LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

Will llzlllljlllllll l l l l l ll l l l, l

menu-

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

FACTORS RELATED TO NONPARTICIPATION BY
CERTIFIED FOOD STéMP CLIENTS: AN
EXPLORATORY‘ STUDY

presented by

Isidore Flores III

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Psychology

 

 

me-céhfw

 

Date my, no, \‘R'l‘l

 

0-7 639

.———.— —-—--t _..ls

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkoat from your record.

I fiW’ll

 

 

2,.1Ml "

Emmi; ‘

,
Ij'f‘u W

ifim~w
4‘ “Mb

200 D33h
, 5: *

 

 

 

 

FACTORS RELATED TO NONPARTICIPATION BY CERTIFIED
FOOD STAMP CLIENTS: AN EXPLORATORY
STUDY

By
Isidore Flores III

A THESIS

Submitted to

. Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1979

ABSTRACT

FACTORS RELATED TO NONPARTICIPATION BY CERTIFIED FOOD STAMP
CLIENTS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

By
Isidore Flores III

Twenty percent of those who apply for food stamps in

Michigan and are found eligible to receive them choose not

to acquire them. Two hundred newly certified and recertified

clients from Bay County, Michigan were surveyed using a
structured interview format on demographic and attitudinal
variables that could possibly be related to this problem
area. Economics, transportation, and institutional stigma
variables were found to be significantly related to not
acquiring food stamps. A discriminant analysis of the data
generated a discriminant function capable of correctly
classifying 78% of the sample into the groups acquiring and
not acquiring their stamps using only five variables. Non-
acquirers were less likely to participate in the General
Assistance of Medical Assistance program, more likely to

be female, have recently had a decrease in income, and feel
stigmatized by contacts with welfare personnel in the food
stamp certification process. Since the data were collected

while regulations still required a "purchase price" so

clients could get the ”bonus", economic variables may no
longer be a factor in nonparticipation after certification.
The data, though are still valuable as baseline measures

for assessing the effects of changes in regulations
eliminating the "purchase price". Recommendations were made

for future research.

To my father

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Charles D. Johnson, the
Chairman of my committee, for his friendship and guidance
throughout the course of this project. I would also like
to thank Dr. Andrew M. Barclay and Dr. Joseph Avellar, the
other members of my committee, for their generosity, insight,
encouragement, and time. The study would not have been
possible without the cooperation of Thomas Hanson, Director
and the staff of the Bay County Department of Social Services.
For their valuable help, I would like to thank Victor A.
Battistich, Kathy Zurvalec, Lynn Goodreau, Barbara Watts,

and Linda and Tom Hammar.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION

Initial Food Stamp Program
Food Stamp Act of 1964
Amendments

Food Stamp Act of 1977
Program Description
Application Procedure
Program,Controversy
Problem

HYPOTHESIS
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis

«PLANE-4

METHODS
Subjects
Instruments
Procedures
RESULTS
Hypothesized relationships
Predictability
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
REFERENCE NOTES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

iii

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE
TABLE

10:
11:

12:
13:

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Gross National Product and Per Capita
Incomes of Selected Countries in
Recent Years 1
United States Unemployment Rates
(Dept. of Labor, 1978) 2
1972-1975 National Unemployment Rates
For Selected Countries (United Nations) 2

CPI's Inflation Rates and Poverty Standards
(non-farm family) of Two Adults and Two
Children 5

Group Percentages and Means on Items

Testing H1 25
Discriminant Analysis of Group Differences

on Demographic and Attitudinal Character-
istics 30-34
Accuracy of Prediction of Group Member-

ship through Discriminant Functions 37
Program Participation Rates of Food

Stamp Clients 51
General Demographic Characteristics of the
Food Stamp Sample 52,53
Monthly Income of Sample 54
Test-Retest Pearson Product-Moment
Correlations of Individual Attitude Items 66
Subscale: Critical 67
Subscale: Social Stigma 68

iv

Introduction

This study was designed to examine the Federal Food ///.

/

Stamp Program; specifically, to initiate an explorat' n as
to the reasons why all of those who are certified as eligible

to receive food stamps do not purchase them. It is indeed

paradoxical that this study was necessary given the econOmic

stature of the United States of America. This country is.

one of the strongest economicentitiesin the.wor1d; one

,m-4_.--- H»..- v "‘

W

“P...“ -—

would.expect hunger to have been eliminated long ago. Its

historically'unparalleledaffluence has only recently been

matched in other countries as is illustrated by Table 1.

Table 1

Gross National Products and Per Capita Incomes
of Selected Countries in Recent Years

 

Country GNP PCI in US$

U.S. $1,872.50 billion (1977) 6,995 (1976)
Austriala 88.08 (1977) 6,311 (1975)
Canada 193.87 (1977) 7,340 (1976)
Denmark 40.24 (1976) 6,803 (1976)
Finland 29.95 (1977) 5,351 (1976)
France 397.51 (1977) 5,860 (1976)
W. Germany 398.70 (1975) 6,451 (1976)
Japan 562.17 (1976) 4,478 (1976)
Kawait 12.80 (1976) 11,431 (1975)
Norway 31.63 (1977) 6,511 (1976)
Sweden 75.24 (1977) 8,044 (1976)
Switzerland 73.15 (1977) 8,248 (1976)

Persistently high unemployment has, in part, contribu-

ted to the number of poor people who do not get sufficient

1

2

nutrition. The official national unemployment rates for

1972-1977 are shown in Table 2.

Table 2
NITED STATES UNEMPLOYMENT RATES (DEPT. OF LABOR, 1978)

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977

 

5.6 4.9 5.6 8.5 7.7 7.0

For comparison, the latest available unemployment rates from

the United Nations of some other countries are presented in

Table 3.

Table 3

1972-1975 NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATES FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES
(UNITED NATIONS, 1977)

 

 

Country 1972* 1973 1974 1975
Canada 6.3 5.6 5.4 6.9
Finland 2.5 2.3 l 7 2.2
W. Germany 1.1 1.2 2 6 4.7
Iceland 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7
Japan 1.4 1.3 l 4 1.9
Netherlands 2.7 2.7 3 3 4.7
Sweden 2.7 2.5 2 0 1.6

 

Official U.S. unemployment rates are relatively high
compared with other economically powerful countries. The

true extent of unemployment in the U.S., though, is greater

than the figures reflect. The "unemployment rate" is cal-
culated as a percentage of the "labor force" which is offi-
cially composed of people who are working, on strike,

' waiting to start work within 30 days, who aren't working be-
cause they are sick, and who are looking for work in the
four weeks prior to an unemployment survey (Taylor and
Peppard, 1976). Officially, the unemployed include only

the last three categories.

People who have stopped looking for work are never in-
cluded in the rate of unemployment; they are primarily
those whose unemployment benefits have recently expired.

The law requires able—bodied workers to register periodi-
ca11y with the job section of the unemployment office as

one condition for drawing benefits. Many people whose
benefits expire feel that the employment security commission
cannot find them a job as desirable as the one they held

and see little reason to continue looking for work there.
When this happens, they are no longer considered part of

the labor force and consequently are not included in the
"unemployment rate".

Also not included in the "unemployment rate" are people
who lost jobs that were not covered by unemployment insurance.
Part-time employees looking for full-time work do not enter
the formula as being partly unemployed, but rater are
counted as being fully employed as are full-time workers on
below povery level incomes (Taylor and Peppard, 1976).

Those workers include qualified teachers and bricklayers,

young single mothers and single income mates, as well as
undergraduate and graduate students. When the number of
workers just entering the work force who cannot find a job
are added to those mentioned above, the resulting true rate
of unemployment is considerably greater than the official
figures.

High inflation rates increase the hunger problem. In-
flation has seriously eroded the ability of those on fixed
or lower incomes to maintain their socio-economic standing.
The effects of inflation are best illustrated through the
povery standard which was developed through the Social
Security Administration (Orshansky, 1963, 1965) in an attempt
to specify a minimum income level for individuals and families.

Orshansky coupled a 1955 United States De artment of Agri-

- M
" “mmov.~.‘

 

culture (U.S.D.A.) Household Food Consumption Patterns sur-

vey finding that low income families spend one-third of their

I
\
_ . . /
.u-
_ __,_ Maw..." -a—mw- -
”MwJMW‘C’“ "- 0

income for food, with the least expensive of the four U.S.D.A.

r—"~“""""‘“*\._.______.

“ .-.—o-.....

 

\\"”fir,,._
nutritionally sound food plans (designed for emergency or
temporary use when funds were low). The poverty threshold,

therefore, conservatively assumes that any family with a

’v

c,-
\_. “'-

yearly income less than three times the cost of a minimal

.- * ......._..___. —
"- ,_-___., _, »- — ea, _,__ ..~.---'

-~——._.-—-'""‘ “‘ ‘ ~- ‘ “ r — . -__.-—--" .. _ '-___ ,I—fl

diet/is poor.
Since 1969, year-to-year increases in the povery
threshold, which is typically expressed in terms of a non-
farm family of two adults and two children, have been based
on the yearly inflation rate, which, in turn, is based on
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Recent CPI's

inflation rates, and poverty thresholds are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

CPI's Inflation Rates and Poverty Standards (non-farm family)
of Two Adults and Two Children

YEAR
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977

 

 

1

CPI 125.3 133.1 147.7 161.2 170.5 181.7

Inflation rate1
(yearly average) 3.3% 6.2% 11.0% 9.1% 5.8% 6.6%

Inflation rate1
12-month span

(Dec. to Dec.) 3.4% 8.8% 12.2% 7.0% 4.8% 6.8%
Poverty2

Standards 4,275 4,540 5,038 5,500 5,815 6,190
Note: 1. Commerce Department 1978 data

2.‘ Census Bureau 1978 data

As the poverty threshold rises, so does the hunger
problem since those sinking below the threshold can be
assumed to be keeping up with rising fixed expenses by eco-
nomizing on non-fixed ones. People with low or fixed in-
comes do not have the same power to bargain for increases
to keep up with inflation as do unionized workers.

The United States has not been able to deal with relent-

 

lessly high rates of unemployment and inflation effectively
but the hunger problem.must be dealt with because the issue

of nutritional adequacy affects the poor most strongly. The_

loss of human potential and productivity_in young people

5

whose inadequately nourished minds will not develop properly
is ill afforded. The government has only three schemes to
cope with the present hunger problem: EEE~EEEESEEEE§-'”
distribution program, which is being phased out in all
areas with the exception of some indian reservations; the
child nutrition program which has a very limited scope; and
the food stamp program. ~: ,’,
3 ,4" ' ,/-_~/
Historically, theflfirst programmatical attempt to alle-
viate chronic hunger came through distributing surplus come
modities by the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation tostate
welfare agencies. -This wasmade possible through the 1933
Agricultural Adjustment Act (Public Law 73-10). The purpose
of this act was to raise farm prices by dealing with seasonal,
temporary or localized farm surplus situations.((The emphasisw
was on building a strong agricultural economy; directing i
surpluses to charitable purposes was cheaper than storing
themQZ)The variity and availability of surplus food fluc-

tuated widely, thus disenchanting program participants and

their advocates. Out of this disenchantment grew the first

~/’

food stamp program in 1939.

g ' ‘
Initial Food Stamp Program. The 1939 program was be-

gun on an experimental basis and grew to its peak in 1941
with over half the nation's counties participating. It
featured a two color coupon scheme and tried to cater to the

problem of low farm prices while answering poor peoples'

need for a nutritionally adequate diet. Program participants

(limited to public assistance recipients who prepared meals

at home) were sold a quantity of "orange" coupons equivalent

in value to the regular food expenditures of a national

average of corresponding size families. A bonus of "blue”

coupons, equivalent to half the value of the "orange" cou-

pons, were giygn to the family. The blue coupons could only

be used to acquire surplus items. The organge coupons could

be used to purchase any food item including those in surplus.

Which foods were considered "surplus" was determined by the

Secretary of Agriculture on a monthly basis. War shortages

eventually eXhausted much of the food surplus and, consequently,
\6.

brought the first food stamp program to an end in 1943-,i1- /'+
M"

4'...-

l._
1 hum!
[’5‘

( .'

W

After the war, the commodity distribution program was
re-established to cope with low farm prices. Once again
cries for a nutritionally adequate diet for the poor were
heard. Efforts to re-establish a food stamp program in the
50's brought opposition from farm interests, who felt govern-
ment purchase and direct distribution of surpluses was a more
attractive alternative to a food stamp program that involved
the much slower system of distribution in the commerical
marketplace. There was also the fear that a new food stamp
program might not include the "specific purchase" provision
of the earlier program, and thereby, not address itself to

specific goods in surplus.

 

[// Food Stamp Act of 1964. In 1961, food stamp proponents
4 finally achieved success when President Kennedy issued an

executive order establishing experimental food stamp projects

in eight test areas, involving approximately 138,000 persons.
The program was extended to 35 additional areas as of
February, 1964. The projects were found to be successful
enough to bring about the passage of the Food Stamp Act of
1964 by Congress. The stated purpose of the program was

much the same as its forerunner: "To/gtrengthen the agri;g

.W

‘
“-—M’

cultural economy; to help achieve a fuller and more effective
11.11wwr -

use of food abundances; to provide for improved levels of

__.
...... ,a- ‘- ..,_ ,.~—-—._-.1n ,

nutrition among low-income households through a cooperat1ve

. -.-..p. h“;
M“...-

Federal- State program of food assistance to be operated

,. hwh‘vv‘.‘

through normal channels of trade; ." (Public Law 88- 525).

Amendments. The Food Stamp Act had undergone three

 

major changes by the time the data for this study was
collected in 1977. The 1971 Amendment standardized eligi-
bility requirements and benefits at the national level. It
also made elderly persons eligible to purchase delivered
meals with food stamps; it allowed households with little or
no income to receive free stamps. The 1972 Amendments denied
participation in the program to persons who were eligible

to receive supplemental security income benefits under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act. The 1973 Amendments provided
for the program to be operated nationally in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of
Columbia. These amendments also provided for semi—annual
adjustment of food stamp monthly allotments for different

sized households to compensate for inflation.

 

Kg Food Stamp Act of 1977. The new food stamp act, sub-
3

med under Title XIII of the Food and Agricultural Act

(Public Law 95-113), went into effect January 1, 1979. Its

purpose is much the same as the prior act. Most changes are_

 

f.“

aimed at decreasing overall administrative costs while in-
creasing program utilization by needy households. 5 V

i The Department ongriculture administers the program
through its Food and Nutrition Service, which in turn deals
with state and local welfare agencies. The financing of the
program is through Federal appropriations from the general
fund. Prior to the new program the Federal government paid
for 62%% pf the salaries and normally paid benefits of food
stamp certifiers (not dealing with public assistance clientele),
their immediate supervisors, and hearing officials. It also
paid the same percentage of the cost of quality control and
outreach efforts, and 100% of the cost of bonus coupons.
Under the new program the Federal government pays 50% of
each State's administrative costs of operating the program
but adjusts it to 60% if the error rate drops to less than
5%. In addition, authority is given to fund research that
will help improve program administration and effectiveness.

Changes designed to limit participation in the program

to needy households and expand utilization among them include
lowering the net income eligibility standard to the official
poverty level ($6,500 for a family of four for fiscal year
1978), removing the eligibility requirement that household
members be related, changing the allowable deductions, taking

into account the income that will actually be awfllable for the

10

certification period and eliminating the purchase price. The
last two changes are of special interest to this study because
they present solutions to hypothesized problems (elaborated
upon later). The last change in particular may have such an
impact on program utilization that Congress has required the
Secretary of Agriculture to report on its effects six months
after implementation and yearly after that.

Program Description. Under the program, households, are

 

calculated to need on amount of food stamps corresponding to
household size. For example, four person households are
calculated to need $191 a month in food based on U.S.D.A.'s
Thrifty Food Plan. Eligibility standards, household income,
other financial resources and deductiOns: to income are used
to determine whether the household is financially limited
toward purchasing an adequate diet. Under the old program,
the difference between the amount a household was calculated
as being able to pay for food (the "purchase price") and the
amount that was needed was given to it as a "bonus". The
household had to pay the "purchase price" to get the "bonus".
Under the new program, the household does not have to pay
the "purchase price". For example, a four-person household
with no net income left after deductions is given $191 in
food stamps; one with a net income of $300 a month is given
$101 in food stamps; one with $542 in net income (the eligi-
bility maximum) is given $29 in food stamps.

Application Procedure. The application procedure for

 

participation in the program is standardized throughout all

u.»
*4...“ F—rvd-"“
_ _,,M MM... _V‘

11

localities. Either the head of the household, a household
111‘fi__fl,11»»-
member at least 18 years old designated by the head, or a

7.-
m...
“I'M-«n...

non- -househ61d member at ieast 18 years old designated to

.—,.._.-.—..-—..-o—- —. m

“MM-I

 

.V ""N

r...- ,W‘
. *‘JF‘

represent the applicant, presents him or herself at the local
.-_......---— 1-..... m—flm’wflflfm—u
office of the‘welfarg‘dgpirtmgntlby standing in line at a

reception‘window. S/he comples a (sic page) application

M

___._ .1.~__ WM..-‘..- H...- .-..-_.__-.---r-— —v—.m1
—-- I. 1...—

form and is then interviewed by a representative of the Wel-
K1“... ”0-..,“ - ’ ‘ .. g ‘
fare department. S/he should-have papers to show where s/he

——‘~.

 

*m' ""“' “*‘flm‘ ‘m an.

..—--- mm
—._—n—-—_~—.-——-—-—--—— —‘ “q”...

 

—-—..~_.,_
M.h.__ ifimhm-v ‘fifi—H‘

-"-——.__

 

__.—.-— —-—... .__-

lives, how many are in the household, what their income and

_———__ fl._,_—.-'

“M- ,___..___1———-' ”WM

mandatory deductions are, and hOW much they are paying for

- . q

rent, medical bills, child care, education, utilities, and
i-4111_ ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ _ _ 7 f_,
other expenses. In most cases, due to poor outreach/infor-

 

“mm

mational attempts in most areas, the client will find it
necessary to go home and return to the welfare office with

the required documents. Under the old regulations, after the

 

-1. “—9-

food stamp certifier had verified the family' 3 income, re-

-. -. ._ , —..-..
W '- ‘ g - ..
-—-‘ .4.- "' ' " q...- - "
nu”......__ _."-"'

sources, and deductions and found them eligible, the family

received an "Authorization to Purhcase" card. This card de-

#—

noted the purchase price and the total amount of stamps to

"nu—a... ,
n.- 'M-Ih—p—m—WV’ 'I’-'b--.n._

 

Hw' a-

be issued. It was then presented along with the appropriate

_‘_—'-

amount of money at a post office, bank, or other site (de-
pending on locality) designated to sell food stamps.

Program Controversy. Opponents of the food stamp pro— \ J

 

-—-—uu-.

gram claim that neither of the two expressed purposes of the _;p
program are being met. Sixty-two percent of every food
dollar goes to transportation, processing wholesale and re-

tail handling rather than to the farmer. They also contend

12

that nothing in the Food Stamp Act insures the purchase of a

¥

nutritionally adequate diet; participants may very well

_..___ Wm- -M“-.___.fl..'—
--_p_._...._—-,. A—‘M

choose to buy soft drinks instead of milk or fruit juices

""'"' MM"?
—._ a”... ._ _ ._ ——-~
_._ .— --
_____ _...-.....

(Clarkson, 1975). These arguments may be valid; whether or

not farmers are assisted by the program, millions of Ameri-

cans could be suffering unnecessary hunger without it.

, /, ' Results of an initial evaluation of two of the eight
f'pilot projects (AMS-472, U.S.D.A., 1962) showed a definite

increase in dietary nutritional adequacy among participants.

This increase may have been due to efforts by concerned en-

——-—...._.____1.~.,____M

 

titites and existing state and local nutrition education

I,”- _—-I-'"' ---———...._-"_~
..-- -m— ,’_......__._....-—-" ~ —-+—-._..___

-- n-_..... p..-

agencies to help participants to get the best possible nut-

._-.——— --.-,......_ I .-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rition with their augmented food budgets. Unfortunately,

M ----- ..__- .

 

 

- -~———-_.-_.—.-~'—

the evaluation design did not isolate the impact of the edu-
cational effort (Reese and Adelson, 1962). Such an evalua-
tion effort could have led to the incorporation of educational
devices into the full scale program. Proponents of the
program argued, however, that the Department of Agriculture
could compensate for this omission as well as improve the
existing program through the authorization granted to it by
the Food Stamp Act, 1964; Section 4 (c): "The Secretary
(of U.S.D.A.) shall issue such regulations not inconsistent
with this Act, as he deems necessary or appropriate for the
effective and efficient administration of the food stamp
program"

Proponents have set forth a number of arguments as doc-

umented by the Senate Select Committee on Nutritional and

13

Human Needs (1975),“ They charge that the Department of
Agriculture has/mgintained an attitude of noncompliance
with the intent of the law, which has only served the in-

terests of opponents to the program. The Department has

1‘

.._4

beenblamed for the program:s_poor administration; state and
local officials constantly complain about the restrictive,
confusing inconsistent and ambiguous nature of regulations

as well as deal in issuing regulations. They argue that_”

 

hunger is on the increase, that the Agriculture Department

., an— . "A q.“
-M‘HM‘ W—p—m-

W _...+«—___.

is doing next to nothing to alleviate the situation, and point

out that it has yet to commission a study to find out just

how many people are eligible for the food stamp program.
Combined participation in the food stamp and commodi-

ties program remained the same for two years ending September,

1975 (Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human

Needs, 1975, p. 25). The number found eligible, though, rose

by almost 50% from approximately 26 milleion in 1972

(Hunger, 1973) to 38.6 million in 1974 (Bickel and

MacDonald, 1975) indicating a drop, from 52% in 1972 to 38%

in 1974, of eligibles participating in the program. A

decision in October, 1975, by Judge Miles W. Lord of the

U.S. District Court in Minneapolis ordered that U.S.D.A.

spend $278 million earmarked for the food stamp program

that was being withheld and noted that the Department of

Agriculture had failed to encourage the states to pursue

a vigorous program of outreach and, thereby, contributed

to the withholding of benefits from millions of people.

14

He also stated that, "The Secretary's (of U.S.D.A.) response
to the Congressional directive (the Food Stamp Act), when
viewed in its totality, is fairly described as a total failure
on his part to do what the Congress clearly intended him to
do".

Problem. Problems also occur at the service delivery
level that have not been reflected in the literature. One
such problem is that of non-participation after certifica-

tion. In Michigan rougly 20% of the households certified for

1W- a” +0—-

r_._—-—-F- -——'——.-—.—_——-———

participation in the food stamp program each month do not go , ,
f".

l
to an outlet to acquire their monthly allotment.. It is sad <;/

that a social program that is already falling short of its

primary goal of protecting Americans from hunger can only \\\ ,
be 80% effective at any one time with the people it does \(

I
reach.

Although the problem has remained uninvestigated, pos- §
sible clues to factors underlying the problem are provided
by realted research.

Rungeling and Smith (note 1) in an interview study of

non- participating program eligibles reported that the most

.- mm c—pq—uu- ...- -
..,.r' u: “-‘

,_p----

frequent primary response was that the stamps cost too much.

inn-n m%--
_ uh-
“roar-Av.-
,n
u ' "H“ “‘

They also reported transportation difficulties, excessive

.—-"' 14..
J."

red tape, and attitudes toward welfare as important secondary

-._.

_’——-——~1 ,,
“____
‘fl” ...._. .fl. —

considerations. McDonald (note 2) found evidence that atti-

tudes toward the food stamp program as a result of stigma,/“
could be limiting participation.

Stigma has been conceptually linked to prejudice (Adorno,

et. a1., 1950; Allport, c.w., 1957) by Goffman (1963). He?
suggests that thestigmatized person is seen as inferior

”WM

15

.\ /.I
\ /

and therefore easily discriminated against. Although there

are various and sundry concepts of stigma", the concern

here is solely upon stigma as an effect upon social program

participation. For our purposes the stigma effect can be
WM,M ~~MM-W~_— -- ._._.......1_..._,-. .,_.__. ,

defined as the loss of face, dignity, self respect, and/or
\ _111..1111,_,“111 WI- “1”

“H.— -'—r"._.r-.'~-v—A.-v-<—\

social acceptance which occurs as a result of exposing per-

“\\

\\ flwmwwfl ‘__ ‘

sonal poverty or economic dependency to public scrutiny
«Wers, 1977).. According to Titmuss (1968), welfare programs
involve unilateral transfer as opposed to the bilateral
transfer found in the economic sector. He goes on to identify
stigma as a main issue that arises as a result of the unequal
and therefore unstable relationship between giver and re-
vert ‘Cantinuing this argument, Pinker (1971) points out
that "while a minority of people go so far as to make voca-
tions out of either service or dependency, most of us pre-
fer a measure of equivalency in our social relationships"
(p. 153). Stigma thus becomes a useful factor in helping
those in need, while discouraging them from long-term depen-

f \

dence. M It' srusefulness is at question when it keeps those

\\
N-
M

who need help from seeking it.

.— _._._—-—-—- -'-'*‘

 

Since this study is of an expoloratory nature, demographic
characteristics, attitudes, experiences and motivations that
may influence participation after certification were also
examined. This investigation is in the interests of policy
makers, program administrators, and most importantly, the
people who need the more nutritionally adequate diet the food

stamp program seeks to provide.

Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1. Income: Those who do not purchase their
food stamps have economic reasons for their behavior. Pos-
sible reasons: (1) People with low incomes may find it dif-
ficult to gather enough money at any one time to buy their
stamps, since they tend to receive income in small quantities
at several different times during a month. (2) A decrease
in household monthly income could result in non-participation
since certification is based upon the previous month's in-
come. (3) Some household expenses (e.g., car payment) are
not deducted in determining the amount participants must pay
for their food stamp allotment. (4) A household may be
accustomed to a very tight food budget. Having to budget
more money for food stamps than is usually budgeted for food
would seem ridiculous. (5) Participants might become am-
bivalent about purchasing the stamps if they became aware of
households perceived similar to their own that did not have
to pay as much for their allotment. (A recent change in re-
gulations may have altered the parameters of this problem
area).

Hypothesis 2. Transportation: those who do not pur-

 

chase their food stamps have inadequate transportation and

 

thus cannot do so. People with low or no income are neces-

 

sarily limited in their access to transportation.

16

17

Hypothesis 3. Social Stigma: Those who do not purchase
their food stamps fear that they are looked down upon by
friends or others while purchasing or using the stamps.
Because of the stigma involved in social contexts, some people
may choose not to participate after they have been certified.

Hypothesis 4. Institutional Stigma: Those who do not
pick up their food stamps feel stigmatized by their associa-
tion with personnel in the food stamps certification process.
Stigmatization could cause clients to become disenchanted with

the program to the point of non-participation.

Methods

Subjects. Two hundred newly certified and recertified
households from Bay County, Michigan were referred for par-
ticipation by Department of Social Services (DSS) case
workers. Sample characteristics are contained in Appendix
A, Table 8-10. There is no way of assessing the representa-
tiveness of the sample to the Bay County food stamp popula-
tion because such data is not available. Although the re-
search was to utilize a random design, it was confabulated
due to a breakdown in procedure.

Instruments. The survey instrument contained 69 items

 

and was administered in a structured interview format. The
use of a self administered instrument was ruled out due to
high illiteracy rates of the poor in the area. Two female
interviewers and the experimenter administered the survey.
They were M.S.U. undergraduates who lived in the Bay City
area during the summer months. Both were carefully trained
by the author in structured interview techniques. Some
items necessitated response schemes printed on cards. These
were fully explained at the appropriate times during adminis-
tration. The questionnaire contained sections for non-
response information needed to more completely describe the
subjects (i.e., race and sex) and for the DSS case number.

An open-ended comments section for non-specific subject

18

19

responses and interviewer comments was also included. A
copy of the orientation sheets and the instrument are con-
tained in Appendix B.

The reliability of the instrument was assessed through
the use of test-retest criterion. Subjects were initially
administered the instrument at the DSS offices. The same
interviewer then visited them at home under pretense of
having lost the previous completed instrument and asked
whether they would mind completing another. If the person
refused, that subject was dropped from the reliability sam-
ple and another DSS client tested and later approached for
a retest. This was repeated until 10 subjects had been
tested and retested. Twenty-three percent of the subjects
that were tested refused to be retested. Ninety-seven per-
cent agreement between testing and retesting over the demo-
graphic portion and a Pearson product-moment reliability
coefficient of .79 over the attitude portion of the instru-
ment were attained. Test-retest Pearson product-moment cor-
relations of individual attitude items are contained in
Table 10 of Appendix B.

After the experiment was conducted a number of attitu-
dinal subscales were identified through factor analytic
techniques. They are described in Tables L245 of Appendix
C. Although they did not attain an acceptable level of
reliability for typical applications in a social psycholo-
gical study, they were deemed acceptable for hypothesis

testing given the exploratory nature of this research. The

20

"Critical” subscale (alpha -.74) is made of items that
reflect direct criticism of the food stamp program. The
subscale "Social Stigma" (alpha = .74908) is composed of
items that deal with social encounters in the process of
using food stamps. The "Institutional Stigma" subscale
(alpha - .51624) is comprised of items that probe the atti-
tudes of the client to encounters with personnel that inter-
face the client to the food stamp program. The subscale
"Accepted” contains items that measure surrender to long
term food stamp use.

Procedures. The interviews were conducted over a ten

 

week period at the Bay County DSS during normal business
hours on newly certified and re-certified food stamp program
applicants.

Subjects were to be chosen each day by randomly select-
ing a time and then testing the client most closely finish-
ing the certification process at that time. As data gather-
ing began, it was apparent that some social workers were more
conscientiously cooperative with the survey procedure than
others. This situation affected random client selection
and probably led to a disproportionate sample of clients.
The Food Stamp Program may be the only program in which a
client participates. Other clients may receive "Aid to
Dependent Children" benefits and/or others, as well as food
stamp benefits.

As a client was certified or recertified, s/he was

issued an "Authorization to Purchase (food stamps)" (ATP)

21

card and told by the social worker that there was an exten-
sion of the process. S/he was then directed to the survey
area. The client was greeted by the interviewer, told the
purpose of the survey, assured of confidentiality, and asked
for his/her participation; 210 out of 220 chose to partici-
pate. After the instrument was administered, the subject
was asked if s/he had any additional comments to make about
the food stamp program or had questions about the survey.
His/her comments were recorded, questions answered, and his/
her time and effort gratefully acknowledged. The interview
lasted approximately 40 minutes.

Administrative procedures for conducting the survey and
finding which clients purchased their food stamps were
rather straightforward. As each client was taken to the
survey area, the social worker logged the other programs the
client was participating in upon a blank survey form. The
interviewer then handed the social worker an adhesive-backed
paper disk to afix upon the cover sheet of the client's food
stamp records. Its purpose was to alert the social worker
that the client had been asked to participate in the survey
should the client be scheduled to return for recertification
before the survey was completed. After each successful
interview, the clients case number was secured. There were
no further attempts to identify clients or acquire informa-
tion other than that volunteered by them. The case numbers
were later used to identify which clients actually purchased

their stamps by physically checking all the redeemed ATP cards

for the entire state issued in July, August and September,

1977, against the list of survey participants.

Results

Hypothesized relationships

 

A t-ratio was utilized as the primary test of signifi-
cance between groups on all items used to measure the hypo-
theses.

Hypothesis 1. Income: Those who do not purchase their

 

food stamps have economic reasons for their behavior. The

 

relevant questionnaire items were:

Do your food stamps cost you more
—thanMWhat you are used to spending
in a month for food?

_Wbuld it be hard for you to get the
—money together to get your food
stamps?

Have you or has someone in your
—household recently had a decrease
in income?

I have to pay too much for my food
stamps.

Do you understand what receipts are
_important to bring in to help reduce
the price of your food stamps?
How many times during the month does
—the household receive income other
than food stamps? What amount at each
of those times?
Responses to the first four of the above items differed sig-

nificantly between those who picked up their food stamps and

23

those who did not. Those who did not purchase their food
stamps were more apt to reply that food stamps cost them more
than they were used to spending a month for food (t§6.01 =
-l.83, p < .05), say that it would be hard to get the money
together for food stamps (t198 = -l.41, p < .08), reply that
someone in their household had a recent decrease in income
(tl97 = -2.99, p < .004), and say that they had to spend too
much for food stamps (t198 = 1.83, p < .05). These results
indicate strong support for HypotheSis 1 although responses
to the remaining two items did not differ between the two
groups. Group means and percentages on all items measuring
Hypothesis 1 are presented in Table 5.

Further, considering only the non-purchasing group, re-
sponses to two of the four significant items were found to
be uncorrelated. They were:

-Do your food stamps cost you more

than what you are used to spending

in a month for food?

__;Have you or has someone in your

household recently had a decrease

in income?
This strongly indicates that more than one economic factor
may be responSible for stamps not being purchased.

Hypothesis 2. Transportation: Those who do not purchase

their food stamps have inadequate transportation and thus

 

it

Because of different within groups variances, separate var-
iance estimates for the two groups were used.

Table 5

Group Percentages and Means on Items Testing H1

Item Purchasing Group, Non-purchasing Group
Mean ZYes Mean 7%Yes

 

 

 

 

Do your food stamps

cost you more than

what you are used

to spending in a

month for food?8 .078 7.8 .220 21.9

Would it be hard

for you to get

the money together

to get your food

stamps?a .310 31.0 .438 43.8

Have you or has some-

one in your house-

hold recently had a

decrease in income?a .423 42.3 .710 71.0

I have to pay too much
for food stamps.b 3.2 ---- 2.8 ---_

Do you understand

what receipts are

important to bring

in to help reduce

the price of your

food stamps?8 7.14 71.4 .719 71.9

How many times during

the month does the

household receive in-

come other than food

stamps? 4.6 ---- 5.7 ----

 

ayes = 0; no = l

bLikert scale: strong yes 8 1; yes = 2; undecided = 3;
no = 4; strong no = 5.

cannot do so. Responses of purchasers and non-purchasers

 

differed significantly (t:5.98 = -2.35, p < .05) to the atti-
tude item:

___I have trouble getting around town.
Since non-purchasers were more apt to agree with this item,
some support for this hypothesis is evident. Responses to the

item:

Do transportation problems keep you
from buying or using food stamps?

did not, however, differ between groups. Interestingly there
was a negative, significant (r = -.5749, p < .001) relation-
ship to responses to these two items across the sample in-
dicating the possibility of a conscious effort to display
acceptable behavior.

Hypothesis 3. Social Stigma: Those who do notypurchase

 

their food stamps fear that they are looked down upon by

 

friends or others while purchasing or using the stamps.

 

The analysis of responses to the items:

I usually see people I know when
I go to the post office.

Customers in the check-out line
look down on people when they use
food stamps to pay for their groceries.

___The kinds of groceries I buy with
my food stamps should only be my
business and no one else's.
(Marginally significant, p < .007).

I have several friends on food stamps.

I usually shop at the same grocery
store.

Check-out clerks tend to treat
people negatively when they use
food stamps instead of cash.

I try to avoid cutomers I know
when I go to the grocery store.

Grocery store personnel are usually
friendly to me.

and to the social stigma subscale derived through factor
analysis composed of the items:
There seems to be a difference in
the way I am treated at the grocery
store check-outs when I use food
stamps.
Check-out clerks tend to treat people
negatively when they use food stamps
instead of cash.
Customers in the check-out line look
down on people when they use food
stamps to pay for their groceries.

Grocery store personnel are usually
friendly to me.

yielded no significant differences between the purchasers and
non-purchasers.

In addition, the responses only of clients who were
certified for the first time (n=31) were examined. Since the
study was designed to first interview recently certified clients
and later ascertain which purchased stamps and which did not,
it could be argued that the only subgroup that could yield an
accurate reflection of the effects of stigma would be the
first time certified. It would seem that the subgroup of re-
certified clients would necessarily be lacking those already

disenfranchized by stigmatization. Only one of the items

28

("The kinds of groceries I buy with my food stamps should
only be my business and no one else's") even marginally
differentiated between the first time purchasers and non-
purchasers. The first six individual items and the subscale
listed above for this hypothesis were responded to in the
expected direction (non-purchasers felt more stigma attached
to using food stamps).

Hypothesis 4. Institutional Stigma: Those who do not
pick up their food stamps feel stigmatized by their associa-
tion with personnel in the food stamps certification process.

The following items comprised the social worker subscale:

I have been treated well at the

welfare office.

What I do with my food stamps is
none of the social workers business.

The social worker asks too many
personal questions.

When someone breaks a food stamp
program rule, he should suffer
some kind of punishment for it.

The social worker should enforce
the food stamp rules strictly.

Purchasers' and non-purchasers' responses to this subscale
were significantly different (t198 = -2.98, p < .0015) to
a strong degree. Non-purchasers were more apt to have a
negative attitude toward certification social workers than
purchasers.

Individual items used to test the hypothesis were:

The food stamp program is properly
run.

29
Everyone should be treated equally;
the same food stamp rules should

apply to everyone.

The food stamp program could be im-
proved.

The rules to get food stamps are
too strict.

___The food stamp rules are fair.

___I like the food stamp program.
None were found to be significant although the first five were
in the expected direction. All of the items related to test-
ing the hypothesis were subjected to a sign test for predicted
direction. There were significantly more items that were in
the predicted direction than in the non-predicted one (p <
.006): non-purchasers felt more institutional stigma than
purchasers.

Predictabilipy. A multiple discriminant analysis

 

(Cooley & Lohnes, 1971) was performed on the data to identify
which variables would best predict whether a client would be-
come a purchaser or a non-purchaser after certification.
These results are summarized in Table 6.

In the initial step, a Chi-square test of Wilks' (1932)
lambda was conducted to ascertain whether a sufficient amount
of discriminating information was available in the set of
variables to distinguish between purchasers and non-purchasers.
The analysis indicated that a significant amount of discrim—
inating information was available (p < .003). Examination of
the univariate F-ratios showed that those who did not purchase

their stamps were significantly less likely than those who

30

 

«mo. mo. mm. no. mo. Aunuo>HHV

AmvaOmuom

pmumHoun: nufi3

wcflpwmmu uaowao

doa. «ssmm.m oq. Nq. mm. ucmHHo pmwuumz

000.- xskmm.m om. mm. wq. Aw mmkHv

uaoHHo mocmu

umwmmm Hmoflpmz

HHH. *«oo.ma ma. mm. mm. Aq omhev uanHo

mamum poom\mocmu

nmwmmm oHHndm

mam. N¢.H AH. mo. No. Am mummy ucmHHo

muHHSUmm Hmwoom

Am mmmev momma

m¢m.u *mq.q me. ma. mm. nmwmm< Hmumnmu

AH masav cmuuafiso

omH.- mm.~ we. mm. hm. unmwcmame on un<
mscmnonmmmoo Assn .Humuv Hm moH u z

cowuocsm mcowumw>mm
pamcfiawuomwn mowumuum pumvcmum Aoficoaoqfiv
pmnwwumpcmum mumfium>fiab manouw onoom mummw£ousmncoz mummmSousm oHanum>

mofiumwumuomumso Hmcwpsuauu< pa<

oflfimmuwoamo no mmocoummmwn macho mo mwmwamc< ucmcwswuomwa

o manna

31

Hma.

Hmm.

Nwo.n

New.
omm.u
mom.

mom.

¢¢.H mm. ma.

Ndaomumv magma ommnohnm

oumu um mmamuw
poom o>HoomH ou

pmauwucm ma unowao

sum.m om. ma. mo.

mm. mm. mm. Ho.

wa.~ Hm. OH. so.
No.m sq. aH. mm.
OH.H we. as. Na.

NO.N mm. mN. MH.

Amhoaumoov

mumoo poom hanunoa

paonmmnon Hmnms
mpomoxm mmawum

poom Hm£\mw£ mo
momma ommsouam

onu maomm ucmwao

Awmm3amv cowumo
nwmwuumo Hmwufiafi
macaw Emuwoum
mmamum poom

mnu mo pawmwowu
sham mzoncwucou

uamwao mo oomm

unmnnu mo xmm

mufimmufi m 0H GMDHS
am nuns ucmnao

unmowammm mamum
voom mEHuuumHHm

 

mucowowmmmoo

cowuoasm
unmafiafiuomwn
poNHnHmpcmum

AdeaHflmwv Hm B Z moa N Z
mGOHumH>on

mowuwuum pumpcmum
ouwfium>flas masonu pmaoom mummwnoudanaoz mummmsounm

mamoz

Apodfinuaoov o mHQmH

Aoflcoamaav
manuaum>

32

000.

NmH.u

Noo.u

«me.

mam.

«N. Anummcmhuv
adamum poom

mafia: no wcwhnn

Scum Hm£\aan mmmx
mfioanoum coaumuuom
umawuu mHoom uaoHHu

mm. maaowfion
Hm£\mH£ muamu Ho
mnzo ucoHHo nonumsz

om. AmEMummwmv mmamum
noom map ommno

Imam ou pmnumwou
hmsoa onu wow ou

unsoflmmnw an unsos
on mammm pamnflu

mo.q Asmaoav
maoocw mmouw

manuaoa paosmmnom

as. A%aammmav
ofioocw SH mmmouo

not w poocmfiummxm
haucmoou mm: vac:
nomaofi m.unmflao

 

mufimwoammmou

cowuosnm
quGHEHuomHQ
voNHpHmpnmum

Aqu.Hnmvv

mowumuum
mumfium>wca

mcoflumfi>ma
pumpcmum

masonu vaoom mummw£ousmnaoz

Apmncflunoov 0 93mm.

moa n z

Aowcoamaav

mummmnousm maanHw>

33

mHo.n

mmo.

0N¢.

omo.

Ho. mm.N wm.ma

mm. mq. ma.

*kmw.w o¢.N mq.mH

saw.s. mo.H Na.m

mm.mH

om.

¢O.NH

mm.m

AHoomwmav
mmamum poom
wcfims mo uomm
nmm Hmwoom onu
wawnoum mamuw
mpnufiuum “Dom
mo mamom <

A>uamcomv

om: mamum

poom udonm
mnofiomcoonmaom
maoom quHHo

AuxH3HoOmv
mfinmcowumamu
aofiuduaumaw
mummam3\uaofiao
osu onoua umnu
macaw opduauum
m>Hm mo mamom 4

Ass some sacs

panoum wcfiuumw
manponu mm: msm
\mz mammm uamHHo

 

mucowofimmmoo

Gowuocsm
uamnaafiuomwa
woufipumwcmum

AsaH.Huouv Hm u z
mnofiumw>ma
mowumunm pumpamum
mumfium>ficb mmaouu pmHoom mummmnousmnaoz

moH u z

mnommnonsm

wcmwz

Aposcfiucoov 0 93mm.

Aowcoamqav
mHanum>

34

oaqv asss

 

 

Ho.v ass

mo.v a«

moo. v mm mmwm¢.om snows. aqmoq. mHNm.
mocmowmwcwwm mp mumswmnwnu mpama mxHHB coaumamuuou Hmowcocmu osHm>come
NmN. NN. am.m mm.NN wo.- Aaonnnuov sapwoua
manna poom

onu mo mamwowuwuo

.muaowao mnoum umnu

maouw oUSuwuum

am>om mo mamom <

Hmo.- Ho. mo.N GN.sH Hm.qH Anamoumv
Emuwoum mamum poom

osu mpHMBou mop

aauwuum .mucowao

wnwudmmma mamufi

o>wm mo mamom <

mucmnonmmmoo Aqu.Humev an n 2 men n z
cofiuocsm mcofiuww>ma
uamcflafiuomfla mowuwuum pumwcmum Aowaoaoqav
poufipumpcmum mumfinm>flcb mmsouw noaoom mummmsousmucoz muommnousm oHanHm>
mawoz

Anonafiunoov o manmh

35

did purchase their stamps to be receiving medical assistance,
general assistance or any other form of public assistance in
combination with receiving food stamps. Further, non-pur-
chasers were significantly more likely than purchasers to be
married, perceive that their food stamps cost them more than
what they were used to spending in a month for food, state
that someone in the household recently had a decrease in in-
come, say that they had trouble getting around town, and feel
a degree of "institutional stigma".

The last four variables also significantly supported

three of the five experimental hypothesis. H1. Income:

 

Those who do notypick up their food stamps have economic

 

reasons for doing so was supported by responses to item

 

variables:

Do your food stamps cost you more
than what you are used to spending
in a month for food?

Have you or has someone in your
household recently had a decrease in
income?

H2. Transportation: Those who do not pick up their food

 

stamps have inadequate trangportation and thus cannot pur-

chase food stamps was supported by responses to the attitu-

 

dinal item variable:

___I have trouble getting around town.
H4. Institutional Stigma: Those who do not pick up their
food stamps feel stigmatized by their association with the

food stamp certification process was supported by responses

 

36

to the "Institutional Stigma" subscale.

Continuing the analysis, a factor analytic procedure
was employed that finds the smallest, linear combination of
variables that can account maximally for the amount of dis-
criminating information available in the multivariate space.
The component variables thus derived are 'analagous to beta-
weights in a regression equation (Cooley and Lohnes, 1971).
Only one discriminant function was derived in this analysis.
since there were only two groups defined according to
whether food stamps were purchased after certification.~ Ex-
amination of the standardized discriminant function coeffi-
cients revealed that discrimination occured most strongly and
efficiently using the following combination of variables:
whether they were on general assistancecn: medical assistance
programs, sex, whether they had recently had a decrease in
income, monthly income, and the attitudinal items comprising
the "institutional stigma" subscale.

As a final check upon the accuracy with which the dis-
criminant function was able to discriminate purchasers from
non-purchasers, a classification analysis for prediction
using the discriminant function scores was conducted. As can
be seen by turning to Table 7, approximately 78% of the sample
could be correctly classified as purchasers or non-purchasers

on the basis of their discriminant function scores.

Table 7
Accuracy of Prediction of Group Membership through

Discriminant Functions

 

Group Accurately Predicted Group Membership
1 165 128 (77.6%)
2 31 35 (80.6%)

 

Total percent of correctly classified cases: 78.1%

x2 = 61.735, df = l, p < .0001

37

DISCUSSION

Non-participation in social programs by eligibles is
a pervasive problem throughout the welfare institution. This
general problem is compounded within the food stamp program
by non-participation after certification. Twenty per cent
of those certified eligible to receive food stamps in
Michigan do not actually participate. Although there is
little information available directly pertaining to this
problem, some related research (Rungeling and Smith; McDonald)
offered direction for hypotheses, as did theoretical consi-
derations of "stigma" as it pertains to welfare recipients
(Titmuss, 1968; Pinker, 1971). Economic considerations,
transportation problems, social stigma, and institutional
stigma seemed most strongly related to non-participation
after certification in the food stamp program and were
formally examined.

Of all the hypotheses, non-participation because of
economic reasons was the most strongly supported. Not being
able to amass the purchase price, a recent decrease in income,
having to pay more for food stamps than what is usually paid
for food monthly, or feeling that a household's stamps cost
more than another that is perceived comparable were thought
the most likely economic reasons for non-participation.

Among the six items used to measure the hypothesis, four

yielded significant responses. Of those four, the item

"Have you or has someone in your household recently had a
decrease in income?" produced the most significant figures.
Only 42% of the purchasing group responded affirmatively to
the item; for the non-purchasing group, the figure was 71%.
This significant difference may be due to a greater concen-
tration of short—term decreases in income among the non-
purchasing group. If this were the case, and after having
resolved their short—term financial problems, clients would
no longer feel the need to use the food stamps they had
been authorized to buy.

Alternatively, this evidence could be interpreted as
implying that a recent decrease in household income would
necessarily keep a household from purchasing stamps whose
purchase price was based on the household's previous monthly
income. This occurred under regulations at the time of this
study (see below) when a low income client, upon realizing
that an income decrease was imminent, applied and was found
eligible for food stamps before the decrease was shown
through pay stubs. A client in such circumstances was re-
quired to buy the stamps at a cost based upon a regular
monthly income, instead of at the one reflective of the
next paycheck which was actually used to buy them. A client
in this situation under present law would either be found
ineligible or would receive a lesser amount of food stamps
than they would otherwise be entitled to.

When considering only the responses of the non-purchasing

group, an orthoginal relationship was found between the

40

item variable discussed above and another found significant
in testing this hypothesis: "Do your food stamps cost you
more than what you are used to spending in a month for food?"
This may indicate that more than one economic factor was re-
sponsible for stamps not being purchased. Since lower in-
come people tend to economize on non-fixed expenses (such as
food), some clients may have chosen not to purchase their
food stamps if the price did not seem right to them. They
may have been accustomed to spending less money for food than
what the cost of their stamps was calculated to be by the
food stamp certifier.

Although this hypothesis may be no longer viable since
present regulations no longer require a purchase price, Con-
gress has directed the Secretary of U.S.D.A. to report what
effect this change in regulation has upon participation in
the program. This data can provide baseline measures‘
that are not otherwise available.

Some support was found for the hypothesis that non-
participation is due to inadequate transportation. Some
evidence of this has been reported in related research.

Only one of the two items that were used to test this hypo-
thesis was found to be significant, but a negative, signifi-
cant correlation was found between the two when only responses
of clients that did not pick up their stamps were considered.
Non-purchasers were significantly more likely to agree that

it was difficult to get around town, but not significantly

41

more apt than purchasers to say that transportation problems
would hinder them in using the program. Since the signifi-
cant item was the more general, less direct one, it would
seem that client did not want to directly say that transpor—
tation problems would keep them from buying or using stamps
since the certification process was so closely tied to the
interview situation.

Only marginal support was found for the hypothesis that
clients do not participate because they fear stigma in social
contexts. Stigma has been identified as operating in the
social welfare institution. Since this institution does not
exist in a vacuum, it seemed appropriate to distinguish the
crossover, social aspect of its stigmatizing effect upon
clients. Responses of only first time certified clients were
examined when no significant differences between purchaser
and non-purchaser responses to all items were found. This
strategy was followed since it can be argued that first-time
certified clients would be the only group able to accurately
reflect the effects of stigma. One marginally significant
difference was found, but six of the eight single items and
the attitudinal scale had responses indicating that non-
purchasers felt more stigma attached to using food stamps
than purchasers. Increasing the number of first-time certi—
fied in the sample may increase the chances of significance.

Strong support for the hypothesis that non-purchasers
feel stigmatized by the certification process was found. A
number of sources have identified and elaborated upon the

effects of stigma as they pertain to the welfare institution.

42
These effects are not readily acknowledged by welfare per-
sonnel. In the close association with agency staff during
the planning phase of the study, it became apparent that a
number of social workers were uncomfortable about inclusion
of items which might reflect negatively upon them. Questions
which tapped the issue of stigmatization more directly were
dropped from the survey to highten willingness on the part
of social workers to cooperate. Although less direct items
were chosen to test the hypothesis, results were neverthe-
less encouraging.

Only one significant relationship was found in support
of the hypothesis but this could be considered relatively
strong support because it involved a scale of responses
rather than a single item. The order of the items in the
sub-scale reflect the strength (descending) with which each
item correlated with the entire sub-scale (Appendix B,

Table 1). This order also reflects what rationally appears
to be the descending strength of the items to measure insti-
tutional stigma.

Additional evidence was generated through a sign test
of all eleven individual items used to examine the hypothesis.
Since only one item was in the direction opposite of that
predicted, a strong probability in support of the hypothesis
was attained. Hence, institutional stigmatization can in
fact result in non-participation after certification in the
food stamp program. A more in depth study with a research

design that would allow a closer, more direct examination

43

of the issues is indicated.

Responses to the item "I like the food stamp program"
are of interest in that, in addition to being the only re-
sponses not supportive of the hypothesis, their strength
indicated a tendency towards significance. This may have
been use to clients' reluctance to express their true feel-
ings since the survey was conducted at the welfare office.
Although efforts to appear detached from the welfare office
were made and promises of confidentiality were given to try
and quell client fears, the interview setting may neverthe-
less have had a strong effect in cloring responses to items
pertaining directly to the food stamp program or its local
administrators.

Of course, there were limitations in the present study
that affect the interpretation of the results. The strength
of all hypothesized relationships were necessarily limited
by the small sample. A larger sample would have increased
the probability of observed relationships in the predicted
direction attaining statistical significance. The small
number of subjects in the non-purchasing group also precluded
plans for a cluster analysis to identify possible subgroups
within that group. It may be misleading to assume that the
pattern of factors found to be associated with non-participation
in this study is the only pattern so associated. Other
patterns may or may not be associated.with non-participation.

A larger sample would allow this issue to be addressed.

44

In addition, the generalizability of the study is limited
because of a breakdown in randomization due to non-cooperation
by welfare office personnel. All cooperated with the study
at its inception. Cooperation diminished as the social
workers began to realize that there were no consequences for
non-cooperation. This was primarily due to the director
letting the study slide into a lower priority as time went
on. A full accounting of problems related to this study can
be found in Appendix D.

Hypotheses were individually tested, but their combined
influence is, from a pragmatic standpoint, a more important
consideration in predicting participation in the food stamp
program after certification. Since millions of dollars are
spent needlessly to certify people that do not participate,
it would be more economical if it were possible to predict
this high risk group. To this end, a multiple discriminant
analysis (Cooley & Lohnes, 1971) was performed on the data
to identify sample characteristics that best predict group
classification. Very good results were attained through
the use of this analysis. The x2 test of significance of
the Wilks lamda was highly significant, indicating a consi-
derable amount of discriminating information among the
predictors. One discriminating function was extracted, with
maximum discrimination being a function of four demographic
variables and the institutional stigma attitude scale. Non-
purchasers tended not to be on General Assistance or Medical
Assistance, and were more likely to be female, have recently

had a decrease in household income, and have had a negative

1:5
attitude towards the certification process and the food stamp
program in general. As previously noted, the economic
variable may no longer be a viable predictor because of the
new regulation eliminating the purchase price.

The discriminant function was then used to see how
effectively the sample could be classified into the group
that picked up its stamps and that which did not. Using
these four variables, 78% of the clients were correctly
classified.

Although the replicability of the study may be questioned
because of environmental effects, biased sampling, and the
small number of participatns, the strength of the multiple
discriminant analysis results certainly indicates that a
modified replication of this study would indeed be worth
the effort. A change in procedure would help eliminate most
of the problems encountered in the study. If the Michigan
State Department of Social Services were able to produce
computer output indicating certified participants and non-
participants shortly after the end of monthly business, the
sample could be drawn randomly from.among the two groups and
interviews conducted during that month in the clients'
homes. Besides eliminating the biasing effects due to con-
ducting interviews at the welfare office (e.g. due to fear
of reprisal) and biased sampling, it would also insure a
larger sample.

If the data gathered through future research in this

area is to be of maximum utility, more precise monitoring

46

of food stamp program participation in relation to participation
in other programs must be maintained by local welfare offices.
Such baseline information is presently not gathered as a
matter of regulation or policy. It is necessary to define
what other social programs clients are participants of so
as to monitor whether certain social welfare recipients are
less apt than others to participate in the food stamp pro—
gram after certification. This is absolutely necessary to
effect an accurate intervention. At present, the available
information breaks down food stamp participation into only
an Aid to Dependent Children client category, General
Assistance client category, and a combined category of
Supplemental Security Income, Medical Assistance, and Non-
Assistance Food Stamps client category. A further break-
down of the last category into its individual units, as well
as expanding monitoring to include programs not previously
considered (e.g., Emergency Assistance clients) is desirable.
A possible criticism of the instrument is that re-
latively few items were used to directly measure each hypo-
thesis. Since this was an exploratory study, it seemed
a more suitable approach to focus upon a wide range of
factors that could conceivably have an effect on the problem.
The focus of a revised instrument would be narrowed to
factors found associated with non-participation in the pre-
sent research. This would allow expanding the range of
items in appropriate areas (e.g., transportation problems)
and elaborating subscales (i.e., institutional stigma sub-

scale), resulting in more reliable measurement of focal
variables.

References

References

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, P., and Sanford,
R. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper
& Row, 1950.

Allport, G.W. The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison
Wesley, 1957.

Bickel, G.W. and MacDonald, M., Participation rates in the
Food Stamp Program: Estimated Levels for 1974, by
State. Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
Washington, D.C., 1975.

Clarkson, K.W., Food Stamps and Nutrition. American Enter-
prise Institute for Public Policy Research. Washington,
D.C., 1975.

Consumer Price Index, Current Business Statistics, Survey

of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce,

 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. Volumte 58, No. 5, May
1978. U.S. Printing Office.

Cooley, W.W., and Lohnes, P.R. Multivariate data analysis.

 

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971.

Goffman, E. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled

 

Identity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963.
Orshansky, Mollie. Counting the Poor: Another Look at the

Poverty Profile. Social Security Bulletin, January,

 

1965, H.E.W. Washington: Government Printing Office.

47

48

Orshansky, Mollie. Children of the Poor, Social Security
Bulletin, 1963, H.E.W. Washington: Government
Printing Office.

Other Western Countries Unemployment Figures and Citations,
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social

Affiars, Statistical Office, Statistical Yearbook 1976,

 

New York, 1977.

Pinker, Robert. Social Theory and Social Policy, London:

 

Heinemann Educational Books, Limited, 1971

Reese, Robert B., and Adelson, Sadye, F. Food Consumption
and Dietary Levels Under the Pilot Food Stamp Program,
Detroit, Michigan, and Fayette County, Pennsylvania.
(Agricultural Economic Report No. 9. Economic Re-
search Service and Agricultural Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. 1962.

Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, United States
Senate. Report on Nutrition and Special Groups. U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975.

Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Hungeryy1973

and Press Reaction. Government Printing Office,

 

Washington, D.C., 1973.
Taylor, M. and Peppard, D. Jobs for the jobless: Detroit's

unresolved dilemma. Institute for Community Development

 

and Services. East Lansing, Michigan: Continuing

Education Service, M.S.U., 1976.

49

Titmuss, Richard M. Commitment to Welfare, Londong, 1968.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Employment Earnings, June 1978, p. 23, Vol. 25 No.6.
Wilks, S.S. Mathematical Statistics, New York: Wiley, 1962.
Wyers, Norman L. Shame and public dependency: A literature

review: Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,

July, 1977, V0. IV, No. 6, pp. 955-966.

Reference Notes

Reference Notes

MacDonald, M. Why Don't More Eligibles Use Food Stamps?
Unpublished Discussion Paper, Institute for Research
on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Rungeling, B., and Smith, L.H. Factors AffectingyFood
Stamp Nonparticipation in the Rural South, Center for
Manpower Studies Paper, Unpublished Discussion Paper,

University of Mississippi, 1975.

50

Appendix A

Table 8

Program Participation Rates of Food Stamp Clients

 

 

Non-Purchasing Purchasing
Program Group (N=32) Group (N=168)
Aid to Dependent Children 7 (22)* 62 (37)
General Assistance 4 (13) 53 (32)
Social Security 2 (6) 4 (2)
Public Assistance
Food Stamps 10 (31) 110 (65)
Supplemental Security
Income 3 (9) 14 (8)
Non-Assistance Food Stamps 22 (69) 58 (35)
Protective Services 0 (0) 2 (1)
Medical Assistance 9 (28) 80 (48)
Day Care 0 (0) 3 (2)
Emergency Assistance 0 (0) 2 (1)

* . .
Numbers in parenthe31s are percents

Note:

Figures do not sum up to the sample N because clients

many times participate in other programs as well.

51

Table 9

General Demographic Characteristics of the
Food Stamp Sample

Variable N % Mean S.D.
Aid to Dependent Children 69 35 ---- ----
General Assistance 57 29 ---- ____
Social Security 6 3 ---- _---
Public Assistance Food Stamps 120 60 ---- ----
Supplemental Security Income 17 9 ---- ---_
Non-Assistance Food Stamps 80 40 ---- ----
Protective Services 2 1 ---- -___
Medical Assistance 89 45 ---- ----
Day Care 3 2 ---- --_-
Emergency Assistance 2 1 —--- -_--
Married 58 29 ---- ---_
Family Size -------- 2.55 1.826
Families claiming all members

at home for food stamps 191 96 ---- ----
First time certified

recipients 31 16 ---- ___-
Mbnths recertified clients

have received food stamps -------- 30.91 26.980
Felt. cost of food stamps

was greater than usual

monthly food costs 20 10 ---- ----
Bought monthly food stamp

allotment in two installments 94 47 ---— ----
Interviewee belongs to an

organization 31 16 ---- -----

R9

 

 

Table 9(continued)

Variable

Months until next scheduled
contact with certification
worker

Definitely plan not to keep
next scheduled contact with
certification worker
Receiving food stamps free
Reside in city

Reside outside the city
Rent Domicile

Rooms in Domicile
Interviewee has a job

Households with two incomes

Recent‘decrese in household
income

Understand what papers are
important in the certification
process

Felt it difficult to gather
money for food stamps

Interviewee years of education

Years of education of
interviewee's mother

Years of education of
interviewee's father

Felt transportation problems
inhibit food stamp use

Felt concern over what others

thought of their food stamp
use

('2

 

N % Mean §121
........ 3.69 2.352
12 6 ---- """
26 13 ---- """
146 73 ---- ''''
53 29 ---- ----
143 72 ---- -----
........ 2.53 .918
28 14 ---- ----
51 26 ---- ----
93 47 ---- """
143 72 ---- -----
66 33 ---- ----
........ 10.63 2.369
........ 8.10 4.522
-------- 7.75 4.727
45 23 -------
47 24 --------

 

o N s OH a o s
N N N o N o N
mN NN NN N N o N
NH ON N m «m o N
o o o o o w o
+o0N OON-NNN omN-NON OON-Nm om-Nw o am>Nmomm unsoaa

mEHB 30mm wo>fimomm unsoa< mwmum><

mamsmm ofiu mo maoocH %H£ucoz

OH oHan

mofifiu mo Hmnasz

VS

APPENDIX B

Introductory Script

Good morning (afternoon), my name is . I

 

am a research assistant for Michigan State University in East
Lansing. We are presently studying how the Food Stamp pro-
gram can be improved. We are doing this by finding out how
the Food Stamp program fits into peoples lives and how they
feel about it. We think that people know best what they need
and are in the best position to give us advice on the subject.
In order to make this easier, we have prepared a number of
questions so that we can be sure we get complete infomnation
from everyone. .No one connected with the Department of Social
Services will see your answers. we want you to know this be-
cause just hpw_mpgh_we can improve the Food Stamp program de-
pends on how people answer the questions. If people give us
accurate answers, we can improve the program for you and
everyone else; if we don't get accurate answers, the time and
money spent on this project will have been wasted.

At the end of the day, your answers, along with every-
one elses, will be sent to Michigan State University. All
the information we get from people will be studied there and
suggestions for improving the program.will be made to the

federal government.

55

Before Question 32

This card has written on it a number of replys. They
are, left to right: a strong yes, a yes, undecided, a no,
and a strong no. I am now going to make a number of state-
ments. After each statement, please tell me how you feel
about what I've said by answering me with one of those re-
plys. For example: if I say "Christmas is a good time of

year", what would you say?

'56

Food Stamp Program Participation Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13
(4-5) 01-26
k = 11, C = 03
(6-12) 0-9
(13) 1-9
(14-23) 0-1
ADC GA SS PA/FS SSI NA/FS PS MA DC EA
14 15 16’ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
1. What is your marital status? (1) single (2) married
(3) divorced (4) separated (5) widowed (24) 1-5
2. How many people are in your family that live at home in-
cluding yourself? (25-26) 01-19
If one (1), go to #4
3. Are you receiving food stamps for all the members of
your family that live with you at home? Yes No
(27) 1-2
4. Do unrelated people live with you/your family? Yes No
* (28) 1-2
If yes: how many? (29) 0-9
Are they also on food stamps? Yes No (30) 0-2
If yes: Are they on food stamps with you? Yes No
(31) 0-2
5. Is this the first time you received food stamps? Yes

No (32) 1-2

57

58

If yes: go to #6
If no: When was the first time you received them?

(33-34) 00-99

 

(to the nearest month recollectable)

If no: have you been receiving them continuously since
then? Yes No (35) 0-2

If no: how long did you receive them the first time?

 

(Please document starting date and indicate approximate
lengths of time periods in which they received them and

did not receive them up to the present.)

starting date ending date # of months
starting date ending date # of months
starting date ending date # of months

Total number of months food stamps have been received

(36-37) 00-98

 

Do your food stamps cost you more than what you are used
to spending in a month for food? Yes No (38) 0-2

Are you getting them once or twice a month? Once

Twice (39) 1-2

If twice: go on to #9

Would it be easier for you to buy them twice a month?
Yes No (40) 0—2

If yes: Why?

 

When are you supposed to come in to talk to the food
stamp worker again? (41) 1-9

Do you think you will come in then? Yes No Maybe
(42) 1-3

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

59

If no: If maybe: why?

 

Are you getting your food stamps for free? Yes No

 

(43) 1-2
Do you live in the city or the country?

(44) l-2
Do you have a job? Yes No
If yes: doing what? 1) factory/blue

 

2) factory/white

3) education/blue

4) education/white

5) other service/blue
6) other service/white
7) farmer

8) farm work

9) no (45) 1-9

If no: go on to #15

Do you plan to keep your job for at least five years?
Yes No (46) 0-2
What kind of job does your wife/husband/parents (if
living in the same home) have? (47) 0-3
(same scheme as for #13) (48) 0-8

How long has it been since you/she/he worked?

 

(49-50) 00-98

Doing what? (51) 0-8
same scheme as #13

 

If parents live outside the home or are deceased: What

kinds of jobs did your parents have? (52) 0-8
dad

(53) 0-9
mom

(same scheme as #13, but: 9 housewife)
Have you or has someone in your household recently had a

decrease in income? Yes No 0) N/A because of no

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

60

initial income

If yes: due to what? 1) job loss 2) layoff 3) strike
4) pension loss 5) pension reduction 6) welfare check
termination 7) welfare check reduction 8) specify
other 9) no (54) 0-9

How many times during the month does the household re-
ceive income other than food stamps? ____ (55) 0-4

What amount at each of those times? _____ (56) 0-9

1) $1-50 2) 51-100 3) 101-150 4) 151-200 5) 201-250
6) 251-300 7) 201-350 8) 351-400 9) none

If you could have any job you wanted, what job would

you choose? (57) 1-8
same schemes as for #13

 

Do you understand what receipts are important to bring
in to help reduce the price of your food stamps?
How did you find out about food stamps? (59) 1-9

How else? (60) 1-9

 

1) friends 2) relatives 3) notice by mail 4) news-
paper 5) other literature 6) TV ad 7) radio ad

8) other source 9) general exposure

What is your biggest monthly bill? (61) 1-9

how much is it? our next biggest bill?
(6251-9 _

how much is it? and the next? and how
(655 5-9 (555 0-9

much is it?
(66) 0-9

 

1) rent 2) car payment 3) utility 4) hospital bill

23.

24.

26.

27.

28.

29.

61

5) phone bill 6) loan 7) taxes 8) food 9) tuition
0) N/A 0) N/A 1) $1-50 2) 51-100 3) 101-150
4) 151—200 5) 201-250 6) 251-300 7) 301-350

What week during the month do you plan to get your

stamps? (if lst and 3rd: use 5; If 2nd and
(677’1-4

 

4th use 4)
Would it be hard for you to get the money together to
get your Food Stamps? Yes No (68) 0-2

If yes: why?

 

How much education do you have?

 

(69-707701-30
your wife/husband/parents - if living in the same home

(71) 0-3

If parents were discussed - to to #27
If parents live outside the home or are deceased:

hOW’mUCh education do/did your parents have?

/

mom dad
(64-75) 00-30 (76—77) 00-30

Do you own or rent this home? Own Rent (78) 1-2
How many rooms does it have? 1) 1-2 2) 3-4 3) 5-6
4) 7-8 5) 9+ (79) 1-5

Do transportation problems keep you from buying or
using food stamps? Yes No (80) 1-2
What kind of transportation do you usually use the
most? 1) walk 2) bus 3) taxi 4) relative 5) non-

relative 6) personal car (81) 1-6

62

 

 

 

29. Continued

If #3: how often do you use a taxi?

A more than once a week

B once a week

C. once every two weeks

D once every three weeks

E once every month (82) 0-5

If #4 or #5 how often can yourfriend (or relative)

take you to town?

A. more than once a week

B once a week

C. once every two weeks

D once every three weeks

E once every month (83) 0-5

Do you pay for this transportation Yes No (84) 0-2
30. Are you concerned about what others think of your use

of Food Stamps? Yes No (85) 1-2
31. Do you belong to any organization? Yes No (86) l-2

If yes: which ones?

Card A

Strong Strong
Yes (1) Yes (2) Undecided (3) No (5) No (5)
32. I have to pay more for my Food Stamps than do other

people I know in similar circumstances. (87) 1-5
33. The food stamp program is properly run. (88) 1-5

34.
35.

36.

37.
38.

39.
40.
41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.
47.

48.

49.

50.
51.

63

I like to get out and work in the yard. (89) 1-5

Anyone who lies to the food stamp social worker shouldn't

get Food Stamps I (90) 1-5

Everyone should be treated equally: the same Food Stamp

rules should apply to everyone. (91) 1-5

I like to go downtown (92) 1-5

Someone should come around and teach people how to

make their Food Stamps last longer. (93) 1-5

I have several friends on food stamps. (94) 1-5

I need more information about nutrition. (95) 1-5

The social worker asks too many personal questions.

(96) 1-5
I am an active person. (97) 1-5
I have been treated well at the welfare office. (98) 1-5

Most people receiving food stamps need to have them.

(99) 1-5

The social worker should enforce the Food Stamp rules

strictly. (100) 1-5

I like the Food Stamp program. (101) 1-5

Someone should come around and teach people how to

buy food for a proper diet. (102)

1-5

Many people receiving food stamps don't need them.

(103)

1-5

The food stamp program could be improved. (104) 1-5

I have trouble getting around town. -(105) 1-5

When someone breaks a food stamp program rule, he

should suffer some kind of punishment for it.

(106) 1-5

52.

53.

54.
55.

56.

57.

58.
59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.
65.

64

In the future, it will be easier to get food stamps.
(107) 1-5

The kinds of groceries I buy with my Food Stamps should

only be my business and no one elses. (108) 1-5

I usually shop at the same grocery store (109) 1-5

Check-out clerks tend to treat people negatively when

they use food stamps instead of cash. (110) 1-5

I try to avoid customers I know when I go to the

grocery store. (111) 1-5

I am a better person than most other people on food

stamps. (112) 1-5

The rules to get food stamps are too strict. (113) 1-5

I usually see people I know when I go to the post

office. ' (114) 1-5

I will probably be on the food stamp program for a

long time. (115) 1-5

Grocery store personnel are usually friendly to me.
(116) 1-5

Customers in the check-out line look down on people

when they use food stamps to pay for their groceries.

(117) 1-5

What I do with my food stamps is none of the Social

Workers business. (118) 1-5

I have to pay too much for my food stamps. (119) 1-5

There seems to be a difference in the way I am treated

at the grocery store check-outs when I use food stamps.

(120) 1-5

65

66. Everyone is treated the same under the food stamp
regulations. (121) 1-5
67. The food stamp rules are fair. (122) 1-5
68. I think I need to know more about the food stamp pro-
gram to use it effectively. (123) 1-5
A-Z (4-5) 01-26
K=11, C=03
Case # (6-13) 0-9
A-I (13) 1-9

Card B

Store Clerks
Minister
Policeman
Landlords
Doctors
Councilman
Lawyers
Relatives
Social Workers
Friends

69. What type of person do you find to be the most helpful

 

 

 

to you? (14-15) 01-10
The next most helpful? (16-17) 01-10
And the next? (18-19) 01-10
70. Sex: M F (20) 0-2
71. B W C O I (21) 1-5

Other comments:

APPENDIX C

Table 11

Test-Retest Pearson Product-Moment Correlations
of Individual Attitude Items

 

Vgpiable 3 Variable p
32 .8717 51 .4678
33 .908 52 .3371
34 .5590 53 .8685
35 .9456 54 .99
36 .4082 55 .6541
37 .8729 56 .9183
38 .8487 57 .2274
39 .99 58 .3194
40 .7192 59 .6561
41 .01 60 .9430
42 .6124 61 .1111
43 .7384 62 .9444
44 new item 63 .9316
45 .6409 64 .3360
46 .9265 65 new item
47 .9583 66 .8989
48 new item 67 .6124
49 .8468 68 new item
50 .8327

66

Table 12
subscale: Critical
Corrected

Standard item-total
Variables Meang Deviations correlations

 

 

 

 

-The food stamp
rules are fair 3.630 .68955 .58922

-I have to pay
too much for my
food stamps 3.145 1.12709 .56240

-The food stamp
program is prop-
erly run 3.240 .92013 .44950

-Everyone is
treated the same
under the food

stamp regula-
tion 3.310 .85296 .44004

-I have to pay

more for my

food stamps than

do other people

I know in similar

circumstances 3.405 1.06142 .43778

-The food stamp
program could
be improved

PG

.335 .80997 .42502

~The rules to
get food stamps
are too strict 3.595 .79000 .31051

Standardized Item Alpha = .74476

67

Table 13

Subscale: Social Stigma

Corrected
Standard item-total
Variables Means Deviations correlations

 

 

 

-There seems to be

a difference in

the way I am treated

at the grocery store

check-out when I

use food stamps 3.495 .81443 .66618

-Check-out clerks
tend to treat
people negatively
when they use food

stamps instead
of cash 3.245 .99999 .60866

-Customers in

the check-out

line look down on

people when they

use food stamps

to pay for their

groceries 2.985 .96926 .53096

-Grocery store

personnel are

usually friendly

to me 3.790 .60641 .40285

Standardized Item Alpha - .74908

68

Table 14
Subscale: Institutional Stigma
Corrected

Standard item-total
Variables Means Deviations correlations

 

 

 

-I have been

treated well

at the welfare

office 2.210 .74070 .35529

-What I do

with my food

stamps is none

of the social

workers business 2.955 .98887 .33405

 

-The social

worker asks too

many personal

questions 2.360 .87420 .27620

-When someone

breaks a food

stamp program

rule, he should

suffer some kind

of punishment for

it 2.440 .83660 .24603

-The social

worker should

enforce the food

stamp rules

strictly 2.315 .72692 .21933

Standardized item alpha = .51624

69

Table 15

Subscale: Accepted

Corrected
Standard item-total
Variable Meang Deviations correlations

 

 

 

 

-I have several
friends on food
stamps 3.030 1.05101 .33942

-I will probably

be on the food

stamp program

a long time 3.305 1.00350 .29668

-I usually see

people I know

when I go to

the post office 3.245 .97454 .29636

-I like the
food stamp pro-
gram 2.355 .77588 .27121

-Most people

receiving food

stamps need to

have them 2.340 .71902 .19051

Standardized item alpha = .52072

70

Appendix D

Field Encounters

 

Framework: The Ecological Psychology graduate training
program at Michigan State University was established in 1970.
It's overall objective has been to teach utilization of ex-
perimental methods in addressing current social problems.

To this end, the model of Experimental Social Innovation (ESI)
was advanced by Fiarweather (1960), as follows: (1) The
researcher defines the parameters of a problem found in a social
sub-system through experimental derivation: (2) S/he then
devises an alternative to the particular set of behaviors
(procedures) s/he had found to be counter productive or de-
structive and proceeds to: (3) experimentally evaluate the
adjustment within the context of the social sub-system. If
the results indicate that the adjustment was, indeed, a worth-
while one, the researcher then: (4) assumes the change-agent
role and proceeds towards disseminating the innovative ad-
justment to the extent that it is properly generalizable:
carefully monitoring his or her efforts experimentally. The
present study addresses a probelm at the first step of the
model.

In psychology, as in many other professions, graduate
training programs provide the learning experiences that are
the foundation for a person's career. As new graduate pro-

grams geared to "field" methods (like Ecological) emerge

72

among the traditional programs geared to theory development
and collecting supporting data, new types of learning ex-
periences must necessarily become available to the graduate
student.

In a typical social-psychology program, the thesis is
generally accepted as an accounting of the required research
and most experiences related to it are rather standard. An
accounting of the present research is contingent on discussing
events not ordinarily encountered in traditional thesis data
gathering since readers may not readily realize what events
can occur.

Experience: These events, most assuredly, can center

 

around problems. They may be due to lack of control over

the contingencies inherent in field placements and/or to the
reluctance of most operating social agencies to admit re-
searchers. Reluctance born of fear that such outsiders may
disrupt routine, increase someone's workload, find out some-
thing that could cause embarrassment, and/or result in future
changes that may complicate goals.

If research positions are available through projects
that professors manage to get funded or through agencies that
have established mechanisms for funding such positions, it
becomes a relatively straightforward matter for a student to
establish his or her research design. Such opportunities,
however, are not plentiful and few afford the chance for
contact with consumers of services rendered through establish-

ed institutional channels. Students seeking to get a feel

73

for the position of the consumer of an ongoing social service
must, in the majority, deal with some local agency on their
own.

Intervention on the local level has its disadvantages.
It is much safer to enter a multi-level agency on the high-
est possible level because agency-wide policy favorable to—
ward research would be more likely to be supported. Any social
agency with a multi-level administration, such as the welfare
system, must necessarily yield some of its power down to the
local office.

An example of the possible consequences of "local level"
entry evolved during this thesis research. Having worked
in Bay County, Michigan for three summers as a Migratory
Farm Worker Services worker for the Department of Social
Services, I decided to approach the director about conducting
this research, taking advantage of the excellent working re-
lationship that had developed. The ESI model espouses that
administrative agreements be negotiated and documented before
the research is initiated to assure that the conditions that
are necessary for proper implementation of the research de-
sign are understood, and to assure continuity of policy to-
ward the project throughout its course. Having negotiated
such agreements with the director, a sequence of events fol-
lowed beyond the control expressed in the agreements.

The research was initially proposed in February of 1975.

Subjects were to be selected randomly in a given month from

74

among those with proper authorization that acquired their
food stamps and those that did not. The mechanism for re-
cognizing these two groups was contingent upon two pieces of
computer output that were referred to as an Authorization to
Purchase journal and a Participation journal.

All households authorized to purchase stamps in a given
month were listed by an independent computer facility at the
end of a month and the journal sent to the county office.
Also, a list of all those authorized that actually participated
in the food stamp program by purchasing their food stamps
was compiled and sent shortly after the end of the month. By
comparing the two outputs, the sub-group that was authorized
but did not acquire its stamps could be determined. The re-
search design called for administering a questionnaire face-
to-face through visits to the subjects' homes. Through the
resulting data, comparisons could have been made to determine
the critical variables responsible for the difference between
the group purchasing stamps and the non-purchasing group.

At that point in time, the state office ordered the few
county offices that had independently hired computer com-
panies handling their food stamp program bookkeeping to ter-
minate such relationships so that the state office could hire
a company on a competitive bid basis to do the work state-
wide. Because there was to be virtually no delay involved
in switching over to the new computer company, to protect

the counties that already had a computer-based bookkeeping

75

system for their food stamp program, there seemed little

reason for alarm at this time.

The new company began operations within a month but at
the beginning did not provide all the computer outputs that
had' been contracted. The Authorization to Purchase journals
were provided without interruption, but the Participation
journal was not. In order to carry out the research design,
it was imperative to receive the Participation journal shortly
after the end of the month so that interviews could begin the
following month while subjects' recollections of events would
be recent ones and thus unbiased by subsequent events. It
was a rather simple decision to wait for the new computer
company to gain its equillibrium; there was little reason to
suspect that it would not-~after all, it had a state-wide re-
sponsibility to do so. The Participation journals finally
began to be produced, but they lagged five months behind the
initial schedule, which was much too long a period to be
useful. Whenever I inquired as to when they thought they might
be catching up, I was assurred it would be soon. My faith
in them was intermittently reinforced by an occasional one
monthéirinkage in lag time. As months drew on, confidence
that the company would ever begin to function appropriately
(i.e., within a reasonable amount of time) waned. The study
had to be redesigned, even though this meant that the re-
search design would be less than optimal.

After redesigning the study and finalizing plans for

collecting the data, the state terminated its relationship

76

with the "lagging" computer company and began to use its own
computer facility. It was to take over operations the same
month that the data collection for this research was to be-
gin. Although postponing again to see what surprises might
surface seemed to be the most prudent course of action, time
pressures dictated taking a chance and proceeding as scheduled.

The state computer facility provided a Participation
journal for the first month of its operation, skipped the
next two months in order to catch up to its schedule, and
said it would print out the two missing journals as time per-
mitted.

Because data collection extended over the three month
period that coincided with the first three months of state-
based computing, two-thirds of the needed data was to become
available at a later date. This data became extremely dif-
ficult to acquire because of the reluctance of the local dir-
ector to put pressure on the appropriate people to get the
computer facility to catch up as promised. This reluctance,
of which I was to become aware as months passed, stemmed
from the director's unwillingness to notify the state office
of my study. This action would have entailed following a set
of state office research guidelines that included his sub-
mitting the appropriate forms. In effect, local research
policy conflicted with "general" research policy, which
eventually led to extreme discomfort for me. The existence

of a "general" research policy would most likely have come

77

to my attention had I chosen to do research that logistically
could have been handled by the state office, e.g. something
related to administrative policy.

I finally gave up hope (under time pressures) in ever
receiving the needed output and arranged by delicate nego-
tiations to gain access to the stores of paper in which my
data was buried. Two weeks after gathering friends and wading
through, the data was finally in hand.

These experiences not only indicate some of the problems
research on the local level is prone to, but also provide a
window to the quality of service delivery available to
clientele. Close association with the agency revealed that
the computer problems that plagued this research were not
the only problems (e.g. computer check issuing foul-ups).

Poor people that depend upon the welfare agency for subsistence
cannot be well served by an inefficient bureaucratic structure.

Conclusion. Obviously, these sorts of experiences have

 

educational value to graduate students interested in field
research, but unascertainable time frames can discourage
professors (graduate programs) from letting their students
conduct the field research necessary to provide an appropriate
learning base.

If students are discouraged from conducting field re-
search by lack of opportunity or the inflexibility of graduate
programs, the perpetuation of psychology's ivory tower image
appears certain. Ecological begins to answer this criticism.
It encourages field research and is flexible in the time it

allows for its completion but it must still operate within

 

78

the larger status-quo oriented system and is therefore sub-

ject to its pressures towards conformity. Unfortunately,

its students cannot be totally insulated from these pressures.

’a...-