[ Food Stamp Program
| Frequently Asked Questions |
2005
Eligibility Limits ]
[ Food Stamp Outreach | Characteristics
of Food Stamp Households ]
[ Food Stamp Program Participation
Data ] [Participation Access Rates]
[Application Processing Timeliness]
2003 Food Stamp Participation Rates State-by-State
USDA’s new report on state food stamp participation rates underscores how much more needs to be done to connect needy eligible people with benefits, particularly in states that are missing more than half of those people eligible, according to FRAC. The failure to serve more eligible people is costing families’ meals and communities’ dollars that could help their economies. Each $1 in federally-funded food stamp benefits generates nearly twice that in economic activity.
The national average participation rate of 56 percent for FY 2003 marked an improvement over the FY 2002 rate of 54 percent. Forty-two of the 50 states and the District of Columbia had some improvement over the FY 2002 rate. Considered regionally, all regions but the northeast and western regions improved (those two each registered one percentage point declines).
States showing the most improvement 2002 to 2003 (by percentage points) were Tennessee (12); Maine (10); Oklahoma (9); Arizona (7); South Carolina (7); Georgia (6); Missouri (6); Massachusetts (5); Utah (5). Percentage point declines were found in Hawaii (9); California (3); Connecticut (3); New York (3); Indiana (2); New Mexico (2); South Dakota (2); and Nebraska (1).
The states doing the best job of reaching eligible people were Oregon (83%); Tennessee (82%); Missouri (76%); District of Columbia (72%); Maine (72%); Louisiana (69%); West Virginia (68%); Hawaii (67%); Kentucky (67%); Oklahoma (67%).
The lowest food stamp participation rates were Massachusetts (43%); Nevada (44%); California (45%); Wyoming (46%); New Hampshire (46%); New Jersey (47%); Utah (48%); Colorado (48%); New York (48%); Florida (48%); Texas (48%); Maryland (48%).
The official USDA food stamp participation rates are calculated for the agency by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., which takes into account the various incomes, citizenship status and resource rules that affect eligibility. By contrast, another USDA measure, Program Access Index (PAI) provides a snap shot of the percentage of low-income people served with food stamps whether or not they are eligible under other program criteria.
Participation Rate |
||||||
| State | 2003 | 2002 | Improvement 2002 to 2003 |
2001 | 2000 | Improvement 2000 to 2001 |
| Oregon | 83% | 80% |
3% |
75% | 72% |
3% |
| Tennessee | 82% | 70% |
12% |
61% | 64% |
-3% |
| Missouri | 76% | 70% |
6% |
68% | 70% |
-2% |
| District of Columbia | 72% | 68% |
4% |
73% | 86% |
-13% |
| Maine | 72% | 62% |
10% |
67% | 72% |
-5% |
| Louisiana | 69% | 65% |
4% |
64% | 65% |
-1% |
| West Virginia | 68% | 67% |
1% |
75% | 85% |
-10% |
| Hawaii | 67% | 76% |
-9% |
77% | 89% |
-12% |
| Kentucky | 67% | 63% |
4% |
69% | 72% |
-3% |
| Oklahoma | 67% | 58% |
9% |
54% | 56% |
-2% |
| Alaska | 65% | 63% |
2% |
58% | 62% |
-4% |
| Georgia | 65% | 59% |
6% |
50% | 53% |
-3% |
| Indiana | 65% | 67% |
-2% |
61% | 60% |
1% |
| Michigan | 65% | 62% |
3% |
64% | 68% |
-4% |
| South Carolina | 65% | 58% |
7% |
55% | 56% |
-1% |
| Arizona | 64% | 57% |
7% |
47% | 46% |
1% |
| Arkansas | 62% | 58% |
4% |
55% | 57% |
-2% |
| Illinois | 61% | 60% |
1% |
62% | 63% |
-1% |
| Ohio | 61% | 57% |
4% |
54% | 57% |
-3% |
| Mississippi | 60% | 56% |
4% |
52% | 52% |
0% |
| Vermont | 60% | 56% |
4% |
63% | 70% |
-7% |
| Washington | 60% | 57% |
3% |
54% | 56% |
-2% |
| Minnesota | 59% | 56% |
3% |
54% | 57% |
-3% |
| Iowa | 57% | 54% |
3% |
51% | 54% |
-3% |
| Alabama | 56% | 55% |
1% |
53% | 56% |
-3% |
| Nebraska | 56% | 57% |
-1% |
52% | 56% |
-4% |
| Kansas | 55% | 52% |
3% |
49% | 50% |
-1% |
| Wisconsin | 55% | 52% |
3% |
53% | 53% |
0% |
| Pennsylvania | 54% | 53% |
1% |
58% | 64% |
-6% |
| Virginia | 54% | 51% |
3% |
52% | 54% |
-2% |
| Connecticut | 53% | 56% |
-3% |
58% | 61% |
-3% |
| Delaware | 53% | 50% |
3% |
49% | 52% |
-3% |
| Idaho | 53% | 49% |
4% |
41% | 44% |
-3% |
| Rhode Island | 53% | 52% |
1% |
60% | 63% |
-3% |
| New Mexico | 52% | 54% |
-2% |
53% | 54% |
-1% |
| South Dakota | 52% | 54% |
-2% |
57% | 58% |
-1% |
| North Dakota | 51% | 50% |
1% |
55% | 50% |
5% |
| Montana | 50% | 50% |
0% |
51% | 53% |
-2% |
| North Carolina | 49% | 46% |
3% |
47% | 48% |
-1% |
| Colorado | 48% | 46% |
2% |
46% | 49% |
-3% |
| Florida | 48% | 47% |
1% |
45% | 49% |
-4% |
| Maryland | 48% | 46% |
2% |
50% | 52% |
-2% |
| New York | 48% | 51% |
-3% |
52% | 57% |
-5% |
| Texas | 48% | 47% |
1% |
45% | 46% |
-1% |
| Utah | 48% | 43% |
5% |
43% | 47% |
-4% |
| New Jersey | 47% | 45% |
2% |
45% | 50% |
-5% |
| New Hampshire | 46% | 44% |
2% |
46% | 49% |
-3% |
| Wyoming | 46% | 46% |
0% |
50% | 51% |
-1% |
| California | 45% | 48% |
-3% |
49% | 54% |
-5% |
| Nevada | 44% | 41% |
3% |
40% | 38% |
2% |
| Massachusetts | 43% | 38% |
5% |
41% | 42% |
-1% |
| United States | 56% | 54% |
2% |
53% | 56% |
-3% |
| Northeast Region | 49% | 50% |
-1% |
52% | 56% |
-4% |
| Mid-Atlantic Region | 54% | 52% |
2% |
55% | 60% |
-5% |
| Southeast Region | 59% | 55% |
4% |
52% | 54% |
-2% |
| Midwest Region | 62% | 59% |
3% |
59% | 61% |
-2% |
| Southwest Region | 54% | 52% |
2% |
50% | 51% |
-1% |
| Mountain Plains Region | 59% | 56% |
3% |
55% | 57% |
-2% |
| Western Region | 52% | 53% |
-1% |
51% | 54% |
-3% |
Federal Food Programs | Hunger in the US
FRAC's Building Blocks Project | Campaign to End Childhood Hunger
Publications & Products | Contact FRAC! | Site Map