some eligible people actually are too proud to beg

8/14/2019 Some Eligible People Actually Are Too Proud to Beg

1/56

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SOME ELIGIBLE PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE TOO PROUD TO BEG:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATIONOF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

By John Girdwood

The Food Stamp Program traces its earliest origins back to the Food Stamp

Plan, which began in 1939 to help needy families in the Depression Era. The modern

program began as a pilot project in 1961 and was authorized as a permanent program

in 1964. Today, the federal Food Stamp Program exists within the State of Michigan

in the form of the "Bridge Card" and is managed by the Michigan Department of

Human Services (DHS), Even though there are 586,000 Food Assistance Program

cases in Michigan with more than 1.2 million persons receiving benefits, this is far

less than a 100% participation rate for those who are eligible.

Current pending State of Michigan legislation to split benefit disbursements

into bi-monthly payouts is just one of numerous ways that Food Stamp participation

is set up to be confusing, complicated, and almost not worth the time and effort

necessary to gain the benefits. It was the goal of the researcher to discover

commonalities within groups who chose not to participate, although eligible, in the

Food Stamp Program.


2/56

The researcher analyzed six USDA pilot programs developed to address the

issues of non-enrollment by eligible parties. The researcher synthesized three

problematic elements from that research. Those three elements were combined with

the researcher's own additional conclusions to form a set of six barriers to enrollment

which can be overcome utilizing the following recommendations: simpler eligibility

standards, application assistance, commodity packages, distribution of more

information about the FSP, providing easier access to Food Stamps, and overcoming

the lack of knowledge about the FSP.

The researcher concluded that the best approach to developing an all-

encompassing program plan was to address each and every element of the problem.

Once the six proposed solutions are enacted, ultimately an increase in Food Stamp

participation will logically follow.


3/56

SOME ELIGIBLE PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE TOO PROUD TO BEG:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING FOOD STAMP PARTICIPATION OF

ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

MSA 685 Project Report

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirementsfor the Degree of

Master of Science in Administration(Concentration in Non-Profit Management)

by

John Girdwood1811

Project Instructor

Dr. Beverly Jones

April 2008


4/56

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF CHARTS ............................................................................................................ iv

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................v

CHAPTER

I. DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEMBackground of the Problem .........................................................................1

Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................3

Statement of the Problem.............................................................................4Research Questions/Objectives....................................................................4Limitations ...................................................................................................4

Assumptions.................................................................................................5Definition of Terms .....................................................................................5

Summary......................................................................................................6

II. LITERATURE REVIEWIntroduction..................................................................................................7

Review .........................................................................................................7Summary....................................................................................................12

III. METHODOLOGY

Introduction................................................................................................13Research.....................................................................................................13

Sample Population .....................................................................................13Data Collection ..........................................................................................14

Validity and Reliability..............................................................................14Data Analysis.............................................................................................14

Presentation of Data...................................................................................14Summary....................................................................................................15

IV. DATA ANALYSISIntroduction................................................................................................16Analysis .....................................................................................................17

Summary....................................................................................................33


5/56

iii

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSummary....................................................................................................34

Conclusions................................................................................................37Recommendations......................................................................................37

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................43


6/56

iv

LIST OF CHARTS

CHART

1. Number of Food Stamp Recipients, Unemployed, and People In Poverty..............2

2. Participation Rates Varied Widely ........................................................................17


7/56

v

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Michigan's Poverty Statistics.................................................................................19

2. 2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines...............................................................................29


8/56

1

CHAPTER I: DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

Background of the Problem

The Food Stamp Program traces its earliest origins back to the Food Stamp Plan,

which began in 1939 to help needy families in the Depression Era. The modern program

began as a pilot project in 1961 and was authorized as a permanent program in 1964.

Expansion of the program occurred most dramatically after 1974, when Congress

required all states to offer food stamps to low-income households. The Food Stamp Act

of 1977 made significant changes in program regulations, tightening eligibility

requirements and administration, and removing the requirement that food stamps be

purchased by participants (South Dakota Department of Social Services, 2006).

Today, the federal Food Stamp Program exists within the State of Michigan in the

form of the "Bridge Card" and is managed by the Michigan Department of Human

Services (DHS), the same agency that handles adult and children protective services,

Medicaid, and cash assistance. "There are 586,000 Food Assistance Program cases in

Michigan with more than 1.2 million persons receiving benefits." (Sorbet, Steinman,

2008) Although the program does not change much administratively or substantively that

often, right now the Michigan Legislature is looking to make it harder and more

confusing for the Food Stamp participant. The State of Michigan is considering whether

changing the distribution of food benefits will help DHS clients.

At the present time, electronic Food Stamp benefits are distributed to participants

once per month. The State of Michigan is considering a bi-monthly disbursement

system. "The Michigan Legislature has drafted legislation that will, if passed and signed

into law, change distribution of benefits from once to twice monthly for families


9/56

2

receiving more than $100 a month in benefits. That would prospectively affect about

457,000 cases or 78 percent of the current caseload." (Sorbet, Steinman, 2008) This is

just one of numerous ways that Food Stamp participation is confusing, complicated, and

almost not worth the time and effort necessary to gain the benefits.

The Food Stamp Act was the last time any major national changes were made to

what is now known generically nationwide as "food stamps" and the "Food Stamp

Program," referred to as the FSP. From its earliest origins until today, the FSP has never

seen a one hundred percent participation rate for eligible parties. Simply using federal

poverty levels against the number of FSP recipients, it is easy to see the two rates never

intersect (United States Department of Agriculture, 2006).

Chart 1. Number of food stamp recipients, unemployed, and people in poverty, 1975-2005

It was the goal of the researcher to discover commonalities within groups who

chose not to participate, although eligible, in the Food Stamp Program. The researcher

concentrated on what prevented eligible participants from applying for and receiving

food stamps. The researcher developed a set of three elemental barriers that combined to

form a basis for the research. Additionally, three elements were formed by USDA


10/56

3

research. In combination, this set of six barriers was examined through food stamp

policy and program analysis.

Ultimately, the six major preventative barriers were defined and addressed

individually. Collectively, this set of barriers combined to form the figurative "wall"

between the eligible food stamp applicant and enrollment. Once the individual blocks

that build the wall are removed, the proverbial flood gates will open and an influx of new

eligible applicants will appear thus raising enrollment rates.

Purpose of the Study

In order to increase participation among eligible households in the FSP, it was

vital to examine why these households chose not to participate. The researcher aimed to

interpret statistics to develop an understanding of the common reasons that eligible

households do not participate in the FSP in order to see what obstacles need to be

overcome. Once apparent preventative issues are seen, and then broken down, it is likely

that participation by eligible households will increase.

Throughout the study, rather than putting focus on a single barrier, a collection of

six elements was analyzed. Continual emphasis was placed on the assumption that the

barriers existed as a collection rather than individually.

Statement of the Problem

Hypothetically, there are three main areas that most likely combine to account for

the umbrella of reasons why eligible parties do not apply for the FSP. Those areas are:

misinformation about, limited access to, and lack of knowledge of the FSP.


11/56


12/56

5

paralleled growth in participation with program or agency involvement may have

been assumed.

Assumptions

1) The researcher assumed that there were groups in common who did not apply forthe FSP even though the individuals in those groups were eligible.

2) Those groups who did not apply most likely would not have been made up ofpeople who knew all about the FSP.

3) Those groups probably would not have been those who knew all about the FSPand had complete access directly to the "welfare" office, both mobility and time to

apply. There were probably many reasons that those eligible persons did not

apply for food stamps, but it was likely that there were to be commonalities in

both the persons who did not apply and the reasons why they did not.

Definition of Terms

Eligible parties Those persons who meet federal poverty guidelines and can enroll

in the FSP as soon as they complete the necessary steps, i.e.

paperwork and meeting with a caseworker at the welfare office.

Food Stamp Program The federal Food Stamp Program (FSP) that provides Electronic

Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards to low income families in an effort

to increase the families' ability to purchase the food they need.

Welfare Office The place where applicants must go to complete the paperwork

necessary and meet with caseworkers (where required) in order to

begin receiving electronic benefits.


13/56

6

Summary

In Chapter I, the researcher provided the reader with the background of the

problem and a brief introduction to what follows in this research paper. Since its

inception, the FSP has never seen one hundred percent enrollment of eligible parties and

the researcher attempted to discover why that is. The researcher examined common

trends that address issues of misinformation, lack of information, and limited access to

the FSP which in turn hinder the participation count of eligible applicants.

The researcher also studied the programs that have attempted to solve these

problems and determined whether or not those programs have been effective and why or

why not. When the commonalities were seen, problems addressed, and results studied,

then the researcher summarized why eligible parties do not apply for the FSP and was

able to provide recommendations for increasing participation in the FSP.


14/56

7

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

There have been countless studies on the FSP covering an equal number of topics

and issues regarding the federal program. The purpose of the researcher is to examine the

results of six USDA pilot programs, and thus the subject nature of the sources will mimic

the focus of the researcher. Many articles will be cited within, some of those not with the

exact same headline as the title of this paper, but with content relative and addressing the

question that the researcher will answer: are there commonalities in groups that choose

not to apply for food stamps although eligible? Such citations will be extracted from

articles and books that cover various aspects of the FSP, who enrolls, who does not, why

those who do enroll choose to, and why those who do not enroll choose not to (although

eligible). The cumulative lot of the references will contribute to the overall focus of the

researcher and will shed agreement and dissent on the points the researcher makes

throughout this entire dissertation.

Review

In order to understand the Food Stamp Program better, one needs to examine its

history and reasons for creation. The FSP was first born in the late 1930s during the

wave of unemployment and poverty that swept the nation. It was conceived as a program

to help farmers and to feed hungry people during the Depression era (Biggerstaff, Morris,

and Nichols-Casebolt, 2002). It remains in that fashion a bit today, although successful

farmers are less hungry now than they were in the Depression era and their land alone

could probably be sold today if times became rough for them. As the times have

changed, so has the FSP.


15/56

8

There have been waves of FSP application but typically participation is in a

general decline. Participation in the Food Stamp Program declined by 34 percent from

1994 to 1998 (Nord, 2001). It is proper to ask then, "Why has this happened?" Of

course, there is no easy answer to this question and many sources, surveys, and studies

must be examined to come up with the best answer, not necessarily the hard and fast

correct one.

The best analysis of the subject will look at percentages of groups who, although

eligible, do not apply. Then, after those groups and demographics are determined, the

reasons for non-participation can be clarified. Previous research on the nonparticipation

issue has had to be limited to isolating the relationship between demographic and

program characteristics (such as benefit level) and the participation status of a household.

Although the results of those studies have varied in detail, a reasonably consistent set of

findings has emerged. Nonparticipation is positively related to the age of the eligible

person, is higher for unmarried men, is more prevalent in rural areas, and is negatively

related to the benefit level to which a person is entitled (Coe, 1983).

That is to say, if a person is a widowed older man who lives in a rural area and

does not believe he is not entitled to many benefits through the FSP, then the man is

probably not going to apply. The researcher does not blame that man. The researcher

expects to find relationships between these sorts of findings and reasons for non-

participation. For example, these basic statistics point to these specific reasons for non-

participation: length of drive (inconvenience), inability to travel to application site

(perhaps too old to drive), and a perceived low benefit even when received.


16/56

9

But the participation tide keeps shifting. Food stamp caseloads increased by 24

percent over the 3-year period ending in September 2003. Over 21 million persons

received food stamp benefits in September 2003. In September 2000, that number was

17.2 million. This increase in the number of families receiving food stamps represents a

stunning reversal: between 1994 and 2000, there was a 37 percent decline in the number

of persons receiving food stamps (Zedlewski and Rader, 2005).

Did the old single man on the country outskirts of town suddenly become married

and move in closer to the city? Probably not, but maybe the transportation system

increased its ability to provide a link for these apprehensive seniors in to the agencies that

distribute food stamps. Or, perhaps there were special programs and agencies created to

address the issues that prevent eligible people from applying for food stamps. The

researcher expects to discover this later.

It is not difficult to find states involving themselves and programs that have been

created to overcome those obstacles hindering application. In 1989 the Washington State

legislature appropriated funds for food stamp outreach in response to findings by the

Governor's Task Force on Hunger that many elderly persons and families with children

experience hunger because of limited financial resources (Brandon, Plotnick, and

Stockman, 1994).

There is also a question as to the unwillingness to reapply. At any given point in

time, the average length of FSP participation can vary greatly. Many people leave the

program relatively quickly, but often return. Single adult households with children have

a more persistent dependency (Lee, Mickey-Bilaver, and Goerge, 2003). Obviously,

those households have a heavier consistent dependency because of their greater group


17/56

10

size. However, the disconnect that occurs from failure to reapply can be as simple as a

lack of knowledge as to the recertification date. For example, one person's certification

period could be twenty four months. Their neighbor knows of the program and its

intricacies via conversations with their neighbor. Once the second party applies, they

might assume their certification period is similar to their neighbors (twenty four months)

when in reality their period might begin at six months. This misinformation might cause

them to skip their recertification date and drop from the program.

It is hard to say that when citizen participation programs have been so

disappointing, it is better to stay the course and look for ways to improve such dwindling

programs. But, there are many reasons why this might be a good idea. One is that there

are some instances in which public participation programs have worked moderately well.

Hope is thus held out that the crucial qualities of successful programs will eventually be

discovered, and then adapted to all programs. Despite all the evaluative studies that have

been completed, the golden rules of effective citizen participation programs have yet to

be identified (Berry, 1981).

Besides via non-governmental agencies, particularly through advocacy based

organizations that have tried to address the problem of non-participation, the government

itself has tried to boost the numbers of those eligible persons applying for that which they

are entitled to. The 1977 Food Stamp Act began a new era in food stamp benefit

distribution by eliminating the purchase requirement. This change took effect in 1979.

The purchase requirement was believed to discourage participation by adding to the

application the burden of cost, in terms of time and effort needed by the applicant, to take

part in the program. It is reasonable to expect that this discouraged participation


18/56

11

unevenly across the demographic spectrum of food stamp eligibles (Brown, 1988). It is

also safe to say that the elimination of this hurdle helped, but did not solve all the

problems tied to the apprehension to apply by eligibles.

Some studiers and researchers have even delved deep into equations to examine

the participation rates in FSP. Binary models of FSP participation were unveiled in 1986.

Binary choice models assume that the individual is faced with making a choice between

two alternatives. Most previous analyses of food stamp participation have specified that

eligible households have two choices: participation and nonparticipation (Coe and Hill,

1986).

The fact remains that eligible households have dozens of choices to make that go

far beyond just applying for the FSP. This may either aid or hurt the participation rates

for the FSP. In 1982, the U.S. government established the Temporary Emergency Food

Assistance Program (TEFAP). Through this program, the federal government provided

charitable organizations with food (usually surplus commodities) to be distributed to the

needy. The establishment of this program symbolized the federal government's departure

from concentrating on the Food Stamp Program to alleviate hunger. In 1979, Second

Harvest, a non-profit organization was established. This organization provides a

relatively easy way for potential donors of large quantities of food to provide

commodities to food banks (Daponte, 2004). Yes, even the government was helping find

new ways to deliver food to the needy when it was evident that their own FSP was not

one hundred percent effective in reaching eligible persons.


19/56

12

Summary

It is easy to see how many variables contribute to the equation that is:

participation by eligible persons in the FSP is less than one hundred percent. The

researcher has laid out a couple possible reasons why participation is not at full potential.

From governmental policy, to government endorsed alternative food sources, many

things contribute to this issue. It is the researcher's duty to determine the likeliest reasons

why eligible persons do not apply for the FSP and to seek commonalities within

demographics.

In Chapter II, the researcher has written about the topic and through the review,

seen what outside sources can contribute to the analysis of research. At this point, the

reader should have a better understanding of the Food Stamp Program. In the following

chapters, the researcher will provide both qualitative and quantitative data and apply a

methodology of analysis.


20/56

13

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The researcher conducted his own research to contribute to the data that was

obtained through outside reference sources. This chapter explains the methods by which

the researcher collected data. It also provides the intended reasons for collecting and

predictable ways by which the researcher will use the data to contribute to the overall

objective of the research.

Research

The majority of the research was obtained through outside sources. The

researcher wanted to discover if there were in fact three main areas that most likely

combine to account for the umbrella of reasons why eligible parties do not apply for the

FSP. Those areas of particular interest were: misinformation about, limited access to, and

lack of knowledge of the FSP. The research came from outside sources such as censuses

and was also derived from previous studies analyzing existing programs that address the

similar problem of low participation rates among the eligible.

Sample Population

The sample population was Michigan citizens with most emphasis placed on

vulnerable populations like senior citizens. The population was limited to Michigan.

The reason that this sample population was chosen, as opposed to the all U.S. citizens, is

because extensive geographic variance should be left out and concentration given to a

target population. The population of Michigan seniors painted a clearer picture as to

possible reasons those in that specific group do not apply. The researcher has made

certain that the research group did not become too broad in scope.


21/56

14

Data Collection

The referential data that was collected was primary data. The majority of the data

collected came from referring to articles and books cited. Because of the scope of this

research, the researcher was able to only look at to those in roughly sixty Michigan

counties. That is why the secondary data from outside sources was used, to extend

beyond the state of Michigan for comparison purposes.

Validity and Reliability

The data was ensured to be reliable by referencing the source. The researcher has

also done matching data when applicable, meaning data from one study was compared to

that of another similar survey. The researcher did not foresee any problems with the

validity and reliability of the data obtained via the material referenced in the

bibliography.

Data Analysis

Some data was analyzed through Microsoft Excel. The Microsoft Access

Database program was also used to compute and create reports on the data collected.

Some tables and charts were copied over from referenced material. Each table and chart

was examined for accuracy and the references checked for accountability.

Presentation of the Data

The amassed data was represented in Microsoft Excel tables, graphs, charts, and

other visual descriptions. The Microsoft Access Database program was also used to

generate reports that were graphical in nature. Certain tables and charts representing data

were copied and pasted from various referenced sources.


22/56

15

Summary

The researcher acquired secondary data that presented itself via sources

referenced. All data collected was done in effort to address the problem statement, that

there are three main areas that most likely combine to account for the umbrella of reasons

why eligible parties do not apply for the FSP. Those areas are: misinformation about,

limited access to, and lack of knowledge of the FSP.


23/56

16

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction

It is difficult to find anywhere in the United States Constitution that eludes to

making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is not really the ultimate goal of the

formation of our country to increase the gap between the impoverished and the wealthy.

Yet, that seems to have happened recently. The federal government made its first attempt

at closing the gap when it developed the Food Stamp Program.

The Food Stamp Program traces its earliest origins back to the Food Stamp Plan,

which began in 1939 to help needy families in the Depression Era. The modern program

began as a pilot project in 1961 and was authorized as a permanent program in 1964.

Expansion of the program occurred most dramatically after 1974, when Congress

required all states to offer food stamps to low-income households. The Food Stamp Act

of 1977 made significant changes in program regulations, tightening eligibility

requirements and administration, and removing the requirement that food stamps be

purchased by participants (South Dakota Department of Social Services, 2006).

Federal monies for public welfare programs like food stamps are distributed at a

state level. Enrollment rates for eligible households vary drastically from state to state.

At a federal level, the government could seek policies that even out the enrollment levels.

The limitations of this research paper are set at a state government level.

The enrollment rate of eligible households in the food stamp program in Michigan

is less than 100% and less than the rate of other states. What steps can Michigan take to

increase the participation rate of eligible household in the Food Stamp Program?


24/56


25/56

18

This wide gap in enrollment rates would not be such a big deal if there were not

that many people in need of money for food. But, "1,133,793 residents of Michigan use

food stamps to buy food every month. That amounts to 11.2 percent of the people in

Michigan." (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2007) It turns out this issue is

affecting a major chunk of Michigan's constituency.

Not only do food stamps affect a large number of Michigan families, but food

stamps play a major role in paying for a high percentage of each and every meal that

these citizens are eating. For people who have food stamps, they are utilizing "on

average, $1.01 per person per meal in food stamp benefits." (Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities, 2007) That is a big deal at a small level (that of the individual) but policy

makers must remember that individuals make up groups that constitute the entire

citizenry.

Each drop in the proverbial bucket equates to an amount equivalent to the fine

state's great lakes. "The Food Stamp Program pumped $1,238,787,643 into the Michigan

economy last year, benefiting farmers, grocers, and small businesses throughout the state.

About 80 percent of food stamp benefits go to households with children, many of them in

working families. Most of the rest go to households containing elderly people or people

with disabilities. Increasing the share of eligible households that participate in the Food

Stamp Program by just five percentage points, Michigan would provide food stamps to an

additional 68,000 low-income residents, bring $41,300,000 into Michigans local

economy, and result in $76,000,000 in new economic activity." (Center on Budget and

Policy Priorities, 2007)


26/56

19

In general, it can be said that the monies designated for food stamps go directly

into the pockets of the impoverished and wind up in the bank accounts of everybody from

the middle class to business owners to the wealthy. The researcher intends to avoid

complex and abstract concepts about the "trickle up" effects of food stamps, and limits

this study to those people who directly receive the benefits of food stamps: Michigan's

impoverished citizens. The following statistics define that group.

Figure 1. Michigan's poverty statistics:

Overall Populations

9,953,000 = Population of Michigan (2006)

1,749,000 = Population at or below 125% of the poverty level (2006) 17.6% at or below 125% of poverty (2006)

Demographic Numbers

586,910 = White population below poverty level (1999) 338,492 = Black or African American population below poverty level (1999) 192,376 = Families below poverty level (1999) 59,874 = Hispanic or Latino population below poverty level (1999) 19,125 = Asian population below poverty level (1999)

Demographic Percentages

25.2% of Blacks or African Americans are in poverty (1999) 19.2% of Hispanics are in poverty (1999) 13.3% of People of all ages in poverty 2006 (has risen every year since 1999) 11.2% of Asians are in poverty (1999) 7.4% of Families are below poverty level (1999)


27/56

20

Elderly Population Numbers and Percentages

189,000 Elderly population (65+) at or below 125% poverty level (2006) 96,000 Elderly population (65+) below poverty level (2006) 93,000 Elderly citizens between poverty and 125% of poverty (2006) 7.6% Elderly citizens at or below poverty (2006) 14.9% Elderly citizens at or below 125% of poverty (2006)

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008)

These are staggering numbers and certain individual statistics virtually jump off

the page. For example, 1.75 million Michigan citizens are at or below 125% of poverty.

Furthermore, group rates stand out. First, over half of one million White persons are in

poverty. Second, very high percentages of Blacks and Hispanics are in poverty.

One major assumption that the researcher makes is that certain eligible groups

(separated into demographic groups like ethnicity and/or geographic location) may know

of and are possibly fully aware of the opportunities to enroll in public welfare programs.

Whether that is true or not is outside the scope of this research. This research is aimed at

pinpointing at least one major group that is highly unlikely to take full advantage of

public welfare. Additionally, reasons are being sought as to why such a group chooses

not to apply for federal welfare programs when they are fully eligible. In the preceding

data, one such group that stands out is the elderly.

Another assumption that the researcher makes is that the most likely eligible party

to avoid enrolling in the food stamp program is the party closest to the fringe. In other

words, the researcher hopes that the poorest of the poor are actively and adequately


28/56

21

seeking public assistance. However, the fringe eligible are probably unlikely to

immediately seek the assistance that they are entitled to.

The purpose of this research is to determine methods and policies that will

increase the participation rate of eligible elderly households in the food stamp program.

There are 93,000 eligible senior citizens who are over the poverty level in Michigan yet

who are eligible for food stamps. These elderly Michigan citizens may not know that

they are eligible. The first possible reason stated here in this research as to why eligible

parties may not participate in federal welfare programs like food stamps: lack of

knowledge.

One way to measure the success of policy and its resulting programs is by strict

statistics. If we analyze straight data, the numbers might not tell the entire story. For

example, if the overall poverty level drops and the households already on FSP continue to

actively participate then the participation rate will logically rise. If the poverty level rose,

even if the participation rate dropped, it is statistically possible to enroll a greater number

of households in FSP. So, using straight data is probably a criteria measure that cannot

avoid flaws.

Alternatively, data could be retrieved straight from those who desire the

assistance. It is possible to use another statistical measure, satisfaction surveys, to

measure the rate at which households who desire to enroll can and are able to. Such

satisfaction surveys would measure the effectiveness of FSP as far as reaching those who

desire and intend to utilize the assistance program. This is, however, another straight

statistic.


29/56

22

To determine the best criteria, it is important to restate the focus: the enrollment

rate of eligible households in the Food Stamp Program in Michigan is less than 100% and

less than the rate of other states. What steps can Michigan take to increase the

participation rate of eligible household in the food stamp program?

"Some definitions [of criteria] tie evaluation to the stated 'goals' of a program or

policy. But since we do not always know what these 'goals' really are, and because we

know that some programs and policies pursue conflicting 'goals,' we will not limit our

notion of policy evaluation to their achievement. Instead, we will concern ourselves with

all of the consequences of public policy, that is, with 'policy impact.'

The impact of a policy is all its effects on real-world conditions, including:

1. Impact on the target situation or group2. Impact on situations or groups other than the target (spillover effects)3. Impact on future as well as immediate conditions4. Direct costs, in terms of resources devoted to the program5. Indirect costs, including loss of opportunities to do other things

All the benefits and costs, both immediate and future, must be measured in both symbolic

and tangible effects." (Dye, 2005)

It is important that the steps must be in an effort to achieve the desired outcome of

an increased participation rate. Satisfaction surveys do not measure this statistic. The

only real number that measures this specific outcome is the data: enrollment rate of

eligible households in the Food Stamp Program in Michigan. That is measured by raw

data (a definite criterion). Objectively, the Dye criteria can be employed as a measurer of

the raw statistical data.


30/56

23

The aforementioned criteria can be applied to a group of USDA pilot projects

currently focusing on some of the barriers that prevent eligible parties from enrolling in

food stamps. "To address the low participation rates among the elderly, USDA is

funding the Elderly Nutrition Demonstrationssix separate pilot programs that are

testing three alternative ways to increase elderly participation in the FSP." (Sing, Cody,

Sinclair, Cohen, Ohls, 2005)

The six pilot programs presented by the USDA will run their respective courses,

and each will be measured in the same manner to determine which has caused the

participation rate in eligible seniors to increase the most (impact on the target group).

One measurable spillover effect would be increased participation by multi-generational

households. For example, the rise in senior participation would have a direct effect on

increasing the enrollment of grandchildren who lived within the same household (if the

grandchildren were in the same FAP group).

In the future, poverty levels should be watched. If the increase in FSP

participation really has the effect on Michigan's economy as was previously stated by the

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2007):

"Increasing the share of eligible households that participate in the

Food Stamp Program by just five percentage points, Michigan

would provide food stamps to an additional 68,000 low-income

residents, bring $41,300,000 into Michigans local economy, and

result in $76,000,000 in new economic activity,"

then poverty rates would drop because Michigan's economy would be evidently

stimulated. Direct costs would be indicated within the financial statements of each


31/56

24

respective actor and program contributor or agency. Indirect costs might come in the

form of added Michigan Department of Human Services payroll (the state agency that

administers the federal program). Finally, all tangible and symbolic effects would ideally

be explained in all agency grant reports.

The problem is low participation rates. The outcome sought is increased

participation rates. The target group is the elderly. The problem has been divided into

three possible major contributing factors that have led to the three alternatives presented

by the USDA to address the problem of low participation rates: (1) Simplified eligibility

standards; (2) Application assistance; (3) Commodity packages. These three USDA

elements are in addition to the three barriers that the researcher has proposed and

developed.

"The simplified eligibility and benefit determination model (referred to as the

simplified eligibility model) is designed to reduce the burden associated with applying

for food stamps by simplifying the process of determining eligibility." (Sing, Cody,

Sinclair, Cohen, Ohls, 2005) The researcher sees this particular alternative as directly

targeting the 96,000 senior citizens between poverty and 125% of poverty. If the

eligibility standards were simplified there would be less gray area of who is and is not

due food stamps.

The second alternative addresses the issue of a difficult enrollment process. If the

senior citizenry were given direction and help with transportation or paper filing, it might

make it easier on them and therefore increase their likelihood to apply. The analogy here

is like "having a good tax preparer filing your taxes makes it more likely that you get

back a higher refund." As Sing et al put it: "The application assistance for eligible


32/56

25

elderly model (referred to as the application assistance model) uses strategies designed

to improve outreach to eligible non-participants and to reduce the burden of applying for

food stamps. Under this demonstration, eligibility rules will remain unchanged, but

elderly people will be provided with help in understanding program requirements and in

completing their applications." This alternative targets a burden and shares that similarity

with the first and third alternatives.

Ultimately, shopping for items and swiping EBT cards are burdensome tasks for

the elderly who may not get out of the house often nor have the wherewithal to

understand electronic debiting. "Under the alternative food stamp commodity benefit

model (referred to as the commodity alternative), elderly FSP households will have the

option of receiving one or two packages of commodities each month instead of food

stamp coupons or an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card. Food packages will be

designed to meet the unique nutritional needs of the elderly. In areas with large

multicultural populations, packages might include ethnic or traditional foods in an

attempt to attract new elderly participants from these groups." (Sing, Cody, Sinclair,

Cohen, Ohls, 2005) This third alternative removes the most burdens, more than the

previous two alternatives. Here, purchasing is eliminated as are stigmas about possibly

being without traditional foods and even the issues of fulfilling nutritional standards have

been vanquished.

It is no secret or surprise that senior citizens are not 100% involved with food

stamps. Perhaps they lack the knowledge that they are eligible. Maybe they hold a

grudge against or fear of the government. Whatever the reason may be, there is no

argument that participation rates among eligible seniors are low. "Low participation rates


33/56

26

in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) by poor elderly individuals have been a persistent

problem. Historically, no more than one-third of eligible elderly have participated in the

FSPa participation rate far lower than that of any other major demographic group."

(Sing, Cody, Sinclair, Cohen, Ohls, 2005)

Here, there is an apparent issue and the government has not been stagnant in its

attack on seeking ways to address it. Federal policy and legislation has led to program

creation to address the low participation rates among the elderly. "USDA is funding the

Elderly Nutrition Demonstrationssix separate pilot programs that are testing three

alternative ways to increase elderly participation in the FSP." (Sing, Cody, Sinclair,

Cohen, Ohls, 2005)

The first step to solving any policy issue is to clearly define the problem. In the

United States, the enrollment rate of eligible households in the Food Stamp Program is

less than 100%. In Michigan, the rate is less than that of many other states. Through

statistical data, evidence of this problem has been proven. What steps can Michigan take

to increase the participation rate of eligible household in the food stamp program?

Three alternatives were presented. And, the criteria to measure the success of

each was described. Through Dye's policy evaluation method, these alternatives can be

put against one another using five key indicators, or impact measurements. Subsequently,

the outcome will be evident as to what impact each of the alternatives had. Then, the best

option will finally be seen and the most effective method by which to continually achieve

the intended outcome will be expanded upon. By utilizing the process of defining the

problem, accumulating evidence, seeking alternatives, and measuring impact on the


34/56

27

intended outcome, a solution can be discovered to the problem of low participation rates

by senior citizens in the Food Stamp Program.

The premier choice is not one of the above mentioned six federal pilot programs.

Although each attacks one or a couple reasons for non-participation, none of the

programs covers all the issues. An idyllic program would address all the reasons for non-

participation. Therefore, the researcher chooses not one of the pilots, but all and in a

combinatory manner.

First, the USDA defines the problem a little differently than the researcher

therefore the USDA programs address the issue(s) using different approaches. The

USDA defines the problem as (solutions of):

(1) Simplified eligibility standards;

(2) Application assistance;

(3) Commodity packages

whereas the researcher views the issue as:

(1) Misinformation about;

(2) Limited access to;

(3) Lack of knowledge about the FSP.

The researcher understands that the best approach to developing an all-encompassing

program plan is to address each and every element of the problem. Some of the USDA

pilot projects fail to address all elements. For example, commodity packages seem to add

convenience and prevent much travel but completely miss the lack of knowledge point.

A combinatory plan will best suit an all-corners answer to the multi-faceted

problem of eligible parties not applying for the Food Stamp Program. First, simplified


35/56

28

eligibility standards will address the researcher's claim that lack of knowledge prevents

eligible parties from applying for the FSP. "Lack of knowledge" does not just mean that

eligible parties are unaware that food stamps exist, rather it means that those eligible

parties are confused by the actual requirements to be eligible for and how to sign up for

the FSP.

Changing legislation to clarify the eligibility standards would be the first step to

overcoming the problem of lacking knowledge that the non-participating eligible parties

hold currently. A clarified eligibility standard would be something like "categorical

eligibility at or below 200% of the poverty level." Then, that line would be clearly

drawn. For example, literature encouraging eligible parties would not simply state the

above mentioned line, rather it would clearly state: "if YOUR Social Security check is

LESS THAN $1,700 PER MONTH then GO APPLY for Food Stamps!" Or, a poster

might look something like this:


36/56

29

Even the current poverty levels as currently stated are extremely confusing. Not

only does the United States Department of Health and Human Services hold this standard

(as opposed to the United States Census), but it is divided in so many ways it will make a

mathematician's head spin. The HHS has per person rates; full, partial, and double rates;

contiguous states versus Alaska and Hawaii rates; rates that change each year; and of

course the presented rates are annual when the eligibility standard is determined on a

monthly basis. When a social worker has trouble figuring out these rates, it goes without

saying that it would be difficult for an elderly person to interpret them. Not only might

elderly persons be cognitively impaired but they may also be illiterate. The

aforementioned are not definite, but are definitely possibilities.

Figure 2. 2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines

Persons in Household U.S Contiguous States

1 $10,400

2 $14,000

3 $17,600

4 $21,200

5 $24,800

6 $28,400

7 $32,000

8 $35,600

Additional $3,600

United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2008)


37/56

30

To overcome lack of information, the researcher proposes the table looks

something like this when presented to the public via food stamp literature:

"Hey, do you want free money for food? Is your monthly income at or below:

People in House Income

1 $1,733

2 $2,333

More? Add $600per person

Then you WILL get food stamps!" A clarified table like this not only provides a definite,

but also eliminates the need to add, subtract, multiply, and/or guess at eligibility.

The above fresh approach is mostly hinting at a solution to the problem of lacking

information yet it subtly touches on the issue of application assistance. Whereas the

USDA programs propose application assistance in the form of "hand-holding" assistants

(recall: "it's like having an efficient tax professional filling out your 1040), this new

concept is an all-encompassing addressing of the problem in its entirety. The

"application assistance" given through the above categorical eligibility proposal is that

the first step of determination is eliminated.

Once the determination step is clarified, streamlined, and almost eliminated then

the proceeding steps to obtain food stamps becomes less intimidating not only for the

applicant but also the application assistant. Clarified procedures are not only important

for the assistants and the applicants, but also the social services agencies that help

customers apply and the legislators themselves.


38/56

31

Another element of the all-encompassing approach includes overcoming the lack

of access barrier. Whereas the aforementioned steps provide more direct access to

information, easy access to the actual paperwork and applications is necessary. One of

the six USDA pilot projects seeks to overcome this barrier particularly well. "A NEW

program in 10 Michigan Counties helps people age 60 or older get a Bridge Card! This

new program is MiCAFE, called 'My Caf,' and is offered by Elder Law of Michigan and

local senior and community centers. MiCAFE stands for the Michigan Coordinated

Access to Food for the Elderly." (MiCAFE, 2008) This program is set up so that elderly

citizens of 10 (update: 12) Michigan counties can go to local senior centers, churches,

and community centers to sign up for food stamps. Here, direct access is provided, yet

the MiCAFE website is very confusing as to exactly how and where the senior should go

and how they can access the food stamps.

And, that circles back to the original point when choosing a best model: all-

encompassing. The USDA set up six pilot programs to address six separate and distinct

issues. None of the programs address more than one elemental problem. A best model

would provide direct access to the application (direct access to food stamps), overcome

informational barriers, and streamline the eligibility standard by making it categorical.

Not only would the best model individually address each element, but it would exist as a

holistically adept solution. As previously mentioned, better "access" means access to

information as well as access to the actual application.

Finally, alternatives to food stamps must be examined as a possible element of an

ideally whole solution to the problem of eligible parties not receiving the public

assistance they are entitled to. Simply, if the parties do not get the assistance through the


39/56

32

FSP it is up to the program administrators to ensure those parties receive the assistance

through other means. The commodities program is set up to overcome that particular

barrier.

But, what exactly does "commodity" mean? "The Commodity Supplemental

Food Programs (CSFP) is a Federally funded program, which works to improve the

health of low-income pregnant and breastfeeding women, other new mothers up to one

year postpartum, infants, children up to age six, and elderly people at least 60 years of

age by supplementing their diets with nutritious USDA commodity foods. It provides

food and administrative funds to states to supplement the diets of these groups." (United

States Department of Agriculture, 2008)

According to the USDA website, the commodities program appears to be a very

complex distribution of federal funds and food to extremely specific groups of needy

people. The USDA is very unclear as to how the funds are distributed and where to pick

up the food. It would take an experienced social worker to interpret this funds

distribution to mean that commodities are simply boxes of food given out to the needy.

Not only is the commodities program complicated to interpret, but it is hard to

find where it is distributed. The USDA page links to over a dozen states' CSFP sites, yet

it fails to link to a page for Michigan's CSFP. Even a well versed web surfer encounters a

variety of barriers when simply trying to discover where to access this particular food

program.

In the same vein as before, the researcher believes that the best approach at

developing an ideal solution is to think holistically. Whereas access to food stamps was

simplified previously, and categorical eligibility was recommended to be clearer, so


40/56

33

should the CSFP follow suit. If the USDA simply painted a clear picture to the needy

public, then participation in this program would increase.

The running theme of analysis has been that the current programs addressing the

barriers of eligible parties' food stamp application have not fully overcome existing

barriers. Although certain programs seem to get close to solving specific issues, a

holistic approach has yet to be enacted. The six USDA pilot projects have covered

solutions encouraging simplified eligibility standards, application assistance, and

commodity packages. These three problematic issues are in addition to the researcher's

trio of misinformation about, limited access to, and lack of knowledge about the FSP.

Summary

It is the conclusion of the researcher after intensive analysis that the premier

approach to solving the problem of imperfect participation rates among eligible parties in

the FSP program is that an all-encompassing multi-faceted solution be developed. Only

after all barriers are knocked down can the participation rates increase to the full

potential. At the present time, only certain demographics are utilizing the current system.

Whether by a blend or one umbrella departmental approach to the issue, it is imperative

that all barriers are eliminated.


41/56

34

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

It is the researcher's conclusion that several barriers must be eliminated in order

for the Food Stamp Program to enroll the greatest number of eligible parties. Those

barriers are three proposed by the researcher and three proposed by the USDA.

Cumulatively these barriers are:

simplified eligibility standards application assistance

commodity package

eliminate misinformation about the FSP access to the assistance prevent a lack of knowledge about the FSP

An analysis of six pilot USDA programs has shown that specifically targeting

individual issues at a direct level can help overcome each individual hurdle. Yet, there

has been no effort to form a holistically cumulative packaged program to overcome all of

the above mentioned barriers. Ideally, each barrier would be overcome collectively under

one premier and all-encompassing approach. It is the researcher's opinion that such a

program would entwine all of the six USDA pilots with outside suggestions to produce

the ultimate Food Assistance Program.

Throughout this analysis, the researcher has examined his own observations and

acuity of the current Food Stamp Program and held his ideals up to those of outside

sources. This comparison has lead to the realization of similarities and differences

between perceptions as well as methods of approach to overcome barriers. Throughout


42/56

35

the analysis, measures were taken to steadfastly sticking to solving the well-defined issue

that the analysis addresses which is to increase the participation rate among eligible

parties for federal welfare programs, specifically food stamps. Each chapter of this

research attacked the problem head on in a direct and unique manner. Collectively, the

research was aimed at solving the problem stated at the beginning of the research and

recited throughout.

As you recall, in Chapter I, the background of the federal welfare system was

given. Then, the problem of < 100% participation rates was stated. The purpose of this

study in its entirety was described as an examination of ways to fix that stated problem.

However, the research was limited to examining the State of Michigan population and

Michigan's rates were compared against those nationally to gauge the existing

performance of the addressing of the issue.

In Chapter II, many variables entered in to the equation of why and how the

participation rates are dwindling. In order to understand the Food Stamp Program better,

an examination of its history and reasons for creation was necessarily carried out in the

literature review. Preexisting waves of FSP application were shown but generally

participation was stated to be declining. An introduction to various approaches was also

listed in the literature review.

Chapter III provided an explanation of the research methodology. The researcher

explained how he conducted his research to contribute to the data that was obtained

through outside reference sources. This chapter explained the methods by which the

researcher collected data. It also provided the reasons for collecting and predictable ways

by which the researcher used the data to contribute to the overall objective of the research


43/56

36

which was to examine the reasons of dwindling participation rates among eligible

households.

In Chapter IV, from the data analysis the researcher directly addressed barriers

and put six USDA pilot projects under a microscope to determine the effectiveness of

each. Since federal monies for public welfare programs like food stamps are distributed

at a state level, the effectiveness of each of the six USDA programs was examined in the

light of the strengths of each and how they relate to Michigan's eligible and varying

demographic groups. Particularly, the researcher focused on the barriers that cause the

elderly population to avoid enrolling in the FSP. Enrollment rates for eligible households

vary drastically from state to state and the solution to the problem of participation rates

varies from pilot program to pilot program. At a federal level, the government could seek

policies that even out the enrollment levels. The limitations of this research paper were

set at a state government level.

The enrollment rate of eligible households in the Food Stamp Program in

Michigan is less than 100% and less than the rate of other states. The researcher aimed at

determining what steps Michigan can take to increase the participation rate of eligible

household in the Food Stamp Program. A continual focus was put on the six problematic

issues that contribute to the overall cloud of reasoning behind the low participation rates.

Interestingly, the USDA split the pie into six specific problematic issues and addressed

each on an individual level. The researcher has concluded that the ideal approach is a

cumulative all-encompassing "mega-pilot" program that overcomes each of the six

barriers but does so under one umbrella program. Such a program would simultaneously

simplify eligibility standards (legislatively), provide application assistance to eligible


44/56

37

parties, direct and incorporate an adjoining complementary commodity package program,

eliminate misinformation about the FSP, provide direct easy access to the assistance, and

eliminate lack of knowledge about the FSP.

Conclusions

From the literature review and the data analysis, the researcher arrived at the

conclusion that the six barriers can be overcome within one program. A better, more

effective public welfare system can exist as an accumulation of the previously listed six

USDA pilot programs. The three barriers defined by the researcher will adjoin with the

three issues developed by the USDA to form one set of barriers. Those barriers will be

overcome collectively. That cumulative approach will address all barriers simultaneously

and most effectively.

Recommendations

It is expected that the resulting increase in participation rates would be

exponential since each barrier leverages another. The following is a list of

recommendations that will provide for the most ideal new single approach to the federal

Food Stamp Program. Taken collectively, the new approach will inevitably increase

participation rates among the eligible. Again, the following recommendations are to be

taken as a group of elements of one single program. It is important to stress the fact that

multiple divided programs will not be effective. Only one all-encompassing program

will succeed.

The first recommendation is to legislatively simplify eligibility standards by

making them clear and definite. Currently, food stamp program eligibility is determined

by a very complex and indefinite equation balancing income and expensive. It is difficult


45/56

38

for even a heavily experienced social worker to figure out let alone an elderly party or

applicant with limited education, who is possibly illiterate. From the outset, if an

increase in participation is sought, then it is necessary to simplify who is and is not

eligible. Then, when eligible parties are aware of their eligibility, they will be more

likely to apply.

This is because a clear barrier exists where lack of knowledge is present. For

example, if the age of driver's license eligibility was not a clearly defined sixteen years of

age then how would a teenager know when to take drivers education? When would they

take the driving test and where would they go to do so? How would they know the

answers to these very important questions if they were not clearly and explicitly laid out

and then conveyed to them? Similarities can be drawn to FSP participation. When

eligible parties are unaware of their eligibility and they do not know where to sign up,

they simply will not do so for very clear and apparent reasons.

The second recommendation that the researcher has is to provide application

assistance to eligible parties. After eligible parties have become aware that they can and

should sign up for the federal welfare program, they need to know where and how to do

so. However, even after they reach a site they need further assistance as to how to

complete the very lengthy and complex paperwork. In Michigan, the DHS 1171

application necessary to receive food stamps is thirty six pages long! (Michigan

Department of Human Services, 2008) Whether illiterate or not, eligible parties who are

unfamiliar with this lengthy and intricate application need as much help as possible

filling this form out.


46/56

39

The reason behind this recommendation is that an intimidating application form

should not impede an eligible party from receiving the federal assistance that they are

entitled to. Unless the federal government is trying to frighten impoverished people from

receiving food stamp benefits, it needs to allow the eligible parties to receive personal

assistance in filling out the necessary forms to receive food stamps.

Third, the cumulative approach must incorporate an adjoining complementary

commodity package program. This recommendation is meant to allow options for eligible

parties in need of food assistance. Electronic cash is nice to have to take to the store

when buying groceries. Yet, in order to ensure that food stamp recipients are utilizing the

stamps as intended, commodities are likely to boost this effort toward increased nutrition

and healthy eating habits. Whereas food stamps could be used to buy Doritos and ice

cream, commodities are boxes of food that should include staples like juice, cheese, and

bread. Sometimes, canned meat can even be included in commodity food boxes.

Here, the recommendation addresses the fact that health education in the form of

written literature can only go so far as to inform the food stamp households of healthy

eating habits. It is important to provide a second alternative avenue to convey a

nutritious food program. Simply putting money in the pockets of the hungry will not

ensure that those parties spend the benefits on nutritious food. Commodities address the

issue of maintaining a level of healthy eating that has been a goal and focus of the Food

Stamp Program since its inception.

The fourth recommendation is to eliminate misinformation about the FSP by

providing more and clearer information via literature distributed to eligible parties.

Currently, food stamp benefits for a single person range from $10 to $162 per month.


47/56

40

Many parties who do not receive the stamps hold their own perceptions, one possibly

being that food stamps are always only $10 per month. Maybe their neighbor receives

the minimum amount and they base their knowledge of the FSP solely on that encounter.

More information needs to hit their eyes and ears to fully explain the categorical

eligibility levels (that are hopefully clarified and simpler than they are presently). A

clearer picture is a better view of the program.

Holistically, an ideal approach would attack all barriers. The fourth

recommendation does this by conveying information that enlightens eligible parties to all

the benefits of and paths to what they rightfully deserve. The best way to overcome

disconnect is to provide a link through information and education. When misinformation

is eliminated and replaced by clear and accurate knowledge, the only result is a better

perception of the Food Stamp Program. Subsequently, a better perception can lead to an

increase in willingness to participate. If the willing parties are given straight avenues to

connect, then they will begin to enroll.

Finally, the researcher recommends providing direct easy access to the assistance.

Just like an uncontested dunk in basketball, the easiest way to score food stamps is a

direct route to the goal. With public assistance programs, the ultimate determiner is an

Eligibility Specialist (State of Michigan Department of Human Services Case Worker).

The DHS offices can oftentimes be far distances from where the eligible party resides. If

the route to food stamps were clearer and the path closer, then participation would be

easier. Let seniors enroll at senior centers, churches, and community centers that they

already visit on a daily or weekly basis. That would be much more convenient than a

forced visit to the "welfare office" downtown.


48/56

41

Ultimately, this recommendation addresses all aspects that hinder eligible parties'

participation. A program that would simultaneously be based on simplified eligibility

standards and provides application assistance to eligible parties at nearby and familiar

locations is going to produce results. An adjoining complementary commodity package

program at the same site would provide an additional alternative that promotes a healthy

lifestyle, an explicit goal of the Food Stamp Program. When misinformation about the

FSP is eliminated and replaced with truths, and direct easy access to the assistance is

provided, participation rates will begin to rise.

It was the goal of the researcher to discover commonalities within groups who

choose not to participate, although eligible, in the Food Stamp Program. The researcher

concentrated on what prevents eligible participants from applying for and receiving Food

Stamps. Initially, the researcher gave three main areas that most likely combine to

account for the umbrella of reasons why eligible parties do not apply for the FSP. Those

areas were: misinformation about, access to, and lack of knowledge of the FSP. Through

analysis of six USDA pilot projects the researcher added three additional approaches:

simplified eligibility standards, application assistance, and commodity package

distribution.

The conclusion was drawn that one approach alone would not address the many

barriers that prevent eligible parties from applying for public benefits. The ideal solution

is to develop a multi-faceted approach that addresses all barriers and overcomes them.

After the barriers have been clearly defined, they can be collectively eliminated. Once

they are solved with a concerted and focused effort, the result will be an increase in

participation of eligible households in the Food Stamp Program.


49/56

42

The six barriers listed in the preceding research can even be simplified. They can

even be spelled out in one single sentence. The research backs up what many already

know. In order to deliver adequate public benefits to those in need, both the federal

government and that of each state must follow this sole generalized concept. Even if they

are eligible, people are not going to sign up for food stamps unless it is easy, nearby, and

non-threatening. The preceding research has addressed many issues and examined

alternatives. Ultimately, all the issues were synthesized into the basic elements that can

be applied to food stamps or any other similar sociological experiment.


50/56

43

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Algert, S. J., Reibel, M., & Renvall, M. J. (2006). Barriers to participation in the food

stamp program among food pantry clients in Los Angeles. American Journal of

Public Health, 96(5), 807-809.

Barriers to Participation in Federal Assistance Programs: Hearing before the Select

Committee on Hunger, House of Representatives, 100th Cong., 1st sess. 10

(1987).

Barriers to Participation in Food Stamp and Other Nutrition Programs of the

Department of Agriculture by People Residing on Indian Lands: Joint

Hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs and the Committee on

Agriculture, United States Senate, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. 5 (1993).

Berry, J. M. (1981). Beyond citizen participation: Effective advocacy before

administrative agencies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(4), 463-

477.

Berry, J. M. (1984).Feeding hungry people: Rulemaking in the food stamp program .

New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Biggerstaff, M. A., Morris, P. M., & Nichols-Casebolt, A. (2002). Living on the edge:

Examination of people attending food pantries and soup kitchens. Social Work,

47(3), 267-277.

Blank, R. M., & Ruggles, P. (1996). When do women use aid to families with dependent

children and food stamps? The dynamics of eligibility versus participation. The

Journal of Human Resources, 31, 57-89.


51/56

44

Brandon, R. N., Plotnick, R. D., & Stockman, K. (1994). Outreach for entitlement

programs: Lessons from food stamp outreach in Washington state. Social Service

Review, 68(1), 61-80.

Brown, G. M. (1988). End of purchase requirement fails to change food stamp

participation. Monthly Labor Review, 111, 14-18.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, (2007, March 7). The food stamp program in

Michigan. Fact Sheet, Retrieved February 25, 2008, from

http://www.cbpp.org/states/foodstamp-fact-mi.pdf

Coe, R. D. (1983). Nonparticipation in welfare programs by eligible households: The

case of the food stamp program. Journal of Economic Issues, 17(4), 1035- 1056.

Coe, R. D., & Hill, D. H. (1998). Food stamp participation and reasons for

nonparticipation: 1986. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 19(2), 107-130.

Daponte, B. O., Haviland, A., & Kadane, J. B. (2004). To what degree does food

assistance help poor households acquire enough food? A joint examination of

public and private sources of food assistance. Journal of Poverty, 8(2), 63-87.

Daponte, B. O., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (1999). Why do low-income households not

use food stamps? Evidence from an experiment. The Journal of Human

Resources, 34(3), 612-628.

Dye, T. (2005). Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education, Inc..


52/56

45

Eisinger, P. K. (1998). Toward an end to hunger in America. Washington D.C.:

Brookings Institution Press. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from Central Michigan

University, Central Michigan University Libraries, NetLibrary Web site: http://0-

www.netlibrary.com.catalog.lib.cmich.edu:80/Reader/

Food and Nutrition Service, (2007, October). Reaching those in need: State food stamp

participation rates in 2005. Office of Research, Nutrition and Analysis, Retrieved

February 25, 2008, from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/Published/FSP/FILES/Participation/Reachin

g2005Summary.pdf

Food Stamp Program: History, Description, Issues, and Options: Prepared by the Staff

of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate,

99th Cong., 1st sess. 4 (1985).

Greenberg, D., & Shroder, M. (2004). The digest of social experiments. Washington

D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

Hall, S. (2000). A conversation with Sue Hall.Policy and Practice of Public Human

Services, 58(4), 40-43.

Hollonbeck, D., & Ohis, J. C. (1984). Participation among the elderly in the food stamp

program. The Gerontologist, 24, 616-621.

Hunger Among the Homeless: A Survey of 140 Shelters, Food Stamp Participation and

Recommendations: Select Committee on Hunger, 100th Cong., 1st sess. 3 (1987).

Lee, B. J., Mackey-Bilaver, L., & Goerge, R. M. (2003). The patterns of food stamp and

WIC participation under welfare reform. Children and Youth Services Review,

25(8), 589-610.


53/56

46

Lindhorst, T., & Mancoske, R. (2003). Race, gender and class inequities in welfare

reform. Race, Gender & Class, 10(2), 27-40.

Maney, A. (1989). Still hungry after all these years: Food assistance policy from

Kennedy to Reagan. New York: Greenwood Press.

Marlene, K., & Mergoupis, T. (1997). The working poor and welfare recipiency:

Participation, evidence, and policy directions. Journal of Economic Issues, 31,

707-728.

McConnell, S., & Ohis, J. (2001). Food stamp participation rate down in urban areas but

not in rural. FoodReview, 24(1), 8-12.

MiCAFE, Elder Law of Michigan, Inc. (2008). Michigan's coordinated access to food for

the elderly. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Elder Law of Michigan, Inc. Official

Website Web site: http://elderslaw.org/Micafe/index.htm

Michigan Department of Human Services, (2008). DHS 1171 Assistance Application.

Retrieved March 16, 2008, Web site: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/

DHS-1171-Assistance _Application_219014_7.pdf

Mosley, J., & Tiehen, L. (2004). The food safety net after welfare reform: Use of private

and public food assistance in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Social Service

Review, 78(2), 267-283.

Nord, M. (2001). Food stamp participation and food security. FoodReview, 24(1), 13-19.

Oberholser, C. A., & Tuttle, C. R. (2004). Assessment of household food security among

food stamp recipient families in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health,

94(5), 790-795.


54/56

47

Rank, M. R., & Hirschl, T. A. (1993). The link between population density and welfare

participation.Demography, 30, 607-622.

Robbins, S. M., & Barcus, H. R. (2004). Welfare reform and economic and housing

capacity for low-income households, 1997-1999. Policy Studies Journal, 32(3),

439-460.

Rosenberg, T. J. (2003). Why do WIC participants fail to pick up their checks?

American Journal of Public Health,93(3), 477-481.

Sing, M, Cody, S, Sinclair, M, Cohen, R, & Ohls, J (2005). The Food Stamp Programs

Elderly Nutrition Pilot Demonstration: Initial Evaluation Design. Contractor and

Cooperator Report, No. (CCR5-1), Retrieved February 25, 2008,from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/CCR5-1/.

Social Security Online. (2006, May).Food Stamps and Other Nutrition Programs.

Retrieved March 17, 2007, from http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10100.html

Sorbet, M., & Steinman, C. (2008). Michigan Department of Human Services. News

Release, Retrieved March 31, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/dhs.

South Dakota Department of Social Services. (2006).Food Stamps Frequently Asked

Questions. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://dss.sd.gov/foodstamps/faq/

Steuerle, C. E., Ooms, V. D., Peterson, G. E., Reischauer, R. D., editors. (2000).

Vouchers and the provision of public services. Washington D.C.: Brookings

Institution Press.

Thompson, F. J., & Gais, T. L. (2000). Federalism and the safety net: Delinkage and

participation rates. The Journal of Federalism, 30(1-2), 119-142.


55/56

48

Tschoepe, G. J., & Hindera, J. J. (2001). Explaining state AFDC and food stamp

caseloads: Has welfare reform discouraged food stamp participation? The Social

Science Journal, 38(3), 435-443.

United States Census Bureau, (2008). USA Counties. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from

Poverty Michigan Web site: http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/usac/usatable.pl

United States Department of Agriculture. (2004, December 22).Food Stamp

Program Map Machine: Interactive Map. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from

http://maps.ers.usda.gov/fsp/

United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2008, February

28). CSFP home page. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Commodity supplemental

food program Web site: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/csfp/default.htm

United States Department of Agriculture. (2006, March). The Food Assistance

Landscape. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps49390/2006/eib6-2.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture. (2007, March 17).Food Stamp Program

Studies. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/FSP/Participation.htm

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register (2008,

January 23). 2008 Federal poverty guidelines. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from

The 2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines Web site:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08poverty.shtml


56/56

some eligible people actually are too proud to beg

Documents