*
-ftMtMMrrf
IO.3-M.OI3 I0.4IOJ32 10.175.611 15.3li.l64 44.43% lt.174 13411 44 43%
»WW 9.0*1.013 M44^3S 10,343.711 MUM ■.MS ItJM 14.42%
4.454.775 4.664.044 4.SSM23 MM.IM 54 04% 4JM Mff 54 44%
1.372.949 1,373.105 ..J44.I00 1.402.774 •3 14% 1.344 IJMS 13 M%
40.065 • • 1
25.5II.5W 35.443.413
I3.431.t7i 13.330.511 13,133.215 9437% 13.331 njm 94.37%
I2.it5.457 12,594.929 En 12.595 • m
752,421 735.451 EM 7M • ant
4.TJIJ44 (\91MM II.M4J43 59.41% OTt 11.125 59 41%
wj*y 4.M7.322 10.712J1I 45.44% 4J47 11.712 43.44%
533.721 nijtM 93.144 322 M
*>IW"
35.443,415
I0.435.t44 lt.3M.M7 14^40.422 71.11% Itjtl I4J4I 71.13%
15,431,247 l3.M3.32t 21.322.163 74 74% I5.M3 21.323 Tt.74%
25Jt7.lll 35.443.415
ft
QC QC
CM
(MMfep) (FncOp.R*.)
(jc/crs gc
0J99) (•jwj
TABLE 4: WWVBXJAL PACTKITATION RATES BY SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIVIDUALI KlOO STAM9 UOT
•M rviwty
Itt^rflWty
U*
rl
SI 1-25
0*3*
SSI-TS
I»91-ISt
mi**
tatitr
23.«2t.t*7 23.t93.?5* 27927427 93.49% 23499 27*21 1545%
IJI9.9II 1.774477 4.143494 42.12% I.77J 4444 4212%
9.494J22 f.192.772 9.121492 1*9.71% turn 94M l^W.9^*
I2.4t7.7t4 l2.l2t.tC7 19.7*24*1 99.19% 12,12a 13.7*2 91.11%
2JS4449 2493,799 l.*35.*5t 23 52% UN UN 2552%
2JM.I5I 2.I5*,4»» 7.1534** 34114% 2,19* 7.IJS 99.14%
4t.41l 4732* I.4MJ72 J.2t% 47 I.49J J.29%
I3.H2.M* J5.**3.4*5
94B.I94 939.799 3.I2I.S42 171*% 9M J.IM 17.19%
997.99I 525.799 999J9J 5S.t5% sat 999 9999%
UtJWl •fB.717 1.7*44*9 41.79% Ml 14*4 49.79%
mjm 971,229 2*47.435 47.53% 9TS 1447 4751%
i.mjm 1.975.471 2.1*2*21 49.79% tjm 2.1*3 49.71%
MH*» 4J9J.I29 949*42* 7*14% 4jn S43* 7*14%
3.25*445 3.192427 943*44* 17.19% 3.1*3 3431 97.19%
l4.4Bf.JI2 14.143.173 I4,TM,4M t4«*% 14,143 1*,795 •449%
VJOjKT 39.**3.4t3
#-
QC QC
crs
UMki
UMbi
(K-f) (IWO|"*-»)
QOCM QC
(1.000) mm
1330.773 2JM.44S M00J73 33J4H 2>0 Mt7 3X04%
*0Mjm 4,142,4*3 mtjH tins 4.143 M» 4I.WH
4.W3.545 0.79S.7M I.0M.001 •OM *7»7 MM t4 24%
7J*7>1» 7.N3JI3 MHiCSS IVJ-OWT* 7.104 4,444 I09.WS
5.I02.4H *Hijm 7.337.431 •4.I7H 4J0J 7.537 4417%
25.tf2.M4 35.WJ.4t5
7JUJM 7.IU.003 HK2.451 47 or* 7.110 14,143 47.09%
730.175 713.713 UlfJX 5100* 7M UW 5100%
ij.r7i.ju 12>7*\044 10.122J42 125.24% IM7» 10.112 12540*
S.733JS4 JjO»J»15 3y43UM I#3.JM% **» i.«M 105.04%
o