460 likes | 467 Views
Evaluation of Food Stamp Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology and Partnerships. November 17, 2005. Rosemarie Downer FNS, Office of Analysis, Nutrition & Evaluation. Presented By. Overview of Presentation. Background. Characteristics of grantee projects.
E N D
Evaluation of Food Stamp Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology and Partnerships November 17, 2005
Rosemarie Downer FNS, Office of Analysis, Nutrition & Evaluation Presented By
Overview of Presentation • Background. • Characteristics of grantee projects. • Lessons learned. • Summary.
Why Outreach? • Low rates of participation among eligibles. • Lack of knowledge about the program.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 )
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).
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
OutreachStrategies • Information Dissemination • Prescreening • Application Assistance
Approaches to Information Dissemination • General (flyers, presentations, etc.): all grantees • Multi-media campaigns: 8 grantees • Websites: 8 grantees • Hotlines: 6 grantees
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
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
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.
Total Numbers • Applications filed: 11,500 households. • Certifications: over 7,000 households. • Contacts: over 380,000 persons. • Application assistance: at least 14,000 people.
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
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.
Staffing • Staff skills, expertise, and background matter. • Dynamic project coordinators. • Committed staff. • Culturally-appropriate outreach workers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lessons Learned About Target Populations’ Participation Barriers
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
Non-English Speakers and Immigrants Strategies: • Outreach by trusted community organizations. • Dispel myths. • Establish trust with personal data. • Intensive application follow up.
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.
The Elderly Strategies: • Requires building trust. • Simplify application process (e.g., waive interview, finger printing) • Application assistance (transportation).
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.
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).
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.