[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
The federal Food Stamp Program (FSP) was designed to improve low-income families' purchasing power in order to prevent hunger and poor nutrition. Congress originally intended the program to "safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households."(31) Food stamp benefits "make up the difference between the household's expected contribution to its food costs and an amount judged to be sufficient to buy an adequate low-cost diet" (U.S. Congress 2000). Food stamp eligibility is determined based on income, expenses and family composition (i.e., how many adults and children live in the household and share food costs and consumption). If expenses are greater than income or the difference between income and expenses are insufficient to purchase an adequate low-cost diet, then food stamps make up the difference. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the FSP through its Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), and eligibility guidelines are the same across the country. States and some local governments, however, are responsible for eligibility determination and disbursement of food stamp benefits, and they may receive waivers to implement program modifications.
Congress made major modifications to the FSP as part of welfare reform in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).(32) For example, able-bodied recipients ages 18 to 50 with no dependents are now required to work to retain benefits. This was the first time Congress attached work requirements to the program.
More significantly for our study, PRWORA also restricted noncitizen eligibility for food stamp benefits. PRWORA made many more legal immigrants ineligible than had been the case before. (Illegal immigrants have never been eligible for federal food stamp benefits.) PRWORA cut benefits for legal immigrants except for refugees during their first five years in the country and other narrow categories of legal immigrants.(33) The law requires legal immigrants to either naturalize or prove that they, their spouse or their parents worked in the country for a combined total of at least 10 years. In 1998 subsequent legislation(34) restored food stamps eligibility for children and disabled adults who entered the country before August 22, 1996, as well as for immigrants who had their 65th birthday before that date. Eligibility was also extended from five to seven years after entry for refugees and asylees. But working-age legal immigrants entering before August 22, 1996 and legal immigrants of all ages entering after enactment remain ineligible, unless they can show 10 years of work history (Fix and Zimmermann 1998).
In the wake of welfare reform, several states introduced programs to replace federal food stamp benefits for noncitizens. California and New York, where our survey was conducted, are among the 18 states that provide state-funded food stamps or similar assistance to at least some legal immigrants who are no longer eligible for federal benefits. The California Food Assistance Program (CFAP), among the most generous of the state-funded programs, provides food assistance similar to food stamps for all "lawful permanent residents," whether they entered the country before or after PRWORA was enacted. For the post-enactment group, CFAP eligibility determination includes the income of the immigrant's sponsor (i.e., that income is "deemed" to be available to the immigrant) during the first three years the immigrant lives in the country, unless the sponsor is deceased, disabled or physically abusive toward the immigrant (California Department of Human Services 2001). New York's Food Assistance Program (FAP) covers a much more limited population: children, elders and the disabled who entered the country before enactment of PRWORA. Because the federal government restored FSP eligibility to children and disabled immigrants, FAP currently covers only pre-enactment elders ages 60 and up not eligible for the federal FSP. (The 1998 federal law restored FSP eligibility to immigrants already 65 years old and residing in the United States on August 22, 1996.) New York's FAP requires participants to apply for citizenship within 30 days after they become eligible to do so, and is optional for counties and local governments to join the program. New York City participates in FAP, and in summer 2001 represented about 1,200 out of the 1,300 total statewide caseload.(35) California's program extends eligibility to a much broader group of noncitizens than does New York's, and so a larger proportion of legal immigrants in Los Angeles should be eligible for public food assistance.
While the federal Food Stamp Program and state-funded food assistance programs are funded differently, they are often administered so that recipients are unaware of the source of funding. States usually "buy" federal food stamp coupons or electronic benefits, which they distribute to immigrants under the same program name and in the same fashion that they are provided to native-born citizens. Thus immigrants getting state-funded food stamps probably do not realize that they are not participating in the federal program.(36)
[Go To Contents]
In order to measure the need for food assistance, USDA recently developed a "food security scale" to measure the extent of hunger, and the U.S. Census Bureau incorporated it into their annual April Current Population Survey (CPS). LANYCIS uses the six-question short scale recommended by USDA and included in the CPS (Appendix 3). Based on this scale, we categorize families as "food secure," "food insecure", and "food insecure with moderate hunger"(37) and use these terms throughout this part of the report. USDA provides the following definitions of these terms:
A food secure household has assured access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life. A household is food insecure if, at some time during the previous year, it was uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, adequate food sufficient to meet basic needs at all times due to inadequate household resources for food. Hunger is a more severe manifestation of food insecurity. Households are food insecure with hunger to the extent that one or more household members were hungry due to inadequate resources at least some time during the year (United States Department of Agriculture 2001).
In this study we equate food insecurity with a need for food stamps and other forms of food assistance. Food insecurity also offers a barometer of the hardship experienced by immigrant families in the nation's two largest cities.
In this part of the report we focus on food security among four types of nuclear families: (1) adults ages 18 to 64 ("working-age adults") and children, (2) elders age 65 and over with children (and possibly grandchildren), (3) working-age adults without children, and (4) elders without children. Many immigrants live in extended families or multiple-family households, often with brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins together in a single group. In the survey these extended and multiple family groups are divided into nuclear families. As a rule, only one nuclear family is sampled in each household. Only those nuclear families where at least one adult is a foreign-born, naturalized citizen or a noncitizen immigrant are included in our analyses in this report. We exclude families where all adults are temporary nonimmigrants (for example, students and tourists).
The sample is weighted to CPS population totals in order to make LANYCIS representative of all immigrant families in both cities.(38) LANYCIS does not, however, include families with only native-born adults. In order to make comparisons in benefits use and food security between immigrant and native families, we use the March 1999 and April 1999 CPS. Our weighting scheme makes LANYCIS comparable to CPS in terms of family composition and poverty level.(39)
LANYCIS asked respondents about the citizenship, documentation, entry status and current legal status of family members. A combination of answers to these questions and imputations allowed us to classify individuals and families into the four following statuses:
Our classification of families is based on a hierarchy of these four categories (Appendix 2).(40)
LANCYIS also includes questions about country of birth, English language proficiency, and date of entry into the United States. The survey captured immigrants born in 75 countries in Los Angeles and 109 countries in New York. It was conducted in five different languages.(41) English proficiency is determined by a series of questions similar to those in the decennial U.S. Census of Population and Housing.(42) Family language proficiency is based on the English ability of the most proficient adult in the family. The date of entry is the date when the adult who entered the United States "most recently came to stay." "Tenure in the United States" is the amount of time between this date and the date of the survey, in years.
[Go To Contents]
The population represented by LANYCIS includes about 1.9 million families in Los Angeles County (with 4.8 million people). Thirty percent of these families are poor, and 61 percent have low incomes (below 200 percent of the federal poverty level). In New York City, the survey represents 1.5 million immigrant families (3.5 million people), of which 30 percent are poor and 54 percent have low incomes. In Los Angeles a larger share of immigrant families are undocumented (26 percent) than in New York (15 percent). New York has slightly higher shares of legal immigrant and naturalized immigrant families. Refugee families compose 5 and 7 percent of immigrant families in Los Angeles and New York, respectively.(43)
Poverty rates are highest for undocumented families in Los Angeles (46 percent) and refugees in New York (49 percent). In both cities, less than a third of either undocumented or refugee families have incomes twice the federal poverty level or higher. Legal immigrant families are better off in both cities, yet less than half have incomes twice the poverty level. Naturalized families have the highest incomes: only 20 percent in Los Angeles and 24 percent in New York have incomes below the poverty level (Table 2.1).
Citizenship and Legal Status |
Population (thousands) | Share of all families | Percent of Federal Poverty Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 and Below | 100 and Below | Above 200 | |||
Los Angeles County |
|||||
All Immigrant Families |
1,846 | 100% | 61% | 30% | 39% |
| Naturalized | 648 | 35% | 39% | 20% | 61% |
Legal Immigrant |
630 | 34% | 65% | 28% | 35% |
Legal Immigrant Only |
406 | 22% | 78% | 36% | 22% |
Legal Immigrant and Refugee |
18 | 1% | x | x | x |
Undocumented and Naturalized |
206 | 11% | 36% | 11% | 64% |
Refugee |
85 | 5% | 73% | 36% | 27% |
Refugee Only |
66 | 4% | 76% | 37% | 24% |
Undocumented and Naturalized |
19 | 1% | x | x | x |
Undocumented |
483 | 26% | 84% | 46% | 16% |
Undocumented and Naturalized |
35 | 2% | x | x | x |
Undocumented and Legal Immigrant |
57 | 3% | 94% | 33% | 6% |
Undocumented and Refugee |
19 | 1% | x | x | x |
Undocumented Only |
372 | 20% | 86% | 50% | 14% |
New York City |
|||||
All Immigrant Families |
1,539 | 100% | 54% | 30% | 46% |
Naturalized |
597 | 39% | 41% | 24% | 59% |
Legal Immigrant |
605 | 39% | 56% | 30% | 44% |
Legal Immigrant Only |
433 | 28% | 65% | 36% | 35% |
Legal Immigrant and Refugee |
10 | 1% | x | x | x |
Undocumented and Naturalized |
161 | 10% | 30% | 15% | 70% |
Refugee |
110 | 7% | 68% | 49% | 32% |
Refugee Only |
96 | 6% | 69% | 50% | 31% |
Undocumented and Naturalized |
14 | 1% | x | x | x |
Undocumented |
227 | 15% | 72% | 37% | 28% |
Undocumented Only |
187 | 12% | 81% | 41% | 19% |
Undocumented and Legal Immigrant |
10 | 1% | x | x | x |
Undocumented and Refugee |
3 | 0% | x | x | x |
Undocumented and Naturalized |
27 | 2% | x | x | x |
Sample Size: 3363 |
|||||
| Notes: x denotes a sample size of under 50. Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
|||||
Poverty rates also vary by country of birth, English proficiency, and tenure in the United States. In Los Angeles the poverty rate is highest for Armenian adults (49 percent), followed by Mexicans and Central Americans. Mexico is the most common country of birth for adult immigrants (38 percent), followed by El Salvador (8 percent). In New York, Mexican immigrants are the poorest group (60 percent below the poverty level) but represent only 4 percent of the total. Seventeen percent of adult immigrants were born in the Dominican Republic, and no other country represents more than 6 percent of the total (Table 2.2).
Top Ten Countries of Birth |
Population (thousands) | Share of All Immigrants | Percent of Federal Poverty Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 and Below | 100 and Below | Above 200 | |||
Los Angeles County |
2,645 | 100% | 60% | 28% | 40% |
Mexico |
1,004 | 38% | 81% | 39% | 19% |
El Salvador |
220 | 8% | 73% | 32% | 27% |
Vietnam |
169 | 6% | 57% | 20% | 43% |
Guatemala |
145 | 5% | 75% | 28% | 25% |
Philippines |
132 | 5% | 33% | 3% | 67% |
China |
119 | 4% | 39% | 21% | 61% |
Korea |
75 | 3% | x | x | x |
Taiwan |
60 | 2% | x | x | x |
Iran |
51 | 2% | x | x | x |
Armenia |
40 | 2% | 69% | 49% | 31% |
Other countries |
630 | 24% | 36% | 18% | 64% |
| New York City | 2,058 | 100% | 50% | 28% | 50% |
Dominican Republic |
340 | 17% | 59% | 37% | 41% |
Russia |
129 | 6% | 48% | 29% | 52% |
Ecuador |
118 | 6% | 46% | 21% | 54% |
China |
113 | 6% | 46% | 32% | 54% |
Jamaica |
107 | 5% | 51% | 23% | 49% |
Mexico |
88 | 4% | 92% | 60% | 8% |
Ukraine |
80 | 4% | 69% | 53% | 31% |
Colombia |
69 | 3% | 54% | 17% | 46% |
Trinidad |
67 | 3% | x | x | x |
Guyana |
53 | 3% | x | x | x |
Other countries |
894 | 43% | 40% | 23% | 60% |
Sample Size: 5001 |
|||||
Note: x denotes a sample size of under 50. |
|||||
In Los Angeles County, 77 percent of immigrant adults are limited English proficient (LEP), as are 64 percent of immigrant adults in New York City, using a standard definition (not speaking English very well). Using a more conservative restrictive definition (not speaking English well or at all), 51 percent of immigrant adults in Los Angeles and 38 percent in New York are LEP. In both Los Angeles and New York, a third of LEP adults are poor, more than twice the rate for proficient adults. In Los Angeles, 48 percent of immigrant adults who cannot speak English at all are poor (Table 2.3).
English Proficiency* |
Population (thousands) | Share of All Immigrants | Percent of Federal Poverty Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 and Below | 100 and Below | Above 200 | |||
| Los Angeles County | 2,476 | 100% | 60% | 28% | 40% |
| English Proficient | 575 | 23% | 33% | 13% | 67% |
English at Home |
120 | 5% | 12% | 5% | 88% |
Very Well |
455 | 18% | 38% | 15% | 62% |
Limited English Proficient |
1,901 | 77% | 69% | 33% | 31% |
Well |
644 | 26% | 52% | 23% | 48% |
Not Well |
869 | 35% | 71% | 33% | 29% |
Not At All |
387 | 16% | 92% | 48% | 8% |
| New York City | 1,787 | 100% | 50% | 27% | 50% |
| English Proficient | 645 | 36% | 34% | 14% | 66% |
English at Home |
222 | 12% | 41% | 14% | 59% |
Very Well |
423 | 24% | 30% | 14% | 70% |
| Limited English Proficient | 1,142 | 64% | 59% | 34% | 41% |
Well |
466 | 26% | 41% | 25% | 59% |
Not Well |
512 | 29% | 70% | 39% | 30% |
Not At All |
164 | 9% | 75% | 40% | 25% |
Sample Size: 4309 |
|||||
*Respondents were first asked if they primarily speak a language other
than English at home. Those who primarily speak another language (the vast
majority of samples in both cities) were then asked whether they speak English
"very well", "well", "not well" or "not at all." We categorize people speaking
only English or English very well as proficient, and those speaking English
well, not well or not at all as limited English proficient (LEP).
|
|||||
Poverty rates are relatively high for those adults who entered the United States after welfare reform was enacted in August 1996 (39 percent in Los Angeles and 46 percent in New York). Poverty is also high among those entering during the five years prior to welfare reform (1992 through 1996), but lower for those arriving before 1992. Immigrants arriving before 1982 have the lowest poverty rates (Table 2.4).
Year of Arrival* |
Population (thousands) | Share of All Immigrants | Percent of Federal Poverty Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 and Below | 100 and Below | Above 200 | |||
Los Angeles County |
|||||
| All Adult Immigrants | 2,486 | 100% | 60% | 27% | 40% |
After August 1996 |
223 | 9% | 77% | 39% | 23% |
1992 to August 1996 |
352 | 14% | 70% | 44% | 30% |
1987 to 1991 |
506 | 20% | 72% | 32% | 28% |
1982 to 1986 |
356 | 14% | 54% | 22% | 46% |
Before 1982 |
1,049 | 42% | 48% | 19% | 52% |
New York City |
|||||
| All Adult Immigrants | 1,959 | 100% | 51% | 28% | 49% |
After August 1996 |
239 | 12% | 78% | 46% | 22% |
1992 to August 1996 |
409 | 21% | 67% | 39% | 33% |
1987 to 1991 |
395 | 20% | 56% | 25% | 44% |
1982 to 1986 |
249 | 13% | 43% | 26% | 57% |
Before 1982 |
667 | 34% | 33% | 17% | 67% |
Sample Size: 4743 |
|||||
| * Year of Arrival is the latest date the adult
last came to stay in the United States. Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
|||||
Consistent with a vast body of poverty research, family composition has a great impact on poverty, with highest rates among single-parent families with children, and lower rates among two-parent families and families with no children. One third of all immigrant families with children in Los Angeles are poor, and two-thirds have incomes under 200 percent of the poverty level. In New York, 31 percent of immigrant families with children are poor, and 55 percent have low incomes. But among single-parent families with children, the poverty rate is 46 percent in Los Angeles and 54 percent in New York. Four-fifths of all single-parent immigrant families with children have low incomes in both cities. By contrast less than 30 percent of two-parent families and families without children are poor in both cities (Table 2.5).
Family Composition* |
Population (thousands) | Share of all families | Percent of Federal Poverty Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 and Below | 100 and Below | Above 200 | |||
Los Angeles County |
|||||
All Immigrant Families |
1,846 | 100% | 61% | 30% | 39% |
| Families without Elders | 1,713 | 93% | 62% | 30% | 38% |
Working-age adult(s) without Children |
858 | 46% | 56% | 28% | 44% |
One Adult with Children |
139 | 8% | 81% | 46% | 19% |
Two or More Adults with Children |
716 | 39% | 64% | 30% | 36% |
| Families with Elders | 133 | 7% | 55% | 25% | 45% |
Elders without Adults |
58 | 3% | 60% | 29% | 40% |
Elders with Adults |
75 | 4% | 50% | 22% | 50% |
| All families with Children | 869 | 47% | 67% | 33% | 33% |
| New York City | |||||
All Immigrant Families |
1,539 | 100% | 54% | 30% | 46% |
| Families without Elders | 1,333 | 87% | 53% | 29% | 47% |
Working-age adult(s) without Children |
786 | 51% | 53% | 28% | 47% |
One Adult with Children |
119 | 8% | 80% | 54% | 20% |
Two or More Adults with Children |
428 | 28% | 46% | 23% | 54% |
| Families with Elders | 205 | 13% | 57% | 37% | 43% |
Elders without Adults |
121 | 8% | 66% | 47% | 34% |
Elders with Adults |
85 | 5% | 44% | 24% | 56% |
| All families with Children | 570 | 37% | 55% | 31% | 45% |
Sample Size: 3363 |
|||||
* Children are under age 18. Working-age adults are ages 18 to
64, and elders are over age 64. |
|||||
[Go To Contents]
LANYCIS suggests that about one-third of all immigrant families in Los Angeles and 31 percent in New York are food insecure. Just over 10 percent in both cities experience food insecurity with moderate hunger. Food insecurity and hunger rates are higher for noncitizens than naturalized citizens, but do not vary much among undocumented, legal immigrant or refugee families. Food insecurity rates for noncitizens in New York City and Los Angeles during 1998-99 are 10 to 15 percentage points higher and moderate hunger rates about three times higher in LANYCIS than in the April 1999 CPS. Discrepancies in these figures may be explained by differences in sample sizes and sampling strategies between the two surveys.(44)
The April 1999 CPS shows higher food insecurity but similar levels of hunger for noncitizens when compared to native families. In the CPS food insecurity is 9 percent higher for noncitizen families than for naturalized families and 13 percent higher than for native-born families in Los Angeles. Food insecurity is 4 percent higher for noncitizen families in New York. But moderate hunger rates are nearly the same regardless of citizenship in both cities (Table 2.6).
Citizenship and Legal Status** |
Population (thousands) | Food Security* | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food Secure | Food Insecure | ||||
| Total Insecure | Without Hunger | Moderate Hunger | |||
Los Angeles County |
|||||
LANYCIS Immigrant Families |
1,846 | 66% | 34% | 22% | 12% |
| Naturalized | 648 | 74% | 26% | 19% | 7% |
| Noncitizen | 1,199 | 61% | 39% | 24% | 14% |
Legal |
630 | 63% | 37% | 24% | 13% |
Refugee |
85 | 57% | 43% | 34% | 9% |
Undocumented |
483 | 59% | 41% | 24% | 18% |
CPS Native Families |
3,094 | 88% | 12% | 9% | 3% |
CPS Immigrant Families |
2,221 | 78% | 22% | 18% | 4% |
| Naturalized citizen | 737 | 84% | 16% | 12% | 3% |
| Noncitizen | 1,483 | 75% | 25% | 21% | 4% |
New York City |
|||||
LANYCIS Immigrant Families |
1,539 | 69% | 31% | 20% | 11% |
| Naturalized citizen | 597 | 77% | 23% | 16% | 7% |
| Noncitizen | 942 | 63% | 37% | 23% | 14% |
Legal |
605 | 62% | 38% | 21% | 17% |
Refugee |
110 | 69% | 31% | 22% | 9% |
Undocumented |
227 | 64% | 36% | 28% | 7% |
CPS Native Citizen Families |
2,539 | 89% | 11% | 7% | 3% |
CPS Immigrant Families |
1,865 | 86% | 14% | 11% | 2% |
| Naturalized citizen | 708 | 89% | 11% | 9% | 2% |
| Noncitizen | 1,157 | 85% | 15% | 12% | 3% |
LANYCIS Sample Size: 3363 |
|||||
CPS Sample Size: 1707 |
|||||
| * Food Security is based on a six item scale developed
by the United States Department of Agriculture
(Appendix 3). ** An undocumented family includes at least one undocumented adult. In a legal immigrant family there is at least one legal immigrant adult but no undocumented adults. Refugee families are those with at least one refugee but no undocumented or legal immigrant adults. Finally, naturalized families include only naturalized adults. The legal status and citizenship of children are not considered in this classification. See Appendix 2 for details. NOTE: CPS figures in this table are for New York City and Los Angeles. |
|||||
LANYCIS shows that patterns of food insecurity do not vary by tenure in the United States in any meaningful way. Families with adults entering before 1982 are not substantially more or less likely to be food insecure than families with adults entering after 1996. Nor is there a discernible pattern associating period of entry with moderate hunger.
By contrast, English proficiency appears closely correlated with food security. In Los Angeles the rate of food insecurity is twice as high among LEP families (40 percent) as among proficient families (21 percent). In New York the rate is one and a half times as high for LEP (36 percent) as for proficient families (24 percent). About half of families where adults speak no English at all are food insecure in Los Angeles, and in New York that figure is 57 percent. Moreover, moderate hunger is also much higher where English proficiency is lower. Over one-fifth of families in the no English category experience moderate hunger in both cities, compared to only 6 percent of families where at least one adult speaks English very well (Table 2.7).
English Proficiency** |
Population (thousands) | Food Security* | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food Secure | Food Insecure | ||||
| Total Insecure | Without Hunger | Moderate Hunger | |||
Los Angeles County |
|||||
All Immigrant Families |
1,832 | 66% | 34% | 22% | 12% |
| English Proficient | 559 | 79% | 21% | 15% | 6% |
English at Home |
151 | 78% | 22% | 17% | 6% |
Very Well |
408 | 80% | 20% | 15% | 6% |
| Limited English Proficient | 1,273 | 60% | 40% | 25% | 15% |
Well |
507 | 69% | 31% | 21% | 9% |
Not Well |
570 | 55% | 45% | 27% | 18% |
Not At All |
197 | 51% | 49% | 28% | 21% |
New York City |
|||||
All Immigrant Families |
1,538 | 69% | 31% | 20% | 11% |
| English Proficient | 601 | 76% | 24% | 15% | 9% |
English at Home |
204 | 71% | 29% | 15% | 14% |
Very Well |
397 | 79% | 21% | 15% | 6% |
| Limited English Proficient | 937 | 64% | 36% | 23% | 13% |
Well |
393 | 78% | 22% | 16% | 7% |
Not Well |
418 | 57% | 43% | 27% | 16% |
Not At All |
126 | 43% | 57% | 34% | 23% |
Sample Size: 3282 |
|||||
| *Food Security is based on a six item scale developed
by the United States Department of Agriculture
(Appendix 3). ** Respondents were first asked if they primarily speak a language other than English at home. Those who primarily speak another language (the vast majority of samples in both cities) were then asked whether they speak English "very well", "well", "not well" or "not at all." We categorize people speaking only English or English very well as proficient, and those speaking English well, not well or not at all as limited English proficient (LEP). Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
|||||
Family composition also shows a strong association with food security. Thirty-eight percent of immigrant families with children experience food insecurity in both cities, and 12-13 percent experience moderate hunger. Half of all single-parent immigrant families with children in New York City and 45 percent in Los Angles are food insecure, compared to only about 35 percent of two-parent families. Food insecurity rates are lower for families with elders than for those without in both cities (Table 2.8).
Family Composition** |
Population (thousands) |
Share of all families | Food Security* | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food Secure | Food Insecure | |||||
| Total Insecure | Without Hunger | Moderate Hunger | ||||
Los Angeles County |
||||||
All Immigrant Families |
1,846 | 100% | 66% | 34% | 22% | 12% |
| Families without Elders | 1,713 | 93% | 64% | 36% | 23% | 13% |
Working-age adult(s) without Children |
858 | 46% | 67% | 33% | 20% | 13% |
One Adult with Children |
139 | 8% | 55% | 45% | 26% | 19% |
Two or More Adults with Children |
716 | 39% | 64% | 36% | 25% | 11% |
| Families with Elders | 133 | 7% | 80% | 20% | 16% | 4% |
Elders without Adults |
58 | 3% | 89% | 11% | 6% | 5% |
Elders with Adults |
75 | 4% | 73% | 27% | 24% | 3% |
All families with Children |
869 | 47% | 62% | 38% | 25% | 12% |
New York City |
||||||
All Immigrant Families |
1,539 | 100% | 69% | 31% | 20% | 11% |
Families without Elders |
1,333 | 87% | 68% | 32% | 20% | 12% |
Working-age adult(s) without Children |
786 | 51% | 72% | 28% | 17% | 10% |
One Adult with Children |
119 | 8% | 50% | 50% | 29% | 21% |
Two or More Adults with Children |
428 | 28% | 65% | 35% | 24% | 12% |
Families with Elders |
205 | 13% | 73% | 27% | 18% | 9% |
Elders without Adults |
121 | 8% | 70% | 30% | 22% | 9% |
Elders with Adults |
85 | 5% | 79% | 21% | 13% | 9% |
All families with Children |
570 | 37% | 62% | 38% | 25% | 13% |
Sample Size: 3363 |
||||||
| *Food Security is based on a six item scale developed
by the United States Department of Agriculture
(Appendix 3). ** Children are under age 18. Working-age adults are ages 18 to 64, and elders are over age 64. Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
||||||
Family composition and English proficiency explain variation in food security the most, when all these factors are considered together. The odds of food insecurity and moderate hunger are twice as high for LEP families as for proficient families, when controlling for citizenship, legal status, family composition and tenure in the United States. Food insecurity odds are twice as high for families with three children and three times as high for those with four or more children, when compared to families with no children. Odds are also higher for families with one or zero working-age adults when compared to those with two or more working-age adults. Families with more children and fewer working-age adults are also more likely to experience moderate hunger. The odds of food insecurity and moderate hunger do not vary significantly among families with different citizenship and legal status (Table 2.9).(45)
Variable |
Odds of Food Insecurity* | Odds of Moderate Hunger* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio | P-Value | Odds Ratio | P-Value | |
In New York (vs. Los Angeles) |
||||
Citizenship and Legal Status (vs. Naturalized)** |
||||
In Los Angeles |
||||
Naturalized (reference group) |
1.000 | 1.000 | ||
Legal |
1.262 | 0.268 | 1.379 | 0.252 |
Refugee |
1.335 | 0.435 | 0.665 | 0.312 |
Undocumented |
1.029 | 0.884 | 1.335 | 0.286 |
In New York City |
||||
Naturalized |
0.682 | 0.144 | 0.849 | 0.654 |
Legal |
1.330 | 0.828 | 2.141 | 0.207 |
Refugee |
1.012 | 0.077 | 1.168 | 0.398 |
Undocumented |
1.261 | 0.174 | 0.731 | 0.189 |
Limited English Proficient (LEP)*** |
1.968 | 0.000 | 2.119 | 0.004 |
Tenure (at least 10 years in U.S.) |
1.058 | 0.696 | 1.366 | 0.113 |
Family Composition |
||||
One or Zero Adults Ages 18 to 64 (vs. 2 or more) |
1.375 | 0.039 | 1.934 | 0.002 |
Number of Children under 18 (vs. no children) |
||||
One Child |
1.187 | 0.396 | 0.925 | 0.802 |
Two Children |
1.390 | 0.083 | 0.804 | 0.423 |
Three Children |
1.937 | 0.004 | 2.223 | 0.008 |
Four or More Children |
3.270 | 0.000 | 2.477 | 0.010 |
Number of Elders Ages 65 and over (vs. no elders) |
||||
One Elder |
0.872 | 0.556 | 0.625 | 0.071 |
Two Elders |
0.679 | 0.253 | 1.009 | 0.987 |
N |
3363 | 3363 | ||
| Log likelihood | -2029 | -1131 | ||
| Wald Chi-Square (16 df) | 61.78 | 89.42 | ||
| *Food Security is based on a six item scale developed
by the United States Department of Agriculture
(Appendix 3). ** An undocumented family includes at least one undocumented adult. In a legal immigrant family there is at least one legal immigrant adult but no undocumented adults. Refugee families are those with at least one refugee but no undocumented or legal immigrant adults. Finally, naturalized families include only naturalized adults. The legal status and citizenship of children are not considered in this classification. *** Respondents were first asked if they primarily speak a language other than English at home. Those who primarily speak another language (the vast majority of samples in both cities) were then asked whether they speak English "very well", "well", "not well" or "not at all." We categorize people speaking only English or English very well as proficient, and those speaking English well, not well or not at all as limited English proficient (LEP). Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
||||
[Go To Contents]
Food security has become a greater concern nationally due to declines in food stamp caseloads since welfare reform. According to a recent study by USDA, participation in the federal FSP dropped from 72 to 55 percent among poor individuals nationally from 1995 to 1999. The study, based on FSP quality control data, concludes that 35 percent of the drop in participation was due to rising income and assets, which could be attributable to economic growth. Over half (56 percent) of the decline was due to lower participation among eligible families (USDA 2001: 15-17). The potential exists for these trends to increase food insecurity among low-income families.
In addition, 8 percent of the decline nationally was due to welfare reform changes, most notably in immigrant eligibility. The number of non-citizens receiving food stamps fell from nearly 1.9 million in 1994 to less than 750,000 in 1999, a drop of 60 percent and nearly double the drop for all participants. The drop among noncitizens accounted for 20 percent of the decrease in number of eligible people nationally (USDA 2001: 1-2, 16-17, 30).
While the reduction in noncitizen FSP participation is generally consistent with the goals of welfare reform, the drop in citizen children participation appears to be an unintended consequence of eligibility changes. For example, among eligible U.S. citizen children with noncitizen parents, participation dropped from 35 to 17 percent from 1994 to 1999 (USDA 2001: 34). USDA concludes:
Citizen children living with non-citizen adults did not lose eligibility under welfare reform, though many of the adults did. While about 80 percent of these eligible children participated in the program in 1994, only 46 percent participated in 1999. Although confusion about eligibility may not be the only factor affecting this group, it is likely to have played a role. The fall in participation among these eligible children explains up to 9 percent of the post-1994 decline in the total number of food stamp participants (USDA 2001: 37).
These declines in food stamp participation among immigrant families may have social consequences in terms of increased food insecurity. Using 1995-1999 Current Population Survey (CPS) data from both the March and April samples, Borjas (2001) establishes a link between food stamp receipt and food insecurity among immigrant families. He compares families living in states that extended food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants to families in states that did not, and reaches the following two main conclusions:
First, the immigrants most likely to be adversely affected by the welfare reform legislation — the non-refugee, non-citizen population living in states that did not extend post-PRWORA assistance to immigrants — did, in fact, experience a significant relative decline in the likelihood of welfare receipt. At the same time, this population also experienced a significant relative increase in food insecurity. By combining data from the two samples, the evidence suggests that eligibility restrictions that cut back the fraction of welfare recipients by 10 percentage points likely increase the fraction of households experiencing food insecurity by 5 percentage points (Borjas 2001: 37).
The findings from the Borjas study are supported by LANYCIS data showing low levels of food stamp participation among both low-income and food insecure immigrant families.
[Go To Contents]
Our analysis begins with a comparison of citizen and noncitizen receipt of food stamps, using the March 1999 CPS. When only New York and Los Angles are considered, the CPS does not show substantially lower food stamp participation among low-income families with noncitizen adults than among families with only naturalized or native-born citizen adults (Table 2.10). The likely explanation for this finding is the relative generosity of the states of California and New York in extending food assistance to many legal immigrants denied eligibility for the federal FSP by PRWORA. In fact, both states fall into the "generous" category developed by Zimmermann and Tumlin (1999) and used by Borjas (2001) in his analysis of the link between food stamp receipt and food insecurity.
Citizenship and Legal Status |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
Native Families |
1,086 | 87 | 8% |
Immigrant Families |
1,363 | 138 | 10% |
Naturalized |
322 | 21 | 6% |
Noncitizen |
1,042 | 118 | 11% |
New York City |
|||
Native Families |
1,232 | 360 | 29% |
Immigrant Families |
1,019 | 249 | 24% |
Naturalized |
344 | 85 | 25% |
Noncitizen |
675 | 164 | 24% |
Sample Size: 1438 |
|||
| Notes: Low-income families are those with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level during the year before the survey. The Current Population Survey defines families slightly differently than LANYCIS. To create this table, we used a definition of the nuclear family which is comparable to but not exactly the same as the definition of the family in LANYCIS. | |||
The March 1999 CPS also shows that food stamp participation is higher among low-income families in New York than in Los Angeles, but the difference in rates is higher among citizen than noncitizen families. FSP participation during the year before the survey (1998-99) is twice as high among low-income noncitizen families in New York than in Los Angeles (24 versus 11 percent) and four times as high among naturalized families (25 versus 6 percent). The CPS shows participation of 29 percent among low-income native families in New York, almost four times the rate for native families in Los Angeles (8 percent) (Table 2.10).
These CPS figures, however, include families with both elderly and non-elderly members, and those receiving a number of other benefit programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). SSI is a federally-funded and administered cash benefit program for disabled and elderly adults. In the State of California, SSI recipients get food stamps along with SSI benefits as part of the same disbursement (in other words, food stamps are "cashed out" in the SSI program). As a result, many SSI recipients may not be aware they are receiving benefits from food stamps as well. This has the effect of lowering reported FSP participation in Los Angeles, thereby creating a bias in the estimate.
In LANYCIS, only 5 percent of low-income immigrant families with elderly members report receiving food stamps during the previous year(46) in Los Angeles, compared to 68 percent of low-income immigrant families with elders in New York. By comparison, reported food stamp receipt rates for families with no elders are 14 percent in Los Angeles and 20 percent in New York, a much smaller difference (Table 2.11). Twenty-nine percent of low-income immigrant families receiving SSI report food stamps receipt in Los Angeles, compared to 82 percent in New York. Differences in food stamps receipt are much smaller among families receiving TANF or no other benefits (Table 2.12). In order to account for these differences in reporting receipt of food stamps, families with elders are excluded from most of the figures discussed in the remainder of this report.
Family Composition* |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
Families without Elders |
1,039 | 142 | 14% |
Working-age adult(s) without Children |
476 | 18 | 4% |
One Adult with Children |
111 | 44 | 40% |
Two or More Adults with Children |
452 | 80 | 18% |
Families with Elders |
72 | 4 | 5% |
Elders without Adults |
34 | 0 | 1% |
Elders with Adults |
38 | 4 | 9% |
New York City |
|||
Families without Elders |
695 | 137 | 20% |
Working-age adult(s) without Children |
409 | 33 | 8% |
One Adult with Children |
93 | 52 | 55% |
Two or More Adults with Children |
193 | 52 | 27% |
Families with Elders |
109 | 74 | 68% |
Elders without Adults |
71 | 50 | 70% |
Elders with Adults |
37 | 24 | 64% |
Sample Size: 2361 |
|||
* Children are under age 18. Working-age adults are ages 18 to
64, and elders are over age 64. |
|||
Current Program Receipt |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) |
94 | 78 | 83% |
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) |
42 | 12 | 29% |
General Assistance (GA) |
28 | 22 | 79% |
No Programs |
986 | 53 | 5% |
New York City |
|||
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) |
32 | 32 | 99% |
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) |
105 | 85 | 82% |
General Assistance (GA) |
x | x | x |
No Programs |
667 | 95 | 14% |
Sample Size: 2361 |
|||
| Notes: Low-income families are those with incomes
below 200 percent of the poverty level during the year before the survey.
"x "denotes a small sample size. Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
|||
Low-income non-elderly families with undocumented adults have the lowest participation rates (13 percent in Los Angeles and 15 percent in New York). Among low-income families where all adults are undocumented, only 2 percent in Los Angeles and less than one percent in New York report receiving benefits within the year prior to the survey. Participation rates are relatively high, however (23 percent in Los Angeles and 51 percent in New York) for mixed-status families in which only one adult is undocumented (Table 2.13). In Los Angeles 40 percent of low-income families not receiving food stamps at any time since 1996 include undocumented adults. The comparable figure is 26 percent in New York.
Citizenship and Legal Status* |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
Immigrant Families |
1,039 | 142 | 14% |
Naturalized |
205 | 29 | 14% |
Noncitizen |
834 | 113 | 14% |
Legal |
380 | 53 | 14% |
Refugee |
56 | 9 | 17% |
Undocumented |
398 | 51 | 13% |
Mixed status |
203 | 47 | 23% |
All undocumented |
195 | 4 | 2% |
New York City |
|||
Immigrant Families |
695 | 137 | 20% |
Naturalized |
172 | 45 | 26% |
Noncitizen |
523 | 92 | 18% |
Legal |
321 | 57 | 18% |
Refugee |
43 | 12 | 27% |
Undocumented |
159 | 23 | 15% |
Mixed status |
46 | 23 | 51% |
All undocumented |
114 | 0 | 0% |
Sample Size: 2000 |
|||
| * An undocumented family includes at least one
undocumented adult. In a legal immigrant family there is at least one legal
immigrant adult but no undocumented adults. Refugee families are those with
at least one refugee but no undocumented or legal immigrant adults. Finally,
naturalized families include only naturalized adults. The legal status and
citizenship of children are not considered in this classification.
Notes: Low-income families are those with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level during the year before the survey. Non-elderly families are those with no members ages 65 or over. "x "denotes a small sample size. Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
|||
FSP participation is also relatively high for low-income refugee families, though more so in New York (27 percent) than in Los Angeles (17 percent). Naturalized families have a higher participation rate than noncitizens overall in New York, but the same rate in Los Angeles (Table 2.13).
In both cities, rates of food stamp receipt increase as English proficiency falls, but there are few differences in receipt by tenure in the United States. Low-income families with adults entering after August 1996 in Los Angeles and after 1992 in New York are slightly less likely to receive food stamps, but otherwise there is little variation by tenure (Table 2.14). Low-income LEP families, however, are much more likely to receive food stamps than proficient families (15 versus 6 percent in Los Angeles, and 22 versus 12 percent in New York (Table 2.15). These findings suggest that food stamps are being provided to needier families — those with LEP adults — in keeping with their higher food insecurity rates.
Year of Arrival* |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
1,039 | 142 | 14% |
After August 1996 |
138 | 8 | 5% |
1992 to August 1996 |
193 | 23 | 12% |
1987 to 1991 |
262 | 35 | 13% |
1982 to 1986 |
133 | 25 | 19% |
Before 1982 |
284 | 47 | 17% |
New York City |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
695 | 137 | 20% |
After August 1996 |
151 | 26 | 17% |
1992 to August 1996 |
187 | 28 | 15% |
1987 to 1991 |
153 | 32 | 21% |
1982 to 1986 |
79 | 22 | 28% |
Before 1982 |
121 | 28 | 23% |
Sample Size: 2000 |
|||
| * Year of Arrival is the latest date any adult
immigrant in the family last came to stay in the United States.
Notes: Low-income families are those with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level during the year before the survey. Non-elderly families are those with no members ages 65 or over. "x "denotes a small sample size. Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
|||
English Proficiency* |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
1,039 | 142 | 14% |
English Proficient |
180 | 10 | 6% |
English Only |
x | x | x |
Very Well |
154 | 10 | 6% |
Limited English Proficient |
850 | 131 | 15% |
Well |
265 | 38 | 14% |
Not Well |
412 | 67 | 16% |
Not At All |
173 | 26 | 15% |
New York City |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
695 | 137 | 20% |
English Proficient |
179 | 22 | 12% |
English Only |
68 | 17 | 25% |
Very Well |
111 | 5 | 5% |
Limited English Proficient |
515 | 114 | 22% |
Well |
167 | 30 | 18% |
Not Well |
276 | 55 | 20% |
Not At All |
72 | 30 | 41% |
Sample Size: 2000 |
|||
* Respondents were first asked if they primarily speak a language
other than English at home. Those who primarily speak another language (the
vast majority of samples in both cities) were then asked whether they speak
English "very well", "well", "not well" or "not at all." We categorize people
speaking only English or English very well as proficient, and those speaking
English well, not well or not at all as limited English proficient
(LEP). |
|||
[Go To Contents]
The most important measure of FSP coverage is food stamp receipt among food insecure immigrant families. Although the 1999 CPS showed comparable FSP participation among low-income citizen and noncitizen families in New York and Los Angeles, the vast majority of food insecure immigrant families in LANCYSIS did not receive food stamps. Only 18 percent of food insecure non-elderly families in Los Angeles and 22 percent in New York received benefits during the year before the survey. Coverage was only a few percentage points higher for families experiencing moderate hunger (Table 2.16).
Food Security* |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
1,678 | 148 | 9% |
Food Secure |
1,090 | 45 | 4% |
Total Food Insecure |
589 | 104 | 18% |
Without Hunger |
388 | 57 | 15% |
Moderate Hunger |
201 | 47 | 23% |
New York City |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
1,303 | 158 | 12% |
Food Secure |
898 | 68 | 8% |
Total Food Insecure |
405 | 90 | 22% |
Without Hunger |
259 | 54 | 21% |
Moderate Hunger |
146 | 36 | 25% |
Sample Size: 2782 |
|||
* Food Security is based on a six-item scale developed by the United
States Department of Agriculture (Appendix
3). |
|||
Status seems to matter more for food stamps receipt among food insecure families in New York than in Los Angeles. In New York, naturalized families receive food stamps at a higher rate (28 percent) than legal or undocumented families (22 and 12 percent, respectively). But in Los Angeles, food insecure naturalized families receive benefits at a slightly lower rate (14 percent) than both legal and undocumented families (19 percent) (Table 2.17).(47)
Citizenship and Legal Status* |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
589 | 104 | 18% |
Undocumented |
184 | 35 | 19% |
Legal |
215 | 41 | 19% |
Refugee |
x | x | x |
Naturalized |
156 | 22 | 14% |
New York City |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
405 | 90 | 22% |
Undocumented |
78 | 9 | 12% |
Legal |
207 | 46 | 22% |
Refugee |
x | x | x |
Naturalized |
100 | 28 | 28% |
| Sample Size: 1157 | |||
* An undocumented family includes at least one undocumented adult.
In a legal immigrant family there is at least one legal immigrant adult but
no undocumented adults. Refugee families are those with at least one refugee
but no undocumented or legal immigrant adults. Finally, naturalized families
include only naturalized adults. The legal status and citizenship of children
are not considered in this classification. |
|||
There is little pattern of variation in food stamp receipt by tenure in the United States, but LEP families are considerably more likely to receive benefits than proficient families in both cities. The difference in food stamps receipt between LEP and English proficient families is more striking in Los Angeles than in New York (Table 2.18).
English Proficiency* |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
589 | 104 | 18% |
English Proficient |
112 | 7 | 6% |
English Only |
x | x | x |
Very Well |
80 | 7 | 8% |
Limited English Proficient |
467 | 96 | 21% |
Well |
146 | 29 | 20% |
Not Well |
233 | 48 | 21% |
Not At All |
88 | 19 | 22% |
New York City |
|||
All Immigrant Families |
405 | 90 | 22% |
English Proficient |
130 | 23 | 17% |
English Only |
x | x | x |
Very Well |
76 | 6 | 7% |
Limited English Proficient |
275 | 67 | 24% |
Well |
71 | 10 | 14% |
Not Well |
151 | 36 | 24% |
Not At All |
x | x | x |
Sample Size: 1157 |
|||
| * Respondents were first asked if they primarily speak
a language other than English at home. Those who primarily speak another
language (the vast majority of samples in both cities) were then asked whether
they speak English "very well", "well", "not well" or "not at all." We categorize
people speaking only English or English very well as proficient, and those
speaking English well, not well or not at all as limited English proficient
(LEP). Notes: Food insecure families are those experiencing food insecurity with or without moderate during the year before the survey (Appendix 3). Non-elderly families are those with no members ages 65 or over. "x "denotes a small sample size. Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
|||
There is a 4 percentage-point difference in food stamps receipt among families without elders (22 versus 18 percent) between New York and Los Angeles. Food insecure families with children but no elders, whether single- or two-parent, are almost as likely to receive benefits in Los Angeles as in New York (Table 2.19).
Family Composition* |
Population (thousands) | Food Stamp receipt during the previous year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipients (thousands) | Share of population | ||
Los Angeles County |
|||
Families without Elders |
589 | 104 | 18% |
Adult(s) without Children |
272 | 13 | 5% |
One Adult with Children |
63 | 34 | 54% |
Two or More Adults with Children |
254 | 57 | 23% |
New York City |
|||
Families without Elders |
405 | 90 | 22% |
Adult(s) without Children |
202 | 24 | 12% |
One Adult with Children |
57 | 30 | 53% |
Two or More Adults with Children |
146 | 36 | 25% |
Sample Size: 1288 |
|||
* Children are under age 18. Working-age adults are ages 18 to
64, and elders are over age 64. |
|||
English proficiency and family composition are the most important predictors of food stamp receipt, food insecurity and hunger, indicating that food stamps are reaching those families most in need. The odds of food stamp receipt are three times as high for LEP families as for proficient families when controlling for poverty, and almost five times as high when controlling for food insecurity or hunger. Odds are several times higher for each additional child or elder in the family and more than twice as high for families with one or zero working-age adults as for families with two or more working-age adults (Table 2.20).
Variable |
Controlling for Poverty Level* | Controlling for Food Insecurity** | Controlling for Moderate Hunger** | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio | P-Value | Odds Ratio | P-Value | Odds Ratio | P-Value | |
In New York (vs. Los Angeles) |
||||||
Citizenship and Legal Status (vs. Naturalized)*** |
||||||
In Los Angeles |
||||||
Naturalized (reference group) |
1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
Legal |
1.151 | 0.614 | 1.182 | 0.529 | 1.267 | 0.369 |
Refugee |
1.880 | 0.139 | 1.881 | 0.133 | 2.030 | 0.069 |
Undocumented |
0.793 | 0.382 | 0.934 | 0.788 | 0.939 | 0.808 |
In New York City |
||||||
Naturalized |
4.757 | 0.000 | 4.978 | 0.000 | 4.646 | 0.000 |
Legal |
2.336 | 0.205 | 2.510 | 0.089 | 2.462 | 0.097 |
Refugee |
18.104 | 0.160 | 22.393 | 0.079 | 21.104 | 0.212 |
Undocumented |
2.138 | 0.046 | 2.238 | 0.032 | 2.658 | 0.023 |
Limited English Proficient (LEP) **** |
3.083 | 0.000 | 4.647 | 0.000 | 4.986 | 0.000 |
Tenure (at least 10 years in U.S.) |
1.151 | 0.422 | 1.128 | 0.478 | 1.082 | 0.634 |
Family Composition |
||||||
One or Zero Adults Ages 18 to 64 (vs. 2 or more) |
2.414 | 0.000 | 2.544 | 0.000 | 2.587 | 0.000 |
Number of Children under 18 (vs. no children) |
||||||
One Child |
3.723 | 0.000 | 3.926 | 0.000 | 3.882 | 0.000 |
Two Children |
7.995 | 0.000 | 8.395 | 0.000 | 8.934 | 0.000 |
Three Children |
16.438 | 0.000 | 19.849 | 0.000 | 20.350 | 0.000 |
Four or More Children |
18.470 | 0.000 | 22.187 | 0.000 | 24.533 | 0.000 |
Number of Elders Ages 65 and over (vs. no elders) |
||||||
One Elder |
6.835 | 0.000 | 7.942 | 0.000 | 7.725 | 0.000 |
Two Elders |
6.743 | 0.000 | 9.338 | 0.000 | 8.586 | 0.000 |
N |
3363 | 3363 | 3363 | |||
Log likelihood |
-841.8 | -870.7 | -887.6 | |||
Wald Chi-Square |
396.5 | 356.5 | 318.7 | |||
Degrees of freedom |
24 | 17 | 17 | |||
| * Poverty level is controlled with a series of dummy
variables for 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, and 2 times the federal
poverty level ** Food Security is based on a six item scale developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (Appendix 3). *** An undocumented family includes at least one undocumented adult. In a legal immigrant family there is at least one legal immigrant adult but no undocumented adults. Refugee families are those with at least one refugee but no undocumented or legal immigrant adults. Finally, naturalized families include only naturalized adults. The legal status and citizenship of children are not considered in this classification. **** Respondents were first asked if they primarily speak a language other than English at home. Those who primarily speak another language (the vast majority of samples in both cities) were then asked whether they speak English "very well", "well", "not well" or "not at all." We categorize people speaking only English or English very well as proficient, and those speaking English well, not well or not at all as limited English proficient (LEP). Source: Urban Institute, LANYCIS |
||||||
In New York City, refugee and naturalized families are more likely to receive food stamps than are other immigrant groups. In Los Angeles, refugees are most likely to receive food stamps, although the odds are only significantly higher in the moderate hunger model. All families are at least twice as likely to receive food stamps in New York than in Los Angeles, but the odds are much higher for naturalized families (almost five times) and for refugees (about 20 times).(48) Part of the explanation here is the inclusion of food stamp benefits along with SSI checks in Los Angeles, because many elderly refugees and naturalized citizens in New York receive both SSI and food stamps. Yet these models control for the presence of elders in the family, and so part of the explanation is also likely lower FSP participation in Los Angeles than in New York.
[Go To Contents]
Respondents cite changes in income and family composition as the most common reasons for losing food stamps since welfare reform was implemented. Among the group losing benefits between 1996 and the year before the survey, 34 percent of respondents in Los Angeles and 63 percent in New York said the primary reason was a change in employment or income. Changes in family composition were the reason for 17 percent of respondents in Los Angeles and 2 percent in New York. Another 6 percent in New York and 12 percent in Los Angeles said they chose to stop receiving benefits. Policy changes, program cuts, bureaucratic problems, and errors were cited only 7 percent of the time in both cities. Twelve percent of respondents in Los Angeles and 3 percent in New York did not know why benefits were cut.(49) Patterns among the group losing benefits or having them reduced during the year before the survey are similar. Thus, improvement in economic circumstances — as measured by jobs and income — is a much greater factor in benefits loss than are program eligibility cuts or bureaucratic problems, at least in the overall LANYCIS sample.
These findings seem at odds with the conclusions of the USDA study cited earlier in this report (USDA 2001), and that study has a very different methodology. The USDA study relies on decomposition analysis of trends in food stamp participation using national data. The study shows that when two points in time are considered, most of the difference in food stamp participation among immigrant families is not due to changes in income or family composition, but to other factors. A majority of the drop in immigrant FSP participation is attributable, at least in theory, to immigrant eligibility rules in PRWORA and other factors which may have chilled immigrant participation. Yet, these data provide no direct evidence as to why certain families stopped receiving food stamps.(50) The direct evidence in LANYCIS suggests that income, job and family composition changes account for most terminations, to the extent that survey respondents understood why their families lost benefits. An alternative explanation is that welfare reform policy changes and other factors had less of an impact on noncitizen food stamp participation in New York City and Los Angeles than in the rest of the country. In particular, immigrant families in Los Angeles may have benefited from California's seamless replacement of lost federal food stamp benefits.
Notwithstanding the evidence from the larger sample, in-person follow-up interviews with 100 respondents in each city reveal a variety of cases in which benefits were cut due to miscommunication and other problems between recipients and the social service agency. Respondents who had benefits denied, terminated or who experienced delays in recertification cited the following reasons: lack of translation, difficulty verifying rent, address changes, missed appointments, arguments with caseworkers over verification, and accusations of fraudulent immigration documents. Food stamp eligibility determination requires careful verification of family composition, income and expenses. The extensive communication and paperwork required between recipients and their caseworkers can be challenging, especially for LEP applicants. Language access during eligibility determination and re-determination procedures appears to be extremely important, considering that about 70 percent of food insecure immigrant families in New York and 80 percent in Los Angeles are LEP.
[Go to Contents]
The greatest need for food stamps, as measured by food insecurity, is among LEP families and those with more children. Single-parent families also have higher poverty and food insecurity rates. All of these types of families are significantly more likely to receive food stamps, suggesting benefits are properly targeted. Yet the low rate of food stamp participation overall among food insecure immigrant families suggests there is substantial unmet need in both cities.
Unmet need appears to be highest among food insecure and low-income families not participating in TANF, SSI, general assistance or any other public benefit programs. Food stamp receipt rates are very high for TANF, suggesting that the link to welfare benefits provides much greater access to food stamps. These findings also suggest outreach to low-income immigrant communities in both cities could yield higher FSP participation among working families not participating in welfare programs.
Refugees have relatively high levels of food stamp participation in New York City. Access to benefits there is enhanced by the strong presence of private refugee resettlement and service agencies.
LEP families are more likely to participate in FSP than their English proficient counterparts, even when controlling for poverty and food insecurity. Responses to the in-depth survey provide anecdotal evidence that miscommunication between caseworkers and recipients can lead to benefit denials and delays in recertification. Nonetheless, responses to the larger survey suggest that a greater share of needy LEP compared to proficient immigrants are able to gain access to benefits. It may be that food stamp offices in both Los Angeles and New York have sufficient bilingual staff and interpretation resources to assist clients during application and recertification processes. LANYCIS does not, however, directly address language access issues. Further research into the delivery of health and human services in both cities would be necessary to address language access more fully.(51)
The reasons why most families in the survey lost benefits since 1996 include jobs, income and family composition. Thus in our sample, declines in food stamp participation have more to do with improvements in immigrants' economic well-being than with welfare reform or other policy changes. It is important to keep in mind, however, that our sample was taken in Los Angeles and New York, two large cities with relatively generous benefits and large numbers of immigrants when compared to other localities. Therefore, when compared to immigrants living in other jurisdictions, immigrants in these cities may have been less likely to lose eligibility for benefits due to policy changes.
LANYCIS was conducted in two cities with relatively generous eligibility rules for noncitizens, due to supplemental food assistance programs funded by the states of California and New York. Both cities also have relatively strong social service delivery infrastructures, including organizations targeting services to refugees and other immigrant populations. Thus our findings here may be conservative in comparison to conditions confronting immigrant families elsewhere in the country.
[Go to Contents]
30. The Medicare premiums cited are for 2001.
31. Food Stamps Act of 1977, as amended. SEC. 2. (7 U.S.C. 2011). Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/LEGISLATION/fsa77.pdf.
32. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, P.L. 104-193 (1996).
33. Other groups exempted from the bar on eligibility include asylees, Amerasians and Cuban/Haitians (for five years), as well as active-duty military, veterans, and their dependents.
34. Agriculture, Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act, P.L. 105-185 (1998).
35. S4863, passed by the New York State Assembly and signed into law during July 2001, made this program permanent. A copy of the bill is available at http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg.
36. An additional issue is that in California, food stamp benefits for SSI recipients are "cashed out," so that the value of food stamp benefits is added to the SSI check, rather than being issued as a separate food benefit. Many aged and disabled people, including immigrants, are getting food stamp benefits, but may be unaware of it since it simply increases the value of their SSI check.
37. We use the term "moderate hunger" instead of hunger because the 6-question short scale we use only includes questions addressing conditions associated with moderate hunger, not the conditions of more severe hunger addressed in the longer 18-item scale (Appendix 3).
38. The initial set of weights accounted for the stratified sampling design. The goal of the sampling design was to attain roughly equal sample sizes (number of responding households) in both cities, such that about half the unweighted sample households received food stamps in 1996 or 1997, about one-quarter had income below 200 percent of poverty but did not get food stamps in 1996-97, and one-quarter had incomes over 200 percent of poverty.
39. Post-stratification weights brought the number of families up to totals in a pooled sample of the March 1997-99 CPS. LANYCIS family totals were adjusted to match the pooled CPS for four factors: (1) family composition, (2) poverty level, (3) country of origin and (4) schooling of the family respondent.
40. An undocumented family includes at least one undocumented adult. In a legal immigrant family there is at least one legal immigrant adult but no undocumented adults. Refugee families are those with at least one refugee but no undocumented or legal immigrant adults. Finally, naturalized families include only naturalized adults. The legal status and citizenship of children are not considered in this classification.
41. English, Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese and Mandarin Chinese.
42. Respondents were first asked if they primarily speak a language other than English at home. Those who primarily speak another language (the vast majority of samples in both cities) were then asked whether they speak English "very well", "well", "not well" or "not at all." We categorize people speaking only English or English very well as proficient, and those speaking English well, not well or not at all as limited English proficient (LEP).
43. Families with members who are only either native-born citizens or temporary nonimmigrants such as tourists, students or temporary workers (of which there are a very small number in LANYCIS) are excluded from the analyses in Part II of this report.
44. LANYCIS is larger and focuses more closely on food stamp recipients and former recipients. Excluding families with only temporary nonimmigrant members, LANYCIS has a sample size of 3,363 immigrant families, compared to 1,707 immigrant families in the April 1999 CPS. LANYCIS also has a higher share of low-income families within its sample. The April CPS is not designed to be truly representative of the population below the state level. LANYCIS was conducted using both a food stamp recipient list and random-digit dialing samples and thus may have been more likely to reach food insecure families in the food stamp list sample. LANYCIS population totals, however, were adjusted to match March 1999 CPS population totals using weights that account for poverty, educational attainment, country of origin, and family composition.
45. The odds-ratios and probability values displayed in Table 2.9 were generated in STATA using a logistic procedure. Dummy variables for citizenship and legal status were included with and without interactions with city (New York versus Los Angeles). Tenure in the U.S. was introduced into the model as a continuous variable and as dummies for 5, 7, 10 and 20 years. None of these variations made status or tenure significant in these models.
46. Appendix 4 provides details concerning calculation of food stamps receipt during the previous year in the LANYCIS data.
47. Sample sizes for food insecure refugee families without elderly members are too small to calculate food stamp receipt rates.
48. These models were also generated by STATA using logistic regression. The coefficients and odds ratios for refugees in New York are not statistically significant, due to the small number of refugees in the sample. Yet the very high odds ratios suggest substantive significance.
49. Nonresponse to this question was high at 14 percent in Los Angeles and 15 percent in New York.
50. In fact, since data are for total numbers of families participating in FSP at two points in time, they may show a decrease in new applications as well as a large number of terminations.
51. The Urban Institute is currently conducting a study of whether language or other barriers may impede immigrant access to food stamps and other federal means-tested benefits, as well as best practices to overcome any barriers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, is providing support for this project.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)