Historic, archived document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. Contract No.: 53-3198-9-31 MPR Reference No.: 7890-014 A STUDY OF THE INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION BETWEEN 1989 AND 1990 May 29, 1991 Author: Sheena McConnell Submittedto: Submittedby: U.S. Department of Agriculture Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Food and Nutrition Service 600MarylandAvenue, S.W. 3101ParkCenterDrive Suite550 2ndFloor WashingtonD,.C.20024 Alexandria, VA 22302 ProjectOfficer: ProjectDirector: ChristineKissmer ThomasFraker ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Steven Carlson, Jenny Genser, and Ted Macaluso of the Food and Nutrition Service and Walter Corson and Tom Fraker of Mathematica Policy Research for valuable comments and suggestions at each stage of this research project. Art Foley and Abigail Nichols of the Food and Nutrition Service also provided useful comments on earlier drafts of this report. Susan Allin and Gary Swearingen conducted most of the interviews for the survey of administrators of the Food Stamp Program and other assistance programs. Nancy Heiser, Lesley Hildebrand, Esther Miller, Rob Olsen, and Suzanne Smolkin provided research assistance. Tom Good edited the report and Sharon Clark prepared the manuscript. iii CONTENTS Chapter Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... xv I. INTRODUCTION.................................................. l A. RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES .................................. 3 1. Analysisof State-LevelData ................................... 3 2. Analysis of Household-Level Data .............................. 4 3. Survey of the Administrators of the FSP and Other AssistancePrograms ................................. 5 B. OUTLINE OF REPORT ......................................... 7 II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION ........ 9 A. NATIONAL TRENDS IN FSP PARTICIPATION ...................... 9 B. REGIONAL PATTERNS OF FSP PARTICIPATION GROWTH .......... 12 C. DISAGGREGATION OF THE INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF CASE ............................. 16 D. CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED AND LEFT THE FSP ............................ 18 E. CHANGES IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED THE FSP ......................... 23 III. CAUSES OF THE INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION .................. 29 A. CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY ................................... 29 1. An Increase inUnemployment ................................. 31 2. An Increase in the Number of Working Poor ...................... 35 3. An Increase in Food and Shelter Costs ........................... 37 B. CHANGES IN THE MEDICAID PROGRAM ........................ 37 C. CHANGES IN THE FSP ......................................... 43 1. The Homeless AssistanceAct .................................. 45 2. Improved Accessibilityto the FSP ............................... 51 3. Increased Outreach .......................................... 51 4. Other Changesin the FSP .................................... 52 D. IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION .................................. 52 E. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOLOGICAL CHANGES .................. 55 CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page III. (Continued) F. CHANGES IN OTHER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ................... 57 1. Increased Participation in the AFDC Program ..................... 57 2. Increased Participation in the WIC Program ....................... 58 G. SUMMARY ................................................... 59 IV. THE INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION IN EIGHT STATES ............. 63 A. STATES IN WHICH CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY PLAYED ONLY A MINOR ROLE IN THE FSP PARTICIPATION INCREASE .................................... 64 1. Texas .................................................... 64 2. California................................................. 69 3. Arizona .................................................. 74 B. STATES IN WHICH BOTH CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY AND OTHER FACTORS CAUSED THE FSP PARTICIPATION INCREASE .................................... 78 1. Florida ................................................... 78 2. New York ................................................. 82 3. Michigan ................................................. 88 C. STATES IN WHICH AN INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT AND OTHER CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY CAUSED MOST OF THE INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION ................. 89 1. NewJersey ................................................ 89 2. Massachusetts.............................................. 92 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................... 97 A. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION ..... 97 B. CAUSES OF THE INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION ............... 98 1. An Increase inUnemployment ................................. 99 2. An Increase in the Number of Working Poor ...................... 100 3. Changes in the Medicaid Program ............................... 100 4. Improved Accessibilityto the FSP ............................... 102 vi CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page V. (Continued) 5. The Homeless AssistanceAct .................................. 102 6. Population Growth .......................................... 103 7. Immigration Legislation ...................................... 104 8. Factors Believed to be Unimportant ............................. 104 9. Changes in the Rate of Participation and the Number of Persons Eligiblefor the FSP ................................. 105 C. CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 106 REFERENCES ........................................................... 109 APPENDIX A: ESTIMATION OF REGRESSION MODELS OF FSP PARTICIPATION BASED ON STATE-LEVEL DATA ............. 111 APPENDIX B: DETAILS OF THE SURVEY OF THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM AND OTHER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS .................................. 119 APPENDIX C: THE CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF FSP PARTICIPANTS BY STATE BETWEEN FY90.2 AND FY91.2 ..................... 155 vii TABLES Table Page II.1 THE CHANGE IN THE AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF FSP PARTICIPANTS BY STATE BETWEEN FY89.2 AND FY90.2 ........... 13 II.2 AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF PA AND NPA HOUSEHOLDS RECEMNG FOOD STAMPS (Number of Households in Thousands) ....................................... 17 II.3 DISAGGREGATION OF THE FSP PARTICIPATION INCREASE BETWEEN FY89 AND FY90 BY TYPE OF CASE ........................................................ 19 II.4 AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED AND LEFT THE FSP ............................ 20 II.5 AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED AND LEFT THE FSP BY REGION (Average Monthly Number of Households in Thousands) ......................... 22 II.6 INCOME SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED THE FSP (Average Monthly Number of Households in Thousands) ................. 24 II.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED THE FSP BETWEEN FY87 AND FY90 (Average Monthly Number of Households in Thousands) ................................ 25 III.1 HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE CAUSES OF THE FSP PARTICIPATION INCREASE BETWEEN FY89 AND FY90 ............................ 30 111.2 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION BETWEEN FY89.2 AND FYg0.2 EXPLAINED BY UNEMPLOYMENT, BYREGION .................................................. 32 III.3 NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED THE FSP WITH UI BENEFITS (Average Monthly Number of Households in Thousands) ................................ 34 Ilia CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED THE FSP WITH EARNINGS (Average Monthly Number of Households inThousands) ......................................... 36 III.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF MEDICAID HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED THE FSP (Average Monthly Number of Households in Thousands) .................................................... 41 ix TABLES (continued) Table Page III.6 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION BETWEEN FY89.2 AND FY90.2 EXPLAINED BY AN INCREASE IN MEDICAID RECIPIENTS, BY REGION ............................ 44 III.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED THE FSP WITHOUT EARNINGS OR SHELTER COSTS (Average Monthly Number of Households in Thousands) ................................ 47 III.8 NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED THE FSP THAT RECEIVED OR WERE ELIGIBLE FOR EXPEDITED SERVICE (Average Monthly Number of Households inThousands) ......................................... 49 III.9 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION BETWEEN FY89.2 AND FY90.2 EXPLAINED BY AN INCREASE IN LAWS AND SAWS, BY REGION ..................... 54 III.10 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENTERED THE FSP WITH AN IMMIGRANT HOUSEHOLD HEAD (Average Monthly Number of Households in Thousands) ................. 56 III. 11 THE CAUSES OF THE INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION BETWEEN FY89 AND FY90: SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS FROM EACH RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............. 60 IV.1 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION IN TEXAS EXPLAINED BY CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT, THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, AND IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION ................................................ 67 IV.2 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION IN CALIFORNIA EXPLAINED BY CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT, THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, AND IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION ................................................ 71 IV.3 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION IN ARIZONA EXPLAINED BY CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT, THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, AND IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION ................................................ 77 X TABLES (continued) Table Page IV.4 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION IN FLORIDA EXPLAINED BY CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT, THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, AND IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION ................................................ 81 IV.5 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION IN NEW YORK EXPLAINED BY CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT, THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, AND IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION ................................................ 85 IV.6 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION IN MICHIGAN EXPLAINED BY CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT, THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, AND IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION ................................................ 87 IV.7 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION IN NEW JERSEY EXPLAINED BY CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT, THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, AND IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION ................................................ 91 IV.8 PROPORTION OF INCREASE IN FSP PARTICIPATION IN MASSACHUSETTS EXPLAINED BY CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT, THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, AND IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION ................................................ 95 xi FIGURES Figure Page II.1 PARTICIPATION IN THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM AND NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS (MONTHLY AVERAGE--FY88.1 TO FY91.2) .................................... 10 II.2 AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF FSP PARTICIPANTS AND UNEMPLOYED WORKERS FY88.1 TO FY91.2 ....................... 11 II.3 PLOTS OF FSP PARTICIPATION BY STATE BETWEEN FY87 AND FY90 ................................................ 15 IV.1 FSP PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN TEXAS: FY84TO FY90 .................................................. 66 IV.2 FSP PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA: FY84 TO FY90 .................................................. 70 IV.3 FSP PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN ARIZONA: FY84 TO FY90 .................................................. 76 IV.4 FSP PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN FLORIDA: FY84 TO FY90 .................................................. 80 IV.5 FSP PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEW YORK: FY84TO FY90 .................................................. 84 IV.6 FSP PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN MICHIGAN: FY84TO FY90 .................................................. 86 IV.7 FSP PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEW JERSEY: FY84 TO FY90 .................................................. 90 IV.8 FSP PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS: FY84TO FY90 .................................................. 94 °., Xlll