Evaluation of Food Stamp Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology and Partnerships

1. Evaluation of Food Stamp Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology and Partnerships November 17, 2005

2. Rosemarie Downer FNS, Office of Analysis, Nutrition & Evaluation Presented By

3. Overview of Presentation • Background. • Characteristics of grantee projects. • Lessons learned. • Summary.

4. Why Outreach? • Low rates of participation among eligibles. • Lack of knowledge about the program.

5. 2002 Local Outreach Projects • 19 Original Grantees • 18 grantees finished project • Technological component and/or partnerships with other organizations • Total of over $5 million dollars

6. General Differences • Grant amounts ranged from $121,638 to $350,000. • Locations varied: • Rural vs. urban vs. statewide. • Emphasis on technology and partnerships varied. • Venues and target populations varied: • Select venues vs. broader outreach. • Specific target populations (e.g., elderly, immigrants) vs. general outreach.

7. Local Evaluation Reports Quantitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis 18 Local Evaluation Reports Standardized Process and Outcome Data from Web-Based System Telephone Discussions and Site Visits Synthesize Reports Summary and Analysis Summary and Analysis Summary of Findings for National Evaluation Cross-site EvaluationMethodology

8. Characteristics of Grantee Projects Project Organization and Development • Prior outreach experience: 15 grantees. • Type of organization • 15 non-profits and 3 public agencies. • Partnerships • Types and number varied significantly. • Staffing • 5-6 workers on average. • Use of volunteers varied: 10 sites included volunteers.

9. Project Organization and Development (continued) • Use of Technology • 12 grantees implemented technology for prescreening and/or application assistance • Training • All grantees had some training • Length varied from 20 minutes to 4 hours/session • More in-depth training required for grantees who used technology as a centerpiece.

10. Characteristics of Grantee Projects Project Target Populations • Half of grantees served multiple target populations and others focused more narrowly. • Most common • Working poor ( 12 ) • General low-income population ( 7 ) • Immigrants ( 9 ) • Elderly ( 8 ) • Families with school-age children ( 2 )

11. Characteristics of Grantee Projects Project Venues • Food distribution sites: 12 grantees • Schools: 10 grantees • Community-based service organizations: 9 grantees • Community events: 9 grantees • Senior centers: 8 grantees • Other • Grocery stores (6 grantees), one-stop employment centers (7 grantees), and head start and child care centers (7 grantees).

12. Projects’ Relationships With FSP Office • Provide data on outcomes • Participation in outreach efforts and training • Training: 15 grantees • Liaison/Key contact in office: 7 grantees • Part of outreach team: 3 grantees

13. OutreachStrategies • Information Dissemination • Prescreening • Application Assistance

14. Approaches to Information Dissemination • General (flyers, presentations, etc.): all grantees • Multi-media campaigns: 8 grantees • Websites: 8 grantees • Hotlines: 6 grantees

15. Prescreening and Application Assistance Tools • Paper forms: 13 grantees • Computer/software: 5 grantees • Password protected web: 4 grantees • Public access website: 7 grantees • Optional forms/tools: 10 grantees • Flexibility for partner organizations and target population

16. Approaches to Application Assistance • Basic information/verification documents: all • In-person assistance: 14 grantees • Delivery/submission to FSP office: 14 grantees • Transportation: 2 grantees • Simplified processing: 7 grantees • Other follow-up services (e.g., phone calls): 15 grantees

17. Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

18. General Findings • Partnerships with community groups enhance outreach. • Partnership with the local food stamp offices is critical. • Technology to facilitate application process, while challenging, can pay off. • Outreach leading to applications requires more than basic education and information dissemination. • Groups with the lowest food stamp participation rates—immigrants, seniors, and the working poor—proved the most difficult to reach.

19. Summary of Data

20. Total Numbers • Applications filed: 11,500 households. • Certifications: over 7,000 households. • Contacts: over 380,000 persons. • Application assistance: at least 14,000 people.

21. Site Reports • Applications: ranged from 133 to 3,300 • Largest volume from sites that used extensive partners or volunteers • Approvals: 18 to 83 percent of applications • Cost estimates • Labor intensive projects • “rough estimates”: $126 to $1,000 per application

22. Site Reports (continued) • Denials • Primary reasons varied (10 sites available) • Income and Assets: 4 sites • Failure to complete interview: 5 sites • Significant number • Pending/unknown • Over half in 3 sites.

23. Implementation Lessons

24. Staffing • Staff skills, expertise, and background matter. • Dynamic project coordinators. • Committed staff. • Culturally-appropriate outreach workers.

25. Use of Volunteers Need committed volunteers with enough time. • Can establish rapport and trust with community. • Must match activities to volunteers’ “comfort” levels and skills. • Culturally-appropriate volunteers.

26. Partnerships • Partnerships enhance outreach activities: • Facilitate access to target populations. • Provide venues for outreach activities. • Characteristics of successful partnerships: • Established agencies. • Managers and staff who understand and support project goals. • Clear roles and responsibilities. • Knowledge of target populations. • Comfortable performing outreach activities.

27. Lessons in Working with Local Food Stamp Offices • Communication must be ongoing. • Liaisons/point persons at local offices can be useful. • Integrating food stamp office staff in outreach activities helps with “buy in.” • Active food stamp office participation gives project legitimacy to partners, volunteers. • Dual benefits: clients come to FSP more prepared. • Tracking outcomes requires clear identifiers, processes.

28. Lessons about Training • Significant time and effort required. • Training must be adapted to volunteers’ experience. • Training may be ongoing to accommodate turnover. • Local food stamp program staff provide effective training. • New technologies require specialized training.

29. Lessons about New Technology • Requires knowledgeable staff, ability to work with technical contractors. • Can require significant start-up time. • Requires access to hardware, internet. • Comfort levels among volunteers and clients vary. • Investment – many of the tools will continue to be used.

30. Lessons about Venues • Privacy is essential. • Access to changing audiences is important. • Grantees had mixed experiences with different venues. • Health, community, and one-stop centers regularly provide “new faces”. • Schools – a mixed picture. • Grocery stores are effective for information dissemination, but not prescreening. • Community centers trusted by target groups work well.

31. Outreach Strategy Lessons

32. Information Dissemination Information dissemination can: • Help to change public perception of food stamps as welfare. • Increase understanding about who is eligible. • Prepare people for the next steps in the process.

33. Information Dissemination(Continued) Information dissemination can: • Help to eliminate “myths” about food stamps, especially among immigrants: • Fear of deportation. • Belief that benefits must be paid back. • Belief that workers cannot get benefits. Information alone cannot: •  Generally get individuals to the food stamp office (all grantees).

34. Methods of Information Dissemination Can Matter • Media more effective than billboards. • Personal interactions, presentations more effective than flyers. • Hotlines, websites provide privacy and should “feel” local.

35. Prescreening Assistance • Draws interest by showing reluctant individuals if eligible and for how much. • Requires multiple tools for different settings and individuals. • “Invites” applications among eligibles.

36. Prescreening Assistance Success • Five sites stopped at prescreening (with follow up, however) • 1/3 –1/2 led to application submission • One site (Indiana) did better, but not entirely clear why. • Three sites tested different strategies • All concluded intensive case management is required. • Ten sites moved directly from prescreening to application assistance.

37. Lessons about Application Assistance • FSP application assistance combined with other public programs can make participation more appealing (2 grantees). • Electronic submission of applications can save time for applicants and food stamp offices (4 grantees). • Successful completion of the process requires intensive assistance (9 grantees): • Help getting the application to the food stamp office. • Transportation to the food stamp office. • Repeated phone calls to check on eligibility appointments, submission of verification documents.

38. Lessons Learned About Target Populations’ Participation Barriers

39. Non-English Speakers and Immigrants Barriers: • Language Issues: • Difficult to understand program rules • Translators not always available at local food stamp offices • Fears: • Immigration status • Must pay back benefits

40. Non-English Speakers and Immigrants Strategies: • Outreach by trusted community organizations. • Dispel myths. • Establish trust with personal data. • Intensive application follow up.

41. The Elderly Barriers: • Stigma--don’t want their friends, neighbors to know. • Benefits do not outweigh hassles of applying. Fears about providing personal information. Family members sometimes have their financial information.

42. The Elderly Strategies: • Requires building trust. • Simplify application process (e.g., waive interview, finger printing) • Application assistance (transportation).

43. The Working Poor Barriers: • Difficult to locate, identify: • Do not frequent community centers, attend school meetings. • Too busy to apply. • Stigma, don’t want to go to welfare office. • Difficult to get to food stamp office during business hours.

44. The Working Poor Strategies: • Businesses can play a role (1 site). • Connections to other supports (EITC, health insurance) help (2 sites). • Access outside of business hours helps (1 site).

45. Conclusions

46. Conclusions • Grass roots efforts to educate people about food stamps can eliminate myths, demystify the process. • New technologies can facilitate the application process. • Many people, especially the most vulnerable populations, require intensive application services to complete the process.