Over the past decade and a half legislative and regulatory changes at the federal level have given US states additional authority to design their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP). This devolution of policymaking authority has led to considerable ambiguity at the national level about the policies that states have put in place. Drawing on a new survey of state SNAP administrators, this paper characterizes two key areas of policy devolution: the treatment of household assets in eligibility determinations and participants' paperwork burden. We find asset and reporting policy changes to be widespread, and the states that have made changes most often adopt the most expansive policy change allowed. We also demonstrate that more accurate policy data sharpens the inferences we make about the effects of several of these policies on participation in SNAP.

In this technical appendix we provide details about the Local Economic Development (LED) Survey, detailed results of the factor analyses for LED activities and LED barriers, and correlation and regression results for the LED policy measures. Appendix A begins with an overview of the survey goals and procedures, followed by a detailed description of methodology used to design and conduct the survey, and quantitative descriptions of the representativeness of the survey sample. The complete survey questions and summary statistics are provided at the end of Appendix A. Appendix B lists the individual factor load scores for each of the items included in the seven activity factors and the four barrier factors. Appendix C shows correlations between LED barriers and LED policy measures, followed by regression results for each of the LED policy measures. These regressions served as the basis for the figures in Chapter 4, simulating the effect on the dependent variable by varying (by one standard deviation) one predictor variable at a time, holding the other predictors constant.

Are voters in the United States sorting into geographic “enclaves” of determined commitment to one party or the other, or do voting and public opinion patterns hide a fundamentally ambivalent electorate? The most common geographic measure of partisanship—the presidential vote—cannot identify strength of commitment to the parties because voters have no viable alternative to the major-party candidates. We use party registration statistics instead, since voters can safely register with a third party or as an independent without giving up their right to choose a major-party candidate in the fall election. These numbers suggest that the strongest trend by far is not growing polarization but the large and pervasive increase in registered independents. Although the 2008 election was extraordinary in many ways, its impact on these basic trends is ambiguous. We offer some preliminary analysis that suggests this trend is ideologically meaningful and bears important implications for polarization, and then make a case for further research on the independent phenomenon.

The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute's goal is to raise public awareness and to give elected representatives and other decisionmakers a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. The institute's research focuses on the underlying forces shaping California's future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including economic development, education, environment and resources, governance, population, public finance, and social and health policy. PPIC is a private operating foundation. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. PPIC was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California.