Reaching Those in Need: STATE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2007 FOOD AND which more emphasis was placed NUTRITION on work for public assistance recip- SERVICE ients through the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Recent studies have examined national participation rates as well as participation rates for socioeconomic and demographic subgroups (Leftin and Wolkwitz 2009), and State rates for all eligible people and for the working poor (Cunnyngham, Castner, and Schirm 2008). This docu- ment presents estimates of SNAP participation rates for all eligible people and for the working poor by States for fiscal year 2007. These estimates can be used to assess recent program performance and focus efforts to improve performance. The Supplemental Nutrition Assis- measure of a program’s performance tance Program (SNAP)—formerly is its ability to reach its target the Food Stamp Program—is a population. The national SNAP Participation Rates in 2007 central component of American participation rate—the percentage About 66 percent of eligible peo- Tpolicy to alleviate hunger and pov- of eligible people in the United ple in the received erty. The program’s main purpose is States who actually participate in SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2007. “to permit low-income households the program—has been a standard Participation rates varied widely to obtain a more nutritious diet...by for assessing performance for about Afrom State to State, however. increasing their purchasing power” 25 years. The U.S. Department of Nineteen States had rates that (Food and Nutrition Act of 2008). Agriculture’s budget request for were significantly higher (in a SNAP is the largest of the domes- fiscal year 2010 includes a perfor- statistical sense) than the national tic food and nutrition assistance mance target to reach 68 percent of rate, and 17 States had rates that programs administered by the U.S. the eligible population in that year. were significantly lower. Among Department of Agriculture’s Food the regions, the Midwest Region Supplemental Nutrition and Nutrition Service. During fiscal SNAP provides an important had the highest participation rate. Assistance Program year 2009, the program served 33 support for the “working poor”— Its 77 percent rate was signifi- million people in an average month people who are eligible for SNAP Beginning October 1, cantly higher than the rates for all at a total annual cost of over $50 benefits and live in households 2008, the Food Stamp of the other regions. The Western billion in benefits. in which someone earns income Act of 1977 is renamed from a job. Twenty-eight mil- Region’s participation rate of 56 the Food and Nutrition The Government Performance lion people received benefits in an percent was significantly lower Act of 2008, and the and Results Act of 1993 calls for average month in 2008. Eleven than the rates for all of the other Food Stamp Program policymakers to assess the effects million—40 percent—lived in regions. (See the last page for a is renamed the Supple- of programs, and one important households that had income from map showing regional boundaries.) mental Nutrition earnings, up from 30 percent of all Assistance Program. participants in 1996, the year in

BY KAREN E. CUNNYNGHAM AND LAURA A. CASTNER • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH NOVEMBER • 2009 ...... How Many Were Eligible in 2007? What Percentage Participated? Eligible Participation Rates and Confidence Intervals People (Participation Rate = 100 x Number of People Participating ÷ Number of People Eligible) (Thousands) (Estimated participation rates are in red; estimated bounds of confidence intervals are in black.) 812 94% 100% 100% 161 Maine 86% 91% 96% 1,259 84% 89% 95% 966 Tennessee 82% 87% 92% 465 Oregon 81% 87% 92% 306 West Virginia 79% 85% 91% 710 Kentucky 79% 83% 88% 1,482 79% 83% 86% 107 District of Columbia 72% 78% 84% 482 Arkansas 72% 77% 81% 1,462 72% 76% 80% 692 Washington 71% 76% 80% 848 Louisiana 70% 74% 78% 312 Iowa 70% 74% 78% 723 South Carolina 70% 74% 78% 769 70% 74% 77% 64 Vermont 69% 73% 76% 124 Hawaii 67% 71% 76% 79 Alaska 64% 70% 75% 1,500 Ohio 66% 69% 72% 295 65% 69% 73% 594 Oklahoma 65% 69% 72% 89 Delaware 63% 68% 73% 342 New Mexico 63% 67% 71% 405 62% 66% 70% 87 New Hampshire 63% 66% 69% 768 Virginia 62% 65% 69% 658 Massachusetts 61% 65% 70% 821 Alabama 61% 65% 69% 120 Montana 60% 64% 69% 556 Wisconsin 60% 64% 67% 93 South Dakota 59% 64% 68% 188 Nebraska 59% 64% 69% 1,384 North Carolina 60% 63% 66% 1,438 Georgia 60% 63% 67% 69 North Dakota 57% 62% 66% 2,885 59% 61% 64% 878 Arizona 57% 61% 64% 700 Mississippi 57% 60% 63% 125 Rhode Island 57% 60% 63% 498 Maryland 55% 59% 64% 695 55% 59% 63% 2,114 Florida 53% 57% 61% 316 Kansas 54% 57% 60% 4,140 Texas 52% 55% 58% 446 Colorado 51% 55% 59% 233 Utah 48% 52% 56% 232 Nevada 47% 52% 56% 171 Idaho 45% 50% 54% 4,215 California 46% 48% 50% 46 Wyoming 42% 47% 53%

5,970 Midwest Region 75% 77% 79% 2,635 Mountain Plains Region 70% 72% 74% 3,925 Mid-Atlantic Region 67% 69% 72% 8,855 Southeast Region 65% 67% 69% 4,276 Northeast Region 61% 64% 66% 6,406 Southwest Region 59% 61% 64% 6,855 Western Region 54% 56% 58%

38,922 United States 65% 66% 67%

A confidence interval expresses our uncertainty about the true value of a participation rate. Each interval displayed here is a 90-percent confidence interval. One interpretation of such an interval is that there is a 90-percent chance that the true participation rate falls within the estimated bounds. For example, while our best estimate is that Alabama’s participation rate was 65 percent in 2007, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 61 and 69 percent. 30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2 How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2007? What Percentage Participated? Eligible Participation Rates and Confidence Intervals Working Poor (Participation Rate = 100 x Number of People Participating ÷ Number of People Eligible) (Thousands) (Estimated participation rates are in red; estimated bounds of confidence intervals are in black.) 421 Missouri 88% 100% 100% 108 West Virginia 79% 93% 100% 60 Maine 83% 92% 100% 588 Michigan 74% 84% 94% 265 Kentucky 73% 81% 88% 356 Tennessee 68% 76% 85% 238 Oregon 65% 75% 85% 539 Pennsylvania 66% 73% 80% 346 Indiana 66% 72% 79% 165 Iowa 66% 72% 79% 228 Arkansas 64% 71% 79% 647 Illinois 64% 71% 77% 410 Louisiana 60% 68% 76% 25 Vermont 60% 67% 74% 57 Montana 55% 63% 71% 184 New Mexico 55% 63% 70% 267 Oklahoma 56% 62% 69% 48 South Dakota 54% 62% 70% 311 South Carolina 56% 62% 69% 278 Wisconsin 56% 62% 68% 352 Alabama 54% 62% 69% 287 Washington 53% 61% 68% 666 Ohio 55% 60% 65% 34 North Dakota 52% 59% 67% 34 New Hampshire 51% 58% 65% 699 North Carolina 51% 57% 63% 356 Virginia 50% 57% 63% 43 Alaska 47% 57% 66% 43 Delaware 48% 56% 65% 100 Nebraska 49% 56% 64% 179 Minnesota 49% 56% 63% 70 Hawaii 46% 55% 63% 786 Georgia 48% 55% 61% 339 Mississippi 46% 54% 62% 116 Connecticut 46% 53% 61% 452 Arizona 47% 53% 59% 91 Idaho 43% 50% 57% 181 Massachusetts 42% 49% 56% 21 Wyoming 40% 49% 58% 125 Utah 43% 49% 55% 174 Kansas 44% 49% 53% 930 Florida 43% 48% 54% 1,354 New York 42% 48% 53% 286 New Jersey 41% 47% 54% 2,260 Texas 43% 47% 51% 46 Rhode Island 37% 44% 51% 241 Maryland 36% 44% 51% 238 Colorado 36% 43% 50% 32 District of Columbia 28% 39% 49% 125 Nevada 30% 38% 45% 2,469 California 29% 33% 37%

2,703 Midwest Region 65% 69% 73% 1,385 Mountain Plains Region 64% 68% 72% 1,606 Mid-Atlantic Region 57% 61% 65% 4,037 Southeast Region 55% 58% 62% 3,349 Southwest Region 50% 53% 57% 1,815 Northeast Region 45% 50% 55% 3,776 Western Region 38% 42% 45%

18,671 United States 54% 56% 58%

A confidence interval expresses our uncertainty about the true value of a participation rate. Each interval displayed here is a 90-percent confidence interval. One interpretation of such an interval is that there is a 90-percent chance that the true participation rate falls within the estimated bounds. For example, while our best estimate is that Nebraska’s25 working30 poor35 participation40 rate45 was 5650 percent55 in 2007,60 the true65 rate may70 have been75 higher80 or lower.85 However,90 the chances95 100 are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 49 and 64 percent.

3 NOVEMBER •2009 4

...... most States. hadlower than Idaho likely rates contrast, Wyoming, California, and otherpeople thanall States. In eligible forall with ahigherrate atthetop, likely wasvery Missouri ofthedistribution.the middle at thetop, atthebottom, orin eligible peoplewasprobably for all whether aState’s rate participation States, theestimatesfor2007show ofestimates fromparisons different andwithcom mates forsome States associatedwiththeesti uncertainty T State. Althoughthere issubstantial samplesofhouseholdsineach small presented here are basedon fairly rates The estimatedparticipation Comparisons State eligible people. forall than therate higher the working poorsignificantly people. for wastherate InnoState lower eligible forall thantherate more than10percentage points fortheworkingthe rate poorwas eligible people; in7oftheseStates, lower forall thantherate cantly fortheworkingrate poor—signifi poor in2007was—likethenational fortheworking rate participation centage points. In30States, the difference of10per- a significant eligible working poorparticipated, pated in2007, 56percent only of the partici people intheUnitedStates 66percent eligible ofall While lower.cantly thatwere hadrates signifi States than thenational rate, and14 higher poor thatwere significantly two States had rates for the working across States. widely varied Twenty- people, fortheworking rates poor eligible forall rates participation inSNAP,participated butaswith working poor intheUnitedStates In 2007, 56percent ofeligible

-

- - -

- rate from the prior year shouldbe from year rate theprior great inaState’s thatalargechange issufficiently variability statistical inrates. changes andtrue rates The inestimated variability to statistical may fluctuate timedue States over comparesHow aState withother than mostStates. hadlower Columbia likely rates Nevada, of andtheDistrict most States. Incontrast, California, fortheworkingrates poorthan atthetop, ranked likely withhigher West Virginia, andMainewere very working poor in2007. Missouri, forthe ofrates of thedistribution top, atthebottom, orinthemiddle were atthe that someprobably States Similarly, itispossibletodetermine rates thantwo-thirdsoftheStates. rates lowerWyoming hadsignificantly Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, and 3years,in all whileCalifornia, lower thanhalfoftheStates rates Texas, andUtah hadsignificantly Jersey, New York, RhodeIsland, Idaho, Mississippi, Maryland, New than halfoftheStates.higher rates Washington—had significantly Pennsylvania, Carolina, South and Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, ofColumbia,the District Hawaii, the States. An additional 8States— eligible peoplethantwo-thirdsof forall rates higher participation and West hadsignificantly Virginia Maine, Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee, to 2007, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, recent years. from 3years Inall 2005 in tom ofrates ofthedistribution beeninthetoporbot consistently fairly have suggest thatsome States eligible peopleandtheworking poor forall rates estimated participation cally. Despitethisuncertainty, the dramati improved ordeteriorated has intheState performance gram thatprobe incorrect toconclude andotherStates.that State Itmay of differences therates between cautiously,interpreted asshould

- -

- people, andConnecticut, the eligible forall rate participation bytheir poor thanwhenranked fortheworking rate participation bytheir whenranked 3years all higherfor are significantly ranked Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) (Idaho, States Five Indiana, South similar, match. donotexactly they eligiblepeoplearefor all generally tion fortheworking rates poorand byparticipa ofStates the rankings for theworking poor. Although rates ofparticipation distribution or bottom, respectively, ofthe nearthetop toberanked is likely eligiblepeople ipation forall rates bottom ofpartic ofthedistribution nearthetopor ranked A State for SNAP inahousehold andlive defined aspeoplewhoare eligible data.tive The poor”“working are poor from SNAP administra working people andparticipating estimating numbersofparticipating and eligibleworking poor, while estimate numbersofeligiblepeople the Current to Population Survey tohouseholdsin rules eligibility SNAPwere obtainedbyapplying sion model. The sampleestimates withpredictionsrates from aregres sample estimatesofparticipation estimatoraveraged the shrinkage vey, records, andadministrative CommunitySur the American the Current Population Survey, coming). on datafrom Drawing gham, Castner, forth andSchirm 2009,and Schirm T andCunnyn methods (Cunnyngham, Castner, estimation usingshrinkage derived The estimatespresented here were Method Estimation lower.are significantly ranked Massachusetts, andRhodeIsland ofColumbia,District Hawaii, -

- -

-

- -

- the confidence intervals thatare presented inthisdocumentforthe2007estimates. the confidence intervals Castner, (forthcoming). andSchirm aboutaswide are generally These confidence intervals intheestimatesfor2005and2006are presentedthat measure inCunnyngham, theuncertainty associatedwithmostoftheseestimates. There issubstantialuncertainty Confidence intervals United States Western Region Region Mountain Plains Region Southwest Midwest Region Region Southeast Mid-Atlantic Region RegionNortheast Wyoming Wisconsin West Virginia Washington Virginia Vermont Utah Texas Tennessee Dakota South Carolina South Rhode Island Pennsylvania Oregon Oklahoma Ohio Dakota North CarolinaNorth New York New Mexico New Jersey New Hampshire Nevada Nebraska Montana Missouri Mississippi Minnesota Michigan Massachusetts Maryland Maine Louisiana Kentucky Kansas Iowa Indiana Illinois Idaho Hawaii Georgia Florida ofColumbia District Delaware Connecticut Colorado California Arkansas Arizona Alaska Alabama Participation Rates Participation

People Eligible All 2005 65% 56% 69% 65% 69% 68% 67% 61% 54% 58% 83% 69% 64% 69% 58% 59% 89% 59% 73% 57% 72% 81% 68% 64% 57% 59% 60% 69% 58% 62% 54% 62% 64% 100% 96% 100% 52% 62% 72% 54% 56% 90% 82% 80% 55% 65% 71% 76% 56% 73% 69% 64% 71% 62% 66% 51% 48% 79% 67% 63% 67% 2006 67% 58% 72% 68% 74% 69% 69% 65% 54% 61% 76% 75% 68% 72% 56% 64% 91% 63% 78% 57% 75% 81% 70% 69% 56% 65% 64% 71% 60% 64% 58% 65% 63% 57% 63% 79% 62% 62% 94% 78% 80% 57% 70% 76% 82% 54% 75% 70% 60% 80% 70% 71% 53% 50% 78% 63% 71% 67% 2007 66% 56% 72% 61% 77% 67% 69% 64% 47% 64% 85% 76% 65% 73% 52% 55% 87% 64% 74% 60% 76% 87% 69% 69% 62% 63% 61% 67% 59% 66% 52% 64% 64% 60% 66% 89% 65% 59% 91% 74% 83% 57% 74% 74% 83% 50% 71% 63% 57% 78% 68% 69% 55% 48% 77% 61% 70% 65% 2005

56% 41% 63% 62% 62% 63% 58% 47% 57% 54% 79% 54% 57% 58% 52% 56% 80% 59% 70% 40% 66% 67% 64% 57% 50% 56% 47% 69% 45% 49% 44% 55% 59% 55% 48% 67% 35% 44% 88% 84% 76% 47% 60% 71% 66% 53% 57% 66% 52% 42% 56% 50% 35% 33% 75% 58% 59% 66% Working Poor 96% 100% 100% 2006 57% 44% 67% 60% 68% 60% 58% 48% 50% 57% 72% 62% 57% 63% 51% 56% 78% 61% 67% 34% 68% 72% 63% 61% 49% 57% 47% 69% 45% 51% 47% 55% 61% 50% 51% 77% 41% 45% 93% 71% 72% 49% 66% 75% 72% 51% 56% 62% 51% 42% 62% 54% 41% 35% 71% 55% 61% 60% 2007 56% 42% 68% 53% 69% 58% 61% 50% 49% 62% 93% 61% 57% 67% 49% 47% 76% 62% 62% 44% 73% 75% 62% 60% 59% 57% 48% 63% 47% 58% 38% 56% 63% 54% 56% 84% 49% 44% 92% 68% 81% 49% 72% 72% 71% 50% 55% 55% 48% 39% 56% 53% 43% 33% 71% 53% 57% 62%

Current orthe Population Survey the from estimates sample more precisetially thandirect estimatesare substan Shrinkage series. this publication for previoussetsofestimatesin beenused census datathathave indicators, replacing thedecennial were alsousedassocioeconomic CommunitySurvey American data(2005-2007)fromyear the benefits. availablethree- Newly population receivingState SNAP as thepercentage ofthetotal socioeconomic conditions, such of indicators based on observed were rates tions ofparticipation from ajob. The regression predic money amemberearns in which SNAPcash substitute. benefitsor a amongrates thoseeligiblefor however, to consider participation be usefulinsome other contexts, instead. receivethey cash Itmight to receive SNAP benefitsbecause eligible areCalifornia notlegally Income recipients in Security Supplemental reflect thefactthat adjusted usingavailabledatato estimates ofeligiblepeoplewere who were eligibleforSNAP, the amongon people participation our focusinthisdocumentis States.gible inalmostall Because adjustmentswouldbenegli such people in2007, of sotheeffects about87,000 served Reservations ProgramDistribution on Indian and Wolkwitz 2009). The Food benefits atthesametime(Leftin were noteligibletoreceive SNAP inthatprogram that participants not adjustedtoreflect thefact the estimatespresented here were Program on IndianReservations, tion intheFood Distribution dataondo notcollect participa eligibility. thesesurveys Because of datausedtoestimateprogram Participation, theleadingsources ofIncome andProgram Survey

- -

- -

...... NOVEMBER •2009 5 How Did Your State Rank in 2007? Participation Rate for All Eligible Ranks and Confidence Intervals People (Estimated ranks are in red; estimated bounds of confidence intervals are in black.) 100 % Missouri 1 1 1 91% Maine 2 2 5 89% Michigan 2 3 6 87% Tennessee 2 4 7 87% Oregon 3 5 8 85% West Virginia 3 6 9 83% Kentucky 5 7 9 83% Illinois 5 8 9 78% District of Columbia 7 9 17 77% Arkansas 9 10 16 76% Pennsylvania 9 11 16 76% Washington 9 12 18 74% Louisiana 10 13 19 74% Iowa 10 14 19 74% South Carolina 10 15 20 74% Indiana 10 16 19 73% Vermont 11 17 20 71% Hawaii 12 18 25 70% Alaska 13 19 30 69% Ohio 17 20 26 69% Connecticut 16 21 29 69% Oklahoma 17 22 29 68% Delaware 16 23 32 67% New Mexico 19 24 34 66% Minnesota 20 25 35 66% New Hampshire 22 26 34 65% Virginia 21 27 36 65% Massachusetts 21 28 37 65% Alabama 21 29 36 64% Montana 22 30 39 64% Wisconsin 25 31 38 64% South Dakota 22 32 41 64% Nebraska 23 33 41 63% North Carolina 25 34 39 63% Georgia 25 35 39 62% North Dakota 26 36 43 61% New York 31 37 41 61% Arizona 30 38 43 60% Mississippi 32 39 44 60% Rhode Island 33 40 43 59% Maryland 32 41 45 59% New Jersey 34 42 45 57% Florida 36 43 47 57% Kansas 39 44 46 55% Texas 42 45 47 55% Colorado 40 46 48 52% Utah 45 47 50 52% Nevada 45 48 50 50% Idaho 46 49 51 48% California 48 50 51 47% Wyoming 47 51 51

A confidence interval expresses our uncertainty about the true value of a State’s rank. Each interval displayed here is a 90-percent confidence interval. One interpretation of such an interval is that there is a 90-percent chance that the true rank falls within the estimated bounds. For example, while our best estimate is that New Hampshire had the 26th highest participation rate in 2007, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rank was between 22 and 34 among all of the States. To determine how New Hampshire or your State compares with any other State, see the chart on page 7.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 80 6 How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2007?

MO ME MI TN OR WV KY IL DC AR PA WA LA IA SC IN VT HI AK OH CT OK DE NM MN NH VA MA AL MT WI SD NE NC GA ND NY AZ MS RI MD NJ FL KS TX CO UT NV ID CA WY Rate MO 100% ME 91% MI 89%

TN 87% OR Rate for row State significantly higher 87% WV 85%

KY 83% IL 83%

DC 78% AR 77%

PA 76% WA 76% LA 74%

IA 74% SC 74%

IN 74% VT 73%

HI 71% AK 70% OH 69%

CT 69% OK 69%

DE 68% NM 67% MN 66%

NH 66% VA Rates not significantly different 65% MA 65% AL 65% MT 64% WI 64%

SD 64% NE 64% NC 63%

GA 63% ND 62%

NY 61%

AZ 61% MS 60%

RI 60% MD 59%

NJ 59% FL 57%

KS 57%

TX 55% CO 55% UT Rate for row State significantly lower 52% NV 52% ID 50%

CA 48% WY 47%

Whether one State has a significantly higher participation rate than a second State can be determined from this figure by finding thew ro for the first State at the left of the figure and the column for the second State at the top of the figure. If the box where the row and column intersect is red, there is at least a 90-percent chance that the first State (the row State) has a higher true participation rate. If the box is blue, there is at least a 90-percent chance that the second State (the column State) has a higher true participation rate. Equivalently, there is less than a 10-percent chance that the first State has a higher rate. If the box is tan, there is more than a 10-percent chance but less than a 90-percent chance that the first State has a higher rate; thus, we conclude that neither estimated rate is significantly higher. Taking New Hampshire, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 19 other States (Missouri, Maine, Michigan, Tennessee, Oregon, West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, the District of Columbia, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Washington, Louisiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Indiana, Vermont, Hawaii, and Ohio) and a significantly higher rate than 15 other States (Wyoming, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Florida, New Jersey, Maryland, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Arizona, and New York). Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 16 States, suggesting that New Hampshire is probably in the broad center of the distribution, unlike, for example, Missouri and Wyoming, which were surely at or near the top and bottom of the distribution, respectively. Although we use the statistical definition of “significance” here, most of the significant differences were at least 10 percentage points, a difference that seems important as well as significant, and all of them were at least 4 percentage points.

7 NOVEMBER •2009 and employer. provider is anequalopportunity (202) 720-6382(TDD). USDA (800)795-3272(voice)or or call Washington, 20250-9410, DC Independence Avenue, S.W., Office ofCivilRights, 1400 tion, toUSDA, write Director, To fileacomplaint ofdiscrimina (202) 720-2600(voiceand TDD). USDA’s TARGET Centerat audiotape, etc.)shouldcontact information (Braille, largeprint, communication ofprogram require meansfor alternative Persons withdisabilitieswho programs.) toall bases apply program. (Not prohibited all from anyderived publicassistance ofaperson’s orpart all income is beliefs,political reprisal, orbecause orientation, geneticinformation, parental status, religion, sexual sex, status, marital familialstatus, disability, andwhere applicable, race, color, national origin, age, and activitieson thebasisof itsprograms inall discrimination Agriculture (USDA) prohibits The U.S. of Department

-

...... rates presentedrates here. theparticipation used inderiving people eligible andparticipating used toestimatethenumbersof presents detailson themethods and people.Wolkwitz Leftin (2009) from theestimatesofparticipating people, were they alsoexcluded inestimatesofeligible be included fore, peoplecouldnot such because public assistanceprograms. There innoncash through participation eligibleforSNAP benefits gorically gram’s income testsbutwere cate failedtheprowho wouldhave to estimatethenumberofpeople ble forSNAP, nodataare available tion among peoplewhowere eligi Although ourfocusison participa Produced Policy byMathematica Research, fortheFood undercontractno. andNutrition Service AG-3198-D-08-0090/GS-10F-0050L. Western - - - - - Southwest Participation Rates Rates Participation Varied Widely C February 2009. February PolicyMathematica Research, Working Poor.” Washington, DC: Eligible Peoplefor All andthe Participation in2004-2006 Rates FoodEstimates ofState Stamp Bayes Shrinkage “Empirical A. Castner, L. andAllen Schirm. Cunnyngham, KarenE., Laura Policy Research, forthcoming. Washington, DC: Mathematica ble People andthe Working Poor.” Eligi in2005-2007forAll Rates Nutrition AssistanceProgram Supplemental Estimates ofState Bayes Shrinkage “Empirical A. Castner, L. andAllen Schirm. Cunnyngham, KarenE., Laura References Mountain Plains National =66% Rate Below 61%(bottom quarter) 61%to73% People Eligible forAll Above 75%(topquarter) Rate 2007 Participation

- Southeast Midwest

June 2009. U.S. ofAgriculture, Department Food andNutrition Service, Participation SNAP on Perspectives Current pation Rates: 2000to2007.” In tion AssistanceProgram Partici “Trends Nutri inSupplemental Joshua,Leftin, Wolkwitz. andKari November 2008. Food andNutrition Service, ofAgriculture,Department in 2006.” Alexandria, VA: U.S. Food Participation Stamp Rates “Reaching Those inNeed: State A. Castner, L. andAllen Schirm. Cunnyngham, KarenE., Laura Northeast . Alexandria, VA: Mid-Atlantic

-

-