This report – the latest in an annual series – presents estimates of the percentage of eligible persons, by state, who participated in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) during an average month in fiscal year 2006 and in each of the 2 previous fiscal years. This report also presents estimates of state participation rates for eligible “working poor” individuals (persons in households with earnings) over the same period.

The report describes the project goals and strategies, provides a general description of each grantee, and gives a synopsis of project performance. 

The Food Stamp Program helps low-income individuals purchase food so that they can obtain a nutritious diet. One important measure of Program performance is the ability to reach its target population, as indicated by the fraction of people eligible for benefits who actually participate. This report is the latest in a series on food stamp participation rates. Estimates are based on the March 2007 Current Population Survey and FSP administrative data for Fiscal Year 2006. The findings represent national participation rates for FY 2006.

School food service programs such as we have in 1971 did not just happen over-night nor even during the past decade. Preceding today's programs is a long history of more than a hundred years of development, of testing and evaluating, and of constant research to provide the best in nutrition, nutrition education, and food service for the nation's millions of children in school. 

This pamphlet provides estimates for Food Stamp Program participation rates by states. It will be the first widely-released document showing the percentage of eligible people, by state, who actually participate in the program. Because the data are from January 1994, prior to the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, they provide baseline data on participation rates prior to the enactment of welfare reform.

The National School Lunch Program operates in over 94,000 schools and institutions. More than 26 million children receive meals through the program on any given day; about half of these meals are provided free of charge. The School Breakfast Program operates in approximately two-thirds of the schools and institutions that offer the NSLP, most commonly in schools that serve large numbers of economically disadvantaged children. 

The report presents the results of a survey conducted with every state during November and December 1997 to gather detailed information on state options taken in six main areas, with particular focus on time limits and work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) and on food stamp sanctions.

From October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1996, the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsored demonstration projects in Georgia, Hawaii, Missouri, South Dakota, and Texas to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of operating the Food Stamp Employment and Training (E&T) program under the same legislative and regulatory terms as the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients. Common objectives of the demonstrations were to increase compliance with E&T participation requirements among mandatory work registrants, target services to individuals most at risk of long-term dependency and those most likely to benefit from E&T services, improve participant outcomes, and improve the cost efficiency of welfare to work services.

A fundamental issue in the design of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the form benefits should take. Advocates of the current coupon system argue that coupons are a direct and inexpensive way to ensure that food stamp benefits are used to purchase food; that, despite some evidence of fraud and benefit diversion under the current system, the unauthorized use of food stamps is relatively limited; and that coupons provide some measure of protection to food budgets from other demands on limited household resources. Advocates of replacing coupons with cash argue that the current system limits the food purchasing choices of participants, places a stigma on participation; and entails excessive costs for coupon issuance, transaction, and redemption.