# Presentation: 753196

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

**	****	****	****	****November 17, 2005  **

## Presented By

**Rosemarie Downer**
**FNS, Office of Analysis, Nutrition & Evaluation**

## 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.

## 	Cross-site Evaluation Methodology

## 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

## Outreach Strategies

- 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

## Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

## 	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.

## Summary of Data

## 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.

## 	Implementation Lessons

## 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.

##     Outreach Strategy Lessons

##           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

##       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.