**Disaster Supplemental Nutrition**

**Assistance Program**

Post-disaster Review Report

**Introduction**

The rains began in southeast Kansas the last week of June 2007. By
Monday, July 2, 2007 it was clear that extensive flooding had occurred
and preparations began to request approval to operate a Disaster Food
Stamp Program. Many thousands of persons had been displaced from their
homes and many of those homes were a total loss. Very few households had
flood insurance. Counties were approved for individual assistance at
different times which made operation of this Disaster Program more
complicated. We eventually approved the program in twenty counties as
follows:

-   Group 1 - Approved for July 9 - July 26: Miami, Wilson, Neosho,
    Montgomery and Elk

-   Group 2 - Approved for July 18 -- July 26: Linn, Allen, Labette and
    Cowley

-   Group 3 - Approved for July 25 -- August 2: Osage, Franklin, Coffey,
    Anderson, Woodson, Bourbon, Crawford, Cherokee, Butler, Greenwood
    and Chautauqua

Even though the program was approved for twenty counties, the following
counties had no cases approved for disaster assistance: Osage, Coffey,
Anderson, Bourbon, Crawford, Greenwood, Butler and Chautauqua.

In total, 1,052 households representing 1,836 persons were approved for
the Disaster Food Stamp Program in twelve counties. The largest number
helped was in Montgomery County where the city of Coffeyville suffered
extensive flooding. In addition, 777 certified persons received disaster
related replacements due to the loss of food purchased with food stamp
benefits.

Please see attached "Report on Flooding in Southeast and Eastern Kansas,
July 30, 2007" for very detailed information on activities that occurred
at the local level to support this disaster.

**Certification Systems**

Applications for the Disaster Food Stamp Program were taken at numerous
sites in the counties approved for disaster assistance. SRS staff took
applications at Disaster Recovery Centers and at local SRS offices. At
the Disaster Recovery Centers staff often worked seven days a week and
stayed past regular work hours to accommodate applicants.

All modified disaster food stamp cases were processed on the automated
eligibility system KAECSES. This insured that no duplicate participation
could occur as all applicants were checked against the existing open
food stamp caseload. To insure that maximum benefits were authorized,
cases were approved reflecting no income. Cases were certified for one
month only, and given a regular food stamp program application for
further benefits. This process worked well and we would not recommend
any changes for future disasters.

**Issuance**

As previously noted, applications were processed by food stamp
caseworkers generally on the day of application and benefits were
available within twenty four hours. Approved families were given an EBT
card when they left the DRC, Red Cross Shelter or SRS office. Once the
case was approved on KAECSES, the EBT card was activated. Consumers were
given instructions on how to select a PIN (over the phone) as they left
the DRC, shelter or SRS office. EBT cards were secured at the sites and
no problems occurred with lost or stolen EBT cards.

Procedures were also in place to insure that employees needing to apply
for the program were not allowed to process their own application or
issue their EBT card. In total, three employees applied for and received
disaster assistance.

**Public Information and Outreach**

Public information for the disaster food stamp program was handled by
the Director of Communications in Topeka. This insured that all press
releases were reviewed for program accuracy and that information was
consistently provided. We believe that public information and outreach
were very successful for this disaster and do not recommend any changes
to the process.

**Fraud Control**

As noted previously, all applications for disaster food assistance were
entered and processed on our automated eligibility system, KAECSES. This
insured that there were no instances of duplicate participation. No
fraud was identified during the individual reviews. Fraud was not an
issue with this disaster food stamp program.

**Security**

Security was handled at the Regional level. No problems were identified
with security at the DRC or the Red Cross site.

**Individual Reviews**

Quality Control staff conducted the individual reviews for the
Post-Disaster Review. A random sample of twenty five cases from all
disaster applications received was reviewed. In addition, QC reviewed
the three employee cases that received disaster assistance.

The QC review consisted of:

-   **Case Record Review:** QC completed twenty eight record reviews. QC
    found no problems in the applications. There was a small calculation
    error found on one application. This did not affect the eligibility
    of the household.

-   **Verification:** QC completed a Kansas Employment Security wage
    match (KES) and Easy Access to Social Security (EATSS) inquiry on
    all social security numbers. QC found accurate reporting by the
    consumer on places of employment, estimated net income and receipt
    of Social Security benefits in all but one case. In this one case,
    QC found an unreported social security number through inquiry into
    the driver's license department. When inquiry was made on the
    unreported number, the employment history was shown as continuous
    employment in each quarter with the same employer. QC contacted the
    household. The household states that the information was not
    included by mistake because she did not know her husband=s social
    security number. QC found that the information did not change the
    household's eligibility due the large uninsured dollar loss
    sustained by the household.

> In addition to the above, QC verified child support income on all
> single parent and found one hundred percent reporting of child support
> income.
>
> QC found in fifty percent of the case records a pay stub for income
> and /or address verification. QC found that if a case manager was
> uncertain of a flood damaged area in a county, there was documentation
> of contact with the County Emergency Management Staff.

-   **Client Interviews:** QC attempted telephone interviews with all
    twenty eight households under review. If QC was unable to contact
    the household the first time, a total of three attempts on three
    separate days was made to contact the household to complete an
    interview. QC completed interviews with all three SRS employees who
    received disaster food stamps. QC completed interviews with fifteen
    of the twenty five households in the regular sample of disaster
    cases under review. In the interview of the fifteen regular sampled
    cases, QC received the following comments:

-   Three households commented on needing a longer period of time to use
    the benefits as storage was an issue. All thought they had to use
    the benefits by the end of July.

-   Fifteen commented on the helpfulness of staff, the courtesy of the
    staff, and appreciation of the disaster benefit program.

-   Fifteen found the form and process as easy to complete.

-   One household commented on some confusion with the use of the EBT
    card. The household thought they could use the benefits on the same
    day as application and found that they had to wait a day.

In the interview of the three staff members, all expressed similar
comments on the form, courtesy of staff and appreciation of the disaster
benefit as the regular sampled households.

QC found that the completion of all twenty eight reviews was possible
and a reasonable conclusion could be drawn on the accuracy of the case
work and the consumer reporting of circumstances. QC did not find any
case in need of a claim to be established.

**Summary**

This was the second disaster program implemented in Kansas in 2007.
Lessons were learned from the Greensburg tornado disaster, as the State
agency requested approval to implement the Disaster Food Stamp Program
and did not go the route of the modified Food Stamp Program. This
simplified the requests considerably, however, the timing of FEMA's
approval of individual assistance made the overall program more
difficult to implement. Counties were added to the Disaster Food Stamp
Program as they were approved for individual assistance. Three requests
in total had to be made, with subsequent requests for extensions to
cover the entire flooded areas. Unfortunately, due to the time lag
between the flooding and the approval for individual assistance, several
of the counties as previously noted did not have any applicants for
Disaster Food Stamps. This Disaster Program also included counties from
three SRS Regions which also made implementation more challenging. As
policy/procedure questions were asked, responses were copied to all of
the Regions in case the same question arised. All three Regions did an
exemplary job of implementing the Disaster Food Stamp Program. Staff
worked many long hours and weekends to provide needed food assistance to
households who had lost so much in the flooding.