In 2003, USDA’s Food Stamp Program (FSP)
provided assistance to an average of 9.2 million low-income households
per month. In about a quarter of these households, at least one
member was working at a job, though their low earnings still left
them eligible for FSP benefits. Even so, nearly half of working
households eligible to participate did not. The reasons for not
participating vary—lack of knowledge about the program, low
benefits, fear of being stigmatized, inaccessible offices, and burdensome
requirements, to name a few.
Food stamp benefits are federally funded, with uniform national
requirements for eligibility and benefits. However, State and local
social services offices administering the program exercise substantial
latitude in how they deliver services.
ERS sponsored the first nationally representative survey of local
food stamp offices in June 2000 to document the operational practices
used by local offices that might affect households’ decisions
to apply for food stamps or continue participating. According to
the survey, staff attitudes toward the working poor are generally
positive and many practices had been adopted to encourage participation
in the program. In offices serving most of the national caseload,
none of the interviewed supervisors or caseworkers agreed with the
statement, “the Food Stamp Program encourages dependency.”
Staff were nearly unanimous in the opinion that eligible households
leaving cash welfare for employment should be encouraged to apply
for food stamps.
Local offices were also generally accessible. Sixty percent of the
national caseload were served by offices near public transportation,
and free parking was available at almost all offices. Persistent
waiting lines were a problem in offices serving 14 percent of the
caseload but never a problem in smaller offices with fewer than
2,000 clients. Many offices operated outside of normal office hours
(before 8 a.m., after 5 p.m., or on Saturdays). For example, offices
serving 51 percent of the caseload accepted applications during
extended hours, and offices serving 43 percent of the caseload conducted
eligibility interviews during extended hours.
Some practices hindered the working poor’s willingness to
seek out food stamps. For example, at the time of the survey, local
offices were more likely to assign short certification periods (3
months or less) to households with earnings, requiring them to re-apply
for food stamps more often than nonworking households. In addition,
offices serving about half of the caseload required that employers
complete a form to verify income. The survey found that the working
poor were less likely than the elderly, the disabled, immigrants,
or the homeless to be targeted with public education campaigns,
to receive transportation assistance, and to be allowed to apply
by telephone.
This article is drawn from...
Food
Stamp Program Access Study: Local Office Policies and Practices
by Vivian Gabor, Brooke Layne Hardison, Christopher Botsko, and
Susan Bartlett, ERS project representative: Margaret Andrews, E-FAN-03-013-1,
prepared for USDA/ERS by Health Systems Research, Inc., and Abt
Associates Inc., December 2003.
Download PDF version