Content server | Course Paper

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 9:498–511, 2014

ISSN: 1932-0248 print/1932-0256 online

DOI: 10.1080/19320248.2014.962768

Individual and Neighborhood Predictors of

Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (SNAP) in Los Angeles

County

M. PIA CHAPARRO,1∗GAIL G. HARRISON,1and ANNE R. PEBLEY1,2,3

1Department of Community Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health,

University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA

2California Center for Population Research, University of California Los Angeles,

Los Angeles, California, USA

3Department of Sociology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles,

California, USA

Using data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey,

we investigated individual and neighborhood-level predictors of

participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP) among eligible households in Los Angeles County. Among

eligible groups, those with lower participation rates included older

people, married couples, Hispanics, and those living in higher

income neighborhoods. Reporting poor physical and/or mental

health was associated with higher odds of SNAP participation.

Future studies should focus on disentangling the relationship

between poor health and SNAP participation, as well as on studying

the pathway by which neighborhood resources may impact SNAP

participation.

KEYWORDS SNAP, Los Angeles County, neighborhoods

∗M. Pia Chaparro is currently affiliated with the Centre for Health Equity Studies (CHESS),

Stockholm University and Karolinska Institutet.

Address correspondence to M. Pia Chaparro, MS, PhD, Centre for Health Equity

Studies (CHESS), Stockholm Universitet & Karolinska Institutet, Sveavägen 160, ﬂoor 5, 10691

Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: pia.chaparro@chess.su.se

498

Participation in SNAP 499

INTRODUCTION

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal pro-

gram designed to alleviate hunger by providing financial assistance for food

purchases to low-income households in the United States.1In 2011, SNAP,

formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, served approximately 45 mil-

lion people per month or 14% of Americans.1Even though SNAP is an

entitlement program, participation is voluntary; eligible households have

been shown to apply if the perceived benefits are greater than the per-

ceived participation costs.2,3There are 2 main costs associated with applying

to SNAP: stigma and transaction costs; that is, the costs incurred for child care

and transportation and the amount of time needed to get to the SNAP office,

the time spent there, as well as the time spent working on the application.2

In 2009, SNAP reached 72% of those eligible to participate, which was

an all-time high; in 2001–2002, before the recession, only 54% of those

eligible to participate in SNAP chose to do so.1SNAP participation varies

widely by state, with California having the lowest participation rates (53%

in 2009).1SNAP not only benefits those who participate in the program but

also boosts economic activity; it has been found that during economic down-

turns, every dollar invested on SNAP increases economic activity by $1.79.4

A high nonparticipation rate, therefore, may damage not only families that

benefit directly from the financial assistance but also local economies, which

benefit from families’ boost in purchasing power, as well as state economies

which, would benefit from sales tax collection produced by the increase in

consumption.5

Overall, households with children,6,7female-headed households,8those

with lower education,8those with an unemployed or disabled member,6,9

and those with residential instability10 are more likely to participate in SNAP,

whereas households that are food secure,6,7married couples,6,11 those with

higher incomes,7and those who work full-time12 are less likely to participate.

In addition, SNAP participation has been linked to poor mental and physical

health9,10 and worse psychosocial factors (ie, feeling overwhelmed, sad).9

A handful of studies have investigated the contextual determinants of

SNAP participation, including neighborhood-,13 county-,14 and state-level

factors.10 De Marco and De Marco13 analyzed individual- and neighborhood-

level factors associated with the number of social services utilized (a total of

7, including SNAP) in Boston, San Antonio, and Chicago. They found that,

in addition to age, employment status, education, and marital status, per-

ceived neighborhood disorder was positively associated with social service

utilization, whereas informal social control and perceived trust and cohe-

sion were not associated with service utilization. Slack and Myers14 looked

at aggregated county-level SNAP participation in 33 US states (excluding

the Northeast and Northwest) and found that county-level characteristics

(ie, poverty, unemployment, percentage of people with less than a high

500 M. P. Chaparro, G. G. Harrison, and A. R. Pebley

school degree, percentage of female-headed households, percentage Latino)

were positively associated with SNAP participation; however, individual-level

factors were not included in the analysis. Finally, Purtell et al.10 evaluated

SNAP participation in a multilevel model including individual- and state-level

factors like state-level SNAP coverage (proportion of low-income families

receiving benefits) and generosity (average size of benefits), finding that

only individual-level factors predicted SNAP participation.

Although understudied, neighborhood-level characteristics could inﬂu-

ence the decision to participate in SNAP. Households with family or friends

in their neighborhood may use these relationships in times of need15−18 and,

therefore, may be less likely to apply to SNAP. Previous research has shown

that greater social capital is associated with decreased risk for food inse-

curity.15,19 A common coping mechanism of food insecure families is to

borrow food or money from friends/family/neighbors or to rely on them

for child care, to carpool with neighbors to more affordable grocery stores,

and to obtain food from churches or food pantries.15,17,20,21 People with

increased access to these coping mechanisms through stronger neighbor-

hood ties could be in less need for SNAP, especially after considering the

costs associated with SNAP application. Closeness to one’s neighbors could

also translate into greater access to information related to SNAP (ie, how to

apply, eligibility requirements, etc) and, therefore, increased likelihood of

participation.

The objective of this study is to determine what individual and

neighborhood-level factors predict SNAP participation among eligible house-

holds in Los Angeles County (LAC). Studying the factors that predict SNAP

participation could provide valuable information for outreach programs

attempting to improve participation rates.

METHODOLOGY

Data Source

This study uses data from all adult respondents of the Los Angeles Family

and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS), wave 1. L.A.FANS is a longitudinal

study designed to investigate the effects of families and neighborhoods on

children’s development and well-being; the effects of welfare reform at the

neighborhood level; and the process of residential mobility and neighbor-

hood change.22,23 L.A.FANS is based on a stratified probability sample of

65 census tracts in LAC; the strata were very poor (top 10% of the poverty

distribution), poor (60th–89th percentiles), and not poor (bottom 60%) based

on the percentage of people living in poverty in each tract.22,23 Census tracts

were selected within each stratum with probability proportional to popu-

lation size, 20 from the very poor and the poor strata and 25 from the

not poor stratum. About 50 households were interviewed in each tract and

Participation in SNAP 501

households with children were oversampled.23,24 Within each household,

one adult (18+) was selected at random and, in households with children,

one child (<18) was also selected randomly.23 Data collection for wave

1 of L.A.FANS took place between April 2000 and January 2002, collect-

ing information on 3085 households.23 L.A.FANS interviews were conducted

with computer-assisted personal interview in both English and Spanish.23

This study uses data from the L.A.FANS adult and household modules.23

Data Management

SNAP participation is our dependent variable. Survey respondents were

asked whether their family participated in SNAP in the year prior to the

survey. In order to identify eligible non-SNAP participants, we used data

on income, assets, and vehicle ownership and immigration status. Based on

California rules for SNAP participation,25,26 SNAP-eligible households must

pass both the gross and net income determination tests.25 Gross income is

defined as all income from any source including all earned and all unearned

income; the maximum gross income allowed is 130% of the federal poverty

level (FPL).25 The household’s net income must be less than 100% of the FPL

and is calculated as follows25,27:

Gross income −20% Earned income deduction −Standard deduc-