1. health and fitness
2. nutrition

aPrIl 2012
Income and Benefits
Policy Center
www.urban.org
INsIde ThIs Issue
• Over the past decade, WIC has been one of the
fastest growing federal nutrition programs.
•half of infants and a quarter of young children, pregnant women, and postpartum women receive WIC.
•WIC provided $6.7 billion of nutritional support
in 2009.
•sixty-one percent of all persons eligible for WIC
participated in the program in 2009.
WIC Participants and Their Growing
Need for Coverage
Michael Martinez-Schiferl
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides low-income pregnant
women, postpartum mothers, infants, and children up to age 5 with select foods, nutrition education, and health care
and government service referrals. WIC helps ensure that those most at risk of not receiving adequate nutrition get
assistance at a critical time in their development. Early intervention aims to improve the health of participants and
prevent later health problems.
W
IC serves many in need. More
than half of all infants and more
than a quarter of all children
through age 4, pregnant women,
and postpartum women participate. Nearly
two-thirds of all WIC participants live below
the federal poverty level (FPL) even though
individuals with incomes less than 185 percent
of FPL are eligible to participate.
WIC is a central component of the federal
food nutrition safety net. It is the third-largest
federal food nutrition program, accounting
for 7.0 percent of the spending on food and
nutrition assistance during FY 2010 (figure 1).
More than $6.7 billion was spent through
WIC ($4.6 billion in food costs and $1.9 billion in administration expenses1) on food and
other services for a monthly average of 9.2
million participants.
This brief summarizes key features of the
WIC program, including eligibility rules,
participation, benefits, and administration. It
presents the 2009 estimates of WIC eligibility and coverage for the nation and the
states.2 Also summarized are recent improvements in WIC administrative practices and
nutrition outcomes.
What Is WIC?
WIC was established in 1972 to assist lowincome women, infants, and children at
nutritional risk. This is accomplished
through supplemental foods, nutrition education, and referrals to health care and other
government services (Food and Nutrition
Service 2011c). WIC was last authorized in
December 2010 through the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act.3
Studies suggest
that WIC dollars
translate into cost
savings on health
spending for the
government, and
new changes in WIC
food packages should
further improve
health outcomes.
WIC Participants and Their Growing Need for Coverage
Figure 1. u.s. expenditures for Food and Nutrition assistance
Programs, FY 2010
Commodity
Food Distribution
2.1%
All other programs
2.1%
Child and Adult Care
Food Program
2.8%
School Breakfast
3.0%
WIC
7.0%
School
Lunch
11.3%
SNAP
71.7%
Total food and nutrition program expenditures in FY2010: $95.3 billion
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Program Information Report (Keydata): fy2010–fy2011.
Note: Program expenditures include administrative costs.
WIC is a discretionary spending program
and therefore participation may be limited by
annual funding established by Congress. In
recent years nearly all eligible applicants have
received benefits, reflecting Congress’s desire
to fully fund the program. A seven-point priority system ensures that those with the greatest nutritional risk receive benefits in the
event of a funding shortage. Highest priority
is given to infants, pregnant women, and
breastfeeding women with nutrition-related
medical conditions.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service, administers WIC by
providing states with grants for supplemental
foods and services. States use grants to supply
vouchers that program participants redeem at
authorized food stores for certain nutritious
foods.4 More than 46,000 merchants nation-
wide accept WIC vouchers (Food and
Nutrition Service 2011c). WIC voucher
amounts are based on WIC supplemental food
packages. With the exception of vouchers for
fresh fruit and vegetables, WIC vouchers are
typically for a specified quantity of a particular
good (e.g., one dozen eggs), and therefore the
value of the vouchers varies with local food costs.
WIC food packages supplement participants with foods high in nutrients often lacking in their diets. In 2009, FNS revised WIC
food packages to narrow the possibility of
both inadequate and excessive nutrient
intakes and to be more flexible with dietary
preferences. The new WIC packages include
more fresh fruits and vegetables, more whole
grain foods, and less formula during the first
six months of an infant’s life. The change in
the infant formula allotments aimed to
encourage partially breastfeeding mothers to
increase breast milk use.
WIC food packages are tailored for
infants, children, and women (table 1), and
benefit packages are the same for participants
throughout the nation. Partially and fully
formula-fed infants are provided monthly
allotments of iron-fortified formula. For all
infants starting at 6 months, baby food fruits
and vegetables and iron-fortified infant cereal
are introduced; fully breastfed infants also
receive an allotment of baby food meat.
Children receive vitamin-C-rich juice, fruits
and vegetables, milk, iron-fortified whole
grain cereal, whole wheat bread, eggs, and
legumes. Pregnant, postpartum, and partially
breastfeeding women receive many of the
same foods as children but different quantities. Fully breastfeeding women receive an
additional allotment that includes eggs,
cheese, canned fish, and peanut butter (Food
and Nutrition Service 2011d).
WIC provides participants and caretakers
with nutrition education that emphasizes the
relationship between nutrition, physical activity,
and health. Information on nutritional needs is
targeted for infants, children, and pregnant and
postpartum women. Pregnant and postpartum
women are made aware of the benefits of breastfeeding and the dangers of substance abuse.
Participation in nutrition education classes is
not mandatory in order to receive benefits, but
state agencies are required to offer classes.
Local WIC agencies also assist WIC
participants through referrals for other health
care services such as immunizations or
Medicaid, as well as assistance from other
safety net programs like the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Who Is eligible and Who Participates?
WIC eligibility is based on categorical, residential, income, and nutritional risk requirements
(table 2). Only pregnant and postpartum
women, infants, and children through age 4
are categorically eligible, and their family
2.
WIC Participants and Their Growing Need for Coverage
Table 1. summary of WIC Food Package Monthly allotments
Children
(age 1 – 4)
Women
Juice
128 fl oz
96–144 fl oz a
Milk
16 qt
16–24 qt a
36 oz
36 oz
1 dozen
1 dozen
$6 in cash
value vouchers
$10 in cash
value vouchers
Whole wheat
bread
2 lb
1 lb (none for postpartum women)
legumes
1 lb dry (or 64 oz
canned) or 18 oz
peanut butter
1 lb dry (or 64 oz
canned) or 18 oz
peanut butter
Foods
Infants
Iron-fortified
infant formula
364 –884 fl oza,b
(none for those
fully breastfed)
Iron-fortified
whole grain
cereal
24 oz starting
at 6 months
eggs
Fruits and
vegetables
Other
128–256 oz a starting
at 6 months
Fully breastfed infants:
77.5 oz baby food meat
starting at 6 months
Postpartum fully
breastfeeding women:
additional 1 dozen
eggs, 1 lb cheese, 30 oz
canned fish, and 18 oz
peanut butter
Source: Food and Nutrition Service (2011d).
a. Exact quantity dependent on breastfeeding status.
b. Reduced quantities for younger and partially breastfed infants.
income must be below 185 percent of the federal poverty income guidelines ($41,348 for a
family of four in the continental United States
from July 2011 to June 2012). However, if a categorically eligible person participates in SNAP
(formerly Food Stamps), Medicaid, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or certain other state-administered programs, the
income requirement is waived and she
becomes adjunctively eligible. Eligibility also
depends on a person experiencing “nutritional
risk,” either through poor diet or medical conditions. In practice, though, nearly all persons
income eligible are considered to be at nutritional risk due to the relationship between
income resources and an adequate diet.
In CY 2009, an estimated 2.7 million
infants, 9.5 million children, and 2.9 million
women were WIC eligible (figure 2). Of those,
2.2 million infants, 4.8 million children, and
2.2 million women participated, for coverage
rates of 82.9 percent, 50.6 percent, and 74.3
percent, respectively. Nationally, 51.2 percent
of all infants, 27.4 percent of children age 1–4,
and 28.9 percent of all pregnant and postpartum women received WIC benefits in 2009.
Growth in WIC eligibility from 2000 to
2009 is the result of several factors, including
population growth and changes in income
and participation in other means-tested programs (figure 3). The number of infants and
children in the United States grew from 19.7
million in 2000 to 21.6 million in 2009 (an
increase of 9.4 percent). The number of WIC
income-eligible infants and children grew
from 8.1 million in 2000 to 9.7 million in
2009 (an increase of 19.8 percent). The number of WIC adjunctively eligible infants and
children grew from 1.4 million in 2000 to 2.2
million in 2009 (an increase of 61.1 percent).
The total number of eligible infants and children both income and adjunctively eligible
grew by 25.8 percent from 2000 to 2009.
Changes in eligibility since the recession
began (comparing 2008 to 2009) show that a
7.7 percent growth in total number eligible
was almost completely due to changes in
income and an increase in the number of WIC
income eligible.
WIC 2010 participant data indicate that
nearly two-thirds of WIC enrollees lived
below the federal poverty level; 31.7 percent in
deep poverty (below 50 percent of the poverty
level) and 32.1 percent between 50 and 100
percent of the poverty level (Conor et al. 2011).
Many enrollees also participated in other
means-tested programs. In 2010, over twothirds of WIC participants (69.2 percent)
reported receiving benefits from Medicaid,
SNAP, or TANF, up from only half (50.2
percent) in 2000 (Conor et al. 2011).5 This
increase follows general trends of increasing
participation in these other safety net programs.
Over time, the race/ethnicity composition of WIC enrollees has steadily changed,
with Hispanics now representing the largest
3.
WIC Participants and Their Growing Need for Coverage
Table 2. summary of WIC eligibility requirements
requirement
description
Categorical
Families with infants and children through age 4, pregnant women (up
to six weeks after birth or end of pregnancy), postpartum breastfeeding
women (up to infant’s first birthday), or postpartum women not breastfeeding (up to six months after child’s birth).
residential
Must apply in own state of residence. No minimum residency requirements. Citizenship or legal residency is not a federal requirement for
eligibility; however, states may choose to impose such requirements.
Income
Income cannot exceed 185 percent of the federal poverty income guidelines. Participants in sNaP, Medicaid, TaNF, and certain other stateadministered programs are not subject to this income requirement.
Nutritional risk
Must be determined to be at “nutritional risk” based on poor diet or
medical conditions. Nearly all income-eligible applicants meet the
nutritional risk requirement.
Figure 2. WIC eligibility and Participation by Group, CY 2009
20,000
Total
17,509
Eligible
Participants
Persons (000)
15,000
9,469
10,000
7,548
5,000
4,789
4,330
2,932
2,674 2,218
0
Source: Betson et al. (2011).
Infants
Children
(Age 1–4)
2,179
Pregnant and
postpartum women
portion of those enrolled. The proportion of
Hispanic WIC recipients grew from 35.3
percent in 2000 to 41.9 percent in 2010 while
the proportions of black and white WIC
recipients have declined from 37.4 to 31.8 percent for whites and 21.9 to 20.1 percent for
blacks (Conor et al. 2011). This increase in
WIC enrollment among Hispanics, relative
to whites and blacks, corresponds with a large
growth in the Hispanic population from 33.7
million in 2000 to 49.9 million in 2010 (a
47.9 percent increase) and a large increase
in the number of Hispanic poor from 7.1 million in 2000 to 13.2 million in 2010 (an 85.1
percent increase) (Dalaker 2001; DeNavasWalt, Proctor, and Smith 2011).
Growth in WIC enrollment numbers from
2000 through 2010 has primarily come from
an increase in the number children through
age 4, which increased by 36.2 percent (3.5 million in 2000 to 4.8 million in 2010). The number of women receiving WIC increased by 20.5
percent (from 1.8 million in 2000 to 2.1 million in 2010); enrolled infants increased by 13.2
percent (1.9 million to 2.2 million).
Coverage rates, the number enrolled
divided by the number eligible, have increased
slightly from 2000 to 2009: 57.8 percent in
2000 to 60.9 percent in 2009 for all participants (figure 4).6 Coverage rates for infants and
women are higher than for all participants. For
infants, coverage rates increased from 78.6
percent in 2000 to 82.9 percent in 2009. For
women, coverage rates increased from 66.1 percent in 2000 to 74.3 percent in 2009. Coverage
rates for children are lower than for all participants but still increased from 48.0 percent in
2000 to 50.6 percent in 2009. The differences
between these national-level coverage rates all
fall within 90 percent confidence intervals.7
WIC coverage varies considerably by state
(figure 5). In 2009, state coverage for all WIC
participants ranged from 45.9 percent to 78.7
percent, compared to 60.9 percent for the
nation. The five states with the lowest WIC
coverage rates are Montana (45.9 percent),
4.
WIC Participants and Their Growing Need for Coverage
What do We Know about WIC Outcomes?
Research documents the positive benefits of
WIC. A recent literature review concluded
that WIC participation has a positive impact
on birth weight (Coleman et al. 2012). The
study also found that WIC participation is
associated with improved diets among children, including reduced intake of fats and
added sugars and increased intake of fruits
and vegetables. Research also suggests that
WIC participants are more likely to use both
preventive and curative health care services.
Finally, Lee, Mackey-Bilaver, and Chin
(2006) found that participation in WIC is
associated with a reduced risk of child abuse
and neglect. While more research is needed
to confirm whether the effect is indeed
causal, this finding suggests that nutrition
assistance programs may help children in
many ways.
Two studies on the effect of WIC on birth
outcomes quantified the savings that WIC services provide in health care costs for newborns.
Devaney, Bilheimer, and Schore (1990) found
that for each dollar spent on WIC prenatal services, $1.77 to $3.13 was saved in Medicaid costs
for newborns and mothers within the first 60
days after birth. A report from the U.S. General
Accounting Office (1992) concluded that each
dollar of WIC spending resulted in $3.50 in savings (in present value terms) in health care costs
and other government program expenditures
over 18 years. However, Besharov and Germanis
Figure 3. Trends for WIC eligibility for Infants and Children
(age 0–4), 2000 to 2009
Population of infants and children (age 0–4)
Income eligible
Adjunctively eligible
Income and adjunctively eligible
25,000
Number of infants and children (000)
Utah (47.3), Colorado (48.5), Idaho (50.7),
and Illinois (50.8). The five states with the
highest WIC coverage rates are Puerto Rico
(78.7 percent), Vermont (76.3), the District of
Columbia (76.2), California (73.7), and
Minnesota (73.5). Figure 5 also shows the 90
percent confidence intervals for each state’s
coverage rate.8 These confidence intervals
depend on sampling variability of the surveys
used to produce the estimates;9 generally,
states with larger populations tend to have
smaller confidence intervals.
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Source: Betson et al. (2011).
Figure 4. Coverage rates by Participant Group, 2000–2009 (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Infants
Children
Women
Total
30
20
10
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Source: Betson et al. (2011).
5.
WIC Participants and Their Growing Need for Coverage
Figure 5. WIC eligibility and Participation by state, CY 2009
HOW MANY WERE ELIGIBLE FOR WIC IN CY 2009? WHAT PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATED?
Eligible
people
(000)
251
Coverage Rates and Confidence Intervals
Coverage Rate = 100 X Number of Persons Participating / Number of Persons Eligible
(Estimated coverage rates are shown between the bounds of their confidence intervals.)
Puerto Rico
23
Vermont
23
District of Columbia
1,958
California
192
Minnesota
210
Maryland
56
Hawaii
300
Washington
175
Oregon
197
Massachusetts
802
New York
221
Kentucky
83
West Virginia
40
Rhode Island
1,616
Texas
211
Oklahoma
40
Delaware
126
Iowa
128
Kansas
504
Ohio
24
North Dakota
44
Alaska
214
31
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
242
Alabama
259
Louisiana
104
Connecticut
888
Florida
295
New Jersey
284
Virginia
462
Pennsylvania
238
South Carolina
439
Michigan
571
Georgia
172
Arkansas
198
Mississippi
496
North Carolina
316
Indiana
129
Nevada
43
South Dakota
325
Tennessee
85
Nebraska
399
Arizona
289
Missouri
26
Wyoming
132
52
New Mexico
Maine
613
Illinois
92
Idaho
226
Colorado
156
Utah
45
15,075
Montana
United States
78.7
76.3
76.2
70.8
73.7
76.6
66.2
73.5
80.7
63.8
70.5
77.2
54.3
66.1
77.9
60.0
65.3
70.5
58.4
65.1
71.8
65.1
71.4
58.7
61.3
64.7
68.2
58.5
64.5
70.5
54.6
64.0
73.5
50.0
63.1
76.2
60.1
62.8 65.5
62.5
68.4
56.6
48.3
61.2
74.1
53.4
60.7
68.0
53.4
60.7
67.9
56.6
60.5
64.4
44.0
60.3
76.5
48.2
60.2
72.1
54.5
60.1
65.7
45.2
59.4
73.7
53.4
58.7
63.9
53.5
58.6
63.6
50.3
58.0
65.6
54.8
57.8
60.8
53.1
57.7
62.4
52.2
56.8
61.5
53.0
56.8
60.6
51.6
56.7
61.7
52.6
56.5
60.3
52.8
56.2
59.7
49.9
55.7
61.5
50.1
55.5
60.9
51.8
55.4
59.0
50.3
54.6
58.9
47.5
53.9
60.3
43.0
53.8
64.6
49.5
53.7
57.9
45.8
53.5
61.2
48.9
52.7
56.4
47.9
52.2
56.4
38.6
52.1
65.6
46.0
52.1
58.2
42.4
52.0
61.6
47.8
50.8
53.8
43.6
50.7
57.7
44.1
48.5
52.9
42.1
47.3
52.4
36.9
45.9
54.9
71.8
55.2
54.9
59.1
85.5
97.4
97.5
60.9 62.8
Source: Betson et al. (2011).
Note: Figures displayed here are for the 90-percent confidence intervals. Confidence intervals express the uncertainty about the true WIC coverage rate.
6.
WIC Participants and Their Growing Need for Coverage
(2001) suggest that these estimates are overstated, pointing to inherent selection and simultaneity bias in the studies.
items (e.g., generic and store brand items), and
negotiate rebates similar to those for infant
formula with food manufacturers or suppliers.
Rising food prices also threaten to diminish
administering and Improving WIC
the value of newly introduced cash value
Numerous administrative and outcome-based vouchers for fruits and vegetables.
issues persist in a program with the size and
While most states still provide paper
complexity of WIC. These issues include the vouchers for WIC benefits, it is expected that
need to stretch WIC funding by implementing the transition to electronic benefits will help
cost-containment measures and to ensure that administrators monitor costs. The Healthy,
WIC produces positive nutrition outcomes.
Hunger-Free Kids Act mandated the transfer
WIC cost containment. Over the past to electronic WIC benefits by 2020 to
decade, WIC has been one of the fastest grow- improve administration. As of September 2011,
ing federal nutrition programs, and managing only five states and four tribal organizations
program costs has been key to its expansion. had fully implemented a statewide WIC elecProgram administrators stretch program tronic benefits system (Food and Nutrition
funds through cost-containment measures Service 2011b). States have received several
including state sole-source contracting for grants to help them develop plans for transiinfant formula and other WIC foods.
tioning to electronic benefits.
Improved nutrition outcomes. WIC aims
Unlike other safety net programs, WIC
does not require matching state funds. Federal to improve nutritional outcomes by increasing
administrators provide states with incentives breastfeeding among WIC women, ensuring
to reduce WIC costs by establishing grants for that WIC does not contribute to the increased
WIC food separate from WIC program prevalence of childhood obesity, and improving
administration. Federal regulations require nutrition education and medical service referrals.
Historically, WIC participants have
each state establish a maximum payment to
vendors for WIC food items (Neuberger and breastfed less than nonparticipants (Ryan and
Zhou 2006). The recent revisions to WIC
Greenstein 2004).
State sole-source contracting with infant food packages were intended to encourage
formula providers plays a vital role in ensuring partially breastfeeding women to increase the
that federal WIC dollars go further. In FY duration and intensity of breastfeeding, and
2008, infant formula rebates totaled $2.0 bil- WIC now requires that local agencies highlion dollars, or a savings of nearly half of total light exemplary breastfeeding practices. The
actual WIC food expenditures (Oliveira, Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act also awards
Frazão, and Smallwood 2010). Infant formula performance bonuses for states with highest
rebates save enough program costs to cover and most improved breastfeeding rates.
The rising incidence of childhood obesity
one-quarter of the total WIC caseload
has led some to question whether WIC partic(Oliveira and Frazão 2009).
From 2000 through 2010, the price of food ipation could somehow be encouraging
at home has risen at an average annual rate of overeating. However, studies (Lin 2005;
2.6 percent per year, slightly outpacing growth Oliveira and Chandran 2005; Ver Ploeg,
in prices in general, which average 2.4 percent Mancino, and Lin 2007) have found no eviper year.10 Since rising food costs strain pro- dence that childhood obesity is related to
gram funds, many states only authorize WIC WIC participation. Nevertheless, concerns
vendors that have lower food prices, require about increasing childhood obesity played a
beneficiaries to purchase the lowest-cost WIC part in revising WIC food packages to provide
foods that are more nutritious and less likely
to contribute to unhealthy caloric intake,
including limiting the amount of juice and
milk for young children.
summary
The WIC program provides supplemental
food and services to some of the most vulnerable populations: low-income infants, young
children, and pregnant and postpartum
women. These supplemental foods supply the
nutrients typically lacking in their diets.
Benefits come at a critical time, the early
development of infants and children.
WIC has grown to be a central component of the federal food safety net, with half
of all infants and a quarter of young children,
pregnant women, and postpartum women
receiving benefits. Coverage rates for the
nation have slightly increased over the last
decade. These rates vary across the country
with the highest in Puerto Rico, Vermont,
the District of Columbia, California, and
Minnesota and the lowest in Montana, Utah,
Colorado, Idaho, and Illinois.
Growing WIC enrollment represents a
challenge to administrators as they seek to
stretch WIC discretionary funding further. A
number of cost-containment measures have
been implemented, and it is likely that more
will still need to be done to compensate for rising food costs and expanding WIC enrollment.
Studies suggest that WIC dollars translate
into cost savings on health spending for the
government, and new changes in WIC food
packages should further improve health outcomes. Still, more needs to be learned about
the effects of WIC foods and education on
outcomes, especially given recent changes in
participation and food package content. •
7.
WIC Participants and Their Growing Need for Coverage
Notes
references
1. Note that administration expenses include the
cost of all nonfood services provided by WIC,
including nutrition education, breastfeeding
support, and other government service referrals.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
estimated that actual program administration
accounts for approximately 9 percent of federal
WIC costs (Neuberger 2011).
Besharov, Douglas J., and Peter Germanis. 2001.
Rethinking WIC: An Evaluation of the Women,
Infants, and Children Program. Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute Press.
———. 2011d. “WIC Food Packages—Maximum
Monthly Allowances.”
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/
foodpkgallowances.htm. (Accessed December 1, 2011.)
Betson, David, Michael Martinez-Schiferl, Linda
Giannarelli, and Sheila Zedlewski. 2011. “Nationaland State-Level Estimates of Eligibility and
Program Reach, 2000–2009.” Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service. Republished
http://www.urban.org/publications/412482.html.
Lee, Bong Joo, Lucey Mackey-Bilaver, and Meejung
Chin. 2006. “Effects of WIC and Food Stamp
Program Participation on Child Outcomes.”
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
2. For detailed estimates of WIC eligibility see
Betson et al. (2011).
3. See Food and Nutrition Service (2011a) for a
summary of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
4. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act mandated
that states transfer to an electronic WIC benefit
system by 2020.
5. As noted earlier, participation in Medicaid,
SNAP, TANF, or other state-administered
programs can confer WIC eligibility. With the
exception of Medicaid in some states, these
programs have income eligibility standards
below 185 percent of FPL. That is, most participating in other low-income programs would be
eligible for WIC just on the basis of their income.
6. Calendar year 2009 is the most recent year
for which WIC coverage rate and eligibility
estimates are currently available.
7. The spike in the coverage rates in 2002 is due
to a drop in the national-level infant eligibility
estimate for that year. This is a noted anomaly
in the WIC estimates time series data.
8. These confidence intervals depict the level of
uncertainty around each estimated coverage rate
and are important for trying to compare state
coverage rates. If a state coverage rate is within the
confidence interval of another state’s rate, the two
cannot be considered statistically different. For
example, West Virginia and Delaware have different estimates of coverage, but since West Virginia’s
rate falls within Delaware’s confidence interval,
they are not significantly different statistically.
9. See Betson et al. (2011) for details.
10. Author’s calculations based on monthly,
seasonally adjusted consumer price index
(CPI) data from the Bureau of Labor and
Statistics for the cost of food at home (Series
ID: CUSR0000SAF11 and CUSR0000SA0):
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/.
Coleman, Silvie, Ira P. Nichols-Barrer, Julie E.
Redline, Barbara L. Devaney, Sara V. Ansell, and
Ted Joyce. 2012. “Effect of the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Chlldren (WIC): A Review of Recent Research.”
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service.
Conor, Patty, Susan Bartlett, Michele Mendelson,
Kelly Lawrence, and Katerine Wen. 2011. “WIC
Participant and Program Characteristics 2010.”
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service.
Dalaker, Joseph. 2001. “Poverty in the United
States: 2000.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census
Bureau.
DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor,
and Jessica C. Smith. 2011. “Income, Poverty, and
Health Insurance Coverage in the United States;
2010.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Devaney, Barbara, Linda Bilheimer, and Jennifer
Schore. 1990. “The Savings in Medicaid Costs for
Newborns and Their Mothers Resulting from
Prenatal Participation in the WIC Program.”
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service.
Food and Nutrition Service. 2011a. “Summary of
the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.”
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/legislation/
PL111-296_Summary.pdf. (Accessed December 1, 2011.)
———. 2011b. “WIC EBT Activity Map—
September 2011.”
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/ebt/EBTActivity
Map.pdf. (Accessed December 1, 2011.)
———. 2011c. “About WIC.”
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/mission.htm.
(Accessed December 1, 2011.)
Lin, Biing-Hwan. 2005. “Nutritional and Health
Characteristics of Low-Income Populations: Body
Weight Status.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Neuberger, Zoë. 2011. “Claim Regarding High WIC
Administrative Costs Is False.” Washington, DC:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3514.
Neuberger, Zoë, and Robert Greenstein. 2004.
“WIC-Only Stores and Competitive Pricing in the
WIC Program.” Washington, DC: Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.
Oliveira, Victor, and Ram Chandran. 2005.
“Children’s Consumption of WIC-Approved Foods.”
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
Oliveira, Victor, and Elizabeth Frazão. 2009. “The WIC
Program: Background, Trends, and Economic Issues,
2009 Edition.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Oliveira, Victor, Elizabeth Frazão, and David
Smallwood. 2010. “Rising Infant Formula Costs to
the WIC Program: Recent Trends in Rebates and
Wholesale Prices.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Ryan, Alan S., and Wenjun Zhou. 2006. “Low
Breastfeeding Rates Persist among the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children Participants, 1978–2003.”
Pediatrics 117(4).
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1992. “Early
Intervention: Federal Investments Like WIC Can
Produce Savings.” Washington, DC: U.S. General
Accounting Office.
Ver Ploeg, Michele, Lisa Mancino, and Biing-Hwan
Lin. 2007. “Food Nutrition Assistance Programs
and Obesity: 1976–2002.” Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
8.
WIC Participants and Their Growing Need for Coverage
about the author
Michael Martinez-Schiferl
is a research associate with the
Income and Benefits Policy
Center at the Urban Institute.
Income and Benefits Policy Center
www.urban.org/center/ibp/
The Income and Benefits Policy Center studies how public policy influences the behavior and
economic well-being of families, particularly the disabled, the elderly, and those with low incomes.
Scholars look at income support, social insurance, tax, child-support, and employee-benefit programs.
The author would like to thank Sheila Zedlewski and Pam Loprest at the Urban Institute and
David Betson at the University of Notre Dame for providing helpful comments on an earlier draft.
Nonetheless, the author is responsible for the content.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Urban Institute,
its trustees, or its funders. Permission is granted for reproduction of this document, with attribution
to the Urban Institute.
Copyright © April 2012
urBaN INsTITuTe
2100 M street, NW ●
Washington, dC 20037-1231
(202) 833-7200 ●
publicaffairs@urban.org ● www.urban.org