Evaluation of Expedited Service in the Food Stamp Program, Vol. I

              I
COMPLETED
United States
\\ Department of
/ Agriculture
Food and
Consumer
Service
Office of
Analysis and
Evaluation
A ?e>3: F 73/n/n
I
Evaluation of Expedited
Service in the Food
Stamp Program
Volume I
0-
45~iHMSl
EVALUATION OF EXPEDITED SERVICE
IN THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
Volume I
Authors:
Susan Bartlelt
Nancy R. Burstein
Elsie C. Pan
June 1995
Prepared for:
Ms. Barbara Murphy
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
Office of Analysis and Evaluation
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 214
Alexandria, VA 22302
Prepared by:
Abt Associates
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
This study wis sponsored by the Office of Analysis and Evaluation. Food and Consumer Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of
its ongoing research agenda (contract number 53-3198-2-029). Points of view or opinions slated in this report an- those of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official position of the Food and Consumer Service.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study would not have been possible without the generous support of the State and
local food stamp staff in the 59 local offices that agreed to participate in this study. State staff
answered questions about expedited service practices in their States and paved the way for the
data collection effort. We spent many months collecting data in the local offices and the office
directors and their staff spent considerable time with our field staff participating in interviews,
completing surveys, and helping to locate and review case file records.
Members of the Office of Analysis and Evaluation of the Food and Consumer Service
established the initial direction and provided guidance and support throughout the entire study.
We especially thank our two project officers, Barbara Murphy and Christine Kissmer, who were
always available to provide policy guidance and operational assistance. They also provided
valuable reviews as the work progressed and we appreciate all their help. Numerous FCS staff,
in particular, Steven Carlson, Judy Seymour, and Matt Crispino attended briefings, helped with
recruiting the local offices, and provided insightful reviews as the work progressed.
Many persons at Abt Associates contributed to the study. In particular, William
Hamilton provided invaluable guidance at every step along the way. Donald Camburn directed
the data collection effort, coordinating field staff in the 59 local offices. Greg Mills assisted in
the analysis of payment error. Diane Porcari, Mark Menne, Debi Magri and Karen Levitt were
valuable project members during the design and data collection phases of the project. Michael
Battaglia as sampling statistician and Rick De Friesse as lead programmer developed the ^oialysis
files. Finally, Susan Byers led the production team that prepared the report.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
il
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Executive Summary i
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Study Objectives 3
Research Approach 3
Organization of the Report 9
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload 11
Prevalence of Expedited Service Among Approved Applications 12
Characteristics of Expedited Cases 15
Benefit Receipt and Caseload Dynamics 29
Summary 33
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria 35
Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria 36
Relative Need for Expedited Service 38
Summary 53
Chapter Four: Application Processing 57
Timeliness of Benefit Delivery 58
Accuracy of Expedited Service Designations 64
Administrative Practices 67
Summary 72
Chapter Five: The Effect of Expedited Service on Payment Error 75
Benefit Change After Initial Issuance 76
Continuing Payments Made to Expedited Service Cases with Incomplete
Verification 84
Impact of Expedited Service on Case Errors for Regularly-Processed Cases .... 84
Summary 88
Chapter Six: The Effect of Expedited Service on Staff Time Required to Process
Applications 89
Resources Used for Screening Cases for Expedited Service 89
Impact of Expedited Service on Verification Activities Occurring After the
Certification Interview 92
Impact of Expedited Service on Length of Certification Period 95
Summary 97
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. n
Table of Contents
Chapter Seven: Major Issues in Expedited Service Policy 99
Entitlement Criteria 99
Five-Day Processing Standard 103
Postponed Verification 104
Screening for Expedited Service 105
Fraud, Error, and Abuse 106
VOLUME n
Appendix A: Sample Sizes, Response Rates, and Data Collection Instruments
Appendix B: Comparisons to 1987 Study
Appendix C: Comparisons of 1991-1992 and 1993 Samples
Appendix D: Supplementary Exhibits
Appendix E: National Estimates of Presumptive Overpayment Error
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Expedited service is the administrative mechanism that allows the Food Stamp Program
to provide rapid assistance to those applicants whose need for food is most urgent. Applicants
processed under expedited service procedures are entitled, if they are approved for benefits, to
receive their benefits within five days of applying, rather than the normal processing standard
of 30 days. Since December 1987, four categories of households qualify for expedited service:
• households that have less than $150 in gross monthly income and $100 or less in
liquid resources;
• households composed of destitute migrant and seasonal farm workers with liquid
resources of $100 or less;
• households in which all members are homeless; and
• households judged at risk of becoming homeless because their combined gross
monthly income and liquid resources are less than their monthly housing and utility
costs.
The Food and Consumer Service (FCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
federal agency that administers the Food Stamp Program, sponsored a comprehensive study of
expedited service that examined the 1981-1984 period.1 Over the past decade, legislative
changes and changes in the economic climate have raised concerns among State and federal
officials and policymakers about expedited service provisions. Routine program information
systems do not provide data on expedited service, and thus FCS has little information on how
the patterns and practice of expedited service have changed.
This report presents the results of research conducted by Abt Associates Inc. under
contract to FCS. The study involved collecting data in a nationally representative sample of 59
local food stamp offices, located in 25 States and the District of Columbia. Food stamp
directors and staff were interviewed in each office, as were State-level program officials in each
State. Data were extracted from case files for two samples of cases. The first sample,
1. Linda Esrov, James Hersey, John Mitchell, John Moeller. and Mary Dent. Evaluation of Expedited
Services in the Food Stamp Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service, and SRA Technologies, Inc., April 1987.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
M
Executive Summary
representing all households who applied and were approved for food stamp benefits between
October 1991 and September 1992, includes approximately 4,500 cases. The second sample was
drawn from cases applying and approved in August and September 1993 and comprises about
3,700 cases; cases in this second sample also completed a brief survey at the time they applied.
Findings from this study are compared to those from the previous study to examine changes over
the past decade.
Somewhat more than one-third of all food stamp applicant households are designated to
receive expedited service.
During the 12-month period from October 1991 through September 1992, 35 percent
of all households approved for food stamp benefits were given expedited processing.
The observed proportion of expedited service cases is not substantially different from
the 34 percent rate found in the early 1980s by the last national study of expedited service. This
result is somewhat surprising. The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987
expanded the criteria under which applicants qualify for expedited service, and many observers
felt that this added a large pool of applicants to the expedited service caseload. Others felt that
the proportion of expedited service cases had grown during the rapid rise in the overall food
stamp caseload during the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, the study does not find any
major changes in the relative number of expedited service cases.
While the expedited service rate has not changed, the study does find that the actual
number of applicants processed under expedited procedures has increased quite substantially.
During the early 1980s, roughly 2 million households received expedited service annually. A
decade later, almost 2.5 million applicants received expedited processing—an increase of 22
percent.
Expedited services are provided to a higher proportion of households in metropolitan
than non-metropolitan areas, and the proportion is higher in large offices than small ones. Even
in the small rural offices, however, more than a quarter of all applications receive expedited
processing. Similar patterns were observed in the earlier study.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. \\
Executive Summary
About 10 percent of expedited service cases qualify solely under criteria established by the
McKinney Act.
The McKinney Act added two criteria under which households qualify for expedited
service. The first is households in which all members are homeless. The second is households
whose monthly shelter costs (housing and utilities) exceed their combined gross monthly income
and liquid resources, who are considered to be at risk of becoming homeless.
The vast majority of applicants designated for expedited service processing qualified
because they had less than $150 in gross income and $100 or less in liquid resources, which was
the primary criterion existing before the McKinney Act. About 3 percent of expedited service
households qualified solely because they were homeless, and 7 percent because their shelter costs
exceeded their income and assets.
The McKinney Act is undoubtedly responsible for the relative stability in the expedited
service rate. In the absence of the legislation, the rate would have been lower than observed in
the early 1980s.
Expedited service applicants tend to be in one-person households, to have no children in
their households, not to be elderly or disabled, and to have very low incomes.
The applicants receiving expedited service are not a monolithic group, but their
aggregate profile clearly distinguishes them from regularly-processed cases. The most dramatic
difference is that 56 percent of expedited service applicants are one-person households, compared
to 33 percent of regularly-processed cases. A number of other differences are related to this
one, such as the fact that expedited applicants are more often males and more often never
married than regularly-processed cases. The two applicant groups are similar in racial/ethnic
background, however.
Although the overall profile of food stamp applicants has changed somewhat since the
early 1980s, the key differences between expedited and regular cases have remained the same.
For example, female-headed households make up a larger proportion of all applicants in the
current study than the previous one, but both studies show that the proportion of male-headed
households is higher among expedited than regularly-processed cases.
The McKinney Act added too few households to the roster of expedited service cases
to change its general profile. Nonetheless, the larger of the two McKinney groups—the
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. in
Executive Summary
households with high shelter costs—looks quite different from the typical expedited service case.
The households with excess shelter costs are predominantly multi-person households. Most are
headed by women, and most include children. These households have higher incomes on
average than other expedited service cases, but they have far higher average shelter costs-higher,
in fact, than the shelter costs for regularly-processed cases.
Expedited service cases tend to receive food stamp benefits for a shorter time than other
cases, and once they leave the program they are somewhat less likely to re-apply.
More than a quarter of expedited cases receive three or fewer months of benefits, and
about half close in six months. On average, expedited service cases are estimated to receive
benefits for 12 consecutive months, compared to 20 months for regularly-processed cases.
The data provide no evidence that expedited service cases "recycle" through the Food
Stamp Program more than regularly-processed cases. About half of both groups have received
food stamps at some tune previous to their application. Once their cases close, the vast majority
of households do not receive benefits within the next year. The re-opening rate is somewhat
lower for expedited than regularly-processed cases (14 percent versus 18 percent).
Expedited service cases generally face quite severe economic and living situations.
Expedited service households have, on average, a monthly gross income of $154 when
they apply for food stamps, amounting to just 19 percent of the federal poverty standard for their
household size. They have an average of $22 in liquid assets. A third of them have no
permanent place to live. In all of these dimensions, the circumstances of expedited service cases
are substantially more difficult than those of the average regularly-processed case.
Although it is difficult to measure whether an applicant has an "urgent need" for food
assistance, expedited service is generally provided to households with limited ability to provide
food for themselves. Half of the expedited applicants report skipping meals in the past month
because they lacked money, and a quarter obtained free food or meals within the past week.
Many regularly-processed cases, however, are also needy according to these measures: more
than a third skipped meals, and more than a tenth obtained free food or meals.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. \\
* i
\/|U
Executive Summary
Cases that qualify for expedited service under McKinney Act provisions face more severe
circumstances than regularly-processed cases.
By definition, households qualifying solely under McKinney Act provisions do not fall
below the basic income and resource thresholds for expedited service. These households'
average incomes are therefore substantially higher than the average for other expedited cases,
but they are still well under the average for regularly-processed cases. Similarly, the McKinney
households report less ability to provide food for themselves than regularly-processed
households, but report somewhat fewer problems than the expedited households falling below
the income and resource thresholds.
Many State and local Food Stamp Program managers feel that the McKinney Act
provisions create inequities by giving expedited service to some households who are not the ones
in most urgent need of assistance. The study findings indicate that this is not a problem on
average—th&t is, the average McKinney household is more needy than the average regularly-processed
household. However, because there is no simple and universal way to measure the
urgency of a household's need, any expedited service criterion that attempts to approximate need
will allow some inequities. Since the McKinney households generally face less severe
circumstances than those who meet the traditional income and resource criteria, it is practically
inevitable that the number of inequities has increased.
Over three quarters of all expedited service cases are authorized for benefits within five
days of applying, a substantial improvement over the last decade.
Of those applications designated for expedited service processing, 76 percent have their
benefits authorized within five days. This represents considerable progress from the situation
measured in the previous study, which found 59 percent of cases processed within the five-day
standard.
Success in meeting the five-day standard is greatest in the offices with the lowest
proportions of expedited service cases, which tend to be the smaller and non-metropolitan
offices. In addition, offices that organize their application processes so as to either conduct
same-day interviews or to screen applicants before scheduling the certification interviews do a
better job than other offices at meeting timeliness standards. The criteria under which
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. v
ix"
Executive Summary
households qualify for expedited service are not closely related to the speed with which they are
processed, however.
Most State and local officials who were surveyed consider it unrealistic to expect that
all expedited cases can be processed in five days, although they support the general idea of a
policy that provides benefits quickly to especially needy applicants. Many advocate extending
the processing period to five working days or seven calendar days, although the data indicate
that only a small percentage of cases are now processed in six to eight days. The available data
do not indicate the reasons why 15 percent of all expedited service cases currently take more
than ten days to receive their benefits.
Pre-screening for expedited service, same-day certification interviews, and postponed
verification help offices meet the five-day standard.
Although five days is a relatively short time within which to process applications, some
offices use procedures that apparently make the most of that time. Most screen all applicants
before the certification interview to identify cases that may qualify for expedited processing, and
put those cases on a "fast track." Many have instituted a policy of conducting the certification
interview on the day the applicant first comes to the office, either for all applicants or for those
referred for expedited processing. Offices using these procedures process a higher-than-average
proportion of expedited cases within five days.
The Food Stamp Act allows offices to postpone much of the required verification of
expedited service applicants' circumstances if this is necessary to provide benefits within five
days. Cases whose verification is postponed are somewhat more likely than others to receive
their benefits within five days.
Although most applicants are correctly assigned for expedited or regular processing, about
18 percent are not.
Based on data extracted from case records, it appears that 12 percent of all food stamp
applicants would qualify for expedited processing, but are handled by regular procedures and
do not receive their benefits within five days. Over half of these are households who do not fall
below the basic income and resource thresholds, but whose shelter costs exceed their combined
income and resources. It is unclear whether workers do not understand this aspect of the
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. vi
Executive Summary
expedited service rules as well as others, or whether they feel that these households do not need
expedited processing.
About 5 percent of all applicants are designated for expedited service even though the
information in their case record indicates that they do not qualify. Households with excess
shelter costs are slightly over-represented in this group. The general pattern appears to reflect
random human error rather than deliberate decisions to provide quick service to cases that
narrowly miss qualifying.
Some verification is postponed for just under half of all expedited service cases.
In 45 percent of the applications handled through expedited procedures, one or more
items of verification is postponed.2 The use of postponed verification appears to have increased
since the early 1980s, when the previous study found 35 percent of cases to have postponed
verification.
The increase in postponed verification may have contributed to the higher proportion
of cases processed within five days. The gain in cases meeting the five-day standard, however,
is greater than the increase in postponed verification.
Some offices postpone verification for nearly all expedited service cases, while others
hardly ever use the technique. The offices most often using postponed verification tend to have
smaller proportions of expedited service cases, lower caseloads per worker, and State policies
requiring that expedited services be processed more quickly than the federal five-day standard.
A number of State and local officials argue for eliminating postponed verification
entirely, or for restricting the types of items for which verification can be postponed. They feel
that postponing verification opens opportunities for fraudulent applicants while adding to
administrative cost and complexity.
The study findings indicate that the policy choice involves a tradeoff: postponed
verification does help get benefits to households quickly, but it probably also slightly increases
the payment of benefits to ineligible cases. Postponed verification does also require some
2. Households may receive their initial issuance without completing all required verification. All verification
must be complete, however, before they receive the next month's benefits.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. vu
it
Executive Summary
separate administrative procedures that add complexity to office operations, but apparently do
not add significantly to administrative costs.
Cases whose verification is postponed often receive short certification periods.
States are allowed but not required to assign one- or two-month certification periods to
cases whose verification is postponed. It appears that workers apply this policy to about one
case in three. About 36 percent of postponed verification cases are certified for one or two
months, which is 16 percentage points more than the 20 percent rate observed for other
expedited cases and 20 percentage points more than the rate observed for regularly-processed
cases.
Expedited service does not lead to substantial overpayment error, although some cases with
postponed verification probably receive higher benefits than they should.
While this study did not attempt to measure directly error associated with expedited
service, it did examine several measures that serve as indicators of potential error.
Examining patterns of benefit change in the early months after initial issuance showed
expedited cases that received postponed verification were more likely to experience early
termination than either regularly-processed cases or expedited cases that did not have postponed
verification (16 percent versus 9-10 percent). This suggests that expedited cases with postponed
verification receive somewhat more benefits than they should.
The study estimates that this overpayment ranges between $14 million and $30 million
a year. While the numbers reflect significant expenditures, they represent between 0.1 and 0.2
percent of total payments made to all active food stamp cases.
Few expedited cases that fail to complete their verification continue to receive benefits
after the initial issuance, suggesting that local offices have established appropriate mechanisms
to terminate cases that never comply with verification requirements.
Expedited service does not affect the Quality Control error rate for regularly-processed
cases.
Some State and local program managers have expressed concerns that providing
expedited service diverts resources from other cases, potentially leading to higher error rates
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. viii
A"
Executive Summary
among those cases. To test this hypothesis, data from the Food Stamp Quality Control system
were analyzed for the 59 local offices included in the study. No relationship was found between
the proportion of expedited service cases in an office and the likelihood that a regularly-processed
case from that office received benefits to which it was not entitled.
Expedited service appears io have only small impacts on food stamp administrative costs.
The most direct impact of expedited service regulations is that all applications must be
screened to determine whether t'.iey should have expedited processing. Local office workers
estimate that this task requires between 10 and 40 minutes, depending upon how the screening
is done. This adds significantly to the total time that eligibility workers estimated for handling
applications, which averaged 75 to 100 minutes.
The other notable impact results from the use of short certification periods for
postponed verification cases, which can increase the total number of recertifications that will be
performed for a case. Analysis indicates, however, that only 20 percent of cases with postponed
verification (or 3 percent of all applicants) receive an additional recertification because they were
initially assigned a one- or two-month certification period.
Expedited service does not appear to affect the length of the certification interview
(apart from the screening task described above), nor does it substantially increase the frequency
with which applicants' verification must be completed after the initial certification interview.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. IX
X //'
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Expedited service is the administrative mechanism through which the Food Stamp
Program (FSP) provides immediate assistance to households that have few resources to purchase
food in the month they apply for benefits. Applicants processed under expedited service
procedures are entitled to receive their food stamps within five calendar days of filing their
application, instead of the normal processing standard of 30 days. Under current law, four
categories of households qualify to receive expedited service:
• households that have less than $150 in gross monthly income and $100 or less in
liquid resources;
• households composed of destitute migrant and seasonal farm workers with liquid
resources of $100 or less;
• households in which all members are homeless; and
• households judged at risk of becoming homeless because their combined gross
monthly income and liquid resources are less than their monthly housing and
utility costs.
In order to process applications within the mandated timeframe, the local office is
allowed to suspend many normal requirements for verifying items of eligibility. The minimum
requirement is that applicants must provide proof of identity before receiving their initial
benefits. Workers must attempt to verify all items that can be verified within the allowed time,
but may postpone any remaining items. Applicants must provide all outstanding verification
before receiving a second issuance.l
Households applying after the 15th of the month, if they are entitled to expedited
service, receive a pro-rated initial month's benefit and a full second month's benefit within the
five-day timeframe. This provision ensures that households have adequate resources to purchase
1. The one exception to this rule concerns migrants and seasonal farmworkers, who are allowed one
additional month to provide verification from out-of-state sources. This exception can only be used once each
season.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
Chapter One: Introduction
food the month they apply for benefits. Households applying before the 15th of the month
receive a full or pro-rated benefit, depending on the day they file their application.
There is no limit on the number of times a household may be certified under expedited
procedures. Before receiving expedited service, however, a re-applying household must
complete all verification from the preceding expedited certification (or have been certified under
normal procedures).
Expedited service procedures were first implemented in 1979. Since that time the law,
and consequently the regulations, have undergone a number of changes. These changes—in the
entitlement criteria, the processing standard, and operating procedures—have been designed to
address concerns about equity and fairness, fraud and error, and administrative burden raised
by officials and policymakers at all levels of government.
The Food and Consumer Service (FCS) published a comprehensive study of expedited
service in 1987 that used data from the 1981-1984 period.2 Since that time, a number of
developments have occurred that led FCS to sponsor the current evaluation of expedited service
provisions. First, the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 expanded
expedited service entitlement to homeless households and to households that were in danger of
becoming homeless because they lacked sufficient resources to cover their shelter expenses. The
Act also significantly broadened the definition of a homeless household, to include not only
individuals without fixed mailing addresses or permanent dwellings, but also those living in
shelters and other similar institutions and those living temporarily with friends or relatives.
States have raised concerns that the proportion of approved applicants entitled to expedited
service increased markedly because of the McKinney Act. Many also believe that the groups
added by the Act are more difficult to process accurately than other types of expedited cases.
Second, the economic downturn of the late 1980s led to a 34 percent increase in the
food stamp caseload between 1988 and 1992, and also resulted in State budgetary cutbacks, both
of which affected the local administration of the FSP. Many States have argued that expedited
service policy adds a difficult administrative burden to already over-stretched systems.
2. Linda Esrov, James Hersey, John Mitchell, John Moeller, and Mary Dent. Evaluation of Expedited
Service in the Food Stamp Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food & Nutrition
Service, and SRA Technologies, Inc., April. 1987. We refer to this as the "1987 Study" throughout me
report.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
Giapter One: Introduction
Finally, States have been faced with legal challenges for failing to meet expedited and
general food stamp delivery standards, and thus FCS is interested in examining the factors that
affect the timeliness of benefit delivery.
Study Objectives
The overall objective of this study is to provide information to allow FCS to assess
current expedited service operations at the national level. This project updates findings from
previous studies and examines the impact of recent legislative and regulatory changes designed
to improve expedited service. The study also responds to States' concerns with expedited
service and presents the perspectives of State officials, local food stamp officials, and the
advocacy community on the problems they are having with the implementation of expedited
service and suggestions for ways to improve operations.3 Specifically, the study:
• provides information on the number and characteristics of expedited service
households and the nature of expedited service operations;
• examines the impact of the McKinney Act on expedited service households and
operations;
• evaluates the extent to which expedited service operations achieve the intent of
federal laws and regulations;
• examines the impact of expedited service on overall FSP administration; and
• identifies ways in which expedited service policy operations may be improved.
Research Approach
The study is designed to provide precise and valid national estimates of the size and
characteristics of the expedited service population and selected subgroups, and to compare key
characteristics and processing outcomes for approved expedited service and regularly-processed
3. In December 1991. FCS canvassed the States, through the Regional offices, to solicit their opinions on
the strengths and weaknesses of expedited service policy. The States' responses to this unsuuetured survey
provided insights into issues and concerns that are explored systematically and in more detail in the current
study.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
Chapter One: Introduction
applicants.4 In order to meet these goals, the sampling design involved a two-stage national
probability sample of expedited and regularly-processed households.
In the first sampling stage, we selected 59 local food stamp offices to participate in the
study.5 In order to select the offices, all local food stamp offices in the 48 contiguous States
and the District of Columbia were stratified along two dimensions. First, offices were grouped
into three caseload size categories—small, medium, and large—defined so that one-third of all
local offices fell within each category.6 The second stratifier also divided offices into three
groups: metropolitan offices with a high concentration of homeless applicants, other
metropolitan offices, and non-metropolitan offices.
Within each stratum, offices were selected using systematic probability proportional to
size (PPS) sampling, with monthly caseload as the measure of size. Using this methodology,
larger offices within a stratum had a greater probability of being included in the sample than
smaller offices. Data collected within the offices are weighted to take into account the sampling
ratios.
Details of the second-stage sampling, which involved selecting samples of approved
applicants, are discussed below.
Data Collection Activities. The study involved extensive data collection in the local
offices selected for the study, including six related efforts:
• abstraction from client case file records of approved applicants;
• a self-administered survey of FSP applicants;
• a self-administered survey of workers involved in the application process;
• interviews with State food stamp directors or their representatives;
• interviews with local food stamp office directors and staff; and
4. This study includes only those applicants who were approved to receive food stamp benefits. Denied
applicants were excluded whether or not they were initially processed under expedited procedures.
5. We initially selected and recruited 60 local offices for inclusion in the study. However, one office dropped
out of the study just prior to the start of data collection activities.
6. We excluded offices with monthly caseloads below 300 because they could not support the necessary
cluster sizes of applicants. These offices accounted for only 0.81 percent of the national total caseload.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
Chapter One. Introduction
• interviews with representatives of client advocacy groups.
All data with the exception of the State interviews were collected by trained on-site field
researchers in the local food stamp offices selected for the study; the State interviews were
conducted over the telephone by Abt Associates staff. Data collection activities occurred
between July 1993 and February 1994.
Exhibit 1.1 shows the types of information provided by the different data sources. It
links the five basic study objectives to a more detailed set of research issues, and then shows
which data sources provide the necessary information.7
By far the most intensive dita collection activity involved abstracting data from food
stamp applicant ca*efUe records. The case file abstraction provided data on whether applicants
received expedited service, the characteristics of both expedited and regularly-processed food
stamp applicants, and details of the application process necessary to assess expedited service
operations. These data were central to addressing most of the study's objectives.
Two nationally-representative samples of approved food stamp applicants were drawn
at this second-stage sampling. The first sample includes households that applied for food stamp
benefits between October 1, 1991 and Septemoer 30, 1992, and the second sample includes those
that applied during August and September 1993. Both samples are drawn from the 59 local
offices included in the study.
The sampling frame for the 1991-1992 sample included all approved applicants who
applied for benefits in the 59 selected offices. The States (and in some cases, the counties)
participating in the study supplied these data. A self-administered survey of food stamp
applicants (described in more detail below) provided the sampling frame for the 1993 sample.
In order to obtain samples of a size sufficient to conduct the required analyses,
approved applicants were stratified into three categories—homeless, expedited but not homeless,
and regularly-processed. Within each local office, we then drew a systematic random sample
from each category. The final analysis sample includes 4,497 approved food stamp applicants
who applied during fiscal year (FY) 1992, and 3,695 approved applicants who applied during
the 1993 period. All applicant data are weighted to take into account their selection probabilities.
7. Copies of the data collection instriments and additional information on response rates can be found in
Appendix A.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
Chapter One: Introduction
Exhibit 1.1
STUDY OBJECTIVES, RESEARCH ISSUES, AND DATA SOURCES
Study Objectives Research Issues Data Sources
The number and
characteristics of
expedited service
households and the
nature of expedited
service operations
Compare the characteristics of expedited
service applicants and regularly-processed
applicants
Compare the characteristics of the service
received by expedited service applicants
and regularly-processed applicants
Derive national estimates of the number and
characteristics of applicants and the
characteristics of the services received for
expedited service versus regularly-processed
applicants
Estimate variation in applicant
characteristics and services received for
expedited service and regularly-processed
applicants depending on the local office
characteristics
Case file record
abstraction; applicant
survey
Case file record
abstraction
Case file record
abstraction; sampling
weights
Case file record
abstraction; local office
director interview
The impact of the
McKinney Act on
expedited service
households and
operations
Estimate how the number and
characteristics of applicants vary depending
on expedited service eligibility criteria
Assess the extent to which current policy
targets homeless households most in need
of services
Case file record
abstraction; local office
director interview
Case file record
abstraction; applicant
survey
The extent to which
II expedited service
I operations comply with
and achieve the intent
of federal regulations
and policy regarding
timeliness and targeting
of needs
Assess the extent to which broadened
eligibility criteria for expedited service
affects timeliness of approvals under both
expedited service and regular processing
Assess the extent to which current
expedited service policy targets the most
needy applicants
Case file record
abstraction
Case file record
abstraction; applicant
survey
The impact of
expedited service on
overall Food Stamp
Program administration
Assess the impact of expedited service on
payment error
Document the staff time required to process
expedited service applicants and regularly-processed
applications
Case file record abstrac-tion;
1992 Food Stamp
Quality Control Database
Survey of workers; local
office director interview
Ways in which
expedited service
operations may be
improved
Identify the common problems with current
expedited service policy and identify
potential changes in expedited service
policies and procedures to improve the
program
State food stamp director
interview; local office
director interview, survey
of workers; local
advocate group interview
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
Chapter One: Introduction
The data collected from the two samples were similar, with two exceptions. First, for
the FY 1991-1992 sample, FSP participation data were collected for each month between the
date of approval and the date the abstraction was completed. Second, households in the 1993
sample completed a brief self-administered survey concerning their circumstances at the time
they applied for food stamps.
The applicant survey served two purposes for the study. First, it provided the sampling
frame from which the 1993 sample of applicants was selected. All persons applying for food
stamps in the small and medium-sized offices, and a sample of persons in the large offices, were
asked to complete the survey, which was attached to the application form. The eligibility
workers reviewed the survey during the certification interview and entered information on
whether the household was approved for food stamps and whether it received expedited service
or was processed under normal procedures. Using this information, we selected the 1993 sample
of applicants for the case file record abstractions.
It is not possible to compute a response rate as it is generally defined, since we do not
know how many applicants entered our sampled offices during the study period. The number
of forms we received, however, was substantially less than the number that would have been
expected on the basis of the FY 1992 data. We have no way of knowing whether the differences
reflect real changes in the flow of applicants through the offices, or reflect a refusal by
applicants to complete the surveys, or a failure on the part of the offices to attach surveys to
food stamp application forms or return completed questionnaires. We assume that the omissions
were not systematic, and thus do not affect the validity of the sampling frame.
The completion rate of the surveys received was quite high. Ninety-seven percent of
the 10,177 surveys of approved applicants were complete.
The survey also provided information about applicants' circumstances immediately prior
to applying for food stamp benefits. Specifically, the surveys asked questions about:
• the events precipitating the food stamp application;
• difficulties the household was experiencing providing food for its members; and
• details of the households' living situation, particularly the situation of homeless
households.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
Chapter One: Introduction
These data, which are not collected as part of the application process, enable us to
better measure households' need for emergency food assistance.
The survey of workers involved in the application process also provided data to answer
two distinct research questions. Workers provided estimates of the time required to perform key
tasks in processing expedited and regular food stamp applications. These data are used to
examine whether expedited service increases the costs associated with processing applications
by increasing the amount of time workers are required to spend on certification tasks. The
surveys also solicited the workers' perspective on the issues and problems with current expedited
service policy and their suggestions for changes to improve the policy.
Sampling the workers to complete the self-administered survey involved first identifying
all workers in the office involved in substantively important roles in the initial certification
process. The sample design involved an initial cluster size of seven workers per office. All
workers were included in those offices with seven or fewer workers. In the remaining offices,
we stratified workers according to their role in the process, and randomly selected seven or eight
workers to participate in the survey. We sampled 424 workers to participate in the survey. In
total, 417 workers, or 98 percent of the sample, completed the survey. Worker data are
weighted to take into account their selection probabilities.
The primary objective of the interviews with State food stamp directors, local office
food stamp directors, and local food stamp advocacy groups was to obtain the perspective of
these different individuals on the issues and problems with current expedited service policy and
changes that would improve the policy.8 In addition, the interviews with the food stamp
officials collected information on State and local policies and procedures concerning expedited
service. This information was used to measure how differences in office procedures affected
expedited service operations, particularly the timeliness of benefit delivery, and to help interpret
the quantitative findings. All individuals contacted completed the interview.
8. The surveys asked officials to consider a number of specific issues about expedited service processing and
potential changes to current policy. We constructed these lists from the State responses to the 1991 survey,
mentioned above, that FCS conducted through the Regional offices. In the 1991 survey. States reported on
the problems they experienced with expedited service. Their responses, which varied both in content and
intensity, served as the basis for the lists developed for the current study. All State and local officials, food
stamp workers, and advocacy group representatives were asked their views on the same lists of problems
encountered and potential policy changes.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 8
Chapter One: Introduction
The 1992 Food Stamp Quality Control (QC) Database provided the data for the analysis
of the impact of expedited service on regularly-processed cases. The analysis sample included
all active food stamp cases in the study sites that were identified as receiving regular processing.
The expedited service rate in each site, computed from the record abstraction data, was attached
to each individual record to enable us to examine whether regularly-processed cases in offices
with high expedited service rates were more likely to have errors in their initial benefit
determination than similar cases in offices with low expedited service rates.
Organization of the Report
Chapter Two presents the descriptive analyses of the size and characteristics of the
expedited service population. The chapter examines the demographic and economic
characteristics of expedited service applicants and analyzes how they differ from the
characteristics of regularly-processed applicants. It also examines whether and how the observed
patterns vary depending on the size and location of the local office. The final issue addressed
in the chapter is i.ow participation patterns vary for expedited and regularly-processed applicants.
Chapter Three examines the impact of the McKinney Act on the size of the expedited
service population by analyzing the criteria under which applicants qualify for expedited service.
The chapter also analyzes how households' economic circumstances vary depending upon the
criteria under which they qualify for expedited service. This analysis includes an examination
of households' access to food and their living situations. The circumstances of homeless
applicants are analyzed separately, focusing on differences between those homeless applicants
who also qualified for expedited service because their incomes and resources were below the
established limits and those who qualified for expedited processing solely due to the provisions
of the McKinney Act.
Chapter Four examines two key indicators of the extent to which current expedited
service operations are achieving the intent of federal laws and regulations—the timeliness of
benefit delivery and the accuracy of applicants' assignments to expedited service processing.
The chapter also examines the degree to which local offices utilize postponed verification and
the assignment of short certification periods, two special provisions of the expedited service law
designed to enable them to issue benefits quickly and to minimize fraud and error.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc.
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapters Five and Six examine the impact of expedited service on two specific aspects
of FSP administration: the effect on payment error and the burden expedited service places on
workers, respectively. Chapter Five assesses the likelihood of errors occurring in initial
payments by examining the incidence of benefit changes and terminations within the first three
months of program participation for both expedited and regularly-processed cases. It also
analyzes the extent to which postponed verification has an effect on payment error to expedited
cases beyond the initial issuance, and whether expedited service increases the errors to regular
cases because of the resources that are diverted to expedited processing. Chapter Six measures
the burden or workers by analyzing the relative time required to process expedited and regular
applications.
The final chapter of the report examines the perspectives of the different groups
involved in providing expedited service—State and local food stamp officials, food stamp
workers, and advocacy groups involved with food stamp issues. The opinions of these different
groups with respect to the problems with current expedited service policy and the changes they
would recommend to the policy are examined in light of the study's findings.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 10
CHAPTER TWO
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXPEDITED SERVICE CASELOAD
This chapter begins the examination of expedited service by describing the households
that are approved for benefits after receiving expedited processing of their applications.1
Routine national reporting systems in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) do not capture
case-level information on whether applicants receive expedited service.2 As a result, program
managers have no current answers to such basic questions as how many applicants receive
expedited processing, what kinds of households receive the service, and what happens to them
after they enter the program. The special samples drawn for this study were designed in part
to fill this information gap.
The study estimates that 35 percent of all approved food stamp applications in federal
FY 1992 received expedited processing—only slightly greater than the proportion found in the
previous study that used data from the early 1980s. The households receiving expedited service
tend to be one-person households and households without children, and to have extremely low
incomes. They tend to receive food stamp benefits for a shorter period than regularly-processed
cases and, once their cases are closed, they are less likely to re-apply for benefits.
The remainder of this chapter presents these and related findings more fully. It begins
with a review of the numbers and locations of expedited service cases, and then considers their
household characteristics and their patterns of participation in the FSP.
1. In this analysis, approved applicants are considered to have received expedited service if their case files
indicate that they were designated for expedited service processing. Not all cases designated for expedited
service actually received benefits in five days, and some received benefits in that timeframe without being
designated as expedited service cases. Moreover, case records indicate that the assignments to expedited
service did not always correctly implement the rules for expedited service eligibility. These issues are
addressed in Chapter Four.
2. The Quality Control system, which draws a nationwide sample of active food stamp cases each month,
contains some information on cases' expedited service status. State-to-State differences in the procedures for
capturing this information make it difficult to describe expedited service cases accurately, however.
Prepared by Abi Associates Inc. 11
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Prevalence of Expedited Service Among Approved Applications
In the 12-month period from October 1991 to September 1992, 7.1 million households
were approved to receive food stamp benefits nationwide. Of these, 35 percent, or 2.5 million,
received expedited service (see Exhibit 2.1). In August-September 1993, the percentage of
approved food stamp households receiving expedited service was higher, at 43 percent.
Although the difference between these two estimates appears to suggest that the proportion of
expedited service cases rose between 1992 and 1993, further analysis shows that no important
increase occurred. The August-September period also saw a relatively high expedited service
rate in 1992 (38 percent, as shown in Exhibit 2.2). The difference of five percentage points in
the two August-September periods is not statistically significant. It thus appears that no major
change in expedited service rates occurred between 1992 and 1993.
Change in Expedited Service Rates Since 1984. The previous national study of
expedited service in the FSP found that the proportion of applicants receiving expedited service
during the February 1983-May 1984 period was 34 percent. The current study's estimate of
expedited service rate for October 1991 through September 1992 is 35 percent, which is not
significantly different from the 1983-84 rate.3
While the data suggest that the percentage of food stamp applicants receiving expedited
service has not increased in the last decade, the actual number of applicants processed under
expedited procedures has increased quite substantially. During FY 1992, approximately 2.5
million households received expedited service. Adjusting the figures from the 1987 Study to
reflect a 12-month period, instead of 16 months, shows that during the early 1980s, somewhat
over 2 million households received expedited processing annually. Thus, the number of actual
applications that were processed under expedited service increased by 22 percent during the last
decade. This observed increase reflects the substantial growth in the overall food stamp caseload
and does not, as discussed above, reflect increases in the proportion of applicants receiving
expedited service.
3. Because the August-September 1993 estimate of 43 percent reflects a seasonal peak, it cannot be comparjd
meaningfully to the rates found in the 1987 Study. We do not have sufficient information to adjust die
August-Seotember 1993 estimate for seasonality, and the data from the earlier study do not allow us to isolate
the August-September period.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 12
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.1
EXPEDITED SERVICE STATUS OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANT HOUSEHOLDS
I February
1983-May
1984'
October 1991 -
September 30,
1992
August -
September
1993
Total number of approved food stamp
households
7,960,000 7,132,380 794,904
Number receiving expedited service
(standard error)
Percent receiving expedited service
(standard error)
2,710,000
(349,000)
34.0%
(2.5)
2,485,603
(289,184)
34.9%
(2.9)
338,744
(30,780)
42.6%
(3.0)
Number regularly-processed
(standard error)
Percent regularly-processed
(standard error)
5,250,000
(501,000)
66.0%
(2.5)
4,646,777
(658,916)
65.2%
(2.9)
456,159
(47,825)
57.4%
(3.0)
Unweighted N 2434 4497 3695
' SOURCE: 1987 Study; unweighted N refers to sample size for detailed case file abstraction.
Exhibit 2.2
EXPEDITED SERVICE RATE: 1991-1993
3or
8
^y^y^y ** •* ** * **yy
Month
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 13
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Differences by Office Size and Metropolitan Location. A somewhat higher
proportion of applicant households receives expedited services in larger offices than in smaller
ones, as shown in Exhibit 2.3.4 Small and medium offices have expedited service rates that
are 8 to 9 percentage points lower than the rate for large offices in the 1991-1992 sample. Small
offices have lower expedited service rates than both medium and large offices in the 1993
sample. The difference between small and large offices is statistically significant in the 1993
sample, but other differences are not statistically significant.
Exhibit 2.3
EXPEDITED CASES AS A PERCENTAGE OF APPROVED APPLICANT HOUSEHOLDS,
BY OFFICE CHARACTERISTIC
Expedited Cases as a Number of Applicant
Percentage of Households
Approved Applicant Receiving Expedited
Households Service
October 1991 - September 1992a
Large (2,593 or more cases) 37.9 1,676,387
Medium (1,049 to 2,592 cases) 30.1 688,420
Small (300 to 1,048 cases) 28.5 120,796
Metropolitan 36.0 2,169,893
Non-metropolitan 28.8 315,710
Total 34.9 2,485,603
August - September 1993a
Large (2,593 or more cases) 44.2 218,396
Medium (1,049 to 2,592 cases) 43.6 91,394
Small (300 to 1,048) 31.7* 28,954
Metropolitan 44.4 247,994
Non-metropolitan 38.4 90,750
Total 42.6 338,744
a Unweighted N = 4,497 for 1991-1992 sample, 3,695 for 1993 sample.
* Significantly different from large at the 0.05 level, and from medium at 0.10 level.
4. All local offices in the continental U.S. were categorized into three equal groups according to the size of
their average monthly caseload. The third of the offices with the largest caseloads served approximately 2,600
cases or more. The third with the smallest caseloads served about 1,000 or less. The study sample included
27 large, 17 medium, and 15 3mall offices. Offices serving fewer than 300 cases were not included in the
sample.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 14
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Similarly, metropolitan offices have somewhat higher expedited service rates than non-metropolitan
offices by 6 to 7 percentage points, though the observed differences are not
statistically significant.
Because expedited service is often provided to homeless or destitute cases, it is not
surprising to find higher rates in the larger offices in metropolitan areas.5 In fact, it is
interesting that the difference is not larger. Clearly, the circumstance that most commonly
qualifies applicants for expedited service—having less than $150 in income an4 c 00 or less in
liquid resources—occurs for a substantial number of households in all types of locations.
The previous study also found similar differences in the expedited ser.ice rate in
different-sized offices. The rate in large offices was 11 percentage points grea r than the rate
in either small- or medium-sized offices. The study did not examine the effect of office location
on the expedited service rate.6
Differences by Region. The estimated percentages of applicants receiving expedited
service vary substantially across the FCS administrative regions, ?s shown in Exhibit 2.4. Most
of the observed differences are not statistically significant, however, and the regional patterns
are not consistent over the two study periods.7 Although some geographic concentrations of
expedited service applicants may exist, there is no evidence that such concentrations follow the
boundaries of the seven administrative regions.
Characteristics of Expedited Cases
Among approved food stamp applicants, we expect expedited cases to have characteris-tics
that differ from regularly-processed cases, reflecting their differential needs for program
assistance. To explore these differences, we use the combined sample of October 1991-
5. Among the 59 offices included in the study, 93 percent of the large offices are located in metropolitan
areas. Some medium offices (41 percent) and small offices (20 percent) are also located in metropolitan areas,
though most of them are in non-metropolitan areas.
6. See Appendix B, Exhibit B.l.
7. The sample was not designed to provide valid estimates by region; the number of offices within each of
the seven regions is relatively small.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 15
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.4
EXPEDITED CASES AS A PERCENTAGE OF APPROVED APPLICANT
HOUSEHOLDS. BY REGION
Expedited Cases as
a Percentage of
Approved Applicant
Households
October 1991 - September 1992"
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast
Midwest
Southwest
Mountain Plains
Western
Total
43.7
32.4
29.7
29.4
24.0*
42.2
52.4t
34.9
August - September 1993"
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast
Midwest
Southwest
Mountain Plains
Western
Total
29.3§
53.3
43.0
37.8
52.5
50.4
41.9
42.6
Unweighted N = 4,497 for 1991-1992 sample; 3.695 for 1993 sample.
We have applied a simultaneous significance test across all 21 pairwise compari-sons,
with each pairwise comparison having to meet a significance level of 4/21 ■
where A is any given significance level.
Significantly different from Mountain Plains at 0.10 level and from Western at 0.01
level.
Significantly different from Midwest at 0.05 level and from Mid-Atlantic at 0.10
level.
Significantly different from Southwest at the 0.01 level.
September 1992 cases and August-September 1993 cases. Separate analysis showed no
p
important demographic differences between the two samples.
Demographic Differences. The typical expedited service household is strikingly
different from the typical regularly-processed case, as shown in Exhibit 2.5. A majority of
expedited service applicants (56 percent) are one-person households, while most regularly-processed
households include two or more people. Expedited service cases typically include no
8. See Appendix C, Exhibit C.l.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 16
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
children. Only 38 percent of expedited service households include one or more children as well
as one or more adults, but 61 percent of regularly-processed cases fit this description.
Given this basic difference in household types, it is not surprising to find a number of
differences in the demographic characteristics of the heads of household. Compared to the heads
of regularly-processed cases, the heads of expedited service cases are:
• more likely to be men;
• more likely never to have married; and
• less likely to be elderly.
Somewhat surprising at first glance is the fact that expedited cases are less likely to be
disabled than regularly-processed cases. It seems probable that a substantial number of the
disabled cases already have a source of income (SSI, for example) that is sufficient to disqualify
them from expedited processing.
Despite these pronounced differences between expedited service and regularly-processed
cases, about half of each group received food stamp benefits in the past. About a quarter of the
expedited service applicants (or half of those with a previous food stamp spell) received
expedited processing in their previous food stamp spell.9 This suggests that some expedited
service households may cycle on and off the food stamp rolls with little change in their basic
economic circumstances. Alternatively, some of these applicants may have become savvy about
the rules for qualifying for expedited service, enabling them to receive the service multiple
times. Three quarters of the expedited applicants, however, are experiencing either their first
instance of food stamp participation or at least their first instance of expedited processing.
The factors motivating individuals to apply for food stamp benefits are similar, whether
they qualify for expedited or regular processing. This suggests that all food stamp applicants
are facing similar pressures, though of differing degrees of severity.
The pattern of differences between expedited and regular cases observed in the present
study and in the 1987 Study are very similar.10 Although the demographic characteristics of
9. Information on prior receipt of food stamp and expedited service, as recorded in applicants' case file.
Reported data may underestimate the true values, particularly for applicants who received benefits in a
different State.
10. See Appendix B, Exhibit B.2.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 17
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.5
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS:
EXPEDITED SERVICE VERSUS REGULARLY PROCESSED
Expedited Service Regularly Processed
Characteristics of Household Head
Gender
Male 45.0 %••• 26.5 %
Female 55.0 73.5
Race
White 55.8 % 55.3 %
African American 31.3 29.6
Hispanic 10.4 12.9
Asian 0.7 0.8
American Indian 1.5 1.4
Other 0.3 * 0.1
Age—mean 33 ••• 36
<18 2.1 % 2.3 %
18-24 23.1 21.1
25-34 35.5 32.9
35-44 23.9 21.8
45-59 13.3 12.4
>60 2.2 ••• 9.6
Marital status
Never married 43.3 %** 29.7%
Married 21.0 ••• 35.6
Divorced 16.4 14.4
Separated 17.2 14.2
Widowed 2.1 **• 6.1
Disabled 8.3 %••• 15.8 %
Received food stamps previously 44.9 % 47.5 %
Received expedited service previously 21.8 %•*• 9.8 %
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 18
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.5 (cont.)
Expedited Service Regularly Processed
Characteristics of Household
1 Size of household—mean 1.9 ••• 2.6
1 person 56.2 %♦•* 32.7%
2 persons 20.3 21.9
3-4 persons 19.2 ••• 34.1
5 or more 4.4 ••• 11.3
Household composition
Single person, no children3 53.6 %•** 30.9%
Single parent with children 27.0 ••• 34.7
Married couple/parents with children 7.9 ♦** 20.6
Multiple adults, without children 3.4 2.6
Multiple adults, with children 3.1 ** 5.5
Married couple without children 3.3 4.1
Other 1.7 1.7
Female-headed with children 24.4 %••• 32.9%
Main reason applied for food stampsb
Work related 47.8 % 46.3%
Household changes 18.5 18.9
Health problems 12.4 13.0
Related to other income sources 11.5 11.4
Related to housing 6.4 5.8
Other 3.6 4.6
Unweighted N 5307 2885
Missing data on household composition make this category not identical to one-person households.
1993 sample only; data from self-administered applicant survey.
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.10 level.
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.05 level.
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.01 level.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 19
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
food stamp cases as a whole have changed over time, the demographic characteristics of
expedited cases relative to regular cases have changed little. For example, the proportion of
female-headed households has increased over time, reflecting a nationwide trend, but in the
present study as in the previous study, the proportion of female-headed households is
significantly lower among expedited cases than among regular cases. It is likely that many
female-headed households are receiving enough AFDC that they are ineligible for expedited
service.
Demographic Differences by Office Size and Metropolitan Location. Large offices
tend to have a somewhat different profile of applicants than small offices, and similar profile
differences can be seen between metropolitan and non-metropolitan offices. Within each
category of offices, however, we find the same general pattern of contrasts between expedited
service cases and those subject to regular processing.
For example, one-person households account for almost half the applicants in large
offices (46 percent), but a much smaller proportion in medium and small offices (34-35 percent),
as shown in Exhibit 2.6. Within all three office sizes, however, the proportion of one-person
households is nearly twice as great in expedited service as regularly-processed cases. Similar
patterns emerge from a comparison of metropolitan and non-metropolitan offices, as Exhibit 2.7
shows.
Differences in Employment Characteristics. The recent work histories of expedited
and regularly-processed applicants are quite different, as is to be expected given the expedited
service objective of serving those applicants whose needs are most pressing. As Exhibit 2.8
shows, expedited applicants are far less likely to be employed at the time they apply for benefits
than regularly-processed applicants (8 percent versus 26 percent). Almost half of all expedited
applicants, however, and 40 percent of regularly-processed applicants worked in the year before
applying for benefits. Thus, around 60 percent of both types of applicants have a fairly recent
attachment to the labor force.
The jobs held by expedited applicants are not quite as good as those of regularly-processed
applicants when measured along several dimensions. Expedited applicants are
somewhat less likely to have:
• worked full-time;
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 20
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.6
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS:
EXPEDITED SERVICE VS. REGULARLY PROCESSED, BY OFFICE SIZE
Expedited Regularly
Service Processed All
Large Office
Characteristics of household head:
Female (%) 152.0 ••• 74.3 65.3
Age (mean) 33 •"• 36 35
Non-white (%) 52.1 55.9 54.4
Employed (%) 6.4 ••• 21.9 15.6
Disable J (%) 7.9 ••• 15.0 12.1
Receivea food stamps previously (%) 46.3 52.1 49.6
Received expedited service previously (%) 23.1 ** 12.9 17.6
Household composition:
One-person households (%) 60.9 ••• 36.5 46.3
Female-headed with children (%) 22.9 •*• 36.4 30.9
Unweighted N 3616 1881 5497
Medium Office
Characteristics of household head:
Female (%) 62.0 **• 72.0 68.5
Age (mean) 33 " 36 35
Non-white (%) 32.3 32.4 32.3
Employed (%) 9.8 *"* 30.6 23.4
Disabled (%) 8.7 •• 14.8 12.7
Received food stamps previously (%] 39.1 38.4 38.6
Received expedited service previously (%) 18.7 ••• 5.3 9.9
Household composition:
One-person households (%) 46.2 ••• 26.8 33.6
Female-headed with children (%) 28.4 27.9 28.1
Unweighted N 1246 681 1927
Small Office
Characteristics of household head:
Female (%) 55.9 "" 73.7 68.3
Age (mean) 33 ••• 37 36
Non-white (%) 13.9 14.6 14.4
Employed (%) 10.0 ••• 22.7 18.8
Disabled (%) 9.8 ••• 24.3 19.9
Received food stamps previously (%) 55.2 53.9 54.3
Received expedited service previously (%) 23.2 11.8 14.9
Household composition:
One-person households (%) 50.8 ••• 28.5 35.3
Female-headed with children (%) 24.2 26.0 25.5
| Unweighted N 445 323 768
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.10 level.
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.05 level.
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.01 level.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 21
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.7
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS:
EXPEDITED SERVICE VS. REGULARLY PROCESSED,
BY OFFICE TYPE
Expedited
Service
Regularly
Processed All
MetropoBtan
Characteristics of household head:
Female (%)
Age (mean)
Non-white (%)
Employed (%)
Disabled (%]
Received food stamps previously (%)
Received expedited service previously {%)
54.4 •••
33 ***
48.9
6.9 ***
8.2 •••
42.7
21.5 ,#*
74.2
36
50.6
23.1
14.2
46.0
10.1
66.5
35
50.0
16.8
11.9
44.7
14.9
Household composition:
One-person households {%)
Female-headed with children (%)
57.8 •••
24.5 •••
34.2
34.9
43.4
30.9
Unweighted N 4134 2048 6182
Non-Metropolitan
Characteristics of household head:
Female {%)
Age (mean)
Non-white (%)
Employed (%)
Disabled (%)
Received food stamps previously (%)
Received expedited service previously (%)
57.7 •••
32 •••
24.3
10.4 ***
8.4 ••*
53.6
23.2 •*•
71.1
37
24.5
30.1
21.0
52.4
9.0
66.5
36
24.5
23.4
16.8
52.8
13.6
Household composition:
One-person households (%)
Female-headed with children (%)
49.4 *••
23.8 "•
27.6
25.7
35.1
25.1
Unweighted N 1173 837 2010
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.10 level.
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.05 level.
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.01 level.
• worked the entire year prior to applying for benefits;
• received health insurance through their employer; and
• worked at their job for more than one year.
The hourly wage, and consequently the monthly earnings received by expedited applicants, are
also somewhat less than those of other applicants, although these differences are not statistically
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 22
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.8
EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS:
EXPEDITED SERVICE VERSUS REGULARLY-PROCESSED"
Characteristics
Expedited
Service
Regularly-
Processed
Employment Status
Currently employed 7.6 %•** 25.5%
Worked in past 12 months but not currently employed 49.1 ••• 37.7
Did not work in past 12 months 43.3 • 36.9
Unweighted N 2208 1218
Job Characteristics*
Worked 11 or 12 months in past year 18.0 %*** 31.3 %
Job tenure less than 1 year 66.3 •*• 51.9
Worked 30+ hours per week 66.4 71.0
Received health insurance through employer 23.4 ••• 34.3
Mean hourly wage $6.54 $6.76
Mean monthly earnings $969 $1,017
Unweighted N 1256 747
* Data from the self-administered applicant survey and thus available only for the 1993 sample.
b Includes only those who worked in Mst 12 months.
* Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.10 level.
* * Significantly different from .ogulariy-processed cases at the 0.05 level.
••* Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.01 level.
significant.
Differences in Income and Resources. Expedited services are intended to be provided
to those applicants in most urgent need of assistance. One would therefore expect expedited
service households to have lower incomes and assets than households receiving regular
processing. The data bear out this expectation.11
Applicants receiving expedited services have an average monthly gross income of $154,
or a litde over one quarter of the average recorded for regularly-processed cases (see Exhibit
2.9). Regular applicants are clearly poor, with incomes amounting to 59 percent of the federal
11. No important differences exist between the FY 1992 and 1993 samples, as Exhibit C.2 in Appendix C
shows.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 23
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
poverty level on average; but expedited service applicants are in even more difficult situations,
as their incomes average just 19 percent of the poverty level.
Expedited applicants' lower earnings account for 60 percent of the difference in average
gross income. Differences in Social Security account for 12 percent and "other" income for 10
percent of the overall difference. Expedited service cases also have lower amounts of income
from AFDC, SSI and unemployment insurance. General Assistance is the only income source
providing similar amounts of income to expedited service and regularly-processed applicants.
Some of the patterns of income reflect differences in the demographic composition of
cases seen earlier. For example, since fewer expedited applicants are elderly or disabled, it is
not surprising that fewer of them receive Social Security or SSI benefits. Similarly, with
expedited service cases including a large proportion of one-person households, they are less
likely to receive AFDC and more likely to receive General Assistance than regularly-processed
cases
Neither expedited nor regularly-processed cases have substantial assets, with average
total asset values of $60 and $170, respectively (see Exhibit 2.10). Both groups have liquid
resources that, on average, are below the $100 limit for expedited service (under two of the four
criteria). Even if non-liquid resources were included, most expedited cases would still fall below
the $100 limit.
Bank accounts are the largest single source of the difference in assets between expedited
and regular cases. Only 10 percent of expedited service applicants have any bank accounts,
compared to 24 percent of those regularly processed, and the $66 difference in average bank
account holdings accounts for almost two-thirds of the overall difference in assets.
Patterns in shelter expenses differ between expedited service and regularly-processed
households in two ways, reflecting the criteria under which applicants can qualify for expedited
service. First, homeless cases automatically qualify for expedited service, and consequently,
expedited service cases are three times as likely as regularly-processed cases to have no shelter
expenses at all (see Exhibit 2.11). On the other hand, households whose shelter costs exceed
their combined income and assets also qualify for expedited service, and many of these
households have quite substantial shelter costs. When these cases are averaged in with the
others, we find that average shelter costs for expedited service cases are 72 percent of the
average for regular cases, despite their having only about a quarter as much income as regular
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 24
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.9
MONTHLY INCOME RECEIVED BY APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS:
EXPEDITED SERVICE VERSUS REGULARLY PROCESSED
Expedited Service Regularly Pro-cessed
Monthly Gross Income
Mean amount
Percent with zero income
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount
Income relative to poverty level
$154 •••
53.9 %•••
$334 •♦•
.19 ###
$532
14.3 %
$621
.59
Sources of Income
Earnings
Percent receiving
Mean amount (all cases)*
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount
13.0 %•••
$47 ••♦
$364 •••
37.9 %
$272
$720
AFDC
Percent receiving
Mean amount (all cases)9
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount
9.3 %
$27 •*•
$295
13.2
$41
$315
General Assistance
Percent receiving
Mean amount (all cases)"
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount
12.1 %
$24
$199 •♦•
8.3 %
$21
$250
Social Security
Percent receiving
Mean amount (all cases)3
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount
1.7 %•♦•
$6 •••
$387 •••
11.3 %
$53
$471
SSI
Percent receiving
Mean amount (all cases)'
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount
2.4 %♦♦♦
$9 •••
$371
10.5 %
$35
$339
Unemployment compensation
Percent receiving
Mean amount (all cases)3
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount
3.6 %**•
$16 •••
$452 *♦*
8.1 %
$45
$563
Other4'
Percent receiving
Mean amount (all cases)3
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount
8.7 %♦♦•
$24 •••
$270 •••
17.3 %
$63
$363
Unweighted N 5307 2&85
• Averaged across all cases; includes those with no income from this source.
b Includes, for example, child support, worker's compensation, veteran's benefits, money from relatives and friends.
' Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.10 level.
** Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.05 level.
* * * Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.01 level.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 25
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.10
ASSETS OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS:
EXPEDITED SERVICE VERSUS REGULARLY PROCESSED
r Expedited Regularly-
Service Processed
Total assets
Mean amount (all cases)* $60 ••• $170
Percent reporting zero assets 80.9 %••• 64.6 %
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount $313 •• $481
Total liquid resources (cash, bank accounts, other)
Mean amount (all cases)3 $22 ••• $96
Percent holding 17.0 %••• 32.1 %
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount $128 ••• $300
Type of assets
Cash
Percent holding 8.3 %♦* 13.0 %
Mean amount (all cases) (all cases)" $7 $11
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount $80 $84
Bank accounts
Percent holding 10.3 %*** 23.6 %
Mean amount (all cases)" $13 ••• $79
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount $130 *** $334
Other liquid resources
Percent holding 0.5 %** 1.7 %
Mean amount (all cases)' $2 •* $7
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount $334 $385
Vehicle (countable portion)6
Percent holding 3.3 % 6.8 %
Mean amount (all cases)" $22 •• $68
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount $685 $1001
Other non-liquid resources
Percent holding 0.2 %* 0.6 %
Mean amount (all cases)3 $16 $6
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount $8435 $1032
| Unweighted N 5307 2885
' Averaged across all cases; includas those with no assets from this source.
b Value of vehicle in excess of $4,500.
* Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.10 level.
* * Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.05 level.
•** Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.01 level.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 26
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
cases. Thus, the overall pattern of shelter expenses reflects the inclusion of two quite different
kinds of households in the expedited service caseload.12
Exhibit 2.11
MONTHLY SHELTER EXPENSES OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS:
EXPEDITED SERVICE VERSUS REGULARLY PROCESSED
Expedited
Service
Regularly
Processed
Total shelter expenses
Mean amount (all cases)"
Mean amount for those reporting non-zero amount
Percent reporting no shelter expenses
$256 •••
$393
34.7 %•*•
$354
$400
11.2 %
Unweighted N 5307 2885
' Averaged across all cases; includes those with no shelter expenses.
*" Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.01 level.
The overall pattern of greater income and resources for regularly-processed cases can
be seen in offices of all sizes, and in metropolitan and non-metropolitan offices.13 It is
interesting to note, however, that the income gap between expedited service and regularly-processed
cases is greater in the non-metropolitan offices. For example, expedited service cases
in non-metropolitan offices have lower average incomes than those in metropolitan offices, at
$117 and $163, respectively (see Exhibit 2.12), but the pattern is reversed for regularly-processed
cases. Average income for these cases in non-metropolitan offices is $605, compared
to $510 in metropolitan offices. The main reason for this pattern is that regularly-processed
cases in non-metropolitan areas are more likely to be employed and have substantially more
earnings than those in metropolitan offices.
12. Chapter 3 (Exhibit 3.3) examines the shelter expenses of different types of expedited applicants in more
detail.
13. See Appendix D, Exhibit D. 1, for income, assets, and expenses by office size.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 27
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.12
INCOME, ASSETS. AND SHELTER EXPENSES OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS:
EXPEDITED SERVICE VS. REGULARLY PROCESSED. BY OFFICE TYPE
Expedited
Service
Regularly
Processed All
Metropofft9/1
Monthly gross income:
Mean amount
Percent with zero income
Income relative to poverty level
$163 •••
54.0 %•••
0.20 •••
$510
16.1 %
0.57
$375
30.9 %
0.43
Earnings:
Mean amount
Percent receiving
$49 •••
12.1 %*'•
$258
35.9 %
$176
26.6 %
Unearned income:
Mean amount
Percent receiving
$114 •••
35.8 %•••
$253
56.5 %
$199
48.5 %
Total assets:
Mean amount
Percent reporting zero assets
$59 ••
82.9 %•••
$139
69.0 %
$107
74.4 %
Liquid resources:
Mean amount
Percent holding
$20 •••
14.9 %•••
$80
28.6 %
$57
23.3 %
Total shelter expenses:
Mean amount
Percent reporting no shelter expenses
$276 *•*
33.3 %***
$378
10.9 %
$338
19.66 %
Unweighted N 4134 2048 6182
Non-Metropo(itan
Monthly gross income:
Mean amount
Percent with zero income
Income relative to poverty level
$117 •*•
53.5 %•••
0.14 •••
$605
8.4 %
0.67
$438
23.8 %
0.49
Earnings:
Mean amount
Percent receiving
$40 •••
16.6 %***
$324
44.6 %
$227
35.0 %
Unearned income:
Mean amount
Percent receiving
$77 •••
32.7 %•*•
$280
61.2 %
$211
51.4 %
Total assets:
Mean amount
Percent reporting zero assets
$66 •••
72.2 %••*
$280
49.3 %
$207
57.1 %
Liquid resources:
Mean amount
Percent holding
$30 •••
25.9 %••*
$152
44.4 %
$110
38.1 %
Total shelter expenses:
Mean amount
Percent reporting no shelter expenses
$174 *•*
40.5 %***
$272
12.2 %
$238
21.9 %
Unweighted N 1173 837 2010
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.10 level.
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.05 level.
Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at the 0.01 level.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 28
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Benefit Receipt and Caseload Dynamics14
The differences in case characteristics between expedited and legularly-processed cases
are reflected in their initial allotments and subsequent benefit receipt. On the one hand,
expedited service cases are smaller, which would tend to decrease their allotments. On the other
hand, they have less income, which would tend to increase their allotments. The net effect of
these two factors is that expedited service households receive initial allotments that are slightly
larger than the average for regularly-processed cases—$160 versus $157. On a per capita basis,
however, expedited service cases receive substantially larger initial allotments—$94 per person
versus $66.
As discussed below, expedited service cases differ from regularly-processed cases in
that they have substantially shorter spells of food stamp receipt. Furthermore, they are less
likely to return to the program after leaving. In the months in which they are active, however,
they receive essentially the same benefit amount as regularly-processed cases.
Length of Spell.15 Expedited service cases are substantially more likely to terminate
quickly than other cases. For example, 29 percent of expedited service cases, but only 17
percent of regularly-processed cases, close within three months (Exhibit 2.13). After the third
month, the percentage closing in each month is roughly similar for expedited service and
regularly-processed cases. Only 14 percent of expedited service cases remain open continuously
14. Information on benefit receipt and case status was collected on all sample members for up to 23 months
from the month they were approved until the month the case file record abstraction was completed. Thus,
fewer months of data were available for cases in the 1993 sample than those in the FY 1992 sample. Because
cases applying after the 15th of the month receive an initial allotment that covers both the first and second
months of the certification period, we cannot begin to analyze case activity consistendy for all cases until the
third month of activity. Starting from the third month of benefit receipt, we had a (weighted) average of 6.4
months of data for the 1993 sample and a (weighted) averaged of 19.3 months for the FY 1992 sample. For
both subsamples combined, the mean number of months observed from the third month on was 14.1.
15. The distributions of spell lengths were obtained via weighted survival analysis. As discussed in the
previous footnote, we cannot distinguish between closure after one month and closure after two months. The
mean spell lengths were calculated based on the assumptions that (a) half of all cases that closed within the
first two months closed after one month, and (b) the hazard rate for Months 24 and beyond was a constant
for each type of case, equal to its average value in Months 13 through 23.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 29
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
for two years or more, compared with 29 percent of regular cases. The mean spell lengths for
the two groups of cases are 12 months and 20 months, respectively.16
These shorter spell lengths for expedited service cases are consistent with several
possible interpretations. One possibility is that a substantial number of these cases are in quite
volatile economic situations, and their need for assistance is short-lived. Another possibility is
that certain cases, such as homeless households, lose touch with the food stamp agency or simply
cannot get themselves sufficiently organized to appear for recertification. A third possible
interpretation is that some cases take advantage of the limited verification entailed in expedited
services, fraudulently receiving benefits until they are terminated for failure to provide
verification. The data do not allow us to know how many cases conform to these various
models.
Case Activity. As well as closing more quickly, expedited service cases reopen
somewhat more slowly. The proportion of closed cases that reopened within 12 months of
closure was 14 percent for expedited service cases and 18 percent for regularly-processed cases
(Exhibit 2.14).17 Negligible differences were seen for reopenings within two and six months
of closure.
16. The distribution of lengths of completed spells of food stamp receipt was also calculated in Nancy R.
Burstein, Dynamics of the Food Stamp Program as Reported in the Survey of Income and Program
Participation, Report to the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Abt Associates Inc.,
Cambridge MA (1993). Burstein's results were based on self-reported rather than administrative data, and
pertain to a much earlier time period (1983-1986). Comparing the last columns of Exhibit 2.13 with
corresponding information in Burstein (1993), we see the following patterns:
SIPP Data
1983-1986
Administrative Data
1991-1993
Median length of completed spells 6 months 8 months
Mean length of completed spells 21 months 17 months
Proportion of spells ending within 12 months 67 percent 62 percent
Proportion of spells lasting two years or more 20 percent 24 percent
Burstein's results are broadly similar to those shown here for expedited and regular cases combined, though
there is some suggestion that spell lengths are somewhat longer in the 1991-1993 period than in the 1983-1986
period.
17. These proportions were calculated based on those cases that closed at least 13 months before the end of
the observation period.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 30
II
Exhibit 2.13
DISTRIBUTION OF LENGTH OF FIRST OBSERVED SPELL OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS:
EXPEDITED SERVICE VERSUS REGULARLY-PROCESSED
1
2
i*>
Months
Expedited Service Regular Cases All Cases
Probability of
closure
Cumulative
probability of closure
Probability of
closure
Cumulative
probability of closure
Probability of
closure
Cumulative probability
of closure
1-2 16.0% 16.0% 8.1% 8.1% 11.2% 11.2%
3 12.6 28.6 9.1 17.2 10.4 21.6
4 8.3 36.8 6.0 23.2 6.8 28.3
5 5.8 42.6 6.0 29.2 5.9 34.2
6 7.8 50.5 8.5 37.6 8.2 42.5
7 5.6 56.1 4.7 42.4 5.0 47.4
8 3.3 59.3 3.3 45.7 3.3 50.7
9 3.7 63.0 1.7 47.4 2.4 53.1
10 2.5 65.6 2.8 50.2 2.7 55.8
11 1.6 67.1 3.3 53.5 2.7 58.5
12 4.4 71.5 3.8 57.3 4.0 62.4
13-18 9.3 80.9 9.2 66.5 9.3 71.7
19-23 4.7 85.6 4.8 71.3 4.8 76.5
24 or more 14.4% 100.0% 28.7% 100.0% 23.5% 100.0%
Mean 11.6 20.2 16.6
Median 6 10 8
§
a'
i
8.
S1
3 I
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Exhibit 2.14
PROPORTION OF CLOSED CASES RETURNING
TO THE FOOD STAMP CASELOAD
Expedited
Service
Regular
Cases
Proportion of closures
lasting no longer than:
2 months
(Unweighted N)
8.6%
(2915)
8.9%
(1177)
6 months
(Unweighted N)
13.6
(2778)
14.6
(1101)
12 months
(Unweighted N)
14.4
(2386)
18.3
(848)
Expedited and regular cases were almost identical in the number of spells of food stamp
receipt that they were likely to experience. The great majority of cases (89.8 and 91.2 percent,
respectively) had only one spell; nearly all of the remaining cases (8.7 percent and 7.4 percent,
respectively) had two spells. Among later spells, those cases that originally were expedited were
substantially more likely to reopen as expedited cases than those that originally received regular
service (61 percent versus 21 percent).18
Because of the shorter initial spell length and the lower rate of recidivism, expedited
service cases were active for relatively fewer months than regularly-processed cases. Expedited
cases were active for 34.9 percent of the time for which they were observed, compared with
49.8 percent for regularly-processed cases. The average (non-zero) benefit after the first two
months, however, was $164 for both types of cases, indicating that for the months they were
active, ex, edited and regularly-processed cases received similar allotments on average.
18. These percentages are based on those cases for whom status at reopening was known—483 expedited
service and 174 regularly-processed cases. Information on status at reopening was missing for 32 percent of
expedited service and 38 percent of regularly-processed cases.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 32
Chapter Two: Characteristics of the Expedited Service Caseload
Summary
During the 12-month period from October 1991 through September 1992, the study
estimates that 35 percent of all applications approved for food stamp benefits were given
expedited processing. This rate is similar to the 34 percent rate estimated by die 1987 Study for
February 1983-May 1984. While the proportion of applications processed under expedited
service rules has not changed dramatically in the last decade, the actual number of households
receiving expedited processing has increased quite substantially due to the overall increases in
the food stamp caseload. During FY 1992, 2.5 million households received expedited service,
a 22 percent increase from the early 1980s, when an estimated 2 million households received
expedited service each year.
Many observers believe that the McKinney Act, by expanding the categories of cases
eligible for expedited service, substantially increased the proportion of cases receiving expedited
service. Furthermore, with the explosive growth of the food stamp caseload as a whole in the
late 1980s and early 1990s, one might expect some fundamental change in the type of expedited
service cases. It appears, however, that these factors caused no profound change in either the
proportion of applicants who receive expedited processing or the profile of these cases. The
current study finds, as did the 1987 Study, that expedited service applicants tend to be:
• one-person households and households without children;
• not elderly or disabled;
• in much more severe financial circumstances than regularly-processed cases; and
• somewhat more prevalent in offices located in metropolitan areas and offices with
large caseloads.
After expedited service cases begin receiving food stamp benefits, they tend to leave
the program somewhat more quickly than regularly-processed cases. Once the expedited service
cases close, they are somewhat less likely to re-apply for benefits, at least within the next year.
Thus, expedited service cases have more fleeting contact with the FSP than other cases, on
average, even though they were in more severe financial circumstances when they initially
applied for benefits.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 33
BLANK PAGE
y\
CHAPTER THREE
EXPEDITED SERVICE ENTITLEMENT CRITERIA
One challenge faced by policymakers in designing the laws and regulations concerning
expedited service has been to define the types of households entitled to receive expedited service.
The intent of policymakers is clear—to serve quickly those in most urgent need of assistance.
Defining "neediness," however, is a more difficult issue.
Under current law, four categories of households are entitled to receive expedited
service:
• households that have less than $150 in gross monthly income and $100 or less in
liquid resources;
• households composed of destitute migrant and seasonal farm workers with liquid
resources of $100 or less;
• households in which all members are homeless; and
• households whose combined gross monthly income and liquid resources are less
than their monthly housing and utility costs.
The latter two criteria were added by the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act of 1987 as part of a broader effort to provide needed services to homeless households. The
intent of the Act with respect to the Food Stamp Program (FSP) was to provide immediate food
stamp benefits to the homeless and those households at risk of becoming homeless because they
lack sufficient resources to cover their shelter expenses.
The McKinney Act also significantly broadened the definition of a homeless household
to include not only individuals without fixed mailing addresses or permanent dwellings, but also
those living in shelters and other similar institutions and those living temporarily with friends
or relatives.
Many officials believe that the groups added by the McKinney Act substantially
increased the number of cases processed under expedited service. In addition, some have
expressed concerns that expedited service is no longer targeted to those households with the most
Prepared by Abi Associates Inc. 35
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
urgent need for emergency assistance. In particular, they worry that the broad homeless
definition established by the McKinney Act includes persons who are not truly homeless.1
This chapter examines the effect of the McKinney Act on the size of the expedited
service caseload by analyzing the criteria under which applicants qualify for expedited service.
We also examine various household characteristics in order to determine whether the households
currently receiving expedited service are indeed those most in urgent need. Chapter Two has
already shown that households receiving expedited service have less income and fewer resources
than regularly-processed households. The question addressed here is whether households
qualifying for expedited service under different criteria exhibit any differences in their need for
immediate assistance.
Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
As discussed above, households may qualify for expedited service under any of four
criteria. Exhibit 3.1 shows the distribution of expedited cases, by entitlement criteria for the
1991-1993 period.2
The analyses presented in this section are based solely on the classification(s) recorded
in the case file. The analysis does not "second guess" the worker's classification by examining,
for example, the recorded amounts of income and resources. Chapter Four looks more closely
at the accuracy of the expedited service classification.
For over half of all expedited service cases, the case file indicated that the case met two
or more of the criteria for expedited processing. It is quite possible that some additional cases
met more than one criterion, but that the worker recorded only one in the case file. Thus, the
percentage of applicants shown as qualifying for expedited service under any given criterion
represents a lower bound.
The first column of Exhibit 3.1 shows a duplicated distribution in which some
households appear in more than one category. The total thus sums to more than 100 percent.
1. Survey of State officials conducted by FCS in 1993.
2. We also examined the distributions for 1991-1992 and 1993 separately and found that they were virtually
identical. See Appendix C, Exhibit C.3.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 36
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
Exhibit 3.1
APPROVED APPLICANTS RECEIVING EXPEDITED SERVICE,
BY ENTITLEMENT CRITERIA
Entitlement Criteria
Percentage Distribution of Approved Applicants
Receiving Expedited Service
Duplicated Unduplicated
Monthly income/resources below limits
Destitute migrant/seasonal worker
"McKinney criteria"
Homeless
Shelter expenses exceed income/resources
Total
Unweighted N
90.3%
1.7
24.3
55.8
> 100.0%
5234
90.3%
0.1
2.5
7.1
100.0%
5234
The second column is unduplicated. Each case appears in only one category—the first identified
category in the order listed. The total of this column sums to 100 percent.
Fully 90 percent of all expedited service cases qualify because their income and
resources are below the established limits. Thus, most households receiving expedited service
have very little money available with which to purchase food.
Destitute migrants and seasonal farmworkers comprise a small percentage of the
expedited service caseload—2 percent. Most also qualify for expedited service based on the
income/resources criterion, however.
Of special interest are the households qualifying for expedited service because of the
McKinney Act. Overall, a substantial number of expedited service cases are homeless (24
percent) or appear at risk of becoming homeless (56 percent). Most of these households,
however, also have income and resources below the established guidelines, and thus would have
qualified for expedited service prior to the McKinney Act.
Only 10 percent of those households qualifying for expedited service can be regarded
as "McKinney" cases, meaning that they qualify for expedited service only because of the
McKinney Act provisions. Most of these cases are not homeless (2.5 percent), but are
considered in danger of becoming homeless (7.1 percent) because their shelter costs exceed their
income and liquid resources.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 37
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
We conclude that the McKinney Act added a substantial, though not overwhelming,
number of cases to the expedited service caseload. In fact, the McKinney Act is responsible for
the stability in the expedited service rate observed over the past decade. Without the McKinney
Act, the rate would have decreased to approximately 31 percent.
Differences by Office Characteristics. The McKinney Act appears to have had larger
impacts in some areas, though none of the observed differences are statistically significant (see
Exhibit 3.2).3 In the Northeast, 21 percent of all expedited cases qualified solely because of
the Act's provisions. Five percent of the expedited caseload were homeless households that did
not meet the income and resources criterion, and 16 percent had excess shelter expenses. The
Northeast also has an expedited service rate above the national average, probably due in part to
the additions to the expedited caseload resulting from the McKinney Act (see Exhibit 2.4). The
McKinney Act also seems to have had a relatively large impact in the Midwest—18 percent of
the expedited caseload qualified because of its provisions. Even though the McKinney Act had
a substantial impact in the region, its expedited service rate remains below the national average.
The McKinney Act had the smallest impacts in the Mid-Atlantic and Western regions.
Only 4-5 percent of all expedited cases can be classified as "McKinney" cases. Despite the
relatively small addition to the expedited service caseload in the Western region, the expedited
service rate is substantially above the national average. In contrast, the expedited service rate
in the Mid-Atlantic is below the national average.
The impacts of the McKinney Act did not vary significantly depending on the size of
the office or whether it was located in a metropolitan or non-metropolitan area (see Exhibits D.2
and D.3).
Relative Need for Expedited Service
Households qualifying for expedited service differ from regularly-processed households
on a number of dimensions, as Chapter Two showed. Program rules mean that most expedited
cases are in worse financial situations than regular cases, and the data show that expedited cases
3. Statistical significance was calculated applying a simultaneous 0.10 level of significance across all 21
pairwise tests.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 38
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
Exhibit 3.2
EXPEDITED SERVICE ENTITLEMENT CRITERIA,
BY REGION
Entitlement Criteria
Percentage Distribution of Approved Applicants
Receiving Expedited Service
Duplicated Unduplicated
Northeast
Monthly income/resources below limits 79.1% 79.1%
Destitute migrant/seasonal worker 0.0 0.0
"McKinney criteria"
Homeless 21.3 4.5
Shelter expenses exceed income/resources 75.4 16.4
Total > 100.0% 100.0%
Unweighted N 611 611
Mid-Atlantic
Monthly income/resources below limits 95.7% 95.7%
Destitute migrant/seasonal worker 0.7 0.0
"McKinney criteria"
Homeless 31.0 2.9
Shelter expenses exceed income/resources 48.3 1.5
Total > 100.0% 100.0%
Unweighted N 795 795
Southeast
Monthly income/resources below limits 92.7% 92.7%
Destitute migrant/seasonal worker 5.3 0.4
"McKinney criteria"
Homeless 13.6 0.5
Shelter expenses exceed income/resources 57.2 6.5
Total > 100.0% 100.0%
| Unweighted N 1368 1368
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 39
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
Exhibit 3.2 (cont.)
Entitlement Criteria
Percentage Distribution of Approved Applicants
Receiving Expedited Service
Duplicated UndupHcated
Midwest
Monthly income/resources below limits 81.7% 81.7%
Destitute migrant/seasonal worker 0.1 0.0
"McKinney criteria"
Homeless 15.8 2.3*
Shelter expenses exceed income/resources 54.3 16.0*
Total > 100.0% 100.0%
Unweighted N 641 641
Southwest
Monthly income/resources below limits 91.3% 91.3%
Destitute migrant/seasonal worker 1.4 0.0
"McKinney criteria"
Homeless 32.2 1.9
Shelter expenses exceed income/resources 36.8 6-8
Total > 100.0% 100.0%
Unweighted N 455 455
Mountain Plains
Monthly income/resources below limits 90.6% 90.6%
Destitute migrant/seasonal worker 0.4 0.0
"McKinney criteria"
Homeless 37.1 5.7
Shelter expenses exceed income/resources 41.3 3.8
Total > 100.0% 100.0%
|| Unweighted N 531 531
Westt?AA7
Monthly income/resources below limits 94.8% 94.8%
Destitute migrant/seasonal worker 1.0 0.1
"McKinney criteria"
Homeless 27.3 1.2
Shelter expenses exceed income/resources 66.7 3.9
Total > 100.0% 100.0%
Unweighted N 833 833
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 40
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
have far less income and resources than regularly-processed cases. Several-fold differences exist
in the average amounts of earned income, unearned income, and ac ts.
The issue addressed in this section is whether expedited service cases differ on these
measures depending upon the criteria under which they qualify for expedited service. In
particular, we are interested in whether McKinney cases differ from other expedited cases in
ways that would suggest they are more or less needy than other cases.
Although this analysis is intended to provide information on applicants' need for
expedited service, it does not employ an absolute definition of "need." Rather, we examine a
number of measures that describe the severity of the applicants' circumstances, including their
financial situation and their own reports of their eating and housing situations. In general, it is
reasonable to assume that people have more need for expedited service when they have lower
incomes, more frequent incidents of food insufficiency, and less stable housing arrangements.
The analysis therefore compares the various applicant groups on these dimensions, but it makes
no attempt to determine whether any particular group does not actually need expedited service.
Economic and Demographic Characteristics. Exhibit 3.3 shows the characteristics
of expedited service cases by entitlement criteria. This exhibit uses the "unduplicated" criteria
shown in Exhibit 3.1. This means that all cases qualifying for expedited service because their
income and resources are below the established limits, whether or not they qualify under other
criteria as well, are grouped together. Destitute migrant and seasonal farmworkers are not
shown separately, because the sample size is too small to provide valid estimates. The homeless
cases and those whose shelter expenses exceed their income and liquid resources are households
that qualify for expedited service only under the McKinney Act provisions. We also present the
characteristics of regularly-processed cases for comparison.
Households qualifying for expedited service on the basis of their income and resources
comprise 90 percent of all expedited service cases. Their income and resources are extremely
limited. The households' average monthly income is $125 and their liquid resources average
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 41
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
Exhibit 3.3
CHARACTERISTICS OF APPROVED APPLICANTS RECEIVING EXPEDITED SERVICE.
BY ENTITLEMENT CRITERIA
Expedited Service Criteria
(unduplicated)*
Monthly
income/ Shelter expenses Regularly-resources
exceed income/ processed
below limits Homeless resources applicants
Monthly gross income:
Mean amount S125 $225 $394 *•• $532
Percent with zero income 58,4 % 46.0 % 8.6 %*•* 14.3 %
Income relative to poverty line 0.16 0.30 * 0.47 •** 0.59
Earnings:
Mean amount $33 $114 *• $139 ••• $273
Percent receiving 10.1 % 29.3 %#* 36.0 %•** 37.9 %
Unearned income:
Mean amount $92 $111 $255 *## $259
Percent receiving 33.2 % 27.9 % 60.4 %••• 57.6 %
Total assets:
Mean amount $57 $76 $77 $170
Percent reporting zero assets 82.2 % 75.2 % 68.7 %•• 64.6 %
Liquid resources-
Mean amount $19 $42 $44 •• $96
Percent holding 15.8 % 20.3 % 29.2 %•* 32.1 %
Shelter expenses-
Mean amount $238 $69 ••• $543 ••* $354
Percent reporting no shelter expense 36.7 % 65.3 %,#* 0.6 %•*• 11.2 % |
Mean for those reporting non-zero amount $377 $198 ••• $546 "• $399
Characteristics of household head:
Female (%> 53.3 % 39.3 %•** 76.3 %*•* 73.5 %
Age (mean) 33 31 35 •• 36
Non-white (%) 43.8 % 46.6 % 47.3 % 44.7 % 1
Employed (%) 6.2 % 22.7 %• 16.6 %'" 24.7 % I
Disabled (%) 7.8 % 16.9 %*• 12.3 %' 15.8 % j
Received food stamps previously (%) 44.1 % 55.8 % 51.5 %* 47.5 %
Received expedited service previously (%) 22.4 % 21.2 % 14.4 %• 9.8 %
Household composition: ~j
One-person households (%) 58.4 % 68.9 % 29.3 %*•* 32.7 %
Female-headed one-person households 19.4 % 18.3 % 17.4 % 18.0 %
Households with children 35.8 % 29.1 % 62.9 %••• 60.7 %
Female-headed with children (%) 22.8 % 18.9 % 42.0 %"• 32.9 %
Unweighted N 4718 147 360 2885
Destitute migrants and seasonal farmworkers not shown separately as sample size (n = 9l too small to produce valid
estimates.
Significantly different from monthly income/resources below limits category at 0.10 level.
Significantly different from monthly income/resources below limits category at 0.05 level.
Significantly different from monthly income/resources below limits category at 0.01 level.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 42
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
$19.4 Their shelter expenses average $238, which is almost $100 more than their combined
monthly income and liquid resources.
The homeless category includes only those homeless households that were not recorded
as qualifying for expedited service under the income and resource criteria.5 Consequently, their
financial circumstances are somewhat less severe than those of the households that do fall below
the income and resource thresholds. Compared to the income/resource group, the homeless:
• have roughly twice as much total monthly income ($225 versus $125);
• are much more likely to have earnings (29 percent versus 10 percent); and
• are more likely to have unearned income from Social Security and SSI, and less
likely to receive AFDC and General Assistance.
Although the homeless group has higher incomes than the income/resource group, these
applicants still fall far below the income levels of regularly-processed applicants. The homeless
households' average total income, earned income, and unearned income are all less than half of
the average for regularly-processed cases.
Homeless applicants and those who meet the income/resource criteria have quite similar
demographic profiles. Both groups have a large proportion of one-person households (roughly
60 percent in both groups, compared to 33 percent of regularly-processed cases). Both groups
include a high proportion of male applicants and have relatively few female-headed households
with children.
Not surprisingly, households qualifying for expedited service because their shelter
expenses exceed their income and resources are distinguished by exceptionally high shelter
expenses—$543 per month, on average. This far exceeds the average monthly expenditures of
other expedited service households, and also exceeds those of regularly-processed applicants,
who report monthly shelter expenses of $354.
4. As Exhibit 3.3 shows, 58 percent had zero gross income. Of the 42 percent with some income, 13 percent
have reported incomes of less than $150, and 29 percent have reported incomes of $150 or more. These latter
households should not be entitled to expedited service on the basis of their income, suggesting that they were
erroneously classified in the case file records. Some, however, may qualify for expedited service on other
criteria. Chapter Four discusses these issues in detail.
5. It is possible, however, that some workers recorded cases as qualifying under only the homeless criterion
even though they met other criteria as well.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 43
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
The demographic profile of the households whose shelter expenses exceed their income
and resources is quite similar to the profile of regularly-processed cases. Most are multi-person
households, three-quarters are female-headed, and over one-third are female-headed households
with children. This pattern differs strikingly from the profiles of expedited service cases that
qualify because of income/resources or homelessness, most of which are one-person households.
The data suggest that recent job loss may have triggered the food stamp application for
a substantial number of households whose shelter expenses exceed their income and resources.
Although 36 percent reported some earnings in the past month, only 17 percent of the
households were employed when they applied. A quite comparable 38 percent of regularly-processed
applicants reported earnings, but 25 percent of the household heads continued to be
employed when they applied for benefits.
With respect to unearned income, households qualifying for expedited service because
their shelter expenses exceed their income and resources look more like regularly-processed
households than other expedited service households. Approximately 60 percent of the
households report receiving some unearned income, and the monthly average of $255 is virtually
identical to the average for regularly-processed cases.
The resources possessed by households whose shelter expenses exceed their income/
resources are quite limited. On average, they report total assets of $77, fairly similar to the
average for other expedited service households, and less than the $170 average reported by
regularly-processed households.
Homeless Households. As discussed above, homeless households qualifying for
expedited service solely due to the McKinney Act provisions have, on average, monthly income
roughly twice that of expedited service households who meet the income and resource limits.
The income of these homeless households, however, is still far below that of regularly-processed
applicants. The issue addressed in this section is how these "post-McKinney" homeless
households compare to the "pre-McKinney" homeless—those who also qualify for expedited
service on the basis of their income and resources.
Exhibit 3.4 shows the characteristics of all homeless applicants, separating those who
qualified for expedited service prior to the McKinney Act from those who qualified only because
of the Act's provisions. The pre-McKinney homeless are exceptionally poor, with less than half
the income and resources of other households who qualified for expedited service prior to the
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 44
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
Exhibit 3.4
CHARACTERISTICS OF APPROVED HOMELESS APPLICANTS.
BY ENTITLEMENT CRITERIA
Would Have Qualified for
Expedited Service Prior to
McKinney Act
Yes No
Monthly gross income:
Mean amount
Percent with zero income
Income relative to poverty line
$50 •"
76.8 %•"
0.07 •••
$225
46.0 %
0.30 %
Earnings:
Mean amount
Percent receiving
$12 »••
5.0 %••
$114
29.3 %
Unearned income:
Mean amount
Percent receiving
$38 ■
18.9 %
$111
27.9 %
Total assets:
Mean amount
Percent reporting zero assets
$23 *
89.4 %**
$76
75.2 %
Liquid resources:
Mean amount
Percent holding
$5 *
8.3 %•
$42
20.3 %
Shelter expenses:
Mean amount
Percent reporting no shelter expense
$39 «
81.5 %*
$69
65.3 %
| Characteristics of household head:
Female 1%)
Age (mean)
Non-white (%)
Employed (%)
Disabled (%)
Received food stamps previously (%)
Received expedited service previously (%)
35.2 %
32
47.1 %
2.4 %••
5.8 %*•
41.8 %*
23.7 %
39.3 %
31
46.6 %
22.7 %
16.9 %
55.8 %
21.2 %
Household composition:
One-person households (%)
Female-headed with children (%)
81.7 %,,#
12.4 %
68.9 %
18.9 %
Unweighted number 1503 147
Weighted percent 89.8 % 10.2 %
Significantly different from value for "no" group at 0.10 level.
Significantly different from value for "no" group at 0.05 level.
Significantly different from value for "no" group at 0.01 level.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 45
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
McKinney Act, and one quarter the income and resources of other homeless households. Few
are employed, and they report average monthly unearned income of $38, approximately half of
which comes from General Assistance. Their total reported assets average $23.
Most of the homeless applicants, both pre- and post-McKinney, report no expenditures
for shelter. Those that do report some expenses have fairly low expenses, on average. Some
of these reported expenses are undoubtedly payment for accommodations in shelters; others may
represent contributions to friends or relatives with whom they are temporarily staying.
The percentage with shelter expenses is lower for the pre-McKinney group: only 19
percent report any shelter expenditures, compared to 35 percent of the post-McKinney group.
This suggests that the housing situation for the pre-McKinney group may be the more tenuous.
In other respects, the pre- and post-McKinney homeless households tend to be more
similar to each other than to any of the other categories of applicants. They are predominantly
one-person households, predominantly male, and rarely female-headed households with
children—and all of these statements characterize the pre-McKinney group somewhat more than
the post-McKinney group.
Access to Food. A further indicator of a household's need for immediate food stamp
assistance is the degree to which the household is experiencing difficulties providing food for
its members. Because standard application forms provide no information on the adequacy of
access to food, a survey of food stamp applicants was conducted. As discussed in Chapter One,
all households that applied for food stamps in the sample offices during August and September
1993 were asked to complete a brief self-administered survey that asked about their circum-stances
immediately prior to applying for benefits. Several questions pertained to the applicants'
ability to provide food for themselves and their families.
Exhibit 3.5 presents the survey questions and responses for expedited and regularly-processed
applicants. It also presents the responses of expedited households, depending on the
criterion under which they qualified for expedited service.
Overall, expedited service households report greater difficulties in providing food than
do regularly-processed households. Many regularly-processed applicants report some difficulty,
but expedited service applicants are 12 to 16 percentage points more likely to report that:
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 46
Exhibit 3.5
ACCESS TO FOOD OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS.
BY EXPEDITED SERVICE STATUS
Access to Food"
Regularly-
Processed
Expedited Service
All
Monthly Income/
Resources Below
Limits" Homeles8b
Shelter Expenses
Exceed Income/
Resources"
Which statement best describes the food eaten in
your household in the last month?
Enough of the kinds of food we want to eat 19.7% 16.3% 16.6% 20.2% 12.0%
Enough food but not always the kinds of food
we want to eat
34.7 27.0ttt 26.7 26.7 27.9
Sometimes not enough to eat 32.9 32.4 32.1 33.9 35.1
Often not enough to eat 12.8 24.4ttt 24.6 19.2 25-0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
In the last month, were there days when you or
your household had no food or money to buy food?
1
Percent responding "yes" 43.3% 59.0ttt 58.6% 53.2% 64.2%
Number of days this occurred (mean)0 8.9 10.4ttt 10.6 7.2*** 9.3
In the last month dlj you or anyone in your
household skip meals because there wasn't enough
food or money to buy food?
Percent responding "yes" 35.4% 50.7ttt 50.8% 48.2% 52.2%
Number of days this occurred (mean|c 8.2 9.4t 9.5 7.3 8.7
In the past week, have you eaten in ... places
serving free meals or ... gotten free food?d
Percent responding "yes" 12.2% 24.4ttt 25.9% 19.8% 6.6%#"
Number of days this occurred (mean)c 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.5 3.1
Unweighted N 1320 2371 2139 73 129
Self-reports from applicant survey.
Unduplicated criteria; number of migrants too small to present separate estimates.
Mean computed for those saying "yes".
Excludes free school lunches for children.
Significantly different from monthly income/resource9 limits category at 0.10 level
Significantly different from monthly income/resources limits category at 0.05 level y?
" ' Significantly different from monthly income/resources limits category at
0.01 level
t Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at 0.10 level.
11 Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at 0.05 level,
ttt Significantly different from regularly-processed cases at 0.01 level.
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
• they "often did not have enough to eat" during the past month;
• they had no money to buy food on some days in the past month;
• they or someone in their household had skipped meals because there was no money
to buy food; and
• they had received free food or free meals during the past week.
All of the expedited service groups, including the groups qualifying for expedited
service solely because of McKinney Act provisions, report greater problems of food access than
the regularly-processed cases. The group with the highest incidence of problems, however, is
the homeless applicants who also meet the income and resource criteria (see Exhibit 3.6). These
pre McKinney households report a substantially higher incidence of problems than any other
group on three of the four measures of food adequacy.
Living Arrangements. Details of the living arrangements of food stamp applicants
provide additional information about their circumstances at the time they apply for benefits.
This issue is particularly relevant for homeless households, because some food stamp officials
have raised concerns that some households who qualify for expedited service solely under the
expanded definition of homelessness in the McKinney Act are not urgently in need of emergency
assistance. They cite, for example, households that report living "temporarily" with friends or
relatives for extended periods of time.
The self-administered survey asked food stamp applicants several questions about their
living arrangements at the time they applied for food stamps. The first question asked whether
they had a permanent place to live. The second asked them to report the place or places they
slept during the preceding week, and in some instances, how long they had been staying there-
Multiple responses were permitted to this question, though generally only one response was
given. Exhibit 3.7 presents the responses of expedited service applicants separately for the
different entitlement criteria. The responses of regularly-processed applicants are presented for
comparison.
A large majority of regularly-processed applicants (Sn percent) report that they have a
permanent place to live. Most of these have their own apartment or house, though some have
a permanent residence with a friend or relative. Regularly-processed food stamp applicants who
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 48
Chapter Three: Expedited Service Entitlement Criteria
Exhibit 3.6
ACCESS TO FOOD OF APPROVED HOMELESS APPLICANTS,
BY ENTITLEMENT CRITERIA
Access to Food"
Would Have Qualified for Expedited
Service Prior to McKinney Act
Yes No
Which statement best describes the food eaten in
your household this past month?
Enough of the kinds of food we want to eat
Enough food, but not always the kinds of food
we want to eat
Sometimes not enough to eat
Often not enough to eat
Total
14.7 %
21.3
28.8
35.2 ••
100.0 %
20.2 %
26.7
33.9
19.2
100.0 %
1 In the last month, were there days when you o.
fl your household had no food or money for food?
Percent responding "yes"
Number of days this occurred (mean)b
63.7 %
11.6 •••
53.2 %
7.2
In the last month, did you or anyone in your
household skip meals because there wasn't
enough food or money to buy food?
Percent responding "yes"
h
Number of days this occurred (mean)0
60.2 %
10.5
48.2 %
7.3
In the past week, have you eaten in ... places
serving free meals or ... gotten free food?c
Percent responding "yes"
Number of days this occurred |mean)b
37.0 %"*•
4.4
19.8 %
4.5
Unweighted number 726 73
" Self-reports from applicant survey.
b Mean computed for those saying "yes."
c Excludes free school lunches for children.
• Significantly different from value for "no" group at 0.10 level.
•• Significantly different from value for "no" group at 0.05 level.
Significantly different from value for "no" group at 0.01 level.
Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. 49
Exhibit 3.7
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF APPROVED FOOD STAMP APPLICANTS,
BY EXPEDITED SERVICE STATUS
o
Living Arrangements*
Regularly-
Processed
Expedited Service
All
Monthly
Income/
Resources
Below Limits6 Homeless15
Shelter
Expenses
Exceed Income/
Resources6
Whether applicant has a permanent place to live
Yes
No
If not, months since had permanent place to live
(mean)
86.5%
13.5
21
66.7%ttt
33.4
12t
64.6%
35.4
12
40.0%* •
60.0
11
96.8%' ••
3.2
Where applicant slept during past week:
Own apartment, house, or room
Friend or relative's place (permanent)
Relative's place (temporarily)
Friend's place (temporarily)
Shelter/welfare hotel
Outdoors
Other indoors (e.g., bus station, abandoned
building)
Total
76.6%
11.8
8.5
3.3
1.0
0.6
0.0
>100%
52.4%ttt
15.4t
15.0ttt
8.2ttt
5.0ttt
8.3ttt
2.0ttt
>100%
49.4%
16.1
16.1
8.9
5.3
8.9
2.3
>100%
25.6%*"
20.0
22.1
10.8
10.9
16.1
0.0,,#
>100%
92.2%,,#
5.7###
2.7###
0.3#*«
0.4#"
0.0,,#
0.0,,#
>100%
Weeks lived temporarily with relatives (mean)
Weeks lived temporarily with friends (mean)
11
7
15
7
15
7
18
o • • •
3...
1***
Unweighted N 1320 2371 2139 73 129
" Self-reports from applicant survey
b Unduplicated criteria.
' Significantly different from monthly income/resources limits category at 0.10