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
Presented By

• Rosemarie Downer
• FNS, Office of Analysis, Nutrition Evaluation

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
Cross-site Evaluation Methodology
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
Outreach Strategies

• 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
  ratesimmigrants, seniors, and the working
  poorproved 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--dont 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, dont 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.