Food Stamp Program: Characteristics of Households Affected by Limit on
the Shelter Deduction (Letter Report, 05/14/97, GAO/RCED-97-118).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the legislative
changes to the Food Stamp Program mandated by the 1996 welfare reform
act; focusing on, for fiscal year (FY) 1995, the: (1) characteristics of
households whose food stamp benefits were limited because of the cap on
their deduction for excess shelter expenses; and (2) extent to which
food stamp benefits would have been higher for these households if there
had not been a cap.
GAO noted that: (1) in FY 1995, households whose food stamp benefits
were limited because of the cap on the deduction for excess shelter
expenses differed in several key respects from households not affected
by this cap; (2) nearly all households affected by the cap had children,
while only slightly more than half of households not affected by the cap
had children; (3) moreover, households affected by the cap were more
likely to: (a) be headed by asingle female; (b) have noncitizen members;
(c) have earned income; and (d) live in urban areas; (4) affected
households also typically had more household members and received more
in food stamp benefits than those not affected by the cap; (5)
households affected by the cap tended to be located in the Northeast and
West, while households not affected by the cap tended to be located in
the South; (6) in the absence of the cap on the excess shelter expenses
deduction in FY 1995, the average monthly food stamp benefit for
affected households would have been about 12 percent, or $31, higher;
(7) total federal food stamp expenditures would have increased by 1.9
percent, for a total of $417 million in FY 1995; (8) the largest
increase would have been for households in the Northeast, where average
shelter costs are the highest; (9) nationwide, households in urban areas
would have received larger increases than those in rural areas; and (10)
households in New York and California would have received almost half of
these additional benefits.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-97-118
TITLE: Food Stamp Program: Characteristics of Households Affected
by Limit on the Shelter Deduction
DATE: 05/14/97
SUBJECT: Cost of living
Welfare recipients
Welfare benefits
Cost control
Population statistics
Eligibility determinations
Disadvantaged persons
Public assistance programs
IDENTIFIER: Food Stamp Program
Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
General Public Assistance Program
Supplemental Security Income Program
Social Security Program
AFDC
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Children and
Families, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate
May 1997
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM -
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS
AFFECTED BY LIMIT ON THE SHELTER
DEDUCTION
GAO/RCED-97-118
Food Stamp Program
(150268)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AFDC - Aid to Families With Dependent Children
FCS - Food and Consumer Service
GAO - General Accounting Office
IQCS - Integrated Quality Control System
USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-276578
May 14, 1997
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Children and Families
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate
Dear Senator Dodd:
The Food Stamp Program, the nation's largest food assistance program,
provided almost $22.5 billion in benefits to a monthly average of
more than 25 million low-income participants in fiscal year 1996. In
1996, the Congress made changes in the Food Stamp Program that,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, will reduce program
expenditures by a projected total of $23.1 billion for the 6-year
period from fiscal year 1997 through 2002. These changes were
mandated by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193, Aug. 22, 1996), which
overhauled the nation's welfare system.
One provision of this act affects how the income of a household that
receives food stamps is considered in determining the dollar value of
the household's monthly food stamp benefit. Under the Food Stamp
Program, the net monthly income of a household is one of the factors
used to calculate the food stamp benefit. Net monthly income is
determined by subtracting a number of approved deductions from the
household's gross monthly income. One of these deductions is for
shelter expenses that exceed 50 percent of a household's income after
other allowable deductions have been taken. This deduction is known
as the excess shelter expense deduction. Included among deductible
shelter expenses are rent, mortgage payments, utility bills, property
taxes, and insurance. The purpose of the excess shelter expense
deduction is to take into consideration the effect of
higher-than-average shelter costs on a low-income household's ability
to purchase an adequate amount of food.
The welfare reform act retained an existing limit, or cap, on the
amount of excess shelter expenses that can be deducted from income
for households receiving food stamps without elderly or disabled
members.\1 In fiscal year 1995, the cap on excess shelter expenses
that could be deducted from gross income was $231 a month.\2 Under
previous legislation, the cap was scheduled to be removed on January
1, 1997.\3 With the cap maintained, some households without elderly
or disabled members will receive a smaller food stamp benefit than
they would have received if the cap had been removed. This is
because these households are not allowed to deduct all of their
excess shelter expenses from their income used to calculate their
monthly food stamp benefit.
In October 1996, you asked us to study several issues related to the
impact of welfare reform on the Food Stamp Program. This report is
the first in a series addressing the legislative changes to the Food
Stamp Program mandated by the 1996 welfare reform act. In this
report, we describe, for fiscal year 1995, the (1) characteristics of
households whose food stamp benefits were limited because of the cap
on their deduction for excess shelter expenses and (2) extent to
which food stamp benefits would have been higher for these households
if there had not been a cap.
To analyze the characteristics of households whose food stamp
benefits were limited by the cap, we used the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) database on the characteristics of food stamp
households for fiscal year 1995, the most current year for which data
are available. Appendix II contains a description of the USDA
database used in our analysis, information on sampling errors
(margins of error), and further details on our methodology.
--------------------
\1 Elderly and disabled are defined in 7 CFR section 271.2.
\2 The cap was $231 a month in the 48 contiguous states and the
District of Columbia, $402 in Alaska, $330 in Hawaii, $280 in Guam,
and $171 in the Virgin Islands.
\3 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66, Aug. 10,
1993).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
In fiscal year 1995, households whose food stamp benefits were
limited because of the cap on the deduction for excess shelter
expenses differed in several key respects from households not
affected by this cap. Nearly all households affected by the cap had
children, while only slightly more than half of households not
affected by the cap had children. Moreover, households affected by
the cap were more likely to (1) be headed by a single female, (2)
have noncitizen members, (3) have earned income, and (4) live in
urban areas. Affected households also typically had more household
members and received more in food stamp benefits than those not
affected by the cap. Finally, households affected by the cap tended
to be located in the Northeast and West, while households not
affected by the cap tended to be located in the South.
In the absence of the cap on the excess shelter expense deduction in
fiscal year 1995, the average monthly food stamp benefit for affected
households would have been about 12 percent, or $31, higher. Total
federal food stamp expenditures would have increased by 1.9 percent,
for a total of $417 million in fiscal year 1995. The largest
increase would have been for households in the Northeast, where
average shelter costs are the highest. Nationwide, households in
urban areas would have received larger increases than those in rural
areas. Households in New York and California would have received
almost half of these additional benefits.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The Food Stamp Program helps low-income individuals and families
obtain a more nutritious diet by supplementing the funds they have to
spend on food with food stamp benefits. In fiscal year 1995, the
average monthly food stamp benefit was $172 per household. These
benefits are generally provided through coupons or electronically on
debit cards (similar to a bank card) that may be used to purchase
food at authorized stores.
The Food Stamp Program is a federal-state partnership, with the
federal government paying the full cost of the food stamp benefits
and approximately half of the states' administrative costs. USDA's
Food and Consumer Service administers the program at the federal
level. States' responsibilities include certifying eligible
households, calculating benefit amounts, and issuing benefits to
participants who meet the income and asset standards set by the
Congress.
After a household is certified as being eligible for food stamps, the
household's monthly food stamp benefit is computed on the basis of
several factors, including the household's net monthly income. A
household's net monthly income is computed by subtracting six
allowable deductions from the household's gross monthly income: a
standard deduction, an earned income deduction, a dependent care
deduction, a medical deduction,\4 a child support deduction, and an
excess shelter expense deduction. A household's monthly food stamp
benefit is computed by subtracting 30 percent of the household's net
income from the maximum allowable food stamp benefit for the
household's size.\5 This last step is based on two assumptions.
First, the maximum food stamp benefit represents the amount a
household with zero net income would need to purchase food for
nutritious but inexpensive meals each month. Second, a household is
expected to spend 30 percent of its net income to buy enough food for
a month. See appendix I for an example of how the net monthly income
and food stamp benefit were calculated for a single female-headed
household with three children in fiscal year 1995.
In fiscal year 1995, about two-thirds, or about 7.2 million, of the
almost 10.9 million food stamp households took the deduction for
excess shelter expenses. Of the households taking the deduction,
about 2.3 million were not subject to the deduction cap because they
contained an elderly or disabled person. Of the remaining households
taking the excess shelter expense deduction and subject to the cap,
about 1.1 million households would have received more in food stamp
benefits in the absence of the cap. These 1.1 million affected
households, which represent about 10 percent of all food stamp
households, would have received more in food stamp benefits in the
absence of the cap because they (1) had excess shelter expenses they
could not deduct from their income and (2) were not receiving the
maximum allowable food stamp benefit. In contrast, about 90 percent,
or about 9.8 million households, were not affected by the cap on the
excess shelter expense deduction in fiscal year 1995 because (1) they
did not take the deduction, (2) they had household members who were
elderly or disabled, (3) their excess shelter expenses were lower
than the cap, or (4) they were already receiving the maximum
allowable food stamp benefit even though they had excess shelter
expenses that were greater than the $231 cap. Table 1 shows the
number and percentage of households taking the excess shelter expense
deduction, and table 2 shows the number and percentage of households
affected and not affected by the cap on the excess shelter expense
deduction in fiscal year 1995.
Table 1
Number and Percentage of Households
Taking the Excess Shelter Expense
Deduction in Fiscal Year 1995
Number of Percent of
Type of household households households
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
All food stamp households 10,882,782 100.0
Did not take excess shelter 3,636,530 33.4
expense deduction
Took excess shelter expense 7,246,252 66.6
deduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2
Number and Percentage of Households
Affected and Not Affected by the Cap on
the Deduction for Excess Shelter
Expenses, Fiscal Year 1995
Number of Percent of
Type of household households households
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Benefits affected by cap on 1,115,583 10.3
excess shelter expense
deduction
Benefits not affected by the 9,767,199\a 89.7
cap on excess shelter expense
deduction
Did not take shelter deduction 3,636,530 33.4
Not subject to cap because of 2,316,844 21.3
elderly and disabled members
Not affected by the $231 cap 3,049,980 28.0
because households' excess
shelter expense deduction was
less than the cap
Not affected by the $231 cap 763,845 7.0
because household was
receiving maximum benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a 9,767,199=3,636,530+2,316,844+3,049,980+763,845
--------------------
\4 The medical deduction allows households that contain elderly or
disabled members to deduct all medical costs incurred by the elderly
or disabled person that exceed $35 per month if these expenses are
not paid by insurance or someone else.
\5 In fiscal year 1995, the maximum food stamp benefit ranged from
$115 for a household of one to $695 for a household of eight. For
each additional household member after eight, the benefit increased
by $87 in the contiguous United States.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS
AND PARTICIPANTS AFFECTED BY
THE CAP ON EXCESS SHELTER
EXPENSE DEDUCTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
In fiscal year 1995, the 1.1 million households affected by the cap
on the deduction for excess shelter expenses differed in several
aspects from households not affected by the cap. Appendix III
provides more detailed information on the characteristics of affected
households. Below is a description of the characteristics of
households affected by the cap in terms of their composition, income,
shelter expenses, geographic location, and level of food stamp
benefits.
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
In fiscal year 1995, households affected by the excess shelter cap
were more likely than households not affected to (1) contain
children, (2) be headed by a single female,\6 (3) have more members,
and (4) have more noncitizen members.\7
Children were members of about 93 percent of the 1.1 million food
stamp households affected by the excess shelter cap. In contrast,
children were members of about 56 percent of the food stamp
households not affected by the cap. See figure 1.
Figure 1: Percent of Affected
and Not Affected Households
With Children
(See figure in printed
edition.)
In total, affected households contained about 2.3 million children
under the age of 18. These children represented about 17 percent of
all children receiving food stamp benefits in fiscal year 1995.
Moreover, slightly more than half of the affected households, 51.4
percent, contained preschool children, while about one-third, 32.2
percent, of households not affected by the cap on the excess shelter
expense deduction contained preschool children.\8
Single females headed almost two-thirds of the food stamp households
affected by the excess shelter cap in fiscal year 1995. In contrast,
slightly more than one-third of the households not affected by the
cap were headed by single females. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2: Percent of Affected
and Not Affected Households
Headed by a Single Female
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The average size of affected households was larger than not affected
households, 3.4 and 2.4 members, respectively (see fig. 3). The
difference was primarily due to the fact that a greater percentage of
affected households had children.
Figure 3: Average Size of
Affected and Not Affected
Households
(See figure in printed
edition.)
A higher percent of affected households, 18.2 percent, contained a
noncitizen compared with 9.8 percent of not affected households (see
fig. 4). Under the 1996 welfare reform act, many noncitizens will
no longer receive food stamp benefits.
Figure 4 : Percent of Affected
and Not Affected Households
Containing Noncitizens
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\6 By definition, a single female-headed household has one adult
female age 18 or older plus one or more children.
\7 A noncitizen (alien) is anyone not born in the United States or
not a naturalized citizen.
\8 Households with children less than 5 years old.
INCOME
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
Households affected by the cap tended to have more income than
households not affected by the cap.\9 In fiscal year 1995, a smaller
percentage of affected households had gross monthly incomes equal to
or below 50 percent of the poverty level than did not affected
households, 34.8 percent and 43.4 percent, respectively. Figure 5
shows these differences.
Figure 5: Percent of Affected
and Not Affected Households in
Relationship to the Poverty
Level
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Households affected by the cap had higher average gross monthly
incomes than households not affected by the cap, $643 and $500,
respectively. Gross income can include both earned and unearned
income. The sources of unearned income came from public assistance
programs, such as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC),\10
General Assistance, Supplemental Security Income, and Social
Security. A greater percentage of affected households--about
one-third--had earned income than not affected households--about
one-fifth. (See fig. 6.)
Figure 6: Percent of Affected
and Not Affected Households
With and Without Earned Income
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The percent of households with children having earned income was
comparable for affected and not affected households, 31.3 percent and
29.8 percent, respectively.\11
--------------------
\9 All affected households had gross income. However, 10.8 percent
(+ or - .8% ) of not affected households had no gross income.
\10 P.L. 104-193 terminated AFDC and replaced it with block grants
for temporary assistance for needy families (known as TANF).
\11 There is not a significant difference between the reported
comparison of earned income for affected and not affected households.
SHELTER EXPENSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
Affected households had average shelter expenses more than twice as
high as not affected households, $618 and $254, respectively.
Affected households with children had average monthly shelter
expenses of $621 compared with $262 for not affected households with
children. Figure 7 shows the average monthly shelter expenses for
affected and not affected households with and without children.
Figure 7: Average Monthly
Shelter Expenses for Affected
and Not Affected Households
With and Without Children
(See figure in printed
edition.)
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4
Households affected by the cap tended to be located in different
parts of the nation than those not affected by the cap. Affected
households tended to be concentrated in the Northeast, 37.5 percent,
and West, 27.9 percent, while not affected households tended to be
located in the South, 41.5 percent. However, both affected and not
affected households, 88.8 and 76.4 percent, respectively, tended to
be located in urban areas. Table 3 shows the differences and
similarities in the location of these households.
Table 3
Percent of Affected and Not Affected
Households by Location
Percent of Percent of
affected not affected
Location\a households households
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Northeast 37.5 18.3
Midwest\b 18.0 21.6
South 16.5 41.5
West 27.9 18.5
======================================================================
Total\c 100.0 100.0
Urban 88.8 76.4
Rural 11.2 23.6
======================================================================
Total 100.0 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Vermont. The Midwest includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakota, and Wisconsin. The South includes Alabama, Arkansas,
Delaware, District of Colombia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The West
includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
A household is considered to be located in an urban area if the
county in which its local food stamp agency is located is in a
Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the Census Bureau. A
household is considered to be located in a rural area if the county
in which its local food stamp agency is located is not in a
Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the Census Bureau.
\b There is not a significant difference between the reported
comparison of affected and not affected households in the Midwest.
\c Totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Over half, 53.9 percent, of food stamp households affected by the
cap, were located in four states--California, Michigan, New York, and
Pennsylvania. In comparison 26 percent of households not affected by
the cap were located in these four states.
FOOD STAMP BENEFIT AMOUNTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5
Affected households had larger monthly food stamp benefits than not
affected households. The average monthly food stamp benefit for
affected households was $261 compared with an average monthly food
stamp benefit for not affected households of $162. This was also
true for affected households with children compared with not affected
households with children; $271 and $225 per month in food stamp
benefits, respectively. Figure 8 shows the average monthly food
stamp benefit for affected and not affected households with and
without children.
Figure 8: Average Monthly Food
Stamp Benefits for Affected and
Not Affected Households With
and Without Children
(See figure in printed
edition.)
In fiscal year 1995, almost 70 percent of affected households were
receiving more than 75 percent but less than 100 percent of the
allowable maximum food stamp benefit.
FOOD STAMP BENEFIT INCREASES IN
ABSENCE OF A CAP
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Food stamp benefits for the 1.1 million households affected by the
cap would have increased by about 12 percent, on average, or about
$31 per month, in absence of the cap in fiscal year 1995. Appendix
III contains detailed information on the characteristics of food
stamp households that would have received increases in benefits in
the absence of a cap.
As a result of the increased benefit, an affected household's average
monthly food stamp benefit would have increased from $261 to $292 in
fiscal year 1995. Food stamp benefits for affected households with
children would have increased from $271 to $303.
By geographic location, affected households in the Northeast, where
average shelter costs for households receiving food stamps were the
highest at $688, would have received the largest average monthly
increase, $41. Households in urban areas would have received larger
average monthly increases, $32, than in rural areas, $25. Figure 9
shows the average monthly increase in food stamp benefits by state in
absence of a cap on the excess shelter expense deduction in fiscal
year 1995.
Figure 9: Average Monthly
Increase in Food Stamp Benefits
by State in Absence of the Cap
in Fiscal Year 1995
(See figure in printed
edition.)
In the absence of the cap, total federal food stamp expenditures
would have increased by approximately 1.9 percent, or $34.7 million
monthly, for a total of $417 million, in fiscal year 1995. More than
95 percent, or $400 million, of the total increase would have gone to
households with children. Almost 80 percent of all additional
benefits would have gone to households in 10 states. Of these 10
states, California and New York would have received almost half of
these additional benefits. Table 4 shows the 10 states that would
have received the largest percentage share of the increases in
benefits in absence of the cap in fiscal year 1995 and the percentage
of food stamp benefits provided to those states in that fiscal year.
Table 4
The 10 States With the Largest
Percentage Share of the Increase in
Benefits in the Absence of the Cap on
the Excess Shelter Expense Deduction,
Compared to States' Share of Total
Fiscal Year 1995 Benefits
Percent of total Percent of total
increase in food stamp
benefits benefits
in absence of the received in
State cap fiscal year 1995
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
New York 32.3 8.5
California 17.2 11.1
Michigan 5.4 3.7
Massachusetts 4.7 1.5
Pennsylvania 4.2 4.4
Washington 3.9 1.9
Texas 3.3 10.2
New Jersey 3.2 2.2
Florida 3.1 5.6
Connecticut 2.7 0.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
We provided copies of this report to USDA for its review and comment.
We met with officials of the Department, including the Director of
Family Programs Staff, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Food and
Consumer Service, who agreed with the data as presented in this
report.
We conducted our review from December 1996 through April 1997 under
generally accepted government auditing standards. However, we not
did verify the accuracy and reliability of the data from USDA's
database on households receiving food stamps in fiscal year 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 7 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies of this report to the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry; the House Committee on Agriculture; other
interested congressional committees; and the Secretary of
Agriculture. We will also make copies available upon request.
If you have any questions about this report, I can be reached at
(202) 512-5138. Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Robert A. Robinson
Director, Food and
Agriculture Issues
EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF FOOD
STAMP BENEFIT
=========================================================== Appendix I
The following illustrates how the food stamp benefit was calculated
in fiscal year 1995 for a single female-headed household with three
children with monthly shelter expenses of $668. This household had a
(1) gross monthly income of $1,168 per month (of which $1,115 was
earned income), (2) standard deduction of $134, (3) dependent care
deduction of $131, (4) earned income deduction of $223, and (5)
shelter deduction of $231. This household was subject to the cap on
the excess shelter expense deduction because none of the household
members was disabled or elderly.
Table I.1
Example of Calculation of Food Stamp
Benefit
Type of factor considered Resulting amount
---------------------------- ----------------------------
Step 1: Determine adjusted gross month income before
excess shelter expense
ded
----------------------------------------------------------
Monthly income, including $1,168
$1,115 in earned income
Standard deduction, -134
available to all households
Dependent care deduction for -131
expenses incurred in caring
for children while
household member worked
Earned income deduction -223
equal to 20% of household's
monthly earnings (.20 x
$1,115 = $223)
Adjusted gross monthly $680
income before excess
shelter expense deduction
Step 2: Determine excess shelter expen deduction
----------------------------------------------------------
Household's monthly shelter $668
expenses, including rent
and utilities
Less 50% of adjusted gross -340
monthly income from step 1
(.50 x $680 = $340)
Shelter expenses in excess $328
of 50% of adjusted gross
monthly income that would
qualify for deduction in
absence of the cap
Step 3: Determine household's net mont income
----------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted gross monthly $680
income from step 1
Capped allowable excess -231
shelter expense deduction.
This deduction is less than
the excess shelter expense
calculated in step 2
because of the cap.
Household's net monthly $449
income counted in
determining food stamp
benefit
Step 4: Calculate monthly food stamp b on the basis of net
income
----------------------------------------------------------
Maximum monthly food stamp $386
benefit for household of 4
in 1995
Amount of household's income -135
available for food. Based
on 30% of net monthly
income ($449 x .30 = $135)
Household's monthly food $251
stamp benefit
----------------------------------------------------------
METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II
This appendix presents information on the database we used to
identify the characteristics of households receiving food stamps
whose benefits were limited because of the cap on the deduction for
excess shelter expenses. This appendix also provides information on
the methodology we used to develop estimates.
USDA'S DATABASE ON HOUSEHOLDS
RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
To analyze the characteristics of households whose food stamp
benefits were limited by the cap on the deduction for excess shelter
expenses, we used the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
database on the characteristics of food stamp households for fiscal
year 1995, the most current year for which data are available. The
USDA database we used contains a representative sample of more than
50,000 food stamp households nationwide. Therefore, the estimates
presented in this report, which are based on USDA's data, are
representative of the approximately 10.9 million participating food
stamp households in an average month in fiscal year 1995. For our
analyses, we compared the characteristics of households whose
benefits were limited by the cap with those households whose benefits
were not affected by the cap. All reported differences (except where
noted) between households whose benefits were affected by the cap and
households not affected by the cap are statistically significant.\1
To determine the extent to which food stamp benefits would have been
higher in the absence of the cap, we recalculated the benefits that
affected food stamp households would have received with no cap in
place. We conducted our review between December 1996 and April 1997
under generally accepted government auditing standards; however, we
did not verify the accuracy of the USDA's data.
--------------------
\1 A statistically significant difference means that the difference
between households affected by the cap and those not affected by the
cap are too large to be attributed to chance. We applied a standard
t-test at the p = .05 level for all comparisons.
OVERVIEW OF UNIVERSE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1
To track changes in the characteristics and level of food stamp
participation, USDA's Food and Consumer Service (FCS) relies on data
from the Food Stamp Program's Integrated Quality Control System
(IQCS) database. The IQCS database contains a nationally
representative sample of over 50,000 food stamp units\2 and is used
to assess the accuracy of eligibility determinations and benefit
calculations for a state's caseload for the Food Stamp Program.
--------------------
\2 A food stamp unit refers to the persons in a household who
together are certified for and receive food stamps; for purposes of
this report, a food stamp unit is a household that receives food
stamps.
WEIGHTING AND SAMPLING
DESIGN
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.2
The database is a national sample of participating units and is
stratified by month and by the 50 states and the District of
Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. All results are based
on weighted analyses, which take into account the fact that
individual food stamp units are sampled with a known non-zero and
unequal probability of selection. These weights allow us to make
inferences to the entire universe of active food stamp units.
Certain active cases are excluded from being sampled. These include
cases in which participants died or moved outside the state, received
benefits by a disaster certification authorized by the FCS, received
benefits under a 60-day continuation of certification, were under
investigation for Food Stamp Program fraud, were appealing a notice
of adverse action and the review date falls within the period covered
by the continued participation pending a hearing, or received
restored benefits in accordance with the FCS-approved state manual
but were otherwise ineligible.
ESTIMATING BENEFITS IN ABSENCE
OF THE CAP ON THE EXCESS
SHELTER EXPENSE DEDUCTION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
We used the following procedure to identify those sampled households
whose benefits were affected by the cap and calculate what their
monthly food stamp benefit would have been in the absence of the cap.
First, we identified those households in the database that met two
criteria: The household (1) had deductible monthly excess shelter
expenses that exceeded the cap and (2) was not already receiving the
maximum monthly food stamp benefit. Second, for each of these
households, we recalculated the household's monthly net income using
the household's actual excess shelter expense deduction instead of
the $231 cap. Third, for each selected household, we recalculated
the household's monthly food stamp benefit using the adjusted net
income. In performing the second and third steps, we used existing
USDA formulas.
SAMPLING ERRORS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.1
Because we used a sample of 51,229 food stamp units to develop our
estimates, each estimate has a measurable precision, or sampling
error, that may be expressed as a plus or minus figure. A sampling
error indicates how closely we can reproduce from a sample the
results that we would obtain if we were to take a complete count of
the universe using the same measurement methods. By adding the
sampling error to and subtracting it from the estimate, we can
develop upper and lower bounds for each estimate. This range is
called a confidence interval. Sampling errors and confidence
intervals are stated at a certain confidence level--in this case, 95
percent. For example, at the 95-percent confidence level, in 95 out
of 100 instances, the sampling procedure we used would produce a
confidence interval containing the universe values we are estimating.
Standard formulas for the standard errors of estimates based on a
simple random sample do not necessarily apply to estimates derived
from more complex samples, such as the stratified sample of the IQCS.
To adjust for the complex sampling design of the IQCS, we used an
adjustment factor, also known as a design effect, that inflates the
sampling error by a factor of two. The factor of two was based on
the maximum design effect presented by FCS in its technical
appendix.\3
Tables II.1 to II.4 show the sampling errors for the numbers
presented in this report.
Table II.1
Sampling Errors for Number and Percent
by Type of Household
Percent
Number of food
of stamp
Reported househol Sampling househol Sampling
Type of household in ds error ds error
--------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Did not take excess shelter expense Tables 3,636,53 81,421 33.4% .8%
deduction 1 0
and 2
Took excess shelter expense deduction Table 1 7,246,25 90,721 66.6% .8%
2
Benefits affected by cap on excess Table 2 1,115,58 58,337 10.3% .5%
shelter expense deduction 3
Benefits not affected by cap on excess Table 2 9,767,19 58,377 89.7% 5%
shelter expense deduction 9
Not subject to cap because of elderly Table 2 2,316,84 70,660 21.3% .7%
and disabled 4
members
Benefits not affected by the cap Table 2 3,049,98 77,525 28.0% .8%
because households' excess shelter 0
expense deduction was less than $231
cap
Benefits not affected by the $231 cap Table 2 763,845 44,097 7.0% .5%
because household was receiving
maximum benefit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2
Sampling Errors for Estimates Reported
Concerning Affected and Not Affected
Households
Households affected by Households not affected by
the cap the cap
---------------------- --------------------------
Reported Sampling Sampling
Measure in Value error Value error
--------------------------- -------- -------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Children
Percent of households with Fig. 1 93.3% 1.5% 55.8% .9%
children
Percent of households Fig. 1 6.7% 1.5% 44.2% .9%
without children
Number of children in Text 2,330,04 89,247 11,552,633 390,688
households 1
Percent of households with Text 51.4% 3.0% 32.2% .9%
preschool children
Head of household
Percent of households with Fig. 2 63.4% 2.9% 36.7% .09%
children and single female
head
Average household size Fig. 3 3.4 .08 2.4 .04
Citizenship
Percent of households with Fig. 4 18.2% 2.3% 9.8% <.5%
noncitizen member
Percent of households Fig. 4 81.8% 2.3% 90.2% <.5%
without noncitizen member
Income
Percent of households with Fig. 5 34.8% 2.8% 43.4% <.9%
gross income 50% of
poverty level or less
Percent of households with Fig. 5 65.2% 2.8% 56.6% <.9%
gross income over 50% of
poverty level
Average monthly gross Text $643 $13.30 $500 $6.56
income
Percent of households with Fig. 6 32.4% 2.8% 20.2% <.7%
earned income
Percent of households Fig. 6 67.6% 2.8% 79.8% <.7%
without earned income
Percent of households with Text 31.3% 2.8% 29.8% 1.1%
earned income with
children
Shelter expenses
Average monthly shelter Fig. 7 $618 $8.56 $254 $3.56
expense
Average monthly shelter Fig. 7 $621 $8.88 $262 $4.56
expense--households with
children
Average monthly shelter Fig. 7 $568 $30.40 $245 $5.68
expense--households
without children
Average monthly shelter Text $688 $16.16 \a \a
costs--Northeast
Geographic location
Northeast Table 3 37.5% 2.9% 18.3% <1%
Midwest Table 3 18.0% 2.3% 21.6% <1%
South Table 3 16.5% 2.2% 41.5% <1%
West Table 3 27.9% 2.7% 18.5% <1%
Urban Table 3 88.8% 1.9% 76.4% <1%
Rural Table 3 11.2% 1.9% 23.6% <1%
Food stamp benefit--amount
Average monthly benefit Fig. 8 $261 $5.88 $162 $2.12
Average monthly benefit-- Fig. 8 $271 $5.72 $225 $2.68
households with children
Average monthly benefit-- Fig. 8 $121 $14.32 $81 $1.48
households without
children
Food stamp benefit--level
Percent of households Text 69.0% 2.7% \a \a
receiving more than 75% of
maximum benefit but less
than 100%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Not applicable.
Table II.3
Sampling Errors for Estimates of
Reported Food Stamp Benefit Increases in
the Absence of the Cap
Reported
Measure of benefit increase in Value Sampling error
--------------------------------------- -------- ------------------ ------------------
Average percent of monthly increase in Text 11.9% 1.2%
benefits for affected households in
absence of cap
Average monthly increase in food stamp Text $31 $6.12
benefit for affected households in
absence of cap
Average monthly food stamp benefit in Text $292 $6.12
absence of cap for affected households
Average monthly food stamp benefit in Text $303 $5.92
absence of cap for affected households
with children
Average monthly food stamp benefit in Text $140 $14.64
absence of cap for affected households
without children
Average monthly increase in food stamp Text $41 $3.28
benefit in the absence of the cap for
affected households in the Northeast
Average monthly increase in food stamp Text $32 $1.76
benefits in the absence of the cap for
affected urban households
Average monthly increase in food stamp Text $25 $2.84
benefits in the absence of the cap for
affected rural households
Percent of affected food stamp Text 53.9% 4.4%
households located in four states--
California, Michigan, New York, and
Pennsylvania
Percent of food stamp households not Text 26.0% 1.6%
affected by the cap in four states--
California, Michigan, New York, and
Pennsylvania
Average monthly increase in food stamp Fig. 9 See app. III See app. III
benefits in the absence of cap for
affected households by state
Average percent increase in total food Text 1.9% .4%
stamp benefits for fiscal year 1995 in
absence of the cap
Average monthly increase in total value Text $34.7 million $6.8 million
of food stamp benefits for fiscal year
1995 in absence of the cap
Total increase in value of food stamp Text $417 million $81.6 million
benefit for fiscal year 1995 in
absence of the cap
Increase in value of food stamp benefit Text $400 million $1.66 million
for fiscal year 1995 in absence of the
cap for households with children
Percent increase to affected households Text 95.9% 2.0%
with children
Percent of additional benefits that Text 80.0% 3.2%
would have gone to 10 states
Percent of additional benefits going to
each of 10 states with largest share
of increase in benefits in absence of
cap
New York Table 4 32.3% 7.6%
California Table 4 17.2% 6.0%
Michigan Table 4 5.4% 1.6%
Massachusetts Table 4 4.7% 1.6%
Pennsylvania Table 4 4.2% 2.0%
Washington Table 4 3.9% 1.2%
Texas Table 4 3.3% 2.4%
New Jersey Table 4 3.2% 1.2%
Florida Table 4 3.1% 1.6%
Connecticut Table 4 2.7% 0.8%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.4
Sampling Errors for Other Reported
Estimates
Reported
Measure in Estimate Sampling error
--------------------------------------- -------- ------------------ ------------------
Average monthly food stamp benefit Text $172 $2.00
Percent of all children receiving food Text 17.0% 1.6%
stamps living in households affected
by the excess shelter expense
deduction cap
Percent of total food stamp benefits
provided in each of 10 states in table
4
New York Table 4 8.5% 1.2%
California Table 4 11.1% 1.6%
Michigan Table 4 3.7% 0.4%
Massachusetts Table 4 1.5% 0.4%
Pennsylvania Table 4 4.4% 0.8%
Washington Table 4 1.9% 0.4%
Texas Table 4 10.2% 1.2%
New Jersey Table 4 2.2% 0.4%
Florida Table 4 5.6% 0.8%
Connecticut Table 4 0.8% <0.1%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
\3 Characteristics of Food Stamp Households Summer 1994, Apr. 29,
1996, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
DETAILED INFORMATION ON HOUSEHOLDS
RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS AFFECTED BY
THE CAP ON EXCESS SHELTER EXPENSE
DEDUCTION
========================================================= Appendix III
Table III.1
Characteristics of All Affected
Households, Fiscal Year 1995
Average Average
Average Average Average Average monthly monthly Average Total
Number Percent monthly monthly monthly monthly food food stamp monthly monthly
Type of of of gross net earned shelter stamp benefit increase increase
household households households income income income cost benefit if no cap if no cap if no cap
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
====================================================================================================================================================================================
All 1,115,583 100.0 $643 $225 $219 $618 $261 $292 $31 $34,756,405
With children 1,041,022 93.3 $651 $233 $214 $621 $271 $303 $32 $33,353,695
With children 572,957 51.4 $653 $235 $207 $615 $280 $311 $31 $17,907,630
under age 5
Headed by single 707,497 63.4 $616 $204 $168 $608 $256 $287 $31 $22,231,131
female with
children
One member 50,848 4.6 $506 $92 $249 $574 $88 $104 $17 $843,637
Two members 267,139 23.9 $548 $139 $175 $587 $170 $195 $25 $6,633,540
Three members 330,347 29.6 $617 $200 $202 $606 $245 $276 $31 $10,316,071
Four members 266,613 23.9 $691 $269 $226 $635 $306 $342 $36 $9,594,907
Five or more 200,636 18.0 $784 $355 $291 $668 $394 $431 $37 $7,368,250
members
With noncitizens 203,158 18.2 $711 $292 $238 $678 $273 $314 $40 $8,220,108
With earned 361,623 32.4 $813 $286 $677 $617 $245 $274 $29 $10,590,368
income
With gross income 1,115,583 100.0 $643 $225 $219 $618 $261 $292 $31 $34,756,405
With net income 1,115,583 100.0 $643 $225 $219 $618 $261 $292 $31 $34,756,405
Geographic
location
Northeast 418,346 37.5 $613 $215 $146 $688 $243 $284 $41 $17,296,018
Midwest 201,254 18.0 $604 $181 $218 $556 $286 $309 $23 $4,553,028
South 184,173 16.5 $720 $231 $514 $566 $286 $309 $23 $4,250,349
West 311,811 28.0 $664 $263 $144 $595 $255 $283 $28 $8,657,010
Rural 124,883 11.2 $629 $191 $301 $565 $280 $305 $25 $3,149,607
Urban 990,419 88.8 $645 $229 $209 $624 $259 $291 $32 $31,596,511
Unknown urban/ 282 0.0 $672 $228 $347 $596 $301 $338 $36 $10,287
rural
Benefit level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25% or less than 2,680 0.2 $1,096 $653 $388 $870 $48 $104 $55 $147,943
maximum
25% to 50% of 53,028 4.8 $1,035 $519 $725 $739 $113 $151 $38 $2,004,789
maximum
50% to 75% of 281,674 25.2 $845 $394 $367 $687 $241 $281 $40 $11,334,275
maximum
Above 75% of 778,202 69.8 $542 $142 $131 $584 $279 $307 $27 $21,269,397
maximum
Gross income as percentage of poverty
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25% or less of 2,220 0.2 $427 $51 $60 $422 $602 $609 $7 $15,684
poverty level
25% to 50% of 386,170 34.6 $510 $132 $64 $577 $337 $364 $26 $10,127,107
poverty level
50% to 75% of 518,676 46.5 $631 $234 $142 $628 $241 $274 $33 $17,302,894
poverty level
Above 75% of 208,517 18.7 $922 $377 $701 $669 $167 $202 $35 $7,310,719
poverty level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.2
Characteristics of All Affected
Households with Children, Fiscal Year
1995
Average Average
Average Average Average Average monthly monthly Average Total
Number Percent monthly monthly monthly monthly food food stamp monthly monthly
Type of of of gross net earned shelter stamp benefit increase increase
household households households income income income cost benefit if no cap if no cap if no cap
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
====================================================================================================================================================================================
All 1,041,022 100.0 $651 $233 $214 $621 $271 $303 $32 $33,353,695
With children 572,957 55.0 $653 $235 $207 $615 $280 $311 $31 $17,907,630
under age 5
Headed by single 707,497 67.9 $616 $204 $168 $608 $256 $287 $31 $22,231,131
female with
children
One member 4,582 0.4 $499 $118 $92 $626 $82 $103 $20 $92,041
Two members 242,128 23.3 $544 $138 $160 $588 $171 $196 $25 $6,041,468
Three members 327,063 31.4 $617 $200 $199 $607 $244 $276 $31 $10,257,030
Four members 266,613 25.6 $691 $269 $226 $635 $306 $342 $36 $9,594,907
Five or more 200,636 19.3 $784 $355 $291 $668 $394 $431 $37 $7,368,250
members
With noncitizen 193,656 18.6 $719 $301 $234 $684 $279 $320 $41 $8,026,132
With earned 326,046 31.3 $832 $300 $684 $625 $259 $289 $30 $9,836,745
income
With gross income 1,041,022 100.0 $651 $233 $214 $621 $271 $303 $32 $33,353,695
With net income 1,041,022 100.0 $651 $233 $214 $621 $271 $303 $32 $33,353,695
Geographic location
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast 379,729 36.5 $626 $228 $144 $695 $255 $299 $44 $16,613,212
Midwest 192,910 18.5 $605 $183 $210 $558 $293 $316 $23 $4,382,935
South 169,535 16.3 $729 $237 $524 $569 $300 $324 $23 $3,973,650
West 298,848 28.7 $667 $269 $130 $599 $261 $289 $28 $8,383,898
Rural 115,887 11.1 $632 $195 $292 $568 $293 $318 $26 $2,964,570
Urban 924,853 88.8 $653 $238 $204 $628 $269 $301 $33 $30,378,839
Unknown urban/ 282 0.0 $672 $228 $347 $596 $301 $338 $36 $10,287
rural
Benefit level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25% or less than 2,680 0.3 $1,096 $653 $388 $870 $48 $104 $55 $147,943
maximum
25% to 50% of 43,549 4.2 $1,084 $568 $722 $772 $124 $165 $41 $1,766,731
maximum
50% to 75% of 264,590 25.4 $860 $408 $367 $696 $250 $292 $41 $10,892,036
maximum
Above 75% of 730,202 70.1 $547 $148 $128 $585 $288 $316 $28 $20,546,985
maximum
Gross income as percentage of poverty
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25% or less of 2,220 0.2 $427 $51 $60 $422 $602 $609 $7 $15,684
poverty level
25% to 50% of 381,968 36.7 $511 $133 $65 $579 $339 $365 $26 $10,077,374
poverty level
50% to 75% of 483,690 46.5 $644 $246 $145 $630 $248 $283 $35 $16,757,229
poverty level
Above 75% of 173,144 16.6 $979 $418 $740 $693 $183 $220 $38 $6,503,408
poverty level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.3
Characteristics of All Affected
Households, by State, Fiscal Year 1995
Averag
Averag e Average
e monthl monthly
Number monthl y Average Total food
Number Percent Number Average of Average Average Average y shelte monthly monthly stamp Average Total
of of of househol Number children monthly monthly monthly shelte r food food benefit monthly monthly
househol househol individu d of under gross net earned r deduct stamp stamp if increase increase
State ds ds als size children age 5 income income income cost ion benefit benefit no cap if no cap if no cap
--------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- ------ ------ ---------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ------------
====================================================================================================================================================================================
All 1,115,58 100.0 3,744,57 3.4 2,330,04 797,274 $643 $225 $219 $618 $231 $261 $291,397,717 $292 $31 $34,756,405
3 2 1
Alabama 6,148 0.6 22,678 3.7 14,717 4,326 $757 $228 $625 $533 $231 $289 $1,776,184 $305 $16 $98,620
Alaska 632 0.1 1,749 2.8 1,017 441 $871 $227 $65 $802 $402 $289 $182,990 $309 $20 $12,551
Arizona 11,536 1.0 48,033 4.2 32,496 11,206 $669 $214 $403 $581 $231 $331 $3,815,751 $354 $23 $267,245
Arkansas 2,132 0.2 6,865 3.2 3,922 972 $676 $169 $554 $506 $231 $268 $572,201 $284 $15 $32,629
Californi 214,685 19.2 710,751 3.3 450,100 144,775 $667 $284 $75 $592 $231 $239 $51,324,086 $267 $28 $5,986,991
a
Colorado 9,743 0.9 36,231 3.7 23,716 8,035 $749 $251 $546 $609 $231 $285 $2,778,736 $313 $28 $270,914
Connectic 21,598 1.9 64,749 3.0 41,451 15,816 $665 $279 $98 $667 $231 $216 $4,656,798 $258 $43 $923,053
ut
Delaware 1,517 0.1 5,872 3.9 3,830 1,206 $723 $258 $478 $626 $231 $293 $444,547 $320 $27 $41,331
District 1,834 0.2 6,633 3.6 4,563 2,483 $551 $176 $51 $514 $231 $296 $543,223 $315 $19 $33,974
of
Columbia
Florida 41,296 3.7 152,809 3.7 95,653 27,229 $762 $270 $533 $603 $231 $275 $11,348,593 $301 $26 $1,083,373
Georgia 19,446 1.7 65,262 3.4 41,045 13,148 $648 $200 $337 $551 $231 $268 $5,206,482 $291 $23 $446,423
Guam 80 0.0 368 4.6 256 62 $1,121 $363 $841 $798 $280 $525 $41,930 $577 $53 $4,207
Hawaii 2,472 0.2 8,281 3.3 5,053 1,958 $831 $263 $244 $745 $330 $471 $1,164,905 $501 $29 $72,700
Idaho 2,109 0.2 7,296 3.5 4,400 1,234 $657 $198 $407 $538 $231 $276 $582,037 $297 $21 $43,299
Illinois 21,225 1.9 84,466 4.0 57,443 14,807 $574 $162 $243 $550 $231 $332 $7,048,842 $351 $19 $395,348
Indiana 7,895 0.7 32,969 4.2 21,706 7,216 $729 $202 $493 $565 $231 $335 $2,644,983 $360 $25 $194,940
Iowa 6,100 0.5 19,793 3.2 11,974 3,837 $621 $182 $278 $530 $231 $266 $1,621,420 $285 $20 $119,371
Kansas 6,527 0.6 24,403 3.7 15,783 5,233 $580 $156 $269 $523 $231 $314 $2,050,159 $333 $18 $120,390
Kentucky 2,312 0.2 9,085 3.9 5,102 1,411 $575 $143 $337 $471 $231 $334 $771,179 $349 $16 $35,949
Louisiana 7,064 0.6 25,199 3.6 15,444 4,441 $644 $187 $405 $543 $231 $291 $2,052,433 $309 $18 $130,323
Maine 9,461 0.8 30,836 3.3 18,227 5,864 $656 $225 $274 $649 $231 $253 $2,396,657 $292 $39 $367,614
Maryland 10,966 1.0 41,928 3.8 27,178 7,942 $592 $162 $265 $547 $231 $319 $3,499,573 $341 $22 $236,749
Massachus 36,209 3.2 113,366 3.1 73,129 30,839 $643 $255 $103 $679 $231 $234 $8,471,913 $279 $45 $1,635,446
etts
Michigan 84,502 7.6 271,395 3.2 169,763 62,802 $584 $173 $156 $557 $231 $265 $22,361,451 $287 $22 $1,866,148
Minnesota 18,648 1.7 61,289 3.3 39,433 13,987 $669 $241 $224 $593 $231 $250 $4,659,329 $280 $30 $561,812
Mississip 3,278 0.3 9,833 3.0 5,773 2,174 $704 $162 $514 $496 $231 $251 $821,125 $268 $17 $57,299
pi
Missouri 9,507 0.9 33,806 3.6 21,026 7,089 $645 $175 $434 $537 $231 $291 $2,762,213 $311 $20 $192,840
Montana 2,470 0.2 8,792 3.6 5,183 1,400 $636 $206 $249 $546 $231 $282 $697,605 $305 $23 $56,027
Nebraska 2,337 0.2 8,125 3.5 5,040 1,581 $600 $151 $318 $508 $231 $295 $689,384 $314 $19 $43,328
Nevada 3,648 0.3 13,670 3.7 8,657 3,508 $767 $275 $472 $654 $231 $278 $1,014,321 $312 $34 $124,862
New 2,281 0.2 6,988 3.1 4,248 1,507 $585 $189 $159 $514 $231 $247 $563,713 $267 $19 $44,298
Hampshire
New 32,913 3.0 125,570 3.8 81,947 22,760 $602 $188 $232 $649 $231 $311 $10,250,705 $345 $34 $1,118,531
Jersey
New 3,457 0.3 12,610 3.6 7,428 2,878 $614 $170 $331 $533 $231 $304 $1,049,517 $322 $18 $63,829
Mexico
New York 247,847 22.2 723,503 2.9 424,153 166,415 $607 $214 $122 $725 $231 $227 $56,191,311 $272 $45 $11,233,878
North 6,043 0.5 21,702 3.6 12,131 5,300 $682 $217 $495 $548 $231 $285 $1,721,418 $302 $18 $106,296
Carolina
North 1,559 0.1 5,758 3.7 3,491 1,312 $767 $276 $639 $594 $231 $272 $423,696 $300 $29 $44,497
Dakota
Ohio 23,887 2.1 99,336 4.2 67,432 16,749 $562 $151 $191 $544 $231 $348 $8,324,503 $371 $22 $528,494
Oklahoma 7,049 0.6 25,198 3.6 15,123 4,677 $646 $178 $418 $504 $231 $294 $2,075,047 $309 $15 $102,269
Oregon 10,384 0.9 37,105 3.6 21,989 8,500 $712 $254 $428 $591 $231 $270 $2,804,815 $294 $24 $252,894
Pennsylva 54,343 4.9 192,104 3.5 116,720 39,785 $596 $179 $223 $583 $231 $289 $15,725,088 $316 $27 $1,471,359
nia
Rhode 7,280 0.7 23,004 3.2 14,661 5,715 $561 $168 $110 $591 $231 $262 $1,910,511 $292 $29 $214,254
Island
South 2,815 0.3 9,487 3.4 5,745 1,383 $670 $185 $535 $503 $231 $273 $767,435 $289 $16 $45,676
Carolina
South 1,120 0.1 3,724 3.3 2,359 930 $733 $234 $516 $578 $231 $255 $285,194 $280 $26 $28,640
Dakota
Tennessee 13,785 1.2 49,784 3.6 32,149 10,703 $721 $226 $473 $550 $231 $283 $3,897,302 $305 $23 $312,550
Texas 45,632 4.1 179,847 3.9 111,378 32,526 $784 $259 $688 $577 $231 $299 $13,634,542 $324 $25 $1,142,593
Utah 4,168 0.4 16,003 3.8 9,974 3,768 $745 $272 $482 $591 $231 $288 $1,199,443 $314 $26 $109,534
Vermont 6,415 0.6 19,828 3.1 11,315 4,432 $709 $300 $216 $673 $231 $217 $1,389,066 $261 $45 $287,584
U.S. 453 0.0 1,653 3.7 1,002 453 $786 $317 $640 $526 $171 $360 $162,892 $390 $31 $13,853
Virgin
Islands
Virginia 10,730 1.0 38,333 3.6 23,558 6,670 $739 $244 $530 $600 $231 $272 $2,915,693 $299 $28 $295,927
Washingto 45,098 4.0 155,623 3.5 94,625 36,926 $592 $197 $148 $606 $231 $278 $12,517,278 $308 $30 $1,361,459
n
West 2,124 0.2 7,384 3.5 4,449 622 $670 $202 $494 $546 $231 $277 $588,843 $300 $23 $48,368
Virginia
Wisconsin 17,946 1.6 60,320 3.4 39,007 15,519 $632 $216 $173 $562 $231 $264 $4,746,181 $290 $25 $457,221
Wyoming 876 0.1 3,178 3.6 2,075 716 $691 $210 $475 $533 $231 $288 $252,475 $307 $19 $16,645
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.4
Characteristics of All Affected
Households with Children, by State,
Fiscal Year 1995
Averag
Averag e
e monthl
Number monthl y Average Total
Number Percent Number Average of Average Average Average y shelte monthly monthly Average Average Total
of of of househol Number children monthly monthly monthly shelte r food food monthly monthly monthly
househol househol individu d of under gross net earned r deduct stamp stamp benefit increase increase
State ds ds als size children age 5 income income income cost ion benefit benefit if no cap if no cap if no cap
--------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- ------ ------ ---------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ------------
====================================================================================================================================================================================
All 1,041,02 100.0 3,638,43 3.5 2,330,04 797,274 $651 $233 $214 $621 $231 $271 $282,351,404 $303 $32 $33,353,695
2 1 1
Alabama 6,148 0.6 22,678 3.7 14,717 4,326 $757 $228 $625 $533 $231 $289 $1,776,184 $305 $16 $98,620
Alaska 632 0.1 1,749 2.8 1,017 441 $871 $227 $65 $802 $402 $289 $182,990 $309 $20 $12,551
Arizona 11,238 1.1 47,593 4.2 32,496 11,206 $670 $216 $397 $581 $231 $336 $3,780,609 $360 $23 $261,609
Arkansas 1,958 0.2 6,516 3.3 3,922 972 $675 $162 $568 $508 $231 $280 $548,226 $296 $16 $31,846
Californi 205,694 19.8 697,920 3.4 450,100 144,775 $671 $291 $60 $597 $231 $244 $50,243,381 $272 $28 $5,805,267
a
Colorado 9,608 0.9 35,961 3.7 23,716 8,035 $750 $252 $544 $609 $231 $287 $2,757,318 $315 $28 $265,391
Connectic 21,296 2.1 64,340 3.0 41,451 15,816 $666 $281 $99 $667 $231 $217 $4,628,330 $260 $43 $912,440
ut
Delaware 1,395 0.1 5,628 4.0 3,830 1,206 $720 $260 $454 $634 $231 $306 $427,501 $334 $28 $38,888
District 1,511 0.2 6,177 4.1 4,563 2,483 $557 $192 $0 $521 $231 $333 $503,058 $353 $20 $30,723
of
Columbia
Florida 37,021 3.6 147,305 4.0 95,653 27,229 $788 $288 $563 $611 $231 $294 $10,885,674 $321 $27 $1,003,661
Georgia 16,794 1.6 61,819 3.7 41,045 13,148 $652 $203 $325 $555 $231 $296 $4,966,461 $319 $23 $384,233
Guam 80 0.0 368 4.6 256 62 $1,121 $363 $841 $798 $280 $525 $41,930 $577 $53 $4,207
Hawaii 2,359 0.2 8,055 3.4 5,053 1,958 $827 $264 $222 $744 $330 $480 $1,132,964 $510 $29 $69,450
Idaho 1,901 0.2 7,089 3.7 4,400 1,234 $672 $211 $403 $550 $231 $296 $562,636 $317 $21 $40,822
Illinois 20,938 2.0 83,894 4.0 57,443 14,807 $573 $163 $240 $551 $231 $334 $7,000,169 $353 $19 $392,771
Indiana 7,719 0.7 32,793 4.2 21,706 7,216 $729 $202 $488 $565 $231 $341 $2,635,123 $366 $24 $188,602
Iowa 5,577 0.4 19,010 3.4 11,974 3,837 $624 $187 $254 $536 $231 $279 $1,554,764 $299 $20 $112,211
Kansas 6,203 0.6 24,011 3.9 15,783 5,233 $577 $156 $248 $524 $231 $326 $2,020,946 $344 $18 $112,695
Kentucky 2,312 0.2 9,085 3.9 5,102 1,411 $575 $143 $337 $471 $231 $334 $771,179 $349 $16 $35,949
Louisiana 6,174 0.6 23,630 3.8 15,444 4,441 $664 $202 $421 $542 $231 $309 $1,905,874 $327 $18 $110,867
Maine 8,637 0.8 29,562 3.4 18,227 5,864 $661 $230 $264 $652 $231 $266 $2,299,925 $306 $40 $343,143
Maryland 10,278 1.0 40,552 3.9 27,178 7,942 $591 $159 $269 $546 $231 $330 $3,396,126 $352 $21 $220,269
Massachus 35,844 3.4 112,816 3.1 73,129 30,839 $645 $256 $104 $679 $231 $235 $8,426,272 $280 $45 $1,621,235
etts
Michigan 82,389 7.9 266,867 3.2 169,763 62,802 $585 $174 $156 $558 $231 $267 $21,976,708 $289 $22 $1,811,955
Minnesota 18,256 1.8 60,640 3.3 39,433 13,987 $667 $241 $213 $594 $231 $253 $4,617,413 $283 $30 $552,330
Mississip 2,803 0.3 9,200 3.3 5,773 2,174 $734 $175 $536 $507 $231 $273 $764,212 $291 $18 $51,443
pi
Missouri 7,895 0.8 31,981 4.1 21,026 7,089 $662 $191 $421 $549 $231 $330 $2,603,343 $352 $23 $178,039
Montana 2,421 0.2 8,693 3.6 5,183 1,400 $637 $208 $243 $543 $231 $284 $688,603 $307 $23 $54,543
Nebraska 2,190 0.2 7,878 3.6 5,040 1,581 $602 $151 $322 $509 $231 $306 $669,111 $324 $18 $39,743
Nevada 3,367 0.3 13,317 4.0 8,657 3,508 $776 $281 $473 $660 $231 $295 $992,168 $328 $34 $113,804
New 2,223 0.2 6,931 3.1 4,248 1,507 $588 $191 $164 $511 $231 $251 $558,938 $270 $19 $42,457
Hampshire
New 32,265 3.1 124,716 3.9 81,947 22,760 $601 $188 $228 $646 $231 $316 $10,189,816 $349 $34 $1,085,007
Jersey
New 3,025 0.3 11,747 3.9 7,428 2,878 $622 $182 $299 $544 $231 $320 $969,369 $339 $19 $57,456
Mexico
New York 216,690 20.8 682,551 3.1 424,153 166,415 $629 $235 $125 $740 $231 $241 $52,290,706 $291 $50 $10,761,978
North 5,793 0.6 21,202 3.7 12,131 5,300 $691 $225 $496 $552 $231 $288 $1,670,619 $306 $18 $104,044
Carolina
North 1,441 0.1 5,605 3.9 3,491 1,312 $772 $278 $652 $596 $231 $288 $415,377 $317 $28 $40,817
Dakota
Ohio 21,898 2.0 96,385 4.4 67,432 16,749 $558 $152 $166 $545 $231 $369 $8,088,932 $391 $22 $475,087
Oklahoma 6,545 0.6 24,075 3.7 15,123 4,677 $650 $179 $425 $506 $231 $303 $1,983,393 $317 $14 $93,923
Oregon 9,179 0.9 35,510 3.9 21,989 8,500 $717 $263 $407 $599 $231 $294 $2,697,522 $319 $25 $228,392
Pennsylva 49,793 4.8 186,055 3.7 116,720 39,785 $591 $180 $193 $586 $231 $307 $15,291,657 $334 $27 $1,363,036
nia
Rhode 7,070 0.7 22,794 3.2 14,661 5,715 $562 $167 $113 $589 $231 $268 $1,897,543 $297 $29 $202,978
Island
South 2,292 0.2 8,689 3.8 5,745 1,383 $678 $195 $513 $505 $231 $307 $703,073 $323 $16 $37,267
Carolina
South 1,074 0.1 3,678 3.4 2,359 930 $738 $239 $512 $582 $231 $262 $281,636 $288 $26 $27,751
Dakota
Tennessee 12,554 1.2 47,927 3.8 32,149 10,703 $724 $225 $476 $552 $231 $301 $3,782,846 $324 $23 $290,602
Texas 44,417 4.3 176,762 4.0 111,378 32,526 $783 $257 $690 $577 $231 $303 $13,437,650 $328 $25 $1,122,915
Utah 3,997 0.4 15,775 3.9 9,974 3,768 $749 $276 $480 $596 $231 $296 $1,183,590 $323 $27 $107,535
Vermont 5,911 0.6 19,046 3.2 11,315 4,432 $726 $317 $208 $685 $231 $223 $1,318,345 $271 $48 $280,940
U.S. 426 0.0 1,573 3.7 1,002 453 $800 $327 $645 $537 $171 $361 $153,731 $393 $32 $13,746
Virgin
Islands
Virginia 9,560 0.9 36,695 3.8 23,558 6,670 $742 $249 $508 $605 $231 $294 $2,808,825 $322 $28 $271,498
Washingto 44,073 4.2 153,833 3.5 94,625 36,926 $592 $198 $140 $605 $231 $281 $12,368,256 $311 $30 $1,332,868
n
West 1,978 0.2 7,238 3.7 4,449 622 $678 $211 $489 $555 $231 $291 $575,651 $315 $24 $46,902
Virginia
Wisconsin 17,331 1.7 59,368 3.4 39,007 15,519 $634 $218 $172 $565 $231 $270 $4,674,521 $296 $26 $450,935
Wyoming 846 0.1 3,148 3.7 2,075 716 $694 $213 $470 $536 $231 $296 $250,210 $315 $19 $16,258
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.5
Sampling Errors for Selected Monetary
Amounts Presented in Table III.1 for All
Affected Households, Fiscal Year 1995
Average
monthly
Average Average Average Average Average food stamp
Type monthly monthly monthly monthly monthly benefit if
of gross net earned shelter food stamp no
household income income income cost benefit cap
------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
=========================================================================================
All 13.32 10.32 21.96 8.56 5.88 6.12
With children 13.80 10.68 22.68 8.88 5.72 5.92
With children 18.44 14.08 30.36 11.88 7.76 8.04
under age 5
Headed by 14.44 10.72 23.56 10.56 6.24 6.40
single
female with
children
One member 42.48 27.56 106.36 37.96 7.88 6.80
Two members 20.36 14.12 38.48 18.24 4.32 3.60
Three members 20.32 14.04 37.12 14.52 4.36 4.28
Four members 27.56 20.88 46.36 16.84 6.44 6.60
Five or more 35.92 29.12 61.64 20.72 11.24 11.56
members
With 44.28 35.20 74.56 28.84 18.00 18.80
noncitizens
With earned 24.56 19.40 32.60 13.52 10.24 10.44
income
With gross 13.32 10.32 21.96 8.56 5.88 6.12
income
With net 13.32 10.32 21.96 8.56 5.88 6.12
income
Geographic location
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast 22.60 18.00 34.88 16.16 9.92 10.88
Midwest 24.96 17.92 39.44 12.64 11.08 11.40
South 39.44 28.28 64.88 19.32 17.84 18.04
West 24.20 20.40 36.56 14.56 10.40 11.12
Rural 28.44 20.00 50.68 16.72 14.20 14.44
Urban 14.96 11.68 24.36 9.64 6.48 6.80
Unknown 366.48 261.60 825.28 222.04 139.04 162.12
urban/rural
Benefit level
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25% or less 279.72 255.64 399.48 150.80 24.96 60.88
than maximum
25% to 50% of 73.48 57.64 145.40 39.96 12.72 14.84
maximum
50% to 75% of 24.76 18.16 57.76 16.72 10.68 11.56
maximum
Above 75% of 9.16 6.64 18.24 9.28 6.64 7.04
maximum
Gross income as percentage of poverty
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25% or less 58.28 47.08 162.04 75.12 96.88 99.64
of poverty
level
25% to 50% of 10.88 10.44 17.08 12.64 7.56 8.24
poverty
level
50% to 75% of 16.00 14.36 27.16 13.32 6.88 7.88
poverty
level
Above 75% of 33.24 27.32 56.00 19.92 9.52 10.24
povery level
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.6
Sampling Errors for Selected Monetary
Amounts Presented in Table III.2 For All
Affected Households with Children,
Fiscal Year 1995
Average
Average Average Average Average Average monthly
Type monthly monthly monthly monthly monthly food stamp
of gross net earned shelter food stamp benefit
household income income income cost benefit if no cap
------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
=========================================================================================
All 13.80 10.68 22.68 8.88 5.72 5.92
With children 18.44 14.08 30.36 11.88 7.76 8.04
under age 5
Headed by 14.44 10.72 23.56 10.56 6.24 6.40
single
female with
children
One member 175.32 154.36 347.64 133.48 34.00 33.64
Two members 21.32 14.76 39.44 19.40 4.52 3.68
Three members 20.36 14.04 37.08 14.56 4.36 4.28
Four members 27.56 20.88 46.36 16.84 6.44 6.60
Five or more 35.92 29.12 61.64 20.72 11.24 11.56
members
With 45.52 35.92 76.96 29.24 18.00 18.60
noncitizens
With earned 25.96 20.52 35.32 14.28 10.12 10.24
income
With gross 13.80 10.68 22.68 8.88 5.72 5.92
income
With net 13.80 10.68 22.68 8.88 5.72 5.92
income
Geographic
location
Northeast 23.44 18.56 36.36 16.72 9.56 10.24
Midwest 25.88 18.56 40.24 13.04 10.80 11.12
South 41.68 29.92 68.24 20.48 17.44 17.60
West 25.04 20.96 36.64 14.88 10.16 10.88
Rural 30.08 21.04 52.76 17.28 13.60 13.80
Urban 15.48 12.04 25.12 9.96 6.28 6.56
Unknown 366.48 261.60 825.28 222.04 139.04 162.12
urban/rural
Benefit level
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25% or less 279.72 255.64 399.48 150.80 24.96 60.88
than maximum
25% to 50% of 79.64 58.04 174.28 39.12 12.32 13.92
maximum
50% to 75% of 24.92 17.68 60.72 16.92 10.20 10.96
maximum
Above 75% of 9.40 6.76 18.64 9.56 6.44 6.80
maximum
Gross income as percentage of poverty
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25% or less 58.28 47.08 162.04 75.12 96.88 99.64
of poverty
level
25% to 50% of 10.96 10.48 17.24 12.68 7.52 8.20
poverty
level
50% to 75% of 16.16 14.48 28.32 13.72 6.64 7.60
poverty
level
Above 75% of 32.80 28.16 62.28 21.16 9.60 10.08
poverty
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.7
Sampling Errors for Selected Monetary
Amounts of All Affected Households, by
State, Presented in Table III.3, Fiscal
Year 1995
Average
Average Average Average Average monthly
monthly monthly monthly monthly food stamp
gross net earned shelter benefit
State income income income cost if no cap
------------- ------------ ------------ -------------- -------------- --------------
=========================================================================================
All 13.32 10.32 21.96 8.56 5.88
Alabama 190.28 127.84 295.20 67.84 91.88
Alaska 105.64 115.92 266.36 85.32 90.80
Arizona 116.36 80.08 202.04 53.88 51.60
Arkansas 168.20 112.80 255.92 69.92 69.72
California 57.96 52.72 68.84 37.80 23.88
Colorado 104.68 71.92 179.52 48.72 38.76
Connecticut 54.12 44.96 73.08 35.92 18.44
Delaware 261.12 192.68 355.80 101.08 92.92
District of 96.80 108.68 159.60 86.60 119.60
Columbia
Florida 117.28 82.64 184.80 55.52 51.68
Georgia 107.12 76.04 183.20 57.08 56.84
Guam 507.00 287.44 899.52 245.64 142.76
Hawaii 130.84 100.76 261.56 83.36 66.04
Idaho 134.68 107.64 214.68 66.84 71.88
Illinois 123.80 99.84 194.32 77.60 48.16
Indiana 155.84 81.16 265.88 73.88 75.28
Iowa 88.04 60.84 143.20 40.80 39.64
Kansas 88.28 64.76 149.20 42.12 46.16
Kentucky 125.36 99.40 290.56 81.80 97.68
Louisiana 127.24 118.36 223.88 69.08 73.00
Maine 72.60 51.36 125.80 43.28 31.64
Maryland 118.84 78.64 194.24 61.84 56.48
Massachusetts 50.20 40.96 81.52 39.48 20.40
Michigan 46.60 33.52 67.16 21.48 17.48
Minnesota 77.72 58.28 123.16 38.36 28.00
Mississippi 213.12 104.48 328.56 64.20 94.40
Missouri 153.08 99.60 252.00 72.48 83.84
Montana 116.84 87.80 203.96 66.96 57.76
Nebraska 123.24 63.36 223.16 46.36 47.96
Nevada 171.68 118.96 311.52 75.72 67.36
New Hampshire 67.12 49.12 178.12 49.96 62.92
New Jersey 79.28 56.16 130.84 44.76 32.92
New Mexico 134.96 99.12 232.00 62.56 71.48
New York 54.56 44.12 79.20 38.08 21.80
North 216.72 157.60 342.52 108.48 68.68
Carolina
North Dakota 202.28 139.88 399.04 95.44 89.60
Ohio 123.32 90.44 189.64 72.60 64.60
Oklahoma 129.40 83.96 217.28 51.72 62.76
Oregon 104.72 77.24 165.40 48.32 41.68
Pennsylvania 78.24 60.12 135.92 47.20 40.24
Rhode Island 58.80 46.00 92.64 41.96 32.52
South 167.60 95.60 297.72 59.56 125.00
Carolina
South Dakota 237.20 152.40 378.36 121.24 88.92
Tennessee 134.80 91.64 247.60 52.64 63.44
Texas 124.08 95.44 189.92 65.64 53.28
Utah 122.28 89.48 204.64 59.08 50.28
Vermont 84.92 65.40 141.24 50.96 28.80
U.S. Virgin 247.88 191.56 388.16 124.76 110.60
Islands
Virginia 151.12 120.84 244.44 79.04 75.04
Washington 46.40 36.84 70.08 28.96 17.68
West Virginia 225.44 192.60 329.08 139.88 119.04
Wisconsin 42.72 31.24 68.04 21.96 17.76
Wyoming 149.20 110.52 266.12 69.72 95.92
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.8
Sampling Errors for Selected Monetary
Amounts of All Affected Households With
Children, by State, Presented in Table
III.4, Fiscal Year 1995
Average
Average Average Average Average monthly
monthly monthly monthly monthly food stamp
gross net earned shelter benefit
State income income income cost if no cap
------------- ------------ ------------ -------------- -------------- --------------
=========================================================================================
All 13.80 10.68 22.68 8.88 5.72
Alabama 190.28 127.84 295.20 67.84 91.88
Alaska 105.64 115.92 266.36 85.32 90.80
Arizona 118.88 81.48 206.44 55.32 50.32
Arkansas 182.16 121.32 257.04 76.12 67.32
California 59.96 53.80 65.24 38.60 23.04
Colorado 105.84 72.68 181.48 49.24 38.80
Connecticut 54.40 45.12 74.04 36.32 18.28
Delaware 276.92 203.56 375.16 101.48 92.12
District of 111.96 111.96 0.00 100.48 99.52
Columbia
Florida 123.20 87.12 194.84 58.68 51.04
Georgia 121.24 85.68 200.20 63.76 53.00
Guam 507.00 287.44 899.52 245.64 142.76
Hawaii 136.44 104.56 266.48 87.32 63.72
Idaho 145.48 115.76 233.56 69.96 70.12
Illinois 125.56 101.28 196.56 78.48 47.96
Indiana 159.48 83.04 271.36 75.64 72.44
Iowa 94.16 64.36 148.92 42.92 38.00
Kansas 92.68 68.04 152.08 43.76 43.24
Kentucky 125.36 99.40 290.56 81.80 97.68
Louisiana 134.96 130.00 238.08 75.80 72.68
Maine 77.48 54.32 132.64 45.24 30.72
Maryland 124.84 80.04 205.36 64.24 55.04
Massachusetts 50.56 41.20 82.28 39.80 20.32
Michigan 47.64 34.28 68.28 21.92 17.44
Minnesota 78.68 59.00 122.56 38.84 27.64
Mississippi 236.56 117.48 365.12 69.52 94.20
Missouri 181.92 116.84 297.88 81.48 79.68
Montana 119.20 89.20 206.32 67.20 58.36
Nebraska 129.72 66.84 231.56 46.20 43.96
Nevada 183.64 127.36 333.72 75.00 63.80
New Hampshire 67.80 49.64 181.92 50.36 62.20
New Jersey 80.72 57.24 132.64 44.72 31.96
New Mexico 153.32 110.88 258.92 68.00 75.32
New York 58.88 46.96 87.72 40.28 21.64
North 223.72 161.04 357.68 111.56 70.16
Carolina
North Dakota 215.92 149.64 424.32 102.48 87.40
Ohio 132.92 97.88 193.08 78.92 54.56
Oklahoma 137.92 89.44 227.64 55.44 64.12
Oregon 113.12 83.12 175.84 50.12 37.20
Pennsylvania 83.28 64.64 137.56 49.60 35.76
Rhode Island 60.36 47.16 95.24 42.04 31.12
South 200.56 109.88 360.48 70.44 131.48
Carolina
South Dakota 247.12 158.20 395.16 125.40 86.84
Tennessee 141.52 96.84 257.12 55.00 57.12
Texas 124.80 96.44 189.64 67.36 53.56
Utah 125.52 92.00 210.12 60.56 48.44
Vermont 87.52 65.72 148.00 52.68 29.16
U.S. Virgin 256.92 199.48 411.92 124.52 117.44
Islands
Virginia 166.40 132.84 269.40 84.76 72.72
Washington 47.28 37.52 70.36 29.48 17.40
West Virginia 239.16 203.24 351.72 145.36 115.16
Wisconsin 43.76 31.88 69.40 22.24 17.04
Wyoming 154.40 114.04 275.24 71.40 94.08
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV
Thomas E. Slomba, Assistant Director
Andrea Wamstad Brown, Project Leader
Mitchell B. Karpman
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman
*** End of document. ***