Seniors' Views of the Food Stamp Program and Ways To Improve ParticipationFocus Group Findings in Washington State: Final Report
Vivian Gabor, Susan Schreiber Williams, Hilary Bellamy, and Brooke Layne Hardison. ERS contact: Elizabeth Dagata.
E-FAN No. (02-012) 236 pp,
June 2002
This report explores factors that influence Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation among the elderly and identifies ways to improve their participation based on findings from focus groups of senior FSP participants and nonparticipants, community-based organizations, and staff from local food stamp offices. While many seniors felt the FSP provided a valuable benefit, many felt that the benefit levels were too low to make the effort of applying worthwhile.
Two important barriers that seniors felt they faced when applying for food stamps were the stigma attached to receiving what they see as welfare and misinformation about food stamp rules. Many seniors also felt the application, eligibility, and certification processes were overly complicated and intrusive. Discussants suggested several options for improving access to the FSP that included simplifying the application process, extending the recertification process, and changing the delivery of food stamp benefits to make them more user-friendly.
Keywords: Food Stamp Program, elderly, barriers, benefits
In this report ... Chapters are
in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.
- Abstract, Acknowledgments, Contents, Executive Summary, 199 kb
- Chapter I: Introduction and Background, 154 kb
- Chapter II: Seniors’ Overall Perceptions of the Food Stamp Program, 84 kb
- Chapter III:Barriers Preventing Seniors From Applying for Food
Stamps, 77 kb
- Chapter IV: The Food Stamp Application and Recertification Process, 134 kb
- Chapter V: Satisfaction with and Utilization of Food Stamp Benefits, 63 kb
- Chapter VI: Outreach and Enrollment Assistance, 82 kb
- Chapter VII: Discussants’ Suggestions for Changes in Policy and
Program Operations, 54 kb
- Chapter VIII: Key Policy and Programmatic Options, 36 kb
- References, 9 kb
- Technical Appendices, 2,455 kb
- Entire report, 3,565 kb
Updated date: June 12, 2002
|