factors related to participation in the food stamp …

FACTORS RELATED TO PARTICIPATION IN THE

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

Economic United States Agricultural Research Department of Economic Service Agriculture Report No. 298

FACTORS RELATED TO PARTICIPATION IN THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM. By Fred K, Hines. Economic Development Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 298.

ABSTRACT

This report examines factors related to differences in the percentages of county population participating in the Food Stamp Program anK)ng U.S. counties in May 1970. Factors associated with higher food stamp participation rates were higher unemployment and welfare program participation rates, greater proportion of households with low Income, a higher percentage of population 17 years or younger, and longer participation of the county in the Food Stamp Program. Factors associated with lower food stamp participation rates Included greater labor force participation and a higher percentage of population 65 and older. The presence of a direct food distribution program prior to the county*s participation in the Food Stamp Program had little discernible effect.

Despite higher participation rates in counties with higher percentages of minorities and the more rural of the nonmetropolltan counties, when other factors affecting participation rates are held constant—mainly percentage in poverty—the analysis suggests that participation in these counties was not as high as in counties with smaller percentages of minorities or in more urban counties.

Key words: Food Stamp Program, Unemplojrment, Low-income, Poverty, Welfare, Rural, Urban, Population, Regression analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is indebted to the following people in the Economic Research Service for their collaboration in the preparation of this report: Reuben Altlzer, Gladys Caspar, Clara Rice, and Carol Wood.

Washington, D.C. 20250 July 1975

FOREWORD

Recent rapid growth in the number of food stamp recipients accompanying the current growth in unemployment has again raised the questions:

What is the likely future scope of the Food Stamp Program and other income-transfer programs?

What factors affect participation in these programs?

Can we gain insights into possible future trends in these programs by examining past relationships between changes in the number of program participants and socioeconomic variables?

Thus, the rationale for this report: It deals with the relationship between food stamp participation and various socioeconomic variables (such as poverty, unemployment, age structure and race) in all U.S. counties that issued food stamps in May 1970. The 1970 date was selected for practical reasons. It is the most recent for which we have the socioeconomic data (by coimties) gathered by the Bureau of the Census. Although the census data are now 5 years old, we think the relationships documented here will be valuable in assessing, first, some reasons for the recent rapid growth in number of food stamp recipients and, second, in providing insights into possible future trends in potential recipient numbers for the Food Stamp Program as well as other income- transfer programs.

WILLIAM CrmfESy Director Economic Development Division

CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY.. • • • • iv

INTRODUCTION 1 Data 1 Malysls. 2

RESU LTS 4 Low Income or Poverty ••••.*.. • 6 Welfare Participation .•....*........•.. • 7 Unemploymait .•••••. • • 7 Labor Force Participation. • ••....... • 7 Age Structure... •....•...• •. é • •... 3 Program History • 8 Urban Influence«, ...••.. 9 Racial Composition 10 Region 11

APPENDIX A~THE REGRESSION MODEL AND ALTERNATIVES. 13

APPENDIX B~BASIC TABULATIONS... 19

APPENDIX C~MAPS OF SO CIO ECONCMIC VARIABLES 23

TABLES

Table

l~Food Stamp Program equivalent annual income eligibility levels related to poverty threshold levels.., 3

2*--Importance of selected socioeconomic characteristics in their effects on food stamp participation rates, 1,697 U.S. counties, May 1970. 5

Appendix table

1—^^Regression model explainjjig the percentage of the population receiving food stamps in U.S. counties, May 1970. 15

2---Alternative regressions 1, 2, 3, for explaining the percentage of the population receiving food stamps in U.S. counties. May 1970....... 16

3—-Alternative regressions 4, 5, 6, for explaining the percentage of the population receiving food stamps in U.S. counties. May 1970.....*. 17

4—Correlation coefficients for analysis of participation in Food Stamp Program, May 1970. 18

S—Participation in the Food Stamp Program, and related factors, by county unemployment rates, May 1970. 20

6—-Participation in the Food Stamp Program, and related factors, by county metropolitan status and number in urban population. May 1970.,. 21

7--Participation in the Food Stamp Program, and related factors, by census division. May 1970 , 22

ii

FIGURES

Figure Page

1—Food s tamp recipients, May 19 70 • •. • 24 2—Food stamp participation and rate of unemployment..... 8 3—Poverty, food stamp and welfare program participation rates, by

urban influence • • •, ••»•••.••••,•••. ••..•••••• 9 4—Poverty, food stamp and welfare program participation rates, by

percent of minority group population 10 5—Persons living below poverty level, 1969 25 6—Public assistance recipients, February 1971 26 7—Rate of unemployment, April 1970 27

iii

SUMMARY

Of the 1,697 U.S. counties issuing food statnps in May 1970, higher food stamp participation rates were generally found in counties with higher unemployment and higher welfare recipient rates, more frequent incidences of low income or poverty, a relatively low proportion of population in the labor force, and a relatively high percentage of population 17 years of age and under.

Regression analysis revealed that, for each additional 1 percent increase in unemployment, food stamp participation would have increased an average of 0.378 percent. A county with 100 more unemployed workers in May 1970 would, on the average, have had about 95 more food stamp recipients. Conversely, an additional 100 in the labor force would be associated with a reduction of about 13 food stamp participants.

A county had, on the average, about 34 more program participants for every 100 extra poor people. Similarly, a county had, on the average, 53 extra food stamp recipients for every extra 100 on welfare rolls.

Food stamp participation rates tended to be lower for counties with a higher percentage of population 65 years and older but greater for those with a higher percentage of population 17 years or younger. Further research is needed to determine the reasons for these variations. Possible reasons for lower participation in counties with large percentages of aged persons include asset- limitation, difficulties associated with purchasing stamps, inadequate transportation and cooking facilities, or lack of knowledge of the program.

Among U.S. census divisions, food stamp participation rates were highest in the East South Central States (Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee). In these States, unemployment rates were above the national average, incidence of poverty was greatest, and labor force participation rates were the lowest. In the Pacific division—the States of Oregon, Washington, California, Alaska, and Hawaii—where unemployment rates were substantially above the national average, food stamp participation was above the national average, despite their lower than average incidence of poverty. Food stamp participation was lowest in the Middle Atlantic and New England divisions, where both the rate of unemployment and the incidence of poverty were substantially below the national average. These findings indicate that the Food Stamp Program was effective in complementing unemployment programs in the Pacific region and the South and in filling part of the welfare-need gap in the poorer Southern States.

Participation in the Food Stamp Program in 1970 was substantially higher in nonmetropolitan than in metropolitan counties. In nonmetropolitan food stamp counties, 6.8 percent of the population received food stamps, in contrast to 3.8 percent in metropolitan food stamp counties. These big differences resulted largely from nonmetropolitan-metropolitan differences in the incidence of low income (20.1 percent and 10.7 percent in nonmetro and metro counties, respectively), the rate of unemployment (4.74 and 4.37 percent in nonmetro and metro counties, respectively), and the rate of labor force participation (53.7 and 58.6 percent in nonmetro and metro counties^ respectively). Moreover, the higher food stamp participation rates associated with higher unemployment rates in 1970 imply a likely major increase in program participation rates in a major recession.

iv

Of all food stamp recipients in metro counties, 68.0 percent also received public assistance, in contrast to only 39.2 percent in nonmetro counties. When food stamp counties were classified on a rural-urban continuum, the most urban had proportionately more receiving public assistance and the most rural relatively less. Since far larger percentages of the rural poor receive food stamps but no welfare payment, the Food Stamp Program is effective in filling part of the welfare-need gap in rural areas.

Despite higher Food Stamp Program participation rates in counties with higher percentages of minorities and in the more rural of the nonmetropolitan counties (when other factors affecting participation rates are held cons tan t^— mainly percent in poverty), the analysis suggests that people in these counties were less likely to participate than people in counties with smaller percentages of minorities or greater urbanization.

The longer the Food Stamp Program had been in operation in the county, the greater the food stamp participation. For example, a county in which the Food Stamp Program had been operating 6 months or longer would have 12 more participants per 100 population than a county with a new program.

The basic data and the regression model are found in appendices A and B. Appendix C contains maps of the major variables.

FACTORS RELATED TO PARTICIPATION IN THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

by Fred K. Hines, Economist Economic Development Division

Economic Research Service

INTRODUCTION

Is the Food Stamp Program less effective in reaching rural people than

urban people?

Is it equally effective among different races, geographic locations, and age groups?

How effective is the program in reaching the poor and the unemployed, and in supplementing the income of welfare recipients?

This study offers some inferences as to why differences in participation among various groups exist and how the program might be made more effective.

Data

U.S. counties with Food Stamp Program in May 1970, were the units of observation. County cross-sectional data from the Census of Population, 1970, were employed, along with Food Stamp Program data for May 1970 obtained from USDA's Food and Nutrition Service 1./ and welfare program participation data obtained from the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The 1,697 counties used in the analysis all contained food stamp projects in May 1970.

IJ State publications of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics, contain demographic data for April 1970 and annual income and poverty figures for 1969. The analysis centers around the month in which the Census of Popula- tion was taken, since the county socioeconomic data used are available only from the decennial census. The food stamp data for May 1970 were selected to achieve a lag of 1 month between the unemployment rate and the food stamp participation rate.

In almost all cases, food stamp projects reported by the Food and Nutrition Service were synonomous with county units. But in the few cases of multicounty projects—^as in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah—the total number of food stamp recipients reported by the project was as- sumed to comprise a number of residents from each participating county propor- tionate to the respective total county populations. In New York and Virginia, where, in some cases, cities represented the project unit, these city data were combined with data for the appropriate county. Similarly, in the New England States, where welfare districts and cities represented the reported food stamp projects, these district and city data were combined with the appropriate county data.

At that time, they included 1,699 food stamp projects. In the regression analysis, smaller counties were given the same weight as larger counties, since each county—regardless of its size—represented an observation point.

Since the study related to May 1970, the analysis did not directly treat such matters as effects of changes in national administration of the Food Stamp or other welfare programs, nor attitudes toward and needs for these programs.

Analysis

Regression analysis was employed to determine the main factors affecting participation in the Food Stamp Program, defined as the percentage of a county's population receiving food stamps. The proportion of a county's population receiving food stamps was employed as the dependent variable in an effort to explain how various socioeconomlc, geographic location, and program history variables (independent variables) affected food stamp participation across U.S. counties. Such analyses assume that independent variables are not interrelated; that is, the effects of a given independent variable on food stamp participation can be measured while all other independent variables are held constant.

For example, under the assumptions of regression analysis, the following question can be answered: Holding the incidence of poverty constant, how does a change in the rate of unemployment affect the food stamp participation rate? In reality, there is some intercorrelation (a measure of the extent to which two variables report the same thing) between the independent variables; one variable cannot be changed without changing—to some extent—the second variable. For instance, if some percentage of poverty residents are also unemployed, incidence of poverty cannot be changed without changing unemployment rates. Intercorrelatlon was not judged to be a major problem with the analysis presented here.

The primary regression equation, alternates to it, and a correlation matrix, which shows the intercorrelatlon between each pair of variables, are presented in more detail in appendix A.

The four groups in independent variables used to explain Intercounty variations in the food stamp participation rate were: (1) percentage of population in poverty; (2) other socioeconomlc county attributes, such as unemployment rate, labor force participation rate, percentage of population receiving welfare payments, extent to which a county was urban or rural, and racial and age composition of the population; (3) whether or not the county was located in the South; and (4) program history—^whether the county had a commodity distribution program prior to the Food Stamp Program and how long the Food Stamp Program had been in existence*

In using socioeconomlc variables from the Census of Population to relate to county food stamp participation rates, it was recognized that these variables as a group, or individually, do not adequately measure the eligible population for the Food Stamp Program within a given county. Clearly, there were no program provisions to single out the unemployed for eligibility, the young or the old, or even the population with Incomes below the official poverty threshold. Instead, households are declared eligible to receive food stamps on the basis of net monthly household Incomes and not annual Incomes as is represented by

the official poverty thresholds♦ Further, measurement of some types of income in determining eligibility is not the same as the income measurement used by the Bureau of the Census. To be eligible for participation in the Food Stamp Program, a household must be able to show need, as represented by an adjusted monthly net income below specified levels ("income standards*'). The current eligibility of a particular household is thus determined periodically by project staff. To determine directly by counties the total U.S. population eligible by these criteria would have required a very expensive special census or de- tailed survey.

There is, no doubt, a strong correlation between the actual percentage eligible, as dictated by program provisions, and the percentage with income below the poverty levels, as reported in the Census of Population (table 1). By including the poverty variable as a substitute for the income group eligible to receive food stamps, it was then possible to measure the effect of other variables on participation in the Food Stamp Program.

Table 1—Food Stamp Program equivalent annual income eligibility levels related to poverty threshold levels

Household size

Maximum annual income, Food

Stamp Program 1/

Poverty threshold 2/

Poverty threshold '^as percentage of maximum

allowable income

No. persons

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-Dollars- Percent

2,040 2,760 3,720 4,680 5,340 6,120 6,840

1,834 2,364 2,905 3,721 4,386 4,921 6,034

89 .9 85 .7 78 .1 79 .5 82 .1 80 .4 88 .2

Ij As of May 1970. Actual eligibility is based on monthly income. 2/ Bureau of the Census.

In formulating the regression model, it was postulated that counties with higher incidences of poverty would have larger percentages of their populations receiving food stamps. After adjusting for poverty, it was hypothesized that higher county food stamp participation rates would be associated with counties having high unemployment and/or low labor force participation, high welfare participation rates, and high percentages of their population under 18 years of age. Finally, it was hypothesized that urban influence, racial composition of a county, and whether the county was in the South would have no significant effect on food stamp participation after the effects of the other variables had been accounted for. In adding the two program history variables, it was hypothesized that the participation rate would be higher in counties where a commodity distribution program was in existence before the start of the Food Stamp Program and higher in counties where the Food Stamp Program had a longer than average history.

3

RESULTS

Before discussing the effects of each independent variable on food stamp participation, we can summarize the major results of the regression analysis shown in table 2 as follows:

Higher food stamp participation rates were closely associated with high incidences of poverty at the county level. Each additional 100 persons in poverty, on the average, was associated with 34 more food stamp recipients.

After accounting for differences in the incidence of poverty among counties, the results indicate that 100 more welfare recipients would result in 53 more food stamp recipients, This,no doubt,results from the close administra- tive ties between the Food Stamp and welfare programs.

On the average, an additional 100 unemployed workers would be associated with about 95 more food stamp recipients, Ij

For every extra 100 in a county's labor force, food stamp participation would decline an average of about 13 persons. 3/

Food stamp participation rates tended to be lower for those counties with a higher percentage of population 65 years and older; and they tended to be higher for those with a higher percentage of population 17 years and over. For each additional 100 county residents 65 years and over, an average county would tend to have some 19 fewer food stamp participants. Whereas, for each additional lOO residents 17 years and younger, a county would have some 24 more food stamp recipients.

The length of time the Food Stamp Program had been in operation had a positive effect on food stamp participation. For example, after holding other variables constant, each additional month of Food Stamp Program participation would increase 2 persons per 100 population.

The more urban counties had lower percentages of their populations receiving food stamps. But, after adjusting for differences in the incidences of poverty, it was found that the poor in more rural counties were less likely to participate in the Food Stamp Program than the poor in more urban counties.

As was the case with the urban influence variable, despite the positive correlation between the incidence of minority races and food stamp participation

2_/ The regression coefficient in appendix table 1 relating the rate of food stamp participation to the unemployment rate is 0.378. However, since the rate of unemployment is based on persons 16 years of age and over in the labor force (roughly 40 percent of the total population in 1970), increases in the number of unemployed relate to increases in the number of food stamp recipients by the ratio 95 to 100.

V The percentage in the labor force variable is based on persons 16 years of age and older—which comprised about 69.5 percent of the total population in 1970. Therefore, in relating the number of food stamp recipients to labor force entrants, the rate is 13 to 100 instead of 9 to 100 if the labor force percentage was based on the total population.

Table 2—Importance of selected socioeconomic characteristics in their effects on food stamp participation rates, 1,697 U.S. counties, May 1970 1/

Assuming that each of these factors could be changed independently,

For each additional Estimated number of 100 people with each food stamp recipients of the following would increase (+) characteristics, or decrease (-) by:

1. Low income or poor +34

2. Welfare recipients +53

3. Unemployed +95

4. In labor force -13

5. 17 years or younger +24

6. 65 years or older -19

7. Number of months since Food Stamp Program began +2

Compared with a metro county with 50,000 or more urban residents,

8. a nonmetro county with

(a) 25,000 or more urban residents -72

(b) 10,000 to 24,999 urban residents -62

(c) 2,500 to 9,999 urban residents -106

(d) No urban residents -108

Compared with a county with less than 2 percent minorities,

9« a county in which minority group members comprised

(a) 2 to 4.9 percent of the population -50

(b) 5 to 9.9 percent of the population -69

(c) 10 to 19.9 percent of the population -212

(d) 20 to 33.2 percent of the population -353

(e) 33.3 to 49.9 percent of the population -343

Compared with a nonsouthern county,

10. county was in the South +81

Ij The figures in this table are derived from the basic regression presented in appendix table 1. Only statistically significant results are presented.

rates, when poverty and all other independent variables were held constant, greater percentages of minority races were not associated with higher food stamp participation rates. The principal regression suggests that the poor people in counties with high incidences of minorities would be less likely to participate than the poor in counties with smaller percentages of minorities.

When other variables were held constant, southern counties had significantly higher food stamp participation rates than nonsouthern counties.

In general, the findings indicate that the Food Stamp Program, as adminis- tered in 1970, met a basic need that was not otherwise adequately fulfilled. Moreover, the higher food stamp participation rates associated with higher unemployment rates in 1970 imply a likely major increase in national program participation rates in a recession.

The following sections give further background on the results discussed above and shown in table 2.

Low Income or Poverty

As pointed out earlier, distribution of income is the major variable in determining persons eligible for food stamps. Household size and income level are two of the major factors considered in determining eligibility. Thus, for given household sizes, the number of persons in households with incomes below the low-income thresholds is the best available indicator of food stamp eligibility at the county level.

Inclusion of this low-income or poverty variable made it possible to ap- praise the effectiveness of the Food St^np Program in reaching low-income population by residence, race, age, and geographic area. Without the poverty variable, the regression would have been greatly altered—particularly with respect to urban influence, minorities, and age groups, because there were large differences in the incidence of poverty, depending on place of residence, race, and age group, kj The relative importance of poverty status on food stamp participation has already been discussed. After the effects of other variables have been accounted for, the county with more poor residents would have had 34 more food stamp participants for every 100 extra poor people. 5/

4_/ According to the 1970 Census of Population, 13.7 perçoit of the total U.S. population was poor, but 35 percent of Negroes were poor. Of the total population, the poor comprised 27.3 percent of those 65 years or older, 15.1 percent of those 17 years or younger, 12.0 percent of all urban residents, 18.2 percent of rural nonfarm, and 18.4 percent of rural farm residents. V For all food stamp counties in May 1970, the number of food stamp recip-

ients was 35 percent of all residents counted as poor in 1969. The annual income levels that defined poverty thresholds were below the annualized equiva- lents of maximum allowable monthly incomes for food stamp eligibility. Thus, some nonpoverty households were eligible for food stamps; on the other hand, because eligibility for food stamps also depends on the level of owned assets, some poor households were Ineligible for food stamps. Poverty incidence provides the best approximation to relative income eligibility by counties, but it still provides only an approximation.

Welfare Participation

For every 100 more persons on welfare rolls, a county would have 53 more food stamp participants. When participation rates were not first standardized to allow for actual intercounty differences in the number of poor residents (when the poverty variable was dropped from the regression, alternative 2, app. table 3), 100 more welfare recipients were associated with 81 additional food stamp recipients.

Unemployment

Among U.S. food stamp counties, counties with 8.0 percent or more unemployment had the highest average rate of participation in the Food Stamp Program (10.9 percent). Geographically, high county unemployment rates (app. C) and high county food stamp participation rates (fig. 1, see p. 24) were both apparent in the food stamp counties of California, Washington, New Mexico, and southern Colorado; the Upper Great Lake counties of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the Mississippi Delta counties; and the Appalachian counties of Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Areas with high food stamp participation but where county unemployment rates were not high, for the most part, included large areas of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and the Piedmont areas of North and South Carolina. In these areas, the high food stamp participation rates no doubt resulted from the low labor force participation rates (percentage of the total population 16 years of age and over in the labor force) and the high incidence of poverty.

In contrast to the counties with high food stamp participation rates, the counties with the lowest average participation rate (3.4 percent) were also counties with the lowest unemployment rate (under 4.37 percent—^^below the national average at that time) (fig. 2).

A 1-percent average Increase in the rate of unemployment was associated with a higher food stamp participation rate of 0.378 percentage points (app. table 1). But the labor force, on the average, comprises only about 40 perçoit of the county population. Accordingly, based on data used in this report, a county with an additional 100 unemployed workers would average about 95 more food stamp participants.

Labor Force Participation

Each 1-percent Increase in labor force participation rate (the percentage of the population 16 years and over in the labor force), was associated with a lower food stamp participation rate of 0.088 (app. table 1). 6/ On the average, a county with 100 more people in the labor force would have about 13 fewer food stamp participants than otherwise similar counties«

bj Alternative regression model 3 (app. table 2) shows how the effects of the two labor force variables are altered when the poverty and welfare variables are both omitted from the model.

FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION AND RATE OF UNEMPLOYM

% RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS, MAY 1970

ENT^ 10.9

UNDER 4.37%

USDA

4.37 TO 5.99% 6.00 TO 7.99%

RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT, APRIL 1970

* FOR ALL U.S. FOOD STAMP CO UN Tf ES. SOURCE: APPENDIX TABLE 5.

8.00% OR MORE

NEC. ERS 2007-75 (6)

Figure 2.

Age Structure

Higher percentages of the total population comprised of persons under 18 years of age were associated with significantly higher food stamp participation, other variables held constant. Higher proportions of the total population 65 years of age and over were associated with lower participation• Specifically, other variables held constant, a county with 100 more people under 18 years of age would have 24 more stamp participants, whereas one with 100 more people 65 years and older would have 19 fewer participants. Further research is needed to determine the reasons for these variations* For people 65 years and older, disproportionately low rates of stamp program participation may be due to a nifflïber of reasons such as asset or resource limitations on eligibility, difficulties associated with purchasing stamps, inadequate transportation and cooking facilities, and lack of knowledge of the program. These and other factors may eliminate many aged people from participatipa who, on the basis of low income alone, would have been eligible to receive food stamps.

Program History

Participation in the Food Stamp Program was not significantly related to the existence of a direct food distribution program prior to the start of the Food Stamp Program. However, the number of months since the Food Stamp Program began in the locale had a statistically significant positive effect on participation: an average of two more participants per month. For example, after accounting for differences in other variables, a county in which the Food Stamp Program had been operating 6 months longer would have 12 more participants per 100 population.

8

Urban Influence

To assess the possibility that the effectiveness of the Food Stamp Program in reaching potentially eligible residents varied between rural and urban locations, food stamp counties were grouped according to whether they were within a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) or outside SMSA's. (An SMSA, by Census Bureau definition, is a county or group of contiguous counties— except in New England—containing at least one central city or twin cities with at least 50,000 population.) Further subgroups were formed according to the number of urban residents (that is, residents of towns of 2,500 or more) within the county. Thus, the degree of "urban influence" ranged from metropolitan counties with 50,000 or more urban residents to nonmetropolitan counties with no urban residents. Corresponding food stamp participation rates ranged from 3.8 percent in counties with the most urban influence to 10.7 percent in counties with the least urban influence (fig. 3). On the other hand, despite much larger incidences of poverty in the more rural counties, welfare participation rates were fairly constant across all counties grouped according to urban influence. These figures strongly suggest that the Food Stamp Program was more successful in reaching the rural poor than other public assistance programs. Though the Old Age Assistance Program (OAA) did not strongly favor more urban counties, this was offset by the much larger Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC) which because of its orientation to female-headed households, had higher participation rates in urban counties. (See app. table 6.) Ij

2J According to the Census of Population, 1970, the incidence of female- headed families was almost twice as high in urban areas (12.1 percent) as in rural areas (7.3 percent).

POVERTY, FOOD STAMP AND WELFARE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATES,

BY URBAN INFLUENCE*

%IN POVERTY, 1969

% RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS, MAY 1970

>3 % RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, FEB. 1971

'}.V<

13.1

6.8

4.6

We UNITED STATES

USDA

13.2

10.6

IS^

3.8

Wh

'''/, '//'/, ■///'/,

/// 4.1 4.0

W0y 50,000 LESS THAN

OR MORE 50,000

METROPOLITAN COUNTIES

15.1

^y'^ /^^/, i;//^1 4.6 5.2

25,000 OR MORE

23.2

19.8

'0'

///^' // //

0;:

6.4 5.9

8.1 6.6

10,000- 24,999

2,500- 9,999

27.6

10.7

W

et NONE

NONMETROPOLITAN COUNTIES

NUMBER OF URBAN RESIDENTS

* FOR ALL U.S. FOOD STAMP COUNTIES. NEG.ERS 2008-75 (6)

Figure 3.

9

The regression equation used for table 2 measures differences in food stamp participation among counties by urban influence when intercounty differ-

ences in other variables (such as poverty) have been accounted for. For instance, in measuring the difference in food stamp participation between the most urban county group and the most rural county group, the analysis considers that the incidence of poverty is almost three times as high in the most rural counties,

After accounting for intercounty differences in characteristics such as poverty incidence, unemployment rates, and other factors, participation in the Food Stamp Program was highest in counties with the most urban influence (metropolitan counties with at least 50,000 urban residents). Such results suggest that, with the assumptions underlying table 2, the Food Stamp Program more effectively reached the poverty population in the most urban counties.

Racial Composition

To study the relationship between county food stamp participation and the racial composition of counties, food stamp counties were divided into seven groups on the basis of the percentage of Negroes and other minority group members in the total population (fig. 4), There was a positive relationship between food stamp participation rates and the percentage of minority races. Participation ranged from 13.8 percent in counties comprised of 50 percent or more minorities to only 3.5 percent in counties with less than 2 percent minorities. Moreover,when allowance was made for the effects of all other factors.

POVERTY, FOOD STAMP AND WELFARE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATES, BY PERCENT OF MINORITY GROUP POPULATION*

29.2

% IN POVERTY, 1969

^% RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS, MAY 1970

% RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, FEB. 1971

15.1

12.4 11.4

50% OR MORE

USDA

33.3 TO 49.9% 20.0 TO 33.3% 10.0 TO 19.9% 5.0 TO 9.9%

% NEGRO AND OTHER MINORITY RACES

' FOR ALL U.S. FOOD STAMP COUNTfES

2.0 TO 4.9% LESS THAN 2.0%

NEC. ERS 2009-75 (6)

Figure 4.

10

such as percent of people In poverty, welfare participation rate, the rate of participation In the labor force, and differing age composition of the population, food stamp participation rates remained different. In general, after these adjustments were made, they were consistently lower for coimtles with a higher proportion of Negroes, American Indians, Americans of Spanish heritage, and other minorities. Using regression analysis, it was found that participation in counties with less than 2 percent minority races was significantly higher than in the other group of counties having larger proportions of minority races—except for counties having 50 percent or more minority races. In counties having from 20 to 49.9 percent minorities, other things constant, food stamp participation was the lowest, 3 percentage points lower than in counties with less than 2 percent minorities.

These results suggest that, when other factors are held constant, the prob- ability of a person participating in the Food Stamp Program is significantly lower in counties with a relatively large population of minority groups than in other counties. However, the results show that if the percentage of minority group members comprise larger and larger percentages of the total population, the negative effect on food stamp participation declines. For instance, participation in counties with 50 percent or more minority group members is no different, in a statistically significant sense, from participation in counties with less than 2 percent minority members (app. table 1). 8/ These results are suggestive, rather than definitive, since it is difficult to conceive of "other variables held constant" in practice. As already observed, counties with a high proportion of minorities tend also to have relatively high rates of poverty, unemployment, relatively low rates of participation in the labor force, and other characteristics already shown to be strongly interrelated. These, in turn, are related to differing rates of food stamp participation. It should also be noted that these disadvantages are not confined to counties with a high percentage of minority population.

Region

Higher than average food stamp participation rates were apparent in the South, These high rates result in large part from high incidences of poverty and low labor force participation rates in the South (app. table 7). Among U.S. census divisions, food stamp participation was highest (9.5 percent) in the East South Central States (Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee), where the incidence of poverty was 25.4 percent—almost twice the national average—and labor force participation was lowest among all divisions. The other two southern divisions (South Atlantic and West South Central) had higher food stamp participation rates, higher Incidences of poverty, and lower labor force participation rates than any non-South division. Despite the differences in county characteristics between the South and other regions discussed thus far, when these differences were accounted for, the participation rates in the South were still significantly above those in other regions. Further, the

&J Alternative equation 6 (app. table 3) suggests the strong positive effects on food stamp participation of very large percentages of minority group members. It also suggests that if the percentage of minorities is substantially larger than the percentage in poverty, proportionately more minority group members would participate in the Food Stamp Program.

11

percentage of food stamp recipients receiving public assistance in the South is far below the national average of 57 percent. This, plus the difference in participation rates remaining in the regression analysis, suggests that the Food Stamp Program filled a welfare need not filled by welfare programs in the South. For instance, in the East South Central States, only 30 percent of the food stamp recipients received any public assistance, in contrast to 74.5 in the Middle Atlantic States (app. table 7).

12

APPENDIX A

THE REGRESSION MODEL AND ALTERNATIVES

The principal regression model discussed in this report is as follows:

i i ^^11 i^ il Y"- = a + bP"" + E cT (SE)r + d G^ -f E f .Ht* -I- e^

k=l ^ ^ j^i J J

Y « percentage of the population in county i receiving food stamps.

a = constant term,

percentage of i the poverty threshold;

p = percentage of the population in county i with income below

(SE), « the other socioeconomic variables including:

(SE)- = unemployment rate of county i,

(SE)^ = labor force participation rate (percentage of the population 16 years old and over in the labor force) in county i,

(SE) = percentage of the population in county i receiving any welfare payment,

(SE), - percentage of the population in county i under 18 years of age,

(SE). = percentage of the population in county i 65 years of age and older,

(SE)^ through (SE)--. = a series of dummy variables identifying county i by degree of urban influences as measured by the number of urban residents within county i,

(SE)-- through (SE)-^ = a series of dummy variables identifying county i as to the percentage of the county's population classed as minority group members.

G = a dummy variable identifying whether county i is located in the South,

13

H, = program history variables including: j

H = a dummy variable identifying whether county i had a commodity program prior to initiation of the Food Stamp Program,

H^ = the number of months since initia- 2 tion of the Food Stamp Program in

county i.

b,c,,d,f = regression coefficients, K J

e = unexplained variation•

The results of the principal regression are found in appendix table 1.

Several variations of the basic regression model were tried, by omitting one or more variables, incorporating interaction terms, using continuous variables instead of dummy variables, and postulating curvilinear relationships instead of the linear ones used in the principal regressions. The alternative regressions are shown in appendix tables 2 and 3. Simple correlation coefficients between all pairs of variables are shown in appendix table 4.

14

Appendix table 1—Regression model explaining the percentage of the population receiving food stamps in U.S. counties. May 1970

Item ] Simple [correlation 'coefficient

Regression model

Regression : coefficient:

t value 1/

Constant term. -6»080

Independent variables: Percent in poverty•.•.•••••.••••• , unemployment rate Labor force participation rate... Welfare participation rate Age structure:

Percent 17 years of age and under...., Percent 65 years of age and older....,

Urban influence: Ij Metropolitan counties with—

Less than 50,000 urban residents.... Nonmetropolitan counties with—

25,000 or more urban residents 10,000-24,999 urban residents , 2,500-9,999 urban residents ..., No urban residents.

Percent minority group members: V 2.0 to 4.99 percent minority group members 5.0 to 9.99 percent minority group members 10.0 to 19.99 percent minority group members ,

20.0 to 33.32 percent minority group members

33.33 to 49.99 percent minority group members 50.0 percent or more minority group members ••..... •••••

County located in the South County had direct commodity distribution program prior to start of Food Stamp Program

Monthly interval since start of Food Stamp Program

0.812 0.341 19.22 0.457 0.378 8.62

-0.550 -0.088 4.32 0.771 0.526 16.80

0.384 0.242 7.15 -0.082 -0.187 4.55

-0.070 -0.352 0.70

•0.089 -0.724 1.90 -0.032 -0.623 1.73 0.065 -1.062 3.01 0.163 -1.080 2.76

■0.042 -0.501 1.81

•0.047 -0.692 2.05

•0.052 -2.127 5.46

0.038 -3.531 8.77

0.214 -3.426 7.84

0.423 -0.883 1.57 0.467 0.814 2.73

0.153 -0.218 1.16

0.264 0.022

0.799

4.48

1/ Any t value of 1.645 or greater is statistically significant at the 10-percent level. Ij The regression measures participation in given county groups in contrast to participation in metropolitan counties with at least 50,000 urban residents. Zj The regression measures participation in given county groups in contrast to participation in counties with less than 2.0 percent minority group population.

15

Appendix table 2—Alternative regressions 1, 2, 3» for explaining the percentage of the population receiving food stamps in U.S. counties, May 1970

Alternative 1 1/

Item 'Regression 'coefficient

t value 4/

Alternative 2 2/

Regression coefficient

t value 4/

Alternative 3 3/

Regression coefficient

t value 4/

Constant term. : -6.481

Independent variables: : Percent in poverty .: 0.479 Unemployment rate ; 0.551 Labor force participation rate .: -0.109 Welfare participation rate ..: 5/

Age structure: : Percent 17 years of age and under...: 0.277 Percent 65 years of age and older,..: -0.157

Urban influence: tj : Metropolitan counties with— :

Less than 50,000 urban residents..: -1.271 Nonmetropolitan counties with^— :

25,000 or more urban residents....: -1.610 10,000-24,999 urban residents : -1.671 2,500-9,999 urban residents : -2.261 No urban residents ,......: -2.563

Percent minority group members: 8^/ : 2.0 to 4.99 percent minority : group members : -0.085

5.0 to 9.99 percent minority : group members : IJ

10.0 to 19.99 percent minority : group members : -0.945

20.0 to 33.32 percent minority : group members : -2.033

33.33 to 49,99 percent minority : group members : -1.7 69

50.0 percent or more minority : group members : 0.679

County located in the South : 0.044 County had direct commodity distri- : bution program prior to start of : Food Stamp Program : 0.082

Monthly interval since start of : Food Stamp Program : 0.027

R^ : 0,765

28.23 12.02 4.98

5/

7,61 3.56

2.36

-2.055

5/ 0.346

-0.239 0,805

0.379 -0.047

7/

5/ 7.16

11.64 26.40

10.46 1.05

7/

0.325

5/ 0,659

-0.401 5/

0.556 0,124

-1.597

5/ 11,87 17.16

5/

13.18 2.44

2.63

3.98 0.282 0.72 -0.686 1.60 4.47 0.898 2.52 7/ 7/ 6,20 0.719 2.12 -0.253 0.77 6.41 1.545 4.21 0.681 1.89

0.30 -0.519 1.70 0.278 0.77

7/ -0.768 2.08 0.526 1.23

2.38 -2,440 5.70 -0.391 0.79

5.00 -3.272 7.40 -0.154 0.31

3.96 -2.006 4.23 2.336 4.43

1.15 2.375 4.02 7.982 12,20

0.14 3.759 13.55 4.589 14.03

0.41 -0,321 1.55 0.180 0.74

5.11 0,031 5.61 0.047 7.31

— 0,754 0.653 :

\J Welfare omitted. 2J Poverty omitted. 2/ Welfare and poverty omitted. y Any t value of 1.645 or greater is statistically significant at least at the 10-percent level. V Omitted. y The regression measures participation in given county groups in contrast to participation in

metropolitan counties with at least 50,000 urban residents. ]J The effect of this variable was so insignificant that it did not enter into stepwise regres-

sion (F level to enter of less than 0,01). y The regression measures participation in given county groups in contrast to participation in

counties with less than 2.0 percent minority group population.

16

Appendix table 3~Alternative regressions 4, 5, 6, for explaining the percentage of the population receiving food stamps in U.S. counties, May 1970

Alternative 4

Item IRegression 'coefficient t value

Alternative 5

Regression coefficient t value

Alternative 6

Regression coefficient t value

Constant term : -6.658

Independent variables: : Rate of unemployment : 0.384 Labor force participation rate..* : -0.106 Welfare participation rate : 0.492 Percent urban : 0.004 Percent 17 years old and under : 0.254 Percent 65 years and over.... : -0.195 Percent in poverty. : 0.354 Percent minority races : -0.036 (Percent minority races x percent : poverty) : 1/ (Percent urban x percent poverty) : T/ (Percent urban x percent minority races)...: T/ (Percent in poverty)^ : 1/ (Percent minority races) 2 : i/ County located in the South : -0.200 County had direct commodity distribution : program prior to start of Food Stamp : Program : -0.164

Monthly interval since start of Food : Stamp Program : 0.025

R : 0.787

-4.017 1.606

8.62 0.401 9.44 0.373 9.44 5.14 -0.119 6.07 -0.104 5.64

15.57 0.468 15.47 0.447 15.55 1.03 0.045 7.11 -0.006 0.82 7.46 0.200 6.07 0.170 5.56 4.90 -0.183 4.72 -0.124 3.42

20.48 0.334 17.72 -0.193 4.72 4.30 -0.199 9.69 -0.097 3.71

1/ 0.005 10.25 -0.001 2.10 1/ -0.003 8.33 0.005 1.19 1/ 0.001 2.49 -0.001 2.35 1/ 1/ 1/ 0.009 14.30 1/ 1/ 1/ 0.002 6.51

0.71 0.915 3.27 1.637 6.06

0.85 -0.142 0.78 -0.071 0.42

4.89 0.028 5.70 0.023 5.13

.-. 0.807 _. 0.834 __

1/ Omitted.

Appendix table 4 —Correlation coefficients for analysis of participation in Food Stamp Program, May 1970

Variable [ Variable number

number • ► . <

; 1 ; 2 3 ' 4 ; 5 6 ; 7 I « • 9 10 ; 11 ; 12 ; 13 ] 1^ ! 15 ; 16 ' 17 ■ 18 ; 19 ; 20 ; 21

1 :1.000 -.432 .457 .411 .142 -.062 .293 -.050 ,015 -.002 .058 .004 .127 .010 -.028 -.043 .038 .086 .253 ,218 ,072 2 : 1.000 -.550 -.445 .031 -.281 -.582 .074 .050 ,081 -.068 -.252 -.113 -.026 ,066 .098 .054 -.020 -.221 -.217 -.227 3 1.000 .771 .384 -.082 .812 -.070 -.089 -.032 .065 .163 .423 .214 .038 -.052 -.047 -.042 .153 .264 .467 4 1.000 .282 -.056 .723 -.093 -.060 -.023 *061 .054 .372 .296 .151 .027 -.017 -.044 .169 .223 .436 5 1.000 -.528 .276 .048 -.076 -.048 .020 .071 .345 .187 .049 -.050 -.048 -.112 -.027 .029 .098 6 1.000 .097 -.152 -.163 -.036 ,184 .254 -.100 -.106 -.148 -.159 -.144 -.042 .029 -.016 -.197 7 1.000 -.121 -.130 -.037 .125 ,273 .434 ,319 .121 -.053 -.123 -.100 .088 .175 .621 8 1.000 -.064 -.085 -.135 -.127 -.029 -.035 ,005 .024 .019 .031 -.000 -.003 .033 9 1,000 -.132 -.211 -.198 -.039 -.029 .024 .044 .049 .121 .023 -.014 -.030 10 1.000 -.279 -.262 .005 .042 .036 -.029 -.053 ,050 .009 .006 .010 11 1.000 -.417 .041 .064 -.016 -.027 -.066 -.074 .010 ,049 .068 12 1.000 .042 -.041 -.075 -.106 -.099 -.091 -.067 -.091 -.006 13 1.000 -.062 -.065 -.061 -.069 -.087 -.093 .030 .210 14 1,000 -.086 -.081 -.091 -.116 -.044 -.011 .332 15 1,000 -.085 -.096 -.122 -.044 -.012 .325 16 1,000 -.090 -.114 .018 .022 .172 17 1.000 -.129 .019 -.019 -.025 18 1.000 .111 .014 -.046 19 1.000 .256 .071 20 1.000 ,091 21 : 1.000

Variable name: 1. Rate of unemployment, April 1970. 2. Total labor force participation rate, April 1970. 3. Food stamp participation rate. May 1970. 4. Welfare participatlQn rate, February 1971. 5. Percent of the population 17 years of age and ypunger, April 1970. 6. Percent of the population 65 years of age and older, April 1970. 7. Percent of the population in poverty, 1969. 8. Dummy variable for metropolitan counties with fewer than 50,000 urban residents. 9. Dummy variable for nonmetropolitan counties with 25,000 or more urban residents.

10. Duimny variable for nonmetropolitan counties with 10,000 to 24,999 urban residents. 11. Dummy Variable for nonmetropolitan counties with 2,500 to 9,999 urban resldentô. 12. Dummy variable for nonmetropolitan counties with ho urban residents. 13. Dummy variable for counties with 50 percent or more minority population, 14. Dummy variable for counties with 33.33 to 49.99 percent minority population. 15. Dummy variable for counties with 20.0 to 33.32 percent minority population. 16. Dummy variable for counties with 10.0 to 19.99 percent minority population. 17. Dummy variable for counties with 5.0 to 9.99 percent minority population. 18. Dummy variable for counties with 2.0 to 4.99 percent minority population. 19. Dummy variable for counties which had a commodity distribution program prior to start of the Food Stamp Program. 20. Monthly interval since start of the Food Stamp Program. 21. Dummy variable for counties in the Southern Census region.

APPENDIX B

BASIC TABULATIONS

19

Appendix table 5—Participation in the Food Stamp Program, and related factors, by county unemployment rates. May 1970

Counties, grouped by unemployment rate,

April 1970

United States With Food Stamp Program,,.. Without Food Stamp Program.

8.00 percent or more unemployed

With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program.,

6.00 to 7.99 percent unemployed i

With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program..

4.37 (national average) to 5.99 percent unemployed

With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program..

Below 4.37 percent unemployed •.

With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program.,

Counties

Number

3,098 1.697 1,401

262 156 106

379 229 150

753 428 325

1,704 881 823

Population, April 1970 1/

Food stamp recipients. May 1970 2/

Total

As per cent of[ popula tion

Percent on

¡public assis-

tance

Persons on public assistance, Feb. 1971 3/

: 65 : years

Total: and : over

17 years

and under

on OAA:on AFIK:

Proportion of population

: Persons 16 : years and :over, 1971 1/

In poverty, 1970 1/

Rural,:In the 1970 :labor 1/ : force

Unem- ployment rate

Popu- lation growth, 1960-70

Thousc mds

6,070.2 6,070.2

3.0 4.6

57.2 57.2

6.8 6.8 6.9

10.3 9.3

11.9

Perci »nt

26.5 24.2 31.0

56.7 57.4 55.6

4.37 4.46 4.20

203,165.7 132,522.7

70,643.0

10.1 10.1 10.0

13.7 13.1 15.0

13.30 12.47 14.87

7,292.6 5,022.2 2,270.4

548.3 548.3

7.5 10.9

40.6 40.6

8.9 8.7 9.3

16.3 16.2 16.6

12.2 11.9 12.9

29.3 29.5 28.7

49.1 45.7 56.7

52.1 52.6 51.0

9.15 9.11 9.24

11.65 11.05 13.00

29,110.4 21,724.0 7,386.4

1,361.9 1,361.9

3.4 6.3

62.7 62.7

10.1 10.7 8.5

16.0 15.2 18.4

14.6 15.6 11.8

22.4 21.1 26.4

23.5 19.8 34.4

54.7 56.0 30.8

6.51 6.47 6.63

10.24 7,96

17.54

48,208.4 31,985.5 16,222.9

1,632.8 1,632.8

3.4 5.1

56.9 56.9

8.1 7.4 9.3

11,0 9.6

13.4

12,1 11.3 13.7

24.0 22.9 26.2

29.5 27.3 33.8

55.5 56,0 54.4

5.03 5.07 4.96

11.19 12,45 8.80

118,554.3 73,801.1 44,753.2

2,527.3 2,527.3

2.1 3.4

58.0 58.0

5.3 5.1 5.7

8.1 6.7

10.1

8.0 7.8 8.2

19.9 18.5 22.1

24.7 22.6 28.1

58.1 58,7 57.0

3.35 3.35 3.36

15.07 13.99 16.90

1/ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population, 1970. 2/ Data from USDA's Food and Nutrition Service. 3/ U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service, Recipients of Public Assistance Money Payments and

Amounts of Such Payments, by Program, State, and County, February, 1971, NCSS Report A-8.

Appendix table 6—Participation in the Food Stamp Program, and related factors, by county metropolitan status and number in urban population. May 1970

Counties, grouped by metropolitan status and

urban population Counties

Population, April 1970 1/

Food stamp recipients, May 1970 2/

Total

As percent of population

¡Percent : on : public lassis- : tance


Persons 16 _ ^. . years and

population '^ - oT„ 1 / ^ ^ :over, 1970 L'

Proportion of

Total

65 17 : yea rs : In

and : poverty, over : under :1970 Ij

on OAA:on AFDC:

years and

Rural,:In the 1970 :labor 1/ ¡force

Unem- ployment rate


United States... With Food Stamp Program.... Without Food Stamp Program.

Metropolitan counties With Food Stamp Program.... Without Food Stamp Program.

50,000 or more urban residents With Food Stamp Program... Without Food Stamp Program

Less than 50,000 urban residents With Food Stamp Program... Without Food Stamp Program

Nonmetropolitan counties With Food Stamp Program.... Without Food Stamp Program.

25,000 or more urban residents With Food Stamp Program... Without Food Stamp Program

10,000 to 24,999 urban residents

With Food Stamp Program... Without Food Stamp Program

2,500 to 9,999 urban residents

With Food Stamp Program... Without Food Stamp Program

No urban residents With Food Stamp Program... Without Food Stamp Program

Number

3,098 1,697 1,401

484 290 194

347 223 124

137 67 70

2,614 1,407 1,207

260 154 106

458 253 205

993 522 471 903 478 425

-Thousands-

203,165.7 6,070.2 132,522.7 6.070.2 70,643.0

144,239.4 99,041.3 45,198.1

6,843.5 3,569.8 3,273.6

19,121,6 11,310.5 7,811.1

15,809.3 8,956.5 6,852.7

16,951.7 9,479.1 7,472.5 7,043.8 3,735.2 3,308.6

3.798.5 3,798.5

137,395.9 3,651.9 95,471.5 3,651.9 41,924.5

146.6 146.6

58.926.3 2,271.7 33.481.4 2,271.7 25,444.9 —

522.1 522.1

577.3 577.3

772.3 772.3

400.0 400.0

3.0 4.6

2.6 3.8

2.7 3.8

2.1 4.1

3.9 6.8

2.7 4.6

3.7 6.4

4.6 8.1

5.7 10.7

57.2 57.2

68.0 68.0

69.1 69.1

41.1 41.1

39.2 39.2

48.6 48.6

38. 38.

36.6 36.6

33.1 33.1

6.8 6.8 6.9

7.0 6.9 7.3

7.2 7.0 7.5

4.1 4,0 4.2

6.1 6.0 6.2

5.3 5.2 5.4

5.9 5.9 6.0

8.4 8.0 9,2

12.0 8.9 15.3

14.0 12.4 16.0

9.4 8.9 10.2

13.7 12,0 15.8

17, 14. 19, 17. 15 18

-Percent

10.3 10.1 9.3 10.1

11.9 10.0

11.0 10.9 11.4

8.2 11.4 7.9 11.1 8.8 12.0

5.0 5,2 4.8

7.7 7.9 7.5

7.6 7.5 7.7

7.6 7.8 7.4

7.3 8.3 8.8 7.8

13,7 13.1 15.0

11.2 10.7 12.4

11.1 10.6 12.3

13.4 13.2 13.7

19.9 20.1 19.6

14.9 15.1 14.7

19.3 19.8 18.5

23.0 23.2 22.7 27.0 27.6 26.3

26.5 56.7 4.37 24.2 57.4 4,46 31.0 55.6 4.20

12.5 11.6 14.5

10.4 9.9

11.4

55.5 56.7 54.2

60.8 61,2 60.2

43.9 44.6 42.8

55, 57, 52,

69.0 69.9 67.9 99.9 99.9 99.8

58.1 58.6 57.0

58.2 58.7 57.0

56.1 56.1 56.2

53.4 53.7 53.0

52.7 52.6 52.8 50.4 50.1 50.7

13.30 12,47 14.87

4.27 16.87 4.37 15.62 4.04 19.69

4.28 16.68 4.38 15.53 4.05 19.39

4.07 20,75 4.11 18.21 4.03 23.64

4.63 4.74 4.50

54.6 4.60 54.9 4.61 54.2 4.59

4.65 4.89 4.35 4.77 4.92 4.60

5.41 4.09 7.21

54.2 4.60 12.56 54.9 4.66 11.42 53.2 4.51 14.25

5.67 3.89 8.10

1.10 -0,29 2.91

-1.94 -3.88 0.35

1/ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population, 1970, Z/ Data from USDA's Food and Nutrition Service. _3/ U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service, Recipients of Public Assistance Money Payments and


Appendix table 7—Participation in the Food Stamp Program, and related factors, by census division. May 1970

Counties by census division

United States................ With Food Stamp Program,... Without Food Stamp Program.

Northeast New England With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program

Middle Atlantic., With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program

North Central East North Central With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program

West North Central,..*..» With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program

South South Atlantic , With Food St^ïrtp Program Without Food Stamp Program

East South Central With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program

West South Central With Food Stamp Ptogram Without Food Stamp Program

West Mountain

With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program

Pacific With Food Stamp Program Without Food Stamp Program

Counties

3,098 1,697 1,401

67 23 44

150 97 53

437 295 142 619 359 260

553 302 251 364 217 147 470 132 338

278 186 92

160 86 74

Population, April

1970 1/

Food stamp recipients, May 1970 11

Total

. : Percent As per-. cent of _ , - . : public

rassis- popula- tion tance


Total

65 years

and over

17 years

and under

* Proportion of \ population

: In : Rural, :poverty, : 1970 :1970 1/ : 1/

: Persons 16 : years and ¡over. 19701/

In the labor force

on 0AA:on AFDC:

Unem- ploy^ ment rate


Ntffnber Thousands-

203,165.7 6,070,2 132,522.7 6,070.2 70,643.0

11,841.7 5,650.8 6,190.9

37,152,8 21,592.5 15,560.3

40,252.5 34,315.2 5,937,3

16,319.2 10,491.6 5,827.6

30,671.3 16,866.5 13,804.8 12,803.5

9,146.8 3,656.6

19,320.6 8,824.0

10,496.5

8,281.6 5,048.7 3,232.9

26,522.6 20,586.7 5,936.0

171.6 171.6

609.0 609.0

1,232.4 1,232.4

334.8 334.8

937.6 937.6

867.4 867.4

608.0 608.0

273.6 273.6

1,035.8 1,035.8

3.0 4.6

1.4 3.0

1.6 2.8

3.1 3.6

2.1 3.2

3.1 5.6

6.8 9.5

3.1 6.9

3.3 5.4

3.9 5.0

57.2 57.2

67.2 67,2

74.5 74.5

70.4 70.4

49.7 49.7

46.8 46.8

30.0 30.0

47.0 47.0

48.7 48.7

72.6 72.6

10.3

l'ère« »nt

26.5 56.7 4.37

—

6.8 10.1 13.7 13.30 6.8 9.3 10.1 13.1 24.2 57.4 4.46 12.47 6.9 11.9 10.0 15.0 31.0 55.6 4.20 14.87

5.8 6.7 9.1 9.1 23.6 59.5 3.77 12.68 4.5 4.7 7.9 8.1 19.7 60.2 3.61 15,08 7.0 8.4 10.3 9.9 27.2 58.7 3.92 10,57 8.0 4.5 13.5 10.5 18,3 57.2 3.88 18.73 6.6 3.5 11.3 9.6 22,3 57.2 3.83 8.71

10.0 5.9 16.7 11.6 12,8 57.1 3.96 8.77

5.3 4.3 7.8 9.9 25.2 58.6 4.35 11.12 5.8 4.4 8.5 9.9 21.1 58.7 4.35 10.55 2.7 3.9 3.7 10.2 49,3 58.1 4.30 14.49 4.8 8.6 6.7 13.1 36.3 57.0 3.89 6.01 4.4 6.1 6.6 11.9 32.0 58.1 3.77 6.40 5.5 12.7 7.0 15,3 44.1 55.1 4.11 5.31

5.6 8.5 8.9 17.7 36.4 55.6 3.50 18.10 5.8 8.8 9.3 18.1 37.8 56.5 3.51 12.09 5.3 8.2 8.5 17.1 34.6 54.6 3.48 26.37 8.1 24,3 10.4 25.5 45.5 53.2 4.58 6.25 8.1 22.2 11.0 25,4 39.5 53.7 4.47 5.51 8.0 29.5 9,0 25.7 60.2 51.9 4.84 8.15 7.0 26.2 8.3 21.1 27.4 54.5 4.20 13.98 7.4 27.4 9.4 21,7 23.6 54.5 4.62 18.00 6.6 25.4 7.3 20.6 30.6 54.5 3.86 10.80

5.4 10.2 7.6 14.1 26.9 56.1 4.85 20.81 5.9 11.7 8.0 13.9 25.0 56.4 4.87 16.00 4.7 8.1 7.0 14.6 29.8 55.6 4.83 29.20 9.9 14.9 14.8 11.0 14.0 56.8 6.53 25.12

10.1 14.7 15.2 10.6 10.6 58.0 6.44 23.97 9.0 15.3 13.5 12.6 26,2 52.4 6.85 29.27

_!/ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population, 1970. 1Í Data from USDA*s Food and Nutrition Service. V U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service, Recipients of Public Assistance Money Payments and


APPENDIX C MAPS OF SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 8778-72(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

23

i m Ul

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

^«

\ °

X

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS, FEBRUARY 1971

m * ' -y

^,}^^-^'^

' 'í^?*'"

"■v= ...•,-^.=¿>° ^.i

I \

"is?

•^

V

¿V

•PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS

ÏM 15 00 PERCENT OR MORE

CZJ 10 00 TO 14.99 PERCENT

□ 5 00 TO 9.99 PERCENT

(ZU LESS THAN 5.00 PERCENT

MOTE: TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS REPRESENTS THE SUM OF ALL RECIPIENTS OF OAA, APTD, AID TO THE BLIND, AFDC AND GENERAL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS AND THUS INCLUDES DOUBLE COUNTING OF RECIPIENTS UNDER MORE THAN ONE PROGRAM.

SOURCE: SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION ANO WELFARE.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I

25 NEC. ERS 8779-72(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

TI H-

OQ

g

RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT, APRIL,1970^

•PERCENTAGE OF THE LABOR FORCE UNEMPLOYED

8 00 PERCENT OR MORE

C3 6 00 TO 7 99 PERCENT

CJ 4.37 TO 5.99 PERCENT

LJ LESS THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF 4.37 PERCENT

SOURCE: PRELIMINARY DATA FROM THE CENSUS OF POPULATION. 1970.

US. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

26 NEC. ERS 8777-72(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

factors related to participation in the food stamp …

Documents