Using American Community Survey Data to Expand Access to the School Meals Programs (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix G: Causes of Systematic Differences Between American Community Survey (ACS) and Administrative Estimates
Appendix G: Causes of Systematic Differences Between American Community Survey (ACS) and Administrative Estimates
Pages 341-373
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 341... ...
This appendix provides additional background information about some of those causes, including · underreporting of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamp Program) benefits; · determining eligibility using annual rather than monthly income; · school choice opportunities; · imputation for nonresponse; and · certification errors.
|
From page 342... ...
The SNAP QC data are sample-based administrative data that are representative at the state level and contain detailed demographic, economic, and SNAP eligibility information for an annual sample of more than 45,000 SNAP households. The data are weighted to match administrative counts of individuals and households receiving benefits and the amount of benefits received (adjusted to remove ineligible households that received benefits in error and those receiving disaster assistance benefits)
|
From page 343... ...
Thus there is about a half-year lag in the ACS income data relative to the SNAP QC income data.5 Additionally, as discussed later in this appendix, if monthly income is variable, using annual income smooths over periods of high and low income and may understate income eligibility for the school meals programs. Similarly, the ACS question on SNAP participation asks whether anyone in the household received food stamp benefits during the last 12 months.
|
From page 344... ...
These results demonstrate the variability among states in the tendency to underreport SNAP benefits. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY USING ANNUAL VERSUS MONTHLY INCOME This section addresses the potential differences in eligibility percentages due to computing eligibility for school meals based on annual income, the only option available for the ACS, and computing eligibility based on monthly income, as is done in the school meals programs.
|
From page 345... ...
z Diff. Households 11,718 14,981 3,263 27.8% 37 88.2 Households with 5,279 5,658 379 7.2% 48 8.0 Children Aged 5-17 Individuals 39,590 35,073 4,517 11.4% 190 23.8 Individuals Aged 5-17 10,041 10,486 446 4.4% 95 4.7 NOTES: ACS = American Community Survey; SE = standard error; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamp Program)
|
From page 346... ...
346 USING ACS DATA TO EXPAND ACCESS TO THE SCHOOL MEALS PROGRAMS TABLE G-2 State-Level Counts of School-Age Children (aged 5-17) in Households Receiving SNAP Benefits, 2009 Total Individuals ACS SNAP QC Difference ACS SNAP QC (Difference)
|
From page 347... ...
· No persons in institutional group quarters are represented in the table. · ACS = American Community Survey; SE = standard error; SNAP = Supplemental Nutri tion Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamp Program)
|
From page 348... ...
The current SIPP content is built around a "core" of labor force, program participation, and income questions that are repeated at each wave of interviewing, with supplemental topical modules on particular topics being asked one or more times per panel. The survey collects data for each month of a 4-month recall period, with approximately the same number of interviews being conducted in each month of the 4-month period for each wave.
|
From page 349... ...
However, in addition to computations based on annual income, we derived estimates based on monthly income under the assumption that eligibility status lasts for a school year. Both estimates were computed with and without accounting for categorical eligibility because of SNAP, TANF, and foster children.
|
From page 350... ...
They are categorically eligible for free school meals and will be added back into the tabulations later. For each household, create counts of the number of persons in the household (excluding any foster children)
|
From page 351... ...
the ACS adjusted annual income and school year guidelines for second half of calendar year and (2) SIPP monthly income and school year guidelines.
|
From page 352... ...
Table G-3 shows that the annual income eligibility for free meals is almost always below monthly income eligibility, with or without accounting for categorical eligibility. The differences are smaller,15 however, when we account for categorical eligibility.
|
From page 353... ...
Depending on the relative uptake of school choice alternatives by free or reduced-price-eligible students, catchment area estimates may misrepresent the actual percentage of such students. School districts differentially employ or are otherwise affected by various forms of public school choice, such as magnet schools, charter schools, and intraand interdistrict open enrollment plans.17 We refer to these alternatives generically as public schools of choice.
|
From page 354... ...
Nonmetro Metro 2005 IE 29 Metro 2005 IE + cat 32 Nonmetro 2005 IE 34 Nonmetro 2005 IE + cat 37 Census Region New England 2005 IE 21 New England 2005 IE + cat 24 Middle Atlantic 2005 IE 28 Middle Atlantic 2005 IE + cat 31 East North Central 2005 IE 28 East North Central 2005 IE + cat 31 West North Central 2005 IE 24 West North Central 2005 IE + cat 27 South Atlantic 2005 IE 29 South Atlantic 2005 IE + cat 32 East South Central 2005 IE 38 East South Central 2005 IE + cat 44 West South Central 2005 IE 36 West South Central 2005 IE + cat 40 Mountain 2005 IE 29 Mountain 2005 IE + cat 32 Pacific 2005 IE 30 Pacific 2005 IE + cat 33 SOURCE: Prepared by the panel using the 2004 Survey of Income and Program Participation.
|
From page 355... ...
APPENDIX G 355 Monthly Monthly Annual Annual Annual Reduced Price Full Price Free Reduced Price Full Price (%)
|
From page 356... ...
Based on this analysis, the panel offers recommendations regarding the implications of the issue of school choice for the implementation of the AEO. Potential Effects of School Choice on ACS Estimates To explore the potential effects of school choice on estimates of free or reduced-price-eligible students, the panel assembled data from two school districts with differing forms of public school choice that allowed us to compare estimates of the percentage of free or reduced-price-eligible students based on statistics reflecting catchment area residence with the percentage of free or reduced-price-eligible students who actually enroll in schools following choice decisions.
|
From page 357... ...
This finding is consistent with a situation in which free or reduced-price-eligible students are less likely to opt for charter schools than their economically more advantaged peers. In this situation, the AEO potentially appears less attractive to the district than would be the case if eligibility based on enrolled students were known.
|
From page 358... ...
Because such a large share of public school students residing in the District of Columbia attend independent charter schools, it is likely that the District is among the more extreme examples of how choice influences the accuracy of catchment area estimates. That, however, is an empirical question dependent on the availability of public school choice, which, as is discussed in more detail below, is limited to a relatively few districts, and on the differential use of schools of choice by free or reduced-priceeligible and ineligible students.
|
From page 359... ...
Second, even at the school level, differences may not matter because many pertain to schools with free or reduced-priceeligible percentages too low for the AEO to be considered. Seven percent of the schools are in the northwest quadrant, indicating that although the catchment area-based free or reduced-price-eligibility percentage exceeds 75, the free or reduced-price-eligibility percentage based on enrolled students is less than 75.
|
From page 360... ...
SOURCE: Prepared by the panel. In assessing the potential impact of intradistrict school choice on the use of the AEO, it is also useful to consider the ACS 5-year estimates for Omaha schools and how they differ from the catchment- and enrollment-based data provided by the Omaha school district.
|
From page 361... ...
Taken together, issues of measurement error and school choice (third row) lead to a misclassification of 23 percent of schools when ACS estimates are employed.
|
From page 362... ...
The analysis of the effect of school choice in the District of Columbia Public Schools and the Omaha School District demonstrates that in some instances, school choice may introduce error into free or reduced-priceeligibility estimates from the ACS. Although two observations provide little room for generalization, the analysis suggests that intradistrict choice such as that found in Omaha may be much less problematic than the interdistrict choice found in a district where a very high percentage of students attend charter schools.
|
From page 363... ...
Although potentially problematic when it occurs, school choice currently raises limited concerns, on average, regarding the use of the ACS for estimating eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals. In 20082009, fewer than 15 percent of counties in the United States contained either a charter or magnet school (panel database)
|
From page 364... ...
Tabulations included income eligibility for the school meals programs for all related and unrelated students and excluded foster children. Income eligibility used household income and household size.
|
From page 365... ...
almost 6 percent had SNAP benefits imputed, and of the households that had someone receiving public assistance income, 20 percent had someone with public assistance income imputed. Note that in the households receiving SNAP benefits or public assistance income, most students (68.8 percent and 65.2 percent, respectively)
|
From page 366... ...
However, because the panel has chosen to use the ACS variables on SNAP benefits and public assistance income to determine categorical eligibility, the children mis classified by income imputation will be correctly assigned as eligible for free meals because of SNAP participation. CERTIFICATION ERRORS As described in Chapter 2, the Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification Study (APEC)
|
From page 367... ...
implied by the eligibility percentages. Table G-8 shows that if the percentage of enrolled students who applied for benefits and were denied is 10 percent, and all who did not apply were eligible only for full-price meals, then certification errors result in an overstatement of the BRR by 6-7 percent across all 13 certification distributions.
|
From page 368... ...
Free 45 50 55 60 60 65 70 70 75 80 80 85 90 Reduced Price 15 10 15 10 15 10 5 15 10 5 15 10 5 Full Price 40 40 30 30 25 25 25 15 15 15 5 5 5 Distributions of Eligible Students, Corrected for Certification Error (%) Free 45 47 53 56 57 60 62 66 68 71 74 77 79 Reduced Price 10 9 11 9 11 10 8 12 10 9 13 11 9 Full Price 45 44 36 35 31 30 29 22 21 20 13 12 11 BRRs BRR, Certified Students ($)
|
From page 369... ...
Free 45 50 55 60 60 65 70 70 75 80 80 85 90 Reduced Price 15 10 15 10 15 10 5 15 10 5 15 10 5 Full Price 40 40 30 30 25 25 25 15 15 15 5 5 5 Distributions of Eligible Students, Corrected for Certification Error (%) Free 46 48 54 56 58 60 63 66 69 71 74 77 79 Reduced Price 11 10 12 10 12 10 9 12 11 9 13 11 10 Full Price 43 42 34 33 30 29 28 22 21 20 13 12 11 BRRs BRR, Certified Students ($)
|
From page 370... ...
Free 45 50 55 60 60 65 70 70 75 80 80 85 90 Reduced Price 15 10 15 10 15 10 5 15 10 5 15 10 5 Full Price 40 40 30 30 25 25 25 15 15 15 5 5 5 Distributions of Eligible Students, Corrected for Certification Error (%) Free 47 49 55 57 59 61 64 66 69 72 74 77 79 Reduced Price 12 11 13 11 13 11 9 13 11 10 13 11 10 Full Price 41 40 33 32 29 28 27 21 20 19 13 12 11 BRRs BRR, Certified Students ($)
|
From page 371... ...
Free 45 50 55 60 60 65 70 70 75 80 80 85 90 Reduced Price 15 10 15 10 15 10 5 15 10 5 15 10 5 Full Price 40 40 30 30 25 25 25 15 15 15 5 5 5 Distributions of Eligible Students, Corrected for Certification Error (%) Free 48 51 56 58 59 62 65 67 69 72 74 77 80 Reduced Price 13 12 13 12 13 12 10 13 12 10 13 11 10 Full Price 39 38 31 30 27 26 25 20 19 18 13 12 11 BRRs BRR, Certified Students ($)
|
From page 372... ...
Free 45 50 55 60 60 65 70 70 75 80 80 85 90 Reduced Price 15 10 15 10 15 10 5 15 10 5 15 10 5 Full Price 40 40 30 30 25 25 25 15 15 15 5 5 5 Distributions of Eligible Students, Corrected for Certification Error (%) Free 49 51 56 59 60 62 65 67 70 72 74 77 80 Reduced Price 14 12 14 12 14 12 10 13 12 10 13 11 10 Full Price 38 37 30 29 27 26 25 20 19 18 12 11 10 BRRs BRR, Certified Students ($)
|
From page 373... ...
APPENDIX G 373 students who did not apply were eligible for free or reduced-price meals does not change the overstatement of the BRR for districts with very high free and reduced-price eligibility percentages. For districts with lower levels of eligibility, however, the impact is more dramatic, even contribut ing to an understatement of the BRR.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.