United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic 

Research

Service

Food Assistance

and Nutrition

Research Report

Number 19-1

 Food Assistance & Nutrition

 Research Program

Re-engineering 

the Welfare System 

A Study of Administrative

Changes to the Food 

Stamp Program

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic 

Research

Service

Food Assistance

and Nutrition

Research Report

Number 17

Loren Bell

Susan Pachikara

Susan Schreiber Williams

Vivian Gabor

Final Report
Re-engineering the Welfare System—A Study of Administrative Changes to the Food

Stamp Program: Final Report. Prepared by Health Systems Research, Inc., and The Urban

Institute for the Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 17.

Abstract

All States in a recent study undertook at least one “re-engineering” activity in their Food

Stamp Programs (FSPs) as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). In addition, 35 States implemented changes in 3 or

more re-engineering categories, while 24 States planned changes for fiscal year (FY) 2000 in

2 or more categories. PRWORA dramatically changed the systems that provide cash assistance and food stamps to low-income Americans. Along with mandatory changes in food

stamp eligibility, States were given greater flexibility to administer their programs to meet

their unique needs. While States had begun changing the way program services were delivered before passage of welfare reform legislation, PRWORA provided additional opportunities for them to “re-engineer” FSPs. The purpose of the study was to examine State-level

administrative changes to FSPs as a result of PRWORA, both those made before FY 2000

and those planned for FY 2000. This report provides the study results. For the State data collection instrument, see Re-engineering the Welfare System—A Study of Administrative

Changes to the Food Stamp Program: State Data Collection Instrument at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan01009.

Keywords: PRWORA, service delivery, structure, casework, accessibility, client tracking,

monitoring, conforming

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all of the people who were involved in the data collection

process for this study and who contributed to the development of this report. We are especially

grateful to the many food stamp officials who took time out of their busy schedules to speak to

us about administrative changes that were made to their State Food Stamp Programs after

Federal welfare reform. We want to thank Chris Miller and Mary Harkins from Health Systems

Research, who had a strong role in the data collection process, and Brandy Bauer, Shannon

Campbell, Isha Fleming, and Brooke Hardison, who played critical roles in the production of

this report. We also want to acknowledge the support and assistance we received from

Elizabeth Dagata, the project officer from the Economic Research Service, who provided valuable guidance and thoughtful review. Finally, we would like to thank Nancy Pindus, Robin

Koralek, and Randy Capps from the Urban Institute, who played a critical role in conducting

the case study visits.

This report was prepared under a research grant from the Economic Research Service. Section

A and the appendix were prepared by Loren Bell, Susan Pachikara, Susan Schreiber Williams,

and Vivian Gabor of Health Systems Research, Inc. Section B was prepared by Health Systems

Research and The Urban Institute. The views expressed are those of Health Systems Research

and The Urban Institute and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.

Washington, DC 20036-5831 June 2002
Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Background of the Food Stamp Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Study Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Research Plan and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Section A: State Survey

I. Overview of State Re-Engineering Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Categories of Administrative Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Number and Type of State Administrative Changes in the

FSP After PRWORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Comparison of Changes by State FSP Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . .11

States Reporting Variation in Administrative Changes 

for Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

II. State FSP Administrative Changes Since Welfare Reform . . . . . . . .19

Changes in Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Changes in the Role of the Caseworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Changes in Program Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Changes in Client Tracking Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Changes in Program Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Conforming FSP and TANF Program Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

III. Discussion and Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Discussion of Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Section B: Case Study Reports

Overview and Summary of Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Overview of Case Study Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Overview of the Case Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Individual Case Study Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

ii ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Number of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of 

welfare reform before FY 2000 by number of category changes . . . . . . .10

2 Number of re-engineering efforts made by States as a result of 

welfare reform before FY 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

3 Number of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of 

welfare reform before FY 2000 by category of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

4 Number of re-engineering efforts planned by States for FY 2000 . . . . . .12

5 Number of States planning re-engineering efforts during 

FY 2000 by number of category changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

6 Number of States planning re-engineering efforts during 

FY 2000 by category of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

7 County- and State-administered programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

8 Percentage of State- and county-administered States enacting 

re-engineering changes as a result of welfare reform before 

FY 2000 by number of category changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

9 Percentage of State- and county-administered States

implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare 

reform before FY 2000 by category of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

10 Percentage of State- and county-administered States planning

re-engineering efforts during FY 2000 by category of change . . . . . . . . .16

11 Percentage of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a

result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by number of category

changes and by State caseload size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

12 Percentage of States enacting re-engineering efforts as a result 

of welfare reform before FY 2000 by category of change and 

State caseload size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

13 States making changes based on differing needs for urban 

and rural areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

14 Number of States combining food stamp activities with those 

previously performed by other agencies as a result of welfare 

reform before FY 2000 by type of program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

15 Number of States obtaining approval for caseworker role changes 

as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of agency 

conducting approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ iii
Figure Page

16 Number of States implementing changes to improve accessibility 

to the Food Stamp Program as a result of welfare reform before 

FY 2000 by number of changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

17 Number of changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp 

Program as a result of welfare reform implemented by States 

before FY 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

18 Number of States planning changes to improve accessibility to the 

Food Stamp Program during FY 2000 by number of changes . . . . . . . . .26

19 Number of States planning changes to improve accessibility to the 

Food Stamp Program during FY 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

20 Number of States changing local office practices as a result of welfare

reform before FY 2000 by type of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

21 Number of States targeting specific populations with outreach efforts 

as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of population . . . .30

22 Number of States planning to target specific populations with outreach

efforts during FY 2000 by type of population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

23 Number of States increasing monitoring efforts as a result of 

welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

24 Number of States coordinating TANF program rules to conform with

Federal Food Stamp Program rules as a result of welfare reform before 

FY 2000 by type of rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

iv ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
List of Tables

Table Page

1 States changing organizational structure by type of approach . . . . . . . . . .20

2 States making changes to their food stamp application processes

by type of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

3 States making changes to improve accessibility based on differing 

needs for urban and rural areas by type of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

4 States reporting program monitoring activities by type of activity . . . . . . .33

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ v
Executive Summary

All States in a recent study undertook at least one “re-engineering” activity in

their Food Stamp Programs (FSPs) as a result of the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). In addition, 35

States implemented changes in 3 or more re-engineering categories, while 24

States planned changes for FY 2000 in 2 or more categories. PRWORA dramatically changed the systems that provide cash assistance and food stamps to lowincome Americans. Along with mandatory changes in food stamp eligibility,

States were given greater flexibility to administer their programs to meet their

unique needs. While States had begun changing the way program services were

delivered before passage of welfare reform legislation, PRWORA provided

additional opportunities for them to “re-engineer” FSPs. The purpose of the

study was to examine State-level administrative changes to FSPs as a result of

PRWORA, both those made before fiscal year (FY) 2000 and those planned for

FY 2000.

To facilitate analysis of the broad array of State FSP re-engineering changes,

the information gathered for this study was categorized into six subject areas,

as follows:

1. Changes in State organizational structure;

2. Changes in the role of the caseworker;

3. Efforts to improve program accessibility and client certification;

4. Changes in client tracking and accountability systems;

5. Attempts to conform the FSP and TANF program rules; and

6. Efforts to increase program monitoring and evaluation.

The major research questions driving the study were:

• To what extent have States implemented administrative or operational changes

to their FSPs from the passage of PRWORA through FY 1999?

• To what extent were States planning to make changes to their FSP administrative practices or program operations during FY 2000?

• What were the primary motivating factors identified by States for making

administrative and operational changes to their FSPs, and to what extent did

the re-engineering efforts require the approval of different branches of 

government?

• How did efforts to re-engineer FSPs vary between States with county-administered programs and those who administer their FSPs at the State level?

Overview of the Study Methodology and Organization 

of the Final Report

A total of 49 States and the District of Columbia agreed to participate in the

study. Data were collected from States by a three-step process. First, States were

asked to provide documents that contained descriptions of their re-engineering

efforts, such as budget proposals, strategic planning documents, and legislative

initiatives. A total of 24 States were able to provide these documents, and data

for each of the 6 re-engineering categories were abstracted from them. Second,

all States in the study participated in a followup telephone survey, either to clarvi ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
ify data in the descriptive documents or to provide data not available through

written sources. Finally, a series of six case studies was conducted to examine

local implementation of re-engineering efforts. This report presents the findings

from the data abstraction process and the followup survey. 

The report is organized into two sections. Section I is divided into four chapters.

Chapter I provides an overview of the study and discusses the methodology

used for data collection and analysis. Findings from the study are organized into

chapters II and III, with chapter II providing “the big picture” of State re-engineering efforts and chapter III examining findings within each of the six categories of re-engineering change. Chapter IV provides a summary of key findings and implications for future research. Section II presents data from the case

study reports. The data collection instrument, Re-engineering the Welfare

System—A Study of Administrative Changes to the Food Stamp Program: State

Data Collection Instrument, can be found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan01009.

Summary of Key Findings on State Re-engineering Efforts

All the States included in the study undertook at least one re-engineering activity as a result of PRWORA, with many States implementing and planning reengineering efforts in more than one category. Thirty-five States implemented

changes in 3 or more re-engineering categories, while 24 States planned

changes for FY 2000 in 2 or more categories. The figure on page viii displays

the number of States planning and implementing re-engineering changes as a

result of PRWORA, by categories of the changes. (Some States reported

changes in more than one category.)

Because State FSP agencies are likely to have limited resources, activities in

multiple re-engineering categories might not be expected. The fact that 35 States

(70 percent) implemented activities falling into 3 or more categories shows the

importance of FSP re-engineering to State program administrators. 

Additional key findings are that: 

• A significant effort was focused on improving access to the FSP. Thirty-nine of

the 50 States (78 percent) implemented changes to improve program accessibility. In addition, 28 States planned to implement changes in FY 2000. This

may be related to the fact that States have become concerned about the decline

of FSP caseloads since welfare reform. 

• With the opportunity to bring FSPs into conformity with TANF programs, it

was expected that States would take steps to consolidate program functions by

changing their organizational structures. Thirty-four States (68 percent) took

steps to conform TANF and FSP rules, and 11 States reported changing their

organizational structures. However, only three cited conforming TANF and FSP

as the goal of their organizational changes. It would appear that PRWORA had

a modest impact on changing organizational structures of FSP offices.

• Twenty-four States implemented increased program monitoring and evaluation, while 15 States planned to implement some form of monitoring and evaluation in FY 2000. FSP client participation rates were the primary focus of

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ vii
increased monitoring, followed by tracking and evaluating FSP client satisfaction with program services and efforts to improve program accessibility.

• County-administered States (those in which FSP administration has been

devolved to the county) were expected to show less re-engineering activity

at the State level—the level of this study—than those whose FSPs were Stateadministered, since it was assumed that re-engineering efforts by the former

would be at the county level. In fact, 87 percent of county-administered States

undertook changes in three or more re-engineering categories, as compared

with 67 percent of the State-administered States. In addition, almost all (92

percent) of the county-administered States undertook changes to improve program accessibility. 

Data from this study provide a thorough overview of the administrative and

operational changes States have made or were planning to make to their FSPs in

response to welfare reform. These data provide baseline information about program changes that can be used for future evaluations of the consequences of reengineering efforts. In addition, this report can be used by State FSP administrators planning changes in a particular category to help generate ideas about

approaches that may work for their State.

viii ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

11

1

4

39

28

40

18

34

7

24

15

18

Number of States planning and implementing re-engineering efforts

by category of change

Implemented before FY 2000

Planned before FY 2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

 Role of the

 caseworker

 Program

 accessibility 

 and

 certification 

 systems 

 Client 

 tracking and 

 accountability

 systems

Conforming 

 TANF

 and 

 FSP rules

 Program

 monitoring 

and evaluation

Category of change

Number of States

Organizational

 structure 
Introduction

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) dramatically

changed the system that had provided cash assistance

and food stamp benefits to low-income households

since the early 1970s. While the primary focus of

PRWORA was to replace the Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC) Federal entitlement program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) block grant, it also included major

reforms to the Food Stamp Program (FSP). Eligibility

rules were changed for some categories of low-income

clients, benefits were modestly scaled back, and States

were given increased flexibility to coordinate the

administration of the FSP with their TANF programs.

As a result of this increased flexibility and the reduction in TANF participation, States not only changed

their FSP policies, but also changed many of the traditional administrative operations of the program at the

State and local levels. The extent and nature of these

administrative changes are the subject of this report.

Background of the Food Stamp Program

The primary objective of the FSP is to increase the

food purchasing power of low-income citizens so that

they may obtain a nutritious diet. The FSP provides

food assistance in the form of food coupons or electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards that are redeemable

at authorized food stores. FSP benefits are available to

all persons who meet the national eligibility criteria

established in each of three broad areas: income level,

value of assets, and willingness to comply with work

requirements. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides broad

policy guidance to the States for implementing the

Federal standards for the FSP set by Congress. 

Day-to-day administration of the program is carried

out by the States and, in some areas, by local governments under State supervision (“county-administered”

programs), with the administrative costs shared by

Federal, State, and local governments. States have

always had a great deal of flexibility in how they

administer the FSP, which was further expanded with

the removal of certain State mandates and the creation

of many new options for program administration in

PRWORA. To accomplish the Federal goals for the

FSP, States provided food stamp benefits to a monthly

average of over 18 million individuals in 7.67 million

households in Federal fiscal year (FY) 1999 (Food and

Nutrition Service, 2000 (a)).

In 1996, PRWORA brought major changes to the FSP.

The legislation includes more than 60 provisions

directly affecting the FSP. Some of these changes had

significant effects on food stamp eligibility and benefits, while others may have changed how States administer the FSP. The key provisions of PRWORA that

affect FSP eligibility and benefits include:

• Eligibility Restrictions 

 Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents 

(ABAWDs). PRWORA imposed the first time 

limits on FSP participation. ABAWDs are only 

allowed to receive food stamps for 3 months in 

each 36-month period, if they are not working or 

participating in a workfare or employment and 

training program that involves more than a job 

search. This requirement, however, can be and 

has been waived in some areas within individual 

States. This new eligibility rule requires States to 

develop tracking systems to determine when these

individuals hit their food stamp time limit and are 

no longer eligible to receive food stamps.

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 1

Re-engineering the Welfare System—

A Study of Administrative Changes

to the Food Stamp Program

Final Report
 Immigrants. PRWORA also ended food stamp 

eligibility for many legal immigrants. Noncitizen 

eligibility now depends on an array of rules 

involving age, date of U.S. entry, veteran status, 

work history with social security coverage, dis

abilitystatus, and refugee status. 

• Reductions in Benefit Levels. PRWORA also 

reduced the maximum food stamp benefit level,

froze the standard deduction at FY 1996 levels,

established lower caps on the excess shelter deduction and froze them at FY 2001 levels, and required

households to include State energy assistance and

the earnings of children under age 18 as income.

• Electronic Benefit Transfer. Since the 1980s States

have been issuing food stamp benefits through electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems, where participants are provided food stamp debit cards. Each time

a participant shops at a participating retailer, he or

she submits the debit card and the system draws

down on available funds in the household’s food

stamp account after the food purchase is made.

PRWORA requires all States to set up EBT systems

by the year 2002. About 75 percent of food stamp

benefits are currently being issued by EBT.

In addition to changing the eligibility and benefit provisions of the FSP, PRWORA also established new

requirements and gave States more freedom to coordinate rules in the Food Stamp and TANF programs. Key

PRWORA provisions in this area are described below.

• Simplified Food Stamp Program. Given the significant differences in each State’s eligibility determination rules for TANF and the Federal standard rules

for food stamps, PRWORA gives States the option

to operate an approved Simplified Food Stamp

Program under which States can determine food

stamp benefits using TANF rules, regular food

stamp rules, or a combination of the two, as long as

the new rules do not reduce food stamp benefits

more than a certain amount or increase Federal food

stamp costs.

• Prohibition on Increasing Food Stamp Benefits 

for Sanctioned TANF Households. Administrative 

action by the Clinton Administration, just prior to 

passage of PRWORA, prohibited an increase in 

food stamp benefits when a household’s income is 

reduced because of a sanction imposed under TANF 

for noncompliance with TANF work or with other 

requirements (such as school attendance or immunization of children). Before this action, food stamp 

benefits would have increased and partially compensated for the loss of cash assistance when a 

household’s TANF benefits were reduced due to a 

TANF sanction.

• Optional Coordination of TANF and Food Stamp 

Sanctions. PRWORA also gives States the authority to either reduce food stamp benefits or disqualify from food stamps the noncompliant individual in

the sanctioned TANF household. These PRWORA

provisions also allow all States the ability to sanction the food stamp benefits of a TANF household 

with children under age 6—a group that had previously been exempt from any food stamp sanctions. 

According to published survey data on State food 

stamp choices after PRWORA, 12 States had chosen to disqualify food stamp recipients for failure 

to comply with TANF and 7 States selected the 

option to reduce food stamp benefits when a household is sanctioned for noncompliance with a TANF 

rule (Gabor and Botsko, 1998).

• Optional Child Support Sanctions. States also 

have the option of disqualifying a custodial or noncustodial parent from food stamps until they cooperate with child support enforcement offices. Eight 

States chose this option (Gabor and Botsko, 1998).

• Elimination of Joint Application Mandate.

PRWORA eliminated the requirement that States

have a joint application form and process for food

stamps and cash assistance. While most States

have retained the joint application form, a few

States conduct the application for food stamps and

TANF at separate locations for persons applying

for both programs (Gabor and Botsko, 1998). 

Most important, the new law provided increased flexibility for States to customize their administration of

the FSP to conform to changes being made in TANF,

since these two programs are usually administered by

the same State agency and at the same local welfare

office sites. These changes in program administration

could create significant variation among programs

across the country. In some cases, these State variations will conform to changes being made for recipients of the TANF block grant program. In other cases,

State variations in FSP administration will be specific

to FSP recipients. 

2 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Study Purpose 

The goal of this study is to inform Federal and State

officials of the ways States have altered or re-engineered the FSP at the State and local levels after passage of PRWORA. Recognizing that States have been

making a wide array of changes to their FSP since

implementation of welfare reform, both in policy and

administrative practices, and that the timing of State

implementation of welfare reform has varied greatly,

the scope of this study was specifically defined to

include only administrative and operational practices

and only changes in those practices that were implemented or planned to be implemented after passage 

of PRWORA.

The information gathered for this study has two primary uses. First, the data will provide a thorough

overview of the administrative and operational

changes States have made to their FSPs, or were planning to make, in response to welfare reform. It will

enable prediction of changes likely to be seen in the

near future. In addition, information about the types of

administrative changes States made, and about some of

the motivations of the State program administrators in

making these changes, provides baseline information

for future evaluations of the intentional and unintentional consequences of these changes. Finally, this

report will be informative for State program administrators who have not yet implemented administrative

and operational changes, who can consider how these

changes may apply to their own State FSP agencies

and local delivery systems.

Research Plan and Methodology

Categories of State Administrative Changes

To describe and facilitate analysis of the broad array of

State FSP re-engineering efforts, the information gathered from the States was divided into the following six

categories of change.

• Changes in Organizational Structures. This 

includes the ways States have restructured program 

functions and organizational units as a result of 

PRWORA. In order to be included in the study, the 

organizational changes must have directly impacted 

the operation of the FSP.

• Changes in the Role of the Caseworker. This 

includes the ways States have altered the role of the 

caseworkers who are serving food stamp clients at 

the local level. For the purpose of this study, the 

term “caseworker” includes any staff members that 

determine eligibility, conduct ongoing eligibility 

assessments, or provide case management services 

to food stamp recipients. 

• Program Accessibility and Client Certification.

Once a potential client decides he/she is interested in

applying for program benefits, a number of factors

influence ability to apply for these benefits. First, the

ability of a client to present himself or herself at the

local FSP office may be an issue. Second, the complexity of the application process may influence

whether the client feels it is worth the time and effort

to complete the application process. 

This category includes data on two major activities

undertaken by States. First, the study examined

efforts by States to improve the client’s ability to

physically access the local FSP office. An example of

administrative changes in this category is the development of support services, such as childcare and

transportation, that local offices may offer to eligible

individuals who want to apply for food stamps.

Improving accessibility also covers expanding office

hours to better serve working clients, opening additional offices in outlying areas, and sending caseworkers to other health and social service program

locations to take applications. In addition, State outreach efforts to increase awareness of the FSP, such

as publicizing the program through print and public

service announcements, were examined. 

A second activity in this category consisted of

changes States have made to their application process

and certification systems, both through increased use

of computer technology and by improving their certification process and/or food stamp application form.

Changes in client certification may have an impact

on whether clients find it easy to access the program

by completing their applications. For example, if

States increased the required documentation, clients

might be less likely to complete the application

process. In contrast, if the State simplified its application or recertification process, clients might be

more likely to enroll and continue in the program.

• Changes in Client Tracking and Accountability

Systems. For this category, the study examined

States’ use of database matching to support program

integrity efforts, their development of computer software to track sanction policies and time limits, and

their efforts to reduce error rates. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 3
• Conforming FSP and TANF Program Rules. This

includes information describing the extent to which

States decided to align TANF Program rules and FSP

rules.

• Program Monitoring and Evaluation. This category

summarizes States’ efforts to monitor and evaluate

their FSPs. For the purpose of this study, efforts to

monitor the FSP include: (1) routine assessment of

program operations, (2) attempts to track food stamp

clients after they leave the program, and (3) formal

evaluations States have undertaken to assess the

impact of policy or operational changes.

The data collected and analyzed for this study are

based on information gathered from the States in FY

2000 (see the data collection methods section). At the

time of the data collection, States were asked to provide information about changes they had implemented

since the passage of PRWORA, as well as any changes

they were planning to implement during the remainder

of the fiscal year. While some States have already

made many of their welfare reform-related FSP policy

changes, implementation is proceeding in others at

varying speeds. Some of the administrative changes

discussed in this report have yet to be completed and

others are still in the planning stages, as State officials

assess how best to rework their administrative systems

to support their policy choices. However, it is clear at

this point that a number of the changes under PRWORA have important implications for administrative

practices and information systems. 

Research Questions

Since the overall purpose of the study is to provide a

description of the re-engineering efforts made by

States since the passage of welfare reform, the

research questions were designed both to capture

information that describes these initiatives and to

examine how the initiatives varied among States. In

addition, to the extent possible, the study examines

some of the motivation of State FSP administrators for

implementing the changes. The major research questions were as follows:

• To what extent have States implemented administrative or operational changes to their FSPs since the

passage of PRWORA through FY 1999?

• To what extent were States planning to make changes

to their FSP administrative practices or program

operations during FY 2000?

• What were the motivating factors identified by States

for making administrative and operational changes to

their FSPs, and to what extent do the re-engineering

efforts require the approval of different branches of

government prior to implementation?

• How did States’ efforts to re-engineer their FSPs vary

between States with county-administered programs

and those who administer the FSP at the State level?

Data Collection Methods

A three-part data collection process was developed to

gather detailed information on administrative changes

States have made or are making to their FSPs as a

result of PRWORA. This process included: (1)

abstracting data from State documents that describe

the program changes, (2) administering a followup

telephone survey to State officials to clarify and

enhance the data abstraction, and (3) conducting a

series of six case studies to examine local-level implementation of different re-engineering categories. The

primary focus of each of the individual case studies

was on one of the six major re-engineering categories.

The studies are presented and discussed in Section II

of this report.

Data Abstraction. The first step in the data collection

process was gathering existing documents from States

that described their re-engineering efforts in the six

categories of change. The goal of the data abstraction

process was to minimize the data collection burden on

State government officials. Allowing officials to send

existing documents for the project team to review and

cross reference with the survey document meant that

less of their time would be needed to obtain the data

required for this study. The data abstraction process

would also enable the team to ask fewer questions during the survey phase of the data collection process. In

addition, because few States were likely to have made

changes in all six categories, the review of existing

documents meant that the followup telephone survey

could focus on pertinent areas of administrative

change, reducing the burden on respondents. 

States were asked to send documents to the study team

describing relevant changes to their programs. The

types of documents gathered in this way were those

used by States to obtain legislative authorization or

project approval through an executive authority before

implementing any FSP changes. The research team

assumed that a number of documents generated from

the States’ planning and approval process could be for4 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
warded for data collection. The specific documents

requested were legislative budget change proposals,

departmental decision packages, strategic planning

documents, advance planning documents, and other

implementation plans.

However, because of the broad scope of the re-engineering categories and because the proposed changes

may have affected other programs beside the FSP,

some States informed the research team that gathering

relevant documents would be a very cumbersome

process. These State officials noted, for example, that

since a number of re-engineering efforts were initiated

outside the food stamp division, they would have to

retrieve documents from other organizational units.

Participants also indicated that relevant changes were

not always documented in a way that would be helpful

to the research team. In the end, 24 States were able to

forward documents, 26 States asked to participate in

the telephone survey only, and one State elected not to

participate in the study because its food stamp office

was significantly understaffed and it had not made any

re-engineering changes that qualified under the six categories. A listing of the 24 States that were able to provide documents is found in appendix table 1.

Followup Telephone Survey. The second step in the

data collection process consisted of conducting followup telephone surveys with State officials to clarify

information from State documents, gathering information that was lacking in the material collected, and

undertaking a data collection effort with States that

could not provide documents for the data abstraction.

The followup survey was useful not only for collecting

data, but also for ensuring that the information the

project team gleaned from the State documents was

correctly interpreted.

The survey played the central role in the overall data

collection. The survey instrument was divided into six

sections of questions, corresponding to each of the reengineering categories. Each section began with a

screening question to determine whether a re-engineering effort in that specific category had taken place or

was being planned for FY 2000. If the screening question received a negative response, that whole section

of the survey was skipped. 

As noted earlier, 49 States and the District of Columbia

participated in the study. Forty-eight respondents participated in the followup telephone survey. One variation in the data collection methods did occur towards

the end of the data collection period: at the request of

two States, the survey form was modified so it could be

completed by mail. These two States provided written

responses to the survey questions but did not participate in the followup telephone survey. The combined

data collection instrument for the document abstraction

and followup survey is presented in the State data collection instrument at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan01009.

Limitations of the Data

This study was designed to gather descriptive information about State re-engineering efforts in order to present a picture of how States have changed the administrative and operational practices of their FSP as a

result of welfare reform. Though the research was able

to accomplish this objective, a number of limitations

to the data must be considered in reviewing the findings, as explained below.

• Since this study was designed to capture changes 

that occurred as a result of PRWORA, information

on reforms that took place before PRWORA is not

included. It is well known that States’ welfare reform

efforts began before the passage of PRWORA

through the use of program waivers. For example,

Utah made changes to its organizational structure by

consolidating five agencies into a single Department

of Workforce Development, but the restructuring was

not included in the study because it took place prior

to the passage of PRWORA.

• Planned changes may not have been implemented.

The findings include information on changes that

were planned for FY 2000 but that had not been fully

implemented. A “planned” activity was defined as one

that had been approved for implementation but had

not begun or been completed at the time of the survey. However, this does not mean that the plan will

be implemented in FY 2000. Problems such as budgetary or staffing limitations might interfere with full

implementation of a State’s re-engineering changes. 

• Information was not collected to reflect changes

made at the county level in county-administered

States. Thirteen States pass on the responsibility of

running their TANF and FSP to local county jurisdictions. In these States, the local jurisdictions often

have the same kind of flexibility States have, and as

a result modify their administration of the FSP to

meet their own local needs and requirements. While

variations between county-administered programs

and State-administered programs are examined in the

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 5
findings section of this report, it was beyond the

scope of this study to examine variations in the

administration of the FSP among local areas within

county-administered programs. 

• Finally, it is important to note that the scope of State

re-engineering efforts is both diverse and, in some

cases, unique to particular situations within a State.

When States were developing their re-engineering

plans, they were not thinking about them in the categorical fashion used for this report, but rather were

considering how they might modify their overall FSP

administrative operations to meet the demands of

welfare reform. While this report can provide a broad

overview of re-engineering efforts, capturing data

about specific State-by-State implementation steps

and the level of effort needed to implement changes

was beyond the scope of this project. To capture this

type of detail would have required an expanded data

collection process and created a significantly heavier

burden on State program administrators. 

The methodology used for this study tried to capture

operational changes at a level that would allow comparable data to be examined across States. However, the

research team was aware that there was a great deal of

interest in examining some of the more innovative

approaches used by States to implement their changes.

Therefore, these new approaches were included in the

six case study reports, which are the subject of Volume

II of this report. These case study reports provide a

higher level of detail with regard to the implementation and operational aspects of the specific State’s reengineering effort.

Findings from this study are organized into three chapters. Chapter I provides an overview of the extent to

which States implemented re-engineering efforts in

one or more of the categories described previously.

Chapter II provides a detailed description of changes

made by States in each of the re-engineering categories. Chapter III presents a discussion of the implications of the findings for future research. Tables presenting more detailed information on key survey

responses from individual States are presented in

appendix A. 

6 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Section A: State Survey
Categories of Administrative Change

Each of the six categories of State FSP administrative

change analyzed for this study was chosen for its relevance to the FSP in a post-welfare reform environment. These categories were also chosen, in part,

because these areas were of greatest policy interest to

program managers at the Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS) and were items for which FNS had no standardized means of collecting information. The policy

premise upon which each of the six categories of

administrative change was determined is briefly summarized below.

• Change in Organizational Structure of the State

FSP Agency. In the broader context of State efforts

to reorganize the State agency administering TANF

and to increase the emphasis on moving clients into

the workforce, many States have been merging

agencies or consolidating functions at the State level.

With the increased flexibility in developing program

rules for the TANF block grant, some States are also

moving from a centralized to a decentralized

approach in the administration of their TANF programs. It was the purpose of this study to determine

whether and how the administration of the FSP was

altered during this same period.

• Changes in the Role of the Caseworker. As States are

changing the orientation of the TANF program to

focus on promoting work and self-sufficiency, and on

identifying barriers to employment and how to overcome them, the role of the caseworker is pivotal.

While States are required to pay more attention to

client eligibility restrictions in the FSP, they are also

changing the role of caseworkers who see TANF

clients into more of a case manager role. As a case

manager, the caseworker has added responsibilities,

related to helping clients to become more self-sufficient, to find support services such as child care, and

to identify opportunities for finding and maintaining a

job. In addition, some States began dividing caseworker responsibilities by the type of client being served.

For example, some States created classifications for

caseworkers who handled clients eligible for multiple

social and health services programs (TANF, FSP, and

Medicaid), while creating separate classifications for

workers who saw FSP participants only. This study

sought to determine whether and how States changed

the caseworker’s role and the division of caseworker

roles within local offices, including how caseworkers

served both TANF and non-TANF clients.

• Changes To Improve Program Accessibility and

Modify Client Certification Systems. The need to

improve access to the FSP became increasingly clear

in the mid-1990s, as program statistics indicated not

only a dramatic decline in TANF participation

nationwide, but also a significant decline in food

stamp participation. This study sought to determine

whether and how States varied in terms of their

efforts not only to bring in eligible clients to apply

for food stamps, but also whether and how they were

encouraging eligible households to stay in the FSP

after they took jobs and lost cash assistance. PRWORA gave States more flexibility in the food stamp

application process, and the study also looked at how

States modified the initial application and recertification processes in ways that may have affected program efficiency and coordination at the local level.

• Client Tracking and Accountability Systems. Unlike

those in the other categories, the State changes

assessed in this category are mostly a consequence of

new Federal requirements enacted by PRWORA.

Because of these new requirements, States need new

methods for collecting and tracking information

about applicants and current food stamp recipients in

order to determine FSP eligibility and prevent errors

in program certification. Examples of the new data

States are required to maintain or be able to track

through database matching efforts include: information on TANF clients’ participation in work programs

and their employment status; information on

ABAWDs’ employment, participation in FSP

employment and training activities, and months of

participation in the FSP; information on the immigration status and year of entry into the United States of

legal aliens; and information from Federal and State

records on clients’ prior convictions for felonies. 

• Conforming FSP and TANF Program Rules.

Because of the new option of the Simplified FSP,

along with Federal and State policymakers’ interest in

reducing program complexity and promoting conformity between TANF and the FSP, an important category of change was the extent of conformity that

States initiated between these two programs. The

study assessed the number of States that had con8 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

I. Overview of State Re-engineering Efforts
formed the FSP to their State TANF rules, either

through the Simplified FSP option or by shaping

TANF rules to existing Federal FSP rules. 

• Program Monitoring and Evaluation. With the significant changes in welfare reform, it became important for public policymakers to know how the

changes were affecting client outcomes. In the FSP, 

it is important to know whether and how States are

investing in systems or special studies to monitor and

evaluate the success of the FSP, both in terms of

employment outcomes and of ensuring that families

are receiving the food assistance to which they are

entitled. 

Number and Type of State

Administrative Changes in 

the FSP After PRWORA

This section discusses the extent to which States made

changes in their FSPs that fall into the six categories

of re-engineering changes. Two approaches were used

to examine these data. First, the total number of activities that fell into each of the six re-engineering categories was examined. These results are presented by

displaying the number of States completing or planning an activity that fell into the specific re-engineering category. Second, the total effort made by States 

is displayed, that is, the number of States that undertook or planned re-engineering activities in one or

more categories. Analyses of these data are therefore

designed to provide a “big picture” view of the efforts

made by States to re-engineer their FSPs. Details on

the specific activities themselves within each of the six

categories are presented in chapter II.

When viewing these data, it is important to remember

that from the State agency’s point of view, the changes

to its FSP were likely the result of a single effort to

change the way the program is administered. It was

the purpose of this study to examine the State efforts

and place the various activities into the six categories

of re-engineering changes. For example, if a State

decided to implement a project that redefined the role

of the caseworker, and at the same time restructured

reporting relationships by creating new organizational

units, the State was classified in this study as having

made changes in two re-engineering categories. 

The data discussed below are divided into two general

categories: activities implemented after PRWORA but

prior to FY 2000, followed by activities planned for

FY 2000.

How Many FSP Administrative Changes Did

States Implement After PRWORA? 

Every State agency included in the study (49 States

and the District of Columbia) reported making administrative changes to their FSP that fell into one or more

re-engineering categories. Figure 1 displays the number of States that have made changes, by the number

of categories into which those changes fall. As can be

seen, 48 (96 percent) of the States made changes that

fall into two or more categories, while 19 States (38

percent) made changes falling into four or more reengineering categories. Figure 2 displays each of the

States and the number of re-engineering categories in

which they made changes after PRWORA.

What Categories of Administrative Change

Were Most Common? 

As can be seen below in fig. 3, three categories of

change were reported by the majority of respondents

(see appendix table 2 for specific States). Forty States

reported they had enacted re-engineering efforts in the

category of client tracking and accountability systems—not a surprising finding, since this category of

change was driven in large part by new requirements

in the law. Thirty-nine States reported changes to

improve FSP accessibility and client certification systems. Responses in this latter category included States’

efforts to improve FSP participation by those eligible,

as well as efforts to modify their application and certification systems. While efforts for improving access

were consistent with the concern over large declines in

FSP participation and the increasing public attention

being paid to this, efforts to change the certification

system may also have been a result of needing to

reduce FSP certification error rates. 

Of interest—and an unexpected result—was the third

most frequently reported category of change: changes

to conform FSP and TANF rules. Though only a small

number of States opted to utilize the Simplified FSP

option, a total of 34 States reported some efforts to

conform the State’s TANF and FSP rules.

A large number of States made changes in more than

one of these three categories. Specifically, 22 States

made changes in all 3 of these categories and 32 States

made administrative changes in both their client tracking and accountability systems and in improving proEconomic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 9
10 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

One Two Three Four or more

Number of category changes

Figure 1

Number of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000

by number of category changes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Number of States

13

16

19

2

Figure 2

Number of re-engineering efforts by States as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

NY MA

VT

NH

ME

MI

AK

HI

N One change

Two changes

Three changes

Four or more

changes

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

Number of changes
gram accessibility and/or modifying their FSP certification systems.

What Changes Did States Plan to Implement

by the End of FY 2000?

In addition to asking about activities implemented

since 1996 as a result of welfare reform, the study also

questioned State officials about plans for implementing re-engineering efforts in FY 2000. States that were

planning to enact one or more re-engineering changes

in FY 2000 are displayed on the map in fig. 4. As can

be seen in fig. 5, only 10 States reported no plans to

implement any re-engineering efforts. One-third (16)

of States reported plans to implement one change, 17

planned to enact 2 categories of change, 6 planned on

implementing 3 changes, and one planned on implementing 5 changes by the end of the fiscal year. All 10

of the States not planning to implement any further

changes had already implemented 2 or more changes

in the prior years. 

Of the States planning to implement changes in FY

2000 (see appendix table 3 for listing of States), the

majority (28 States) planned to implement changes in

program accessibility and certification systems (fig. 6).

This may be a direct result of the concerns regarding

drops in FSP participation rates. It was also interesting

to note that nearly one-third of the States (15) planned

to increase their program monitoring and evaluation

activities in FY 2000. This also may be related to the

drop in program participation, as States may be wishing to analyze the impact of welfare reform on client

services and caseload. The increased interest in program monitoring and evaluation will be discussed further in chapters III and IV.

Comparison of Changes By 

State FSP Characteristics 

In examining the level of the effort with which States

have re-engineered their FSPs, it is important to assess

whether the extent of State changes was correlated

with the level at which the FSP is administered (county or State) and the size of the FSP caseload, as measured by the average number of monthly FSP participants in each State.

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 11

Figure 3 

Number of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 

by category of change

11

18

39 40

34

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

 Role of the

 caseworker

 Program

 accessibility and

 certification systems 

 Client 

 tracking and 

 accountability

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules

 Program

 monitoring 

and evaluation

Category of change

Number of States

Organizational

 structure 

 
12 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 4

Number of re-engineering efforts planned by States for FY 2000

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MI

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN

WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

MA NY

NH

ME

MI

HAWAII AK

HI No change

One change

Two changes

Three changes

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

VT

Four or more

changes

Number of changes

Figure 5

Number of States planning re-engineering efforts during FY 2000 by number of category changes

Zero One Two Three Four or more

Number of category changes

Number of States

0

5

10

15

20

25

10

16

17

6

1
Are There Differences Between States 

With County-Administered and StateAdministered Programs?

One hypothesis underlying this study was that States

that allow counties to administer their FSPs would be

more likely to place less emphasis on their re-engineering efforts than States that administer their programs at the State level. A total of 13 States (26 percent of the study States) have county-administered

FSPs. The map in fig. 7 shows which States run county-administered FSPs and which run their FSPs from

the State level.

Since the FSP rules are determined primarily at the

Federal level, the major difference between countyand State-administered FSPs is that, in the former, a

number of the decisions about administrative activities

related to direct client services are passed down to

local jurisdictions, depending on the level of flexibility

allowed by the State. It was therefore thought that in

county-administered States, the survey of State officials would find a smaller number of reported administrative changes because the re-engineering efforts

might occur at the local level, where staff were not

being surveyed. 

However, when the data were examined, this assumption was not validated. County-administered States

were just as active as, and in some categories more

active than, their State-administered counterparts.

When States with county-administered FSPs were

compared with States administering their programs at

the State level as to the number of re-engineering

efforts enacted since PRWORA, some interesting contrasts were noted. Figure 8 compares the number of

reengineering efforts enacted by the county- and Stateadministered programs. As can be seen, 7 of the States

with county-administered programs (54 percent) made

4 or more changes, while 12 States with State-administered programs (32 percent) made 4 or more changes.

All of the States with county-administered programs

made more than two changes.

When the States reporting different categories of reengineering efforts were broken down by countyadministered and State-administered programs, some

variations were found (fig. 9). While the most frequent

categories of change in both kinds of States were the

same—tracking and accountability systems, program

accessibility and certification systems, and conforming

the TANF and FSP rules—the most common types of

administrative changes among county-administered

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 13

1

4

28

18

7

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Organizational

 structure

Role of the

caseworker

 Program

 asccessibility 

and certification 

 systems

 Client tracking 

and accountability 

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules 

 Program

 monitoring and

 evaluation

Number of States

Number of States planning re-engineering efforts during FY 2000 by category of change

Figure 6

Category of change
14 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 8

Percentage of State- and county-administered States enacting re-engineering changes as a

result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by the number of category changes 

5

27

35

32

0

23 23

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

One Two Three Four or more

Number of category changes

Percentage of States

State-administered refers to States whose FSP's are administered at the State level; in county-administered States, FSP responsibiity has 

been given to the counties.

1

1 

State-administered (N=37)

County-administered (N=13)

Figure 7

County- and State-administered programs

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KA

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS

GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN

WV VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

MA NY

VT

NH

ME

MI

AK

County-administered

State-administered

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

IL

AL

HI

State-administered refers to States whose FSP's are administered at the State level; in county-administered States, 

FSP responsibiity has been given to the counties.

1

1
States (for 92 percent of the States) were changes in

program accessibility and certification systems, while

the most frequently reported administrative changes

among State-administered programs (for 81 percent of

the States) were changes to their client tracking and

accountability systems. 

When the types of changes planned for FY 2000 were

examined (fig. 10), the county- and State-administered

States had similar responses. For both kinds of programs, the most frequently reported planned change

was to their program accessibility and certification

systems—a program area that is being heavily stressed

by FNS and the public to ensure FSP access for the

working poor and those leaving the welfare rolls. In

the latter case, the county-administered States reported

planning additional changes in their program accessibility and certification systems, since the majority had

made such changes prior to FY 2000. While 7 of the

13 States with county-administered programs (54 percent) made organizational structure changes prior to

FY 2000, none were planning any changes of this type

in FY 2000. 

Do Differences Across States Relate to

Caseload Size?

Another factor believed to influence the variability of

State re-engineering efforts was the size of the State’s

food stamp caseload. For purposes of this study, States

were divided into those with small, medium, and large

FSPs, based upon their average monthly caseload in

FY 1999, the latest fiscal year for which final FSP participation data were available. A small State was

defined as having a caseload of 100,000 persons or

less, and a medium-sized State as having a caseload of

between 100,000 and 500,000. Large States had caseloads over 500,000 (Food and Nutrition Service

2000(b)). (See appendix table 4 for specific State

groupings.)

A total of 13 States fit into the small category, while

25 States were considered medium-sized and 12 were

defined as large. When comparing the variation in the

number of administrative changes across States by

caseload size, minimal differences were found (fig.

11). All of the States with medium and large caseloads

had enacted two or more administrative changes

through FY 1999, while 85 percent of the small States

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 15

Organizational

 structure

Role of the

caseworker

 Program

 accessibility 

and certification 

 systems

 Client tracking 

and accountability 

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules 

 Program

 monitoring and

 evaluation

Figure 9

Percentage of State- and county-administered States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of

welfare reform before FY 2000 by category of change

38

73

46

31

92

77

54

11

81

65

54

77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage of States

State-administered (N=37)

County-administered (N=13)

State-administered refers to States whose FSP's are administered at the State level; in county-administered States, FSP responsibiity has 

been given to the counties.

1

1 
16 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Organizational

 structure

Role of the

caseworker

 Program

 accessibility 

and certification 

 systems

 Client tracking 

and accountability 

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules 

 Program

 monitoring and

 evaluation

by category of change

Figure 10 

Percentage of State- and county-administered States planning re-engineering efforts during FY 2000 

3 5

54

32

16

22

15

62

46

8

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage of States

State-administered (N=37)

County-administered (N=13)

0

State-administered refers to States whose FSP's are administered at the State level; in county-administered States, FSP responsibiity has 

been given to the counties.

1

1 

One Two Three Four or more

Percentage of States

Figure 11 

Percentage of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare reform before

FY 2000 by number of category changes and by State caseload size

15

8

54

23

32

24

44

33

25

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Small caseload (N=13)

Medium caseload (N=25)

Large caseload (N=12)

0 0
had enacted changes in two or more categories.

Seventy-seven percent of the small States had enacted

changes in three or more categories, as compared with

68 percent of the medium States and 66 percent of the

large States.

In contrast, there were some differences found by State

caseload size in the type of administrative changes

most frequently reported, as illustrated in fig. 12. All 13

States with small caseloads reported making changes in

their client tracking and accountability systems prior to

FY 1999. Among States with medium-sized food stamp

caseloads, the most common re-engineering efforts

were in program accessibility and certification systems,

with 20 of 25 States (80 percent) noting changes in this

category. The 12 States with large caseloads divided

their preference, with 10 (83 percent) making changes

in client tracking and accountability systems and the

same percentage making changes in conforming their

FSP to their TANF program.

States Reporting Variation 

in Administrative Changes 

for Rural Areas

In examining the activities States undertake to re-engineer their FSPs, one can not assume that the changes

in a particular category are the same across the State.

For example, States might modify their re-engineering

plans to accommodate the special needs of areas they

consider rural. As part of this study, State officials

were asked if they made different types of changes

within their States based upon whether the program

was providing services in a rural or an urban/suburban

area. For example, accessibility issues may be greater

in rural areas, which have limited transportation and

long distances between clients and FSP offices. In

addition, fewer staff may be available in rural areas,

requiring adjustments in the role of the caseworker,

such as creating generic caseworkers to serve all types

of food stamp clients; conversely, the availability of a

larger number of caseworkers in more urban areas may

result in more specialization of caseworker activities. 

For purposes of this study, States were not given a standardized definition of what constitutes a “rural” area,

but were simply asked if different re-engineering

changes were made based upon their own definitions of

rural. A total of 18 States indicated that they implemented different types of re-engineering efforts based upon

their perception of differing needs in rural areas of their

State. The map in fig. 13 displays the States that decided to vary their re-engineering efforts in this way.

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 17

Organizational

 structure

 Role of the

caseworker

 Program

 accessibility 

and certification 

 systems

 Client tracking 

and accountability 

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules 

 Program

 monitoring and

 evaluation

Percentage of States

Figure 12 

Percentage of States enacting re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by 

category of change and State caseload size

8

23

85

62

31 28

44

80

68

64

56

25

33

67

83 83

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 Small caseload (N=13)

Medium caseload (N=25)

Large caseload (N=12)

 

100

110
States were specifically asked if they took different

approaches in their rural areas when they implemented

changes in the categories of program accessibility and

certification systems or when they changed the role of

the caseworkers serving food stamp clients. Nineteen

States reported some variation between changes they

made in rural versus nonrural areas, with 14 States

reporting variation in the area of program accessibility

and certification systems and 3 States reporting they

had customized changes in the role of the food stamp

caseworker for their rural areas. 

This chapter has provided a general overview of the

level of effort engaged in by States in re-engineering

their FSPs as a result of welfare reform. While an

examination into the categories of changes is necessary, it is important to note that the specific activities

undertaken by States within each category may vary

significantly. The next chapter provides an in-depth

look at the specific administrative and program operations activities that States performed within the various

re-engineering categories.

18 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 13

States making changes based on differing needs for urban and rural areas

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MI

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN

WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

MA NY VT

NH

ME

MI

HAWAII AK

HI

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

VT

States with changes
The key findings of the re-engineering survey are presented in this chapter. While the previous chapter

described aggregated categories of change in State

FSP administrative practices, this chapter details specific changes within these categories. Each of the six

re-engineering categories is broken into subcategories

to show in detail how States changed or planned to

change their FSPs. 

Changes in Organizational Structure

Reorganization efforts undertaken by States can vary

from simply restructuring reporting relationships within the organization to transferring major program units

and/or functions in or out of existing organizational

structures. Of interest to this study was whether the

increased FSP requirements of PRWORA, combined

with the added flexibility provided by PRWORA,

resulted in State reorganizations of FSP administration.

As was noted in chapter I, 11 of the 50 States included

in the study decided to undertake organizational

changes related to PRWORA. 

The primary goal of States’ reorganization efforts was

to increase overall program efficiency, expressed in

varying ways, with 6 of the 11 States noting this as

their main goal. Better coordination between TANF

and the FSP were cited by three States as their reason

for reorganizing. Other goals included becoming more

responsive to local needs, focusing on work issues and

self-sufficiency of clients, and improving program

accountability. 

States used a variety of approaches in changing their

organizational structures to meet their intended goals.

One of the key areas of interest for this study was the

extent to which State FSP administrative responsibilities were expanded or reduced as a result of PRWORA. To obtain information on this, a series of questions were asked regarding the movement of program

functions or operations in or out of the FSP administrative unit. Of particular interest was whether the

State FSPs added functions or program operations to

their existing organizational units, moved functions or

program operations out of the FSP administrative unit,

or made changes that could be classified as having

done both. Second, the study examined whether program operations and functions were added to the

responsibilities of the State agency administering the

FSP, whether the State eliminated functions that were

no longer necessary, or whether it created new functions within its organizational unit that did not exist

within the FSP before. The findings in these two areas

are discussed below.

Movement of Organizational Functions and 

Program Activities

One reason States may change their organizational

structures is to increase the span of control over program activities by moving functions into a single organizational unit (centralization) or to spread functions

that once had been carried out by a single organizational unit into multiple units (decentralization). This

study examined whether changes in organizational

structure resulted in a more centralized FSP or a more

decentralized program.

• Centralized Activities or Functions. States were

considered to have centralized an activity or function if one or both of two activities took place.

First, if a single State agency absorbed functions

that were previously performed by different organizational units within State government, it was

considered to have centralized its operations.

Second, if States decided to assume activities or

functions formerly conducted by local jurisdictions

(counties or other localities), then they were considered to have centralized a component of their FSP

operations. For example, if a State decided to take

over monitoring and evaluation activities that had

been the responsibility of local or regional food

stamp offices, it was considered to have centralized

this operation.

• Decentralized Activities or Functions. States were

considered to have decentralized activities or functions when the converse of the above activities took

place. First, if a State decided to identify functions

that had been the responsibility of a single organizational unit and distribute these functions to a number of organizational units within the State government, it was considered to have decentralized its

operations. In addition, if the State decided to move

functions that were previously the responsibility of

the State central office to regional or county agencies,

then the State was classified as having decentralized

that function as well. For example, if States moved

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 19

II. State FSP Administrative Changes Since Welfare Reform
the responsibility for conducting staff training to their

regional offices, then they were considered to have

decentralized that component of their operations.

The moves to centralize and decentralize State FSPs

are not mutually exclusive. A State can make changes

in one part of its program that result in a more centralized structure and at the same time can make other

changes to decentralize it. This was observed in this

study. Of the 11 States that made changes to their

organizational structure, 5 States undertook activities

that would be characterized as centralizing activities or

functions, while 6 States engaged in efforts that decentralized a program activity or function. However, 3 of

the 11 States reporting the above changes indicated

that they had taken actions that centralized one component of their program while decentralizing another.

Therefore, in an unduplicated count, three States

decentralized activities, two States centralized activities, and three States implemented a combination of

both. Also, three States implemented changes to their

organizational structure that resulted in no change in

centralization or decentralization of activities. Table 1

displays the States falling into each of these four categories. The case study conducted in Connecticut, discussed in the second section of this report, provides a

detailed description of how State reorganization efforts

can affect Food Stamp Program operations. 

In the States where functions were transferred to

another organizational unit or agency, the program elements most commonly transferred were activities related to employment and training. Five of the six States

that decentralized functions either transferred employment and training units to a different agency or department or contracted with outside agencies or private

organizations to perform this function.

Changes in the Responsibilities of the FSP

Administrative Agency

One focus of this study was how the changes in organizational structure discussed above affected the overall operation of the State FSP agency. In particular,

State officials were asked about two ways change

might have occurred. First, the officials were asked if

they made any efforts to take over functions or organizational units that were previously the responsibility of

organizations located in other State departments. Two

States reported that they had absorbed functions previously performed by different departments into the

State FSP agency. 

Second, State officials were asked if they had eliminated any organizational units or functions that were no

longer necessary as a result of PRWORA, or whether

new functions or organizational units were created that

had not been part of the State FSP agency prior to

PRWORA. None of the 11 States reported having

eliminated any functions or organizational units as no

longer necessary. Four States (California, New York,

Virginia, and Washington) noted that they had created

new organizational units that had not existed prior to

PRWORA to implement time limits for ABAWDs or

to increase employment and training programs targeted

to this population. This is likely the result of increased

tracking requirements for ABAWDs and the increased

funding of employment and training programs resulting from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

One of the interesting aspects of this re-engineering

category is the extent to which States eliminated jobs

or positions as a result of their organizational changes.

With State reorganization efforts, particularly those

that involved consolidating or transferring functions

from one organizational unit to another, it would seem

reasonable to expect that some jobs or positions would

be eliminated. However, none of the States that made

organizational changes reduced the number of State

positions in the FSP, even when organizational units

were consolidated. Finally, States were asked if they

planned to make any changes to their organizational

structure in FY 2000. The only State reporting a

planned change in FY 2000 was Arkansas, which had

adopted the Simplified Food Stamp Program option

but was planning to return to the standard Federal food

stamp rules.

20 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1—States changing organizational structure

by type of approach 

Both 

centralized Neither

and centralized

Centralized Decentralized decentralized nor

activities only activities only activities decentralized

Virginia Colorado California Maryland

Washington Idaho Connecticut Ohio

New Mexico New York Wisconsin 
Changes in the Role of the Caseworker

The second re-engineering category examined in this

study comprised changes that affected the role of the

caseworker. As noted in the previous chapter, the focus

of the welfare system on a “work and self-sufficiency”

model was likely to change the role of the caseworker.

Prior to PRWORA, the caseworker’s main role was to

determine eligibility and then to monitor changes in

income or other factors affecting eligibility status.

Often caseworkers specialized in particular programs,

which meant that clients participating in multiple programs dealt with different caseworkers. With the passage of PRWORA, States had the opportunity to

change the role of the caseworker in a number of

ways. Additionally, innovations in program administration, such as the establishment of call centers to recertify clients—along with the increased emphasis on

helping clients become self-sufficient—brought about

changes in caseworker responsibility in some States. 

These changes involve a redirection of program

responsibilities and activities beyond the traditional

role of determining eligibility. In some States, caseworkers have begun to assume responsibility for

assessing eligibility for both the TANF and FSP, as

well as for assisting clients with finding employment

or support services such as child care or transportation.

These changes in caseworker responsibility are documented through job descriptions and employment

requirements. 

However, there is a second type of change that, while

not detailed here, should be mentioned. This more

informal change in the role of the caseworker takes

place at the level of individual interaction between

caseworkers and clients. By taking on responsibilities

for helping the client become more self-sufficient, the

caseworkers may find themselves spending much more

time getting to know the needs of their clients and

helping them to develop plans for improving their

overall well-being. For example, there may be pressure

on the caseworker, whether real or implied, to move

clients off the welfare roles and into a job, or there

may be an effort on the part of the State to increase

support services to allow clients better access to

employment opportunities. As a result, the caseworker

may find that the fundamental relationship between the

client and caseworker has changed in ways that cannot

be described by examining civil service job descriptions. It is important to recognize that these types of

changes most probably occurred, even though examining them was not within the scope of this study. The

case study conducted in Kansas, in Section II of this

report, provides an excellent example of how caseworker roles were changed to consolidate functions. It

also demonstrates the dilemma faced by caseworkers

responsible for moving clients off the TANF rolls

while at the same time promoting FSP and Medicaid

participation.

State Goals Related to Changing the Role 

of the Caseworker

Of the 50 States included in the study, 18 reported that

they made changes to the role of their caseworkers

(see appendix table 5 for specific States). When they

were asked about their goals related to these changes,

four specific goals emerged. As was true with their

reorganization efforts, the States often had more than

one outcome in mind when planning changes to the

role of the caseworkers. The four main goals noted by

States were to:

• Increase coordination between the FSP and the

TANF program. This was the most frequent goal,

cited by 11 of the 18 States. In particular, some

States noted the importance of coordinating eligibility and case management services in order to

increase continuity between these programs. This

resulted in some caseworkers serving clients who

were eligible for both TANF and the FSP (and

Medicaid as well) and other caseworkers being

responsible for FSP-only participants. 

Note that one State, Arizona, is piloting a project that

takes the responsibility for certification of TANF

clients, and the commensurate responsibility of helping them find employment, away from government

workers and puts it in the hands of a private company. In addition, Arizona Native American tribes are

allowed to run their own TANF programs, with State

employees remaining responsible for FSP certification. This means that FSP caseworkers must work

with the private provider and tribal caseworkers to

coordinate certification activities, program change

reporting, and followup on persons leaving the

TANF program. The case study conducted in

Arizona describes how these two programs are functioning and the issues faced by public, tribal, and

private caseworkers.

• Reduce Fragmentation in the Provision of

Services. Nine States noted that they changed the

role of the caseworker as a way to accomplish this,

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 21
often by making caseworkers responsible for the

eligibility process for multiple programs. Some

States noted the benefits of information not having

to be collected repeatedly on the same household by

different workers and of caseworkers being able to

work with clients to identify additional services and

benefits for which they may be eligible. 

• Increase Efficiency of the FSP. Six States reported

improved efficiency in the operation of their FSP

after changing the role of the caseworker. Examples

included better management and coordination of

client self-sufficiency activities by caseworkers and

less time spent by caseworkers on the recertification

process. For instance, Utah, Georgia, and Texas

established centers to handle client status-change

reporting and recertification activities. Removing this

responsibility from the local caseworkers has both

helped to reduce error rates and allowed caseworkers

more time to assist clients at the time of certification.

Case studies in Texas and Georgia describe how such

“change centers” have affected both the role of the

caseworkers in those States (one State being “Stateadministered” and the other “county-administered”)

and the process by which clients are recertified for

the FSP.

• Increase Coordination Between the FSP and Programs other than TANF. Four States noted that their

main goal for changing the role of the caseworker

was to improve the coordination of food stamp services with other social and health services for nonTANF food stamp households. In particular, better

coordination with Medicaid and employment and

training activities was cited as a reason for broadening the role of caseworkers serving non-TANF

applicants.

Changing the responsibilities of the caseworker often

requires formal revisions to civil service job descriptions, which also may alter the education and experience requirements for the job. In addition, the caseworker may assume duties that were previously performed by staff in other job classifications. As a result,

the State FSP agency may have been required to obtain

formal approval for these changes from other governmental agencies, labor unions, or the State legislature.

In addition, once the changes were approved, a transition period was likely to have been allowed so caseworkers could receive training for their new responsibilities. The extent to which changes in the role of the

caseworker required formal changes in civil service

job classifications, the approval of other organizations,

and retraining was examined.

Changes in Civil Service Job Requirements

Of the 18 States reporting that they changed the role of

the caseworker, 10 did so by retiring or reclassifying

the civil service positions used for the caseworker and

by restructuring the caseworker’s job description to

include responsibilities previously conducted by

employees in other job classifications. However, while

10 States made changes to the civil service job classifications, only 3 States altered the education and experience requirements for their new caseworkers. Several

States noted that they added new responsibilities to the

caseworker job description that were once performed

by staff in other State programs. In particular, duties

related to helping clients find employment opportunities were most often cited as roles removed from outside agencies and added to the job description of caseworkers serving food stamp clients, thereby changing

the role of the caseworker. Figure 14 shows the number of States that combined functions in FSP with

those previously performed by other agencies, by the

type of programs from which these functions were

transferred.

The extent to which States were required to obtain the

approval of other governmental agents to implement

changes to the caseworkers’ role was also examined to

determine which State agents were indirectly involved

in State re-engineering efforts. In addition, it was

assumed that since State agencies receive funding

from different sources, they often need approvals

before they can implement any programmatic changes

they have planned. Figure 15 displays the type of governmental agency or organization from which approval

for changing the role of the caseworker was obtained

(see appendix table 6 for specific States). The most

common agency approvals, as might be expected in

changing the job descriptions of civil service employees, were requested of formal civil service boards or

personnel agencies. Eleven States reported having to

obtain this approval. The governor’s office in five

States approved the changes to the role of the caseworker, while four States went to their State legislature

for approval.

The extent to which the caseworkers themselves were

involved in the planning process for changing their

roles was also examined. Three States obtained

approval of State employee unions or organizations to

which the caseworkers belonged, while 12 States

22 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 23

Figure 14 

Number of States combining food stamp activities with those previously performed by other agencies 

as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of program 

7

6

5

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

 Employment 

security or training

TANF Medicaid Other social

service or health 

Type of program

Number of States

Figure 15

Number of States obtaining approval for caseworker role changes as a result of welfare reform 

before FY 2000 by type of agency conducting approval

11

5

4

3

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

 Civil service board or

 State personnel agency

Governor's office State legislature Labor unions or State

 employee agency

Other

Type of agency conducting approval

Number of States
reported involving the caseworkers themselves through

less formal means when changes were being planned.

An issue of interest to this study was the extent to

which State officials felt they had increased the overall

workload of caseworkers when their duties were

changed. Of the 15 States that changed the role of the

caseworker, officials in 10 of the States believed they

had increased the overall workloads and 5 felt the

workload remained about the same. Officials in Idaho,

Virginia, and Wisconsin reported that they believed

caseworker workloads had changed, but they were

uncertain of the extent. 

Additional Training for Caseworkers 

In States where the role of the caseworker was

expanded to incorporate new activities, it seemed likely that States would need to retrain caseworkers to

assume their new responsibilities. This proved to be

the case, since 16 of the 18 States making changes

identified additional training to their caseworkers as

critical to their re-engineering efforts. 

Most frequently mentioned was training to increase the

case management skills of former eligibility workers.

Seven States noted that caseworkers who once worked

only on client eligibility determination were now

trained in topics that required both new program

knowledge and improved interpersonal skills. Topics

for training mentioned by States included how to assist

clients in finding employment opportunities and

improving case management skills to help clients

access health care and other support services.

Six of the 18 States noted that they were required to

train their caseworkers on new program requirements,

such as changes in eligibility rules, employment

requirements, or job training programs. Three States

noted that they were required to provide training to

TANF workers on FSP rules, and vice versa. Two

States reported that they had to train their caseworkers

on new computer systems being used to implement

new program requirements.

While eligibility determination is still a primary

responsibility of the caseworker, States that had made

changes in the role of the caseworker noted that other

responsibilities related to management of the client

cases were important as well. When asked to describe

how the roles of the caseworker had changed, the most

common response from State officials was that caseworkers now tend to spend more time working with

their clients on individual issues related to self-sufficiency. Officials in six States commented that the caseworkers had become more like case managers, assisting clients with both eligibility determination and

issues related to finding employment, accessing child

care, and accessing other social and health services. 

Changes in Program Accessibility

With the increased flexibility provided by PRWORA

and the fundamental changes brought about by altering

the focus of the welfare system, a number of States

have also begun to develop approaches to improve

accessibility to their FSPs. As was noted in earlier

chapters, there have been dramatic declines in FSP

participation since the mid-1990s that are greater than

could be accounted for by the economic boom during

this period. This is of concern to State and Federal

officials as well as advocates. Improving access to the

FSP has been viewed as an important component of

the continuing food security efforts of Federal and

State food assistance programs.

Thirty-nine States reported that they made re-engineering changes to improve program accessibility as a

result of PRWORA. As shown in figures 16 and 17, 10

States made 1 change to their program to improve

accessibility, while 29 States made 2 or more. Equally

important, 28 States reported they planned to make

changes in this area in FY 2000, with 18 of those

States planning 2 or more activities (figs. 18 and 19).

Program accessibility is related to a number of different activities that affect how clients may access the

FSP. For purposes of this study, changes made by

States to improve accessibility were divided into three

classifications. First, activities related to changing certification systems were examined, both by looking at

efforts to improve automated eligibility systems and at

other steps taken by States to make it easier for clients

to complete the application and recertification process

for the FSP. As noted earlier, the complexity of State

applications and certification systems may have an

impact, positive or negative, on clients’ willingness to

complete the certification process. Second, the study

examined the extent to which States have altered local

office practices to help improve access to the FSP,

such as changing office hours, providing transportation

services and onsite child care, and establishing satellite

offices. Finally, efforts made by State FSPs to increase

their program outreach services were examined. Each

of these three areas is discussed. (See appendix table 7

for specific States.)

24 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 25

Figure 16

11 10

8

5

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

None One Two Three Four or more

Number of changes to improve accessibility

Number of States

Number of States implementing changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp Program as a result 

of welfare reform before FY 2000 by number of changes

Figure 17

Number of changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp Program as a result of welfare reform

implemented by States before FY 2000

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN

WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

MA

NY

NH

ME

MI

HAWAII AK

HI

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

VT

N No change

One change

Two changes

Four or more

changes

Three changes

Number of changes
26 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 18

Number of States planning changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp Program during

FY 2000 by number of changes

Number of States

22

10

8

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of changes to improve accessibility

Zero One Two Three or more

Figure 19

Number of States planning changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp Program

during FY 2000

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

NY MA

VT

NH

ME

MI

AK

HI N No change

One change

Two changes

Three or more

changes

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

Number of changes
Changes to the Food Stamp 

Application Process 

The food stamp application process has traditionally

required significant effort on the part of the applicant,

which has served as a barrier to food stamp participation. Research conducted by USDA found that applicants spent an average of 5 hours and $10.31 to complete the FSP application process (Food and Nutrition

Service, 2000). Working households and those with

long trips to the food stamp office were more likely

than other types of households to drop out of the

application process before their eligibility was determined (Bartlett et al., 1992). Other surveys of food

stamp nonparticipants have found that 10 to 25 percent of respondents report administrative hassles in

the application process as their reason for not participating (Coe, 1983; GAO, 1988). The current study

reveals that in the last several years States have taken

a number of steps to reduce the burden on clients and

improve the reapplication and certification processes,

utilizing the increased flexibility granted by PRWORA and the technological development of State computer systems.

Twenty-one States reported making changes to their

FSP application process as a result of PRWORA.

States gave different reasons for changing their certification systems, with several reporting multiple goals.

Of the 21 States who made changes, 9 reported that

improving the overall efficiency of their certification

system was a major goal, while 8 said that reducing

the number of certification errors was their primary

reason. Six States hoped to reduce the time it took a

caseworker to certify a client, and five hoped to

improve access to other social service programs by

changing their certification procedures. 

Changes in the certification system were divided into

two categories: changes in computer systems and

changes unrelated to computer systems. A total of

eight States made changes to their computer systems

to improve client certification, with the two most frequent reasons being the need to update the systems to

reflect policy changes (three States) and the need to

better integrate programs or services (three States).

A larger number of States, however, made changes to

their client certification systems that were unrelated to

their computer systems. The most frequent was a

reduction of the number of questions on the FSP application form; five States reported that they had made

this change. Ironically, the second most popular

change, implemented by four States, was requiring

clients to provide caseworkers with additional documentation of their eligibility. Interestingly, three States

combined their FSP application with applications used

by other social service programs to allow for certification in more than one program. Table 2 below displays

the States that made changes only to their computer

systems, made changes unrelated to their computer

systems, or made changes to both.

Regarding changes planned for FY 2000, three States

reported planning to increase computer automation in

their certification systems, while nine States indicated

that they planned to make changes in their certification

process that are unrelated to their computer systems.

Of these nine States, two planned to reduce the number and type of questions on their application, while

none planned to increase the documentation requirements of people applying for benefits. 

Local Office Practices

States also increased accessibility to program services

by changing local office practices. These practices

have become an important part of the overall FSP. In

particular, States made a number of changes to allow

food stamp applicants to have their interviews at more

convenient times and more accessible places. States’

efforts in this area are discussed below. 

A total of 28 States made efforts to improve their local

office practices in order to facilitate client accessibility

(see appendix table 8 for specific States). As has been

true in other categories, States may have made more

than one such change. Figure 20 displays the number

of States that made changes to their local office practices to improve FSP access, along with the types of

changes made. 

As can be seen, the most frequent change was extending the hours of operation of local offices by adding or

expanding weekend and evening hours to allow clients

more convenient times to apply for food stamp benefits. Nine States involved private partners in their

efforts to increase accessibility to the FSP. These partners are often nonprofit agencies concerned with food

security issues who help the States identify and overcome barriers to FSP participation.

Eleven States planned to increase services provided by

local offices in FY 2000 (see appendix table 9 for specific States). Of these, seven planned to increase the

times available for clients to apply for food stamp benEconomic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 27
28 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 20

Number of States changing local office practices as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000

by type of change 

5 5

8

2

12

20

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

 Provide child care

 at FS offices

 Improve

 transportation

 to FS offices

 Establish 

 satellite

 offices to 

 take FS 

 applications

 and provide

 recertifications

 Establish

 satellite 

 offices to 

 only take 

FS applications

 Outstation

workers at

 other 

 agencies

 Provide

weekend 

 and/or 

 evening 

 hours

 Use "Private 

 Partners" to 

 assist clients 

applying for FS

Number of States

Type of change

Table 2—States making changes to their food stamp application processes by type of change 

Changes not involving Both computer and

Computer changes computer systems noncomputer changes 

Connecticut Alabama Alaska

Arizona California

District of Columbia Colorado

Georgia Maryland

Idaho Montana

Indiana Nevada

Kentucky North Dakota 

Maine

Nebraska

New York

Oregon

Utah

Wyoming 
efits by expanding evening and weekend hours.

However, while only five States had implemented programs to assist with transportation for food stamp

clients after PRWORA, five States planned to implement transportation assistance in FY 2000.

Efforts To Increase Outreach to Clients

The final type of changes examined with regard to

program accessibility involves the efforts States made

or are making to improve outreach to potential clients.

This has become particularly important because of the

decline in food stamp participation discussed earlier in

this chapter. Outreach is also important in connection

with the extensive efforts being made by States to

improve accessibility to local food stamp offices.

While making certification times more convenient and

welfare offices more accessible is an important part of

State efforts to re-engineer the FSP, ensuring that

potential clients understand they may be eligible for

FSP benefits is also critical. The case study conducted

in Massachusetts describes an extensive campaign

being made by State officials to reach potential food

stamp clients.

Many States are concerned about reaching eligible

individuals who are experiencing food insecurity and

are not participating in the FSP, as well as about former food stamp clients who have left the FSP but

remain eligible for benefits. State efforts to conduct

food stamp outreach are exemplified by the number of

States making changes in this area or who were planning changes in FY 2000. A total of 24 States (see

appendix table 10 for specific States and outreach

methods) began or increased outreach efforts prior to

FY 2000, with an additional 18 States planning outreach efforts in FY 2000 (fig. 21). These efforts were

often targeted at special populations that were identified by State officials as being underserved by the FSP.

Figure 22 displays the various target populations and

the number of States that tried to reach those populations after PRWORA and on through FY 2000. As can

be seen, the populations targeted by the largest number

of States were the elderly, the working poor, and

ABAWDs. Figure 22 shows that the elderly and working poor populations remain targets for program outreach efforts planned by States for FY 2000. States are

also planning to target new groups, including former

TANF recipients and persons with disabilities.

The groups targeted least often by the States that

increased their outreach before FY 2000 were the disabled and former TANF recipients. In contrast,

ABAWDs were the least likely to be targeted by States

in the outreach efforts that were planned for FY 2000,

followed by the parents of young children and “others.”

States used a variety of methods to reach their target

populations. Thirteen States distributed printed materials such as brochures, posters, and flyers in lowincome communities, while five States relied on public

service announcements on television and radio and

five expanded referral services at other means-tested

programs. Three States noted that they had begun distributing FSP applications at locations such as food

banks and hospitals.

As mentioned above, States expanded their use of

referrals. Seven States reported efforts to increase the

number of referrals to the FSP from other means-tested

social service programs. Among the programs mentioned were TANF, where clients leaving the program

may still be eligible for FSP benefits, Medicaid, and

the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children (WIC). 

Finally, as was noted in chapter I, efforts to increase

program accessibility sometimes varied within States

with regard to urban and rural areas. A total of 14

States reported making different changes to promote

accessibility based on the special needs of these areas

within their State. Of the 14 States that mentioned

urban-rural differences, 4 placed a greater emphasis on

providing transportation services to rural clients. Other

differences reported by States included establishing

more satellite offices in urban areas, providing nutrition education services in urban areas to increase the

program’s exposure, moving toward a system of telephone contact for initial certification interviews in

rural areas, giving greater decision-making authority to

offices located in rural areas, and allowing rural

offices to develop their own methods to improve

accessibility. Table 3 displays the 14 States that

accommodated the different needs of rural and urban

areas with regard to accessibility issues.

Changes in Client Tracking Systems

While PRWORA created a great deal of flexibility in

how States manage their FSPs, several mandatory provisions, as described in the introduction, were also

enacted. These mandatory provisions have greatly

increased the pressure on States to meet program compliance and audit requirements and to reduce error

rates in client certification and the provision of benefits. As a result of these increased pressures, States

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 29
30 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

3

4

5 5

2 2

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

Parents of young

children

ABAWDs Working poor Elderly Disabled Former TANF

recipients

Other

Type of population

Number of States

Figure 21

Number of States targeting specific populations with outreach efforts as a result of welfare reform

before FY 2000 by type of population

Figure 22

Number of States planning to target specific populations with outreach efforts during FY 2000

by type of population 

4

2

8

10

5

6

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Parents of young

children

ABAWDs Working poor Elderly Disabled Former TANF

recipients

Other

Type of population

Number of States
have had to rethink how they collect and maintain

information about clients. 

One of the methods States used to improve program

integrity efforts, improving technology and computer

systems used to certify clients, was noted above.

Another method is matching client databases for the

FSP with those of other social service programs. The

purpose of this section is to examine some of the ways

that States have increased efforts to improve program

accountability through enhanced client tracking systems and computer matching.

While States have collected data regarding client eligibility and program benefits for years, the new

approaches taken by States to meet the demands of

PRWORA have created a need to collect new types of

information. Because of the increased complexity of

the FSP, as well as the interest shown by States in

improving program accessibility, caseworkers may

need information about clients’ participation in other

social service programs in order to be effective in

moving them toward self-sufficiency. In addition,

matching food stamp administrative data with data

from other social service programs has been found to

be an effective tool in controlling error rates in client

certification and detecting fraud in the delivery of program benefits. Through the use of sophisticated computer programs, States can determine whether clients

should be disqualified from FSP benefits because they

are categorically ineligible (for instance, as a fleeing

felon), have reported different income information to

other social service agencies (such as to Medicaid), or

have attempted to participate in the FSP in more than

one location (dual participation). 

A total of 40 States increased their efforts to improve

client tracking and accountability systems as a result

of PRWORA. The single largest group of States making changes to their client tracking systems did so to

meet the PRWORA requirement for tracking time limits on ABAWDs. Of the 40 States that enhanced their

client tracking systems, 33 focused their efforts on

developing systems for tracking time limits on

ABAWDs. In FY 2000 three States were planning to

adopt systems to better track the same limits. 

While States have been matching FSP administrative

data against other databases for years, the passage of

PRWORA seems to have motivated them to increase

these efforts. A total of 29 States reported that they had

increased the number and type of databases within

their States with which FSP data were matched. Six

States reported that they had begun matching records

with programs in neighboring States. Four of the

States reported that they also began using private contractors to assist them with client record matching. In

addition to these efforts, nine States reported that they

had planned to increase the number of databases

against which to match FSP records in FY 2000, while

two States planned to begin matching records with

neighboring States. States noted a number of programs

or departments against whose databases their increased

FSP matching efforts have taken place (see appendix

table 11 for specific States). Some of the more common programs or departments with which matching

activities have taken place, or were planned for FY

2000, include: 

• New-Hires Databases. In order to track employment

of individuals receiving TANF and food stamps,

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 31

Table 3—States making changes to improve accessibility based on differing needs for urban and rural

areas by type of change 

Food stamp application Efforts to increase

process Local office practices outreach to clients 

Georgia

Montana Colorado Connecticut

Idaho Georgia

Indiana Idaho

Maryland Oregon

Massachusetts Utah 

Montana

Nevada

South Carolina

Utah

Wisconsin

Wyoming 
States enhanced their tracking of new hires, particularly those reported through State departments of

labor or employment. A total of 17 States reported

having increased their data-matching with new-hires

data, and 3 States reported planning to increase datamatching in this area during FY 2000. 

• Criminal Records Databases. Because PRWORA

restricted certain persons with criminal records from

receiving FSP benefits, States began matching FSP

client information with databases maintained by various criminal justice organizations. A total of 13

States began matching FSP records with criminal justice organizations as a result of PRWORA, and 2

States planned to expand their data-matching to this

area in FY 2000.

• Records of the Social Security Administration. A total

of eight States began matching their FSP databases

with records from the Social Security Administration.

Two additional States planned to begin matching with

the Social Security Administration in FY 2000. The

purpose is to verify the social security numbers of

clients in order to be sure clients are who they say they

are and to match clients’ social security numbers with

the Social Security Administration’s records of

deceased clients, to be sure fraud is not being attempted.

Changes in Program

Monitoring and Evaluation

In addition to making changes in client tracking systems for purposes of controlling fraud and abuse,

States also began to recognize that the fundamental

changes to the FSP created by PRWORA would result

in program outcomes requiring new measurement

tools. As a result, some States began to develop systems by which changes in the FSP could be monitored

for evaluating program outcomes. These systems,

which differ from client tracking systems designed to

preserve program integrity, monitor key program outcome measures established by program administrators.

In addition, some States have begun to conduct formal

evaluations of FSP activities. In this section, the extent

to which States increased activities to monitor and

evaluate their FSPs is examined.

For the purposes of this study, efforts to monitor the

FSP include routinely assessing program operations

(such as tracking the number of cases each case manager has or the number of clients enrolled in FSP).

Efforts to evaluate the FSP, on the other hand, were

generally more formal studies that assessed the program’s effectiveness.

A total of 22 States developed new program monitoring tools to help them examine components of their

FSPs. In addition, seven States planned to implement

changes in program monitoring in FY 2000. Figure 23

displays the types of monitoring activities implemented by States as a result of PRWORA. As shown, monitoring efforts were most often focused on tracking

changes in client participation rates (14 States), evaluating client satisfaction (12 States), and evaluating

efforts to increase program accessibility (10 States). In

addition to the categories identified in figure 23, 11

States noted other areas in which they were increasing

monitoring activities. Areas in the “other” category

included increased monitoring of error rate reduction

measures of the status of TANF recipients who leave

the TANF program but may still be eligible for food

stamps (leaver studies), of outreach efforts, and of

client progress toward finding employment. Table 4

displays the States that undertook these monitoring

activities, by type of activity. 

In addition to the monitoring efforts noted above,

States began conducting formal evaluations of Food

Stamp Program activities. Evaluations are considered

important because they enable States to determine

whether their administrative changes are accomplishing

the goals for which they were implemented. Once that

assessment is made, States can begin to modify or redirect their re-engineering efforts to maximize the benefits of their programmatic changes. A total of 9 States

conducted formal evaluations of one or more FSP

activities prior to FY 2000, and 10 States planned evaluation activities in FY 2000. Eleven States noted that

they conducted evaluations of program participation

levels, as well as the level of client satisfaction with the

FSP. These evaluations were primarily done by FSP

staff, with seven of the nine States reporting having

used State FSP staff for conducting the evaluation.

Conforming FSP and 

TANF Program Rules

As noted in the introduction, PRWORA provided

States with the opportunity to coordinate the program

policies and activities of the FSP with their TANF programs. The purposes of this coordination were to assist

States in simplifying program policies, to improve the

overall efficiency of the two programs, to allow States

32 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
to better coordinate caseworker activities at the local

level, and to increase case management activities that

promote client self-sufficiency.

A total of 34 States coordinated some portion of the

TANF program rules with their FSP. As can be seen in

figure 24, the most common attempts to conform the

FSP with TANF were in the area of income and

resources eligibility criteria, with 25 States adopting

conformance measures. In addition, a total of seven

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 33

Table 4—States reporting program monitoring activities by type of activity 

Tracking changes Improving Evaluating Evaluating client

in program accessibility to caseworker satisfaction 

participation FSP efficiency

Alaska Arizona Arizona Alaska

Arizona Colorado Colorado Arizona

California Idaho Florida Colorado

Colorado Iowa Idaho Florida

Florida Kansas Iowa Idaho

Idaho Maryland Maryland Iowa

Iowa New Jersey New Mexico Maryland

Maryland New York New York New York

New Jersey Washington Wisconsin Ohio

New York Wyoming Utah

Ohio Washington

Washington Wisconsin

Wisconsin

Wyoming

14

10

9

12

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 23

Number of States increasing monitoring efforts as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000

by type of activity

Number of States

Tracking changes

 in the number of 

 people receiving

 food stamps

 Improving

accessibility

 to the FSP

 Evaluating

caseworker

 efficiency

Evaluating

 client

satisfaction

Other 

Type of monitoring activity
States planned to coordinate FSP and TANF program

rules in FY 2000. 

Another way States coordinated program rules was by

adopting the Simplified Food Stamp Program (SFSP).

Because TANF and the FSP have separate rules, applying to both programs can be a cumbersome process,

both for clients and caseworkers. In order to streamline the determination process for individuals applying

for TANF and food stamps, PRWORA gave States the

option of adopting the SFSP. Under the SFSP, States

may establish one set of rules for both programs. The

law also allows States to establish a limited SFSP,

which involves only aligning food stamp work requirements with work requirements in the TANF program. 

Respondents noted two administrative drawbacks of

the SFSP. First, States that adopt an SFSP must also

continue to operate a separate FSP, since not all clients

receive both TANF and food stamps. Second, the law

requires States to prove that the costs associated with

operating the SFSP do not exceed the costs incurred by

operating two separate programs, which has been difficult to accomplish. 

A total of seven States adopted a limited SFSP by

coordinating work requirements for TANF and the

FSP. As noted earlier in the chapter, Arkansas was the

only State to attempt to implement a complete SFSP.

However, Arkansas officials made the decision in 1999

to abandon their SFSP and return to a more traditional

FSP. The main reason cited by Arkansas officials for

this change was the complexity that the State faced in

trying to administer the SFSP, while administering a

separate FSP for non-TANF food stamp households.

The officials noted that caseworkers found the systems

confusing and were often unable to determine which

clients of the SFSP should receive certain benefits. No

State planned to implement either a limited or a complete SFSP in FY 2000. 

Conclusion

In this chapter, the specific re-engineering efforts

States implemented or planned to implement were

described. As can be seen, the numbers and varieties

of changes States made have significantly altered how

the FSP is administered across the country. Because

State re-engineering efforts are not static, it is likely

that the landscape of the FSP will continue to change

in the future. In chapter III, the study findings are

revisited and implications for future research are presented.

This report has provided a description of the efforts

undertaken by States to re-engineer their FSPs.

34 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 24

Number of States coordinating TANF program rules to conform with Federal food stamp

program rules as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of rule 

13

25

4

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

 Work

requirements

Income/resource

 eligibility criteria

 Income

deductions

Other

Type of rule

Number of States
However, the results of this study should not be

viewed as an end in themselves, but rather as the first

outcome of a process through which the effectiveness

of re-engineering efforts are examined over time. The

very notion of re-engineering a program the size of the

FSP carries with it issues related to the time needed to

fully implement changes and the additional time needed to assess the results of these changes. 

With the flexibility created by the passage of PRWORA, States have begun the process of restructuring

how they deliver services, including changing the role

of the caseworkers, increasing program accessibility,

tracking client participation, and evaluating program

components. While many States have implemented

changes in these areas, it will require additional time

for them to fine-tune these changes to improve their

program operations. 

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize some of

the key findings of this report and to provide

Economic Research Service with suggestions for

future research. It is important to note that while this

was a point-in-time study, the survey collected information on both changes implemented and activities the

States planned to undertake as a result of PRWORA.

The survey also was designed to capture information

about a wide variety of re-engineering efforts that

States made to the administration of their FSPs and

about the States’ goals for these changes. It is not,

however, designed to assess how effective these

changes have been. The consequences are unknown,

and States will need time to assess how well they were

able to meet their goals in re-engineering their FSPs.

Discussion of Key Findings

The number of re-engineering activities that took place

as a result of the passage of PRWORA is impressive.

While some States began re-engineering their FSPs

prior to the passage of the bill, there is no doubt that

Federal welfare reform led States to restructure administrative activities related to their FSPs. When the findings of this study are examined together, some interesting aspects of State re-engineering efforts can be

noted. A summary of these key findings follows.

• While States have focused on implementing mandatory provisions of PRWORA, a significant amount of

effort has been focused on improving access to the

FSP. It would be expected that States would make

major efforts to restructure their administrative activities in order to implement mandatory provisions of

PRWORA. The findings of this study confirm this, as

40 of the 50 States (80 percent) reported completing

re-engineering activities in the category of changes to

their client tracking systems. However, it is interesting to note that 39 of the 50 States (78 percent)

implemented changes to improve program accessibility. In addition, 28 States planned to implement

changes to improve accessibility in FY 2000. This

finding clearly shows that States are attempting to

address concerns related to the decline in FSP caseloads over the past several years.

• The number of States that implemented and planned

activities that fall into multiple re-engineering categories was higher than expected. Because State FSP

agencies are likely to have limited resources, one

would assume that undertaking a large number of

activities across multiple re-engineering categories

would be uncommon. However, 35 States (70 percent) implemented activities falling into three or

more re-engineering categories. 

• It would appear that changing organizational structures to implement activities related to PRWORA is

not a high priority with States. With the opportunity

to conform FSPs with their TANF programs, one

might have expected a large number of States to

combine or consolidate program functions by

changing their organizational structures. However,

while 34 States (68 percent) took steps to conform

TANF and FSP rules, only 11 States reported

changing their organizational structures, and of

those, only 3 cited conforming TANF and FSP as

the goal of the changes. In addition, only one State

reported that it planned to make changes in its organizational structure in FY 2000, and that State was

going to discontinue its SFSP. 

• There appears to be growing interest on the part of

States to increase program monitoring and evaluation activities within their FSPs. Twenty-four States

had implemented some form of increased monitoring

and evaluation, while 15 States planned to do so in

FY 2000. While tracking client participation rates

was the primary focus of this monitoring, a number

of States also recognized the importance of tracking

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 35

III. Discussion and Implications for Future Research 
and evaluating client satisfaction and efforts to

improve program accessibility. 

• The level of re-engineering activity demonstrated by

county-administered States was also noteworthy. As

mentioned in chapter I, less re-engineering activity

was expected from county-administered States

because it was assumed that many of the re-engineering efforts would take place at the county level.

However, 87 percent of the county-administered

States undertook changes that fell into three or more

re-engineering categories, as compared to 67 percent

of the State-administered States. In addition, the finding that 92 percent of the county-administered States

undertook changes to improve program accessibility

was not expected.

Implications for Future Research

While the findings of this study provide a strong baseline for examining State re-engineering efforts, they

must also be viewed in terms of opportunities for

future research. Simply knowing that these activities

took place, while important, should not be viewed as

an end in itself. Over the course of collecting and analyzing data for this study, a number of factors came to

the attention of the study team that have implications

for further research. These factors are discussed in

detail below. 

Evaluating County Efforts To 

Re-engineer FSPs

More research may be warranted in States that pass

down the responsibility of administering their FSPs to

county governmental agencies. With the flexibility

afforded by PRWORA, along with the decisions by

States to decentralize FSP operations, counties may

have had the same opportunity to adjust how they

administer their FSPs as many States have. However,

because of this local flexibility in how county programs are administered, State officials were unable to

provide information about the types of change taking

place within their counties. 

Examining the extent to which counties re-engineered

their FSPs was beyond the scope of this study. In order

to have a complete picture of how the FSP has been

re-engineered, a survey of county-run programs would

be useful. It must be considered that some county-run

programs may have caseloads as large as some State

programs (such as Los Angeles County, California) or

have some of the same issues related to urban and

rural divisions (for example, Riverside County,

California) that the States have. A complete picture of

the extent to which county-administered programs

have re-engineered their FSPs within the categories

identified for this study would add significantly to the

overall picture of State re-engineering efforts.

Evaluating the Extent to Which Planned 

Re-engineering Efforts Were Fully

Implemented

This study gathered information about the re-engineering efforts implemented prior to FY 2000 along with the

activities being planned for FY 2000. In the introduction, it was noted that while planned activities could be

described, there was no way of knowing whether they

were actually implemented. A followup study would

provide a more complete picture of State re-engineering

efforts. In particular, States planned a number of initiatives for increasing program accessibility. Because of

concerns about decreases in the FSP caseload, it would

be interesting to know if the plans for increasing client

accessibility were actually implemented. 

Evaluating Components of State 

Re-engineering Efforts

Another area that deserves consideration is the evaluation of some of the specific re-engineering changes

made by States as a result of PRWORA. As mentioned

earlier, the amount of time to fully implement a reengineering change will vary, but the change will not

often produce measurable results until years later. The

changes described in chapter II were each designed to

improve some components of the FSP. They should be

evaluated individually in terms of whether the proposed change met the goals of the State, whether the

re-engineering change was modified as a result of

problems identified during implementation, and

whether the State plans to continue the change over

the next several years. 

Specific research questions could be developed for

each of the re-engineering categories, including specific measures for evaluating the process and outcomes

of the changes. A number of areas raise questions and

stand out as deserving further evaluation, as follows:

• How has the changing role of the caseworker affected

the interaction between caseworkers and clients? One

of the key results of this study is the description of

the changes States have made to the role of the caseworker. But as noted in chapter II, the formal

36 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
changes in the role of the caseworker may not fully

describe how the interaction has changed between

caseworkers and clients. 

Because interviews and surveys with caseworkers

and clients were not within the scope of this study,

there was little information available about how the

changing role of the caseworker may affect delivery

of services. However, the ways that caseworkers now

interact with clients, particularly how they manage

client cases, the extent to which they provide services to clients in order to support self-sufficiency

efforts, and the attitudes of the caseworkers and

clients with regard to the changed role, deserve further examination. 

• Have efforts to improve client accessibility been

effective? Because of the concern over falling caseloads in the FSP, it would seem important to evaluate

the numerous efforts being made by States to improve

client accessibility. Of particular interest would be an

examination of how well efforts to improve accessibility through expanding office hours, improving

transportation services, and adding child care have

been coordinated with outreach efforts to bring in

new clients. In addition, the methods used by States

to conduct outreach efforts to potential clients should

also be examined. By evaluating the critical components of re-engineering efforts in the area of accessibility, valuable information could be provided to

States who are in the beginning phases of developing

increased accessibility efforts.

• Have States’ efforts to improve client tracking systems resulted in increased program integrity?

Chapter II discussed how a number of States have

increased their efforts in tracking clients to meet the

new requirements of PRWORA. These efforts have

included increased use of computer technology to

track client groups (such as ABAWDs) and of

matching FSP administrative files against those of

other social service programs and new-employment

databases. Because these efforts are often complex

and costly, it would make sense to determine which

ones seem to be the most cost-effective in reducing

program errors.

• To what extent have efforts to conform FSP and

TANF rules simplified or complicated the administration of the FSP at the State and local levels? In

chapter II, it was noted that the programmatic and

eligibility links between the TANF program and the

FSP might be conducive to better coordination

between the two programs. However, the practical

implementation of efforts to conform program

requirements may be too difficult for States to implement. The extent to which States have successfully

integrated components of the two programs, and the

extent to which problems or issues have discouraged

this practice, would also seem to deserve future

research.

Tracking State Efforts To Evaluate

Re-engineering Changes

As described in chapters I and II, States have begun

conducting their own evaluations of FSP components.

Developing a mechanism to collect and catalog State

evaluation efforts would enable tracking of the extent

to which individual States have evaluated their reengineering efforts. 

In addition to State-sponsored evaluations of FSP components, there may be other evaluation efforts at the

State level that it would be important to include in

such a catalog. A number of State governments have

audit agencies in their executive or legislative branches, and these agencies evaluate the effectiveness of

such areas as governmental reorganization, local service delivery systems, and State data collection systems.

While these evaluations may not be specific to the

FSP, they may encompass the entire department or

division in which the FSP is located. Because changes

in these administrative areas comprise a significant

part of States’ re-engineering efforts for their FSPs,

they may be of value in assessing the effectiveness of

administrative changes brought about by State re-engineering efforts. 

Future research might also focus on creating a mechanism by which evaluation reports commissioned by

State food stamp or welfare agencies, as well as by

other evaluation or audit agencies, could be collected

on a periodic basis and made available to researchers

and FSP program administrators. This would provide a

secondary source of data on how well individual State

re-engineering efforts have worked.

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 37
Ongoing Tracking Systems To Describe

Changes in State Re-engineering Efforts

Re-engineering State FSPs is a continuing process,

with States conducting ongoing efforts to fine-tune

existing re-engineering changes as well as to develop

new initiatives. ERS may want to consider a method

for promoting continuing research into the types of reengineering changes being made in State programs.

The regional offices of FNS may be able to play a

strong role, as they often are made aware of changes in

how State FSPs are administered. Information concerning ongoing State efforts may be found through

State FSP management evaluations or through changes

in the State’s Plan of Operations.

38 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Section B: Case Study Reports
In 1998, the Economic Research Service (ERS) commissioned a study of State-level efforts to re-engineer

Food Stamp Programs (FSPs) in response to welfare

reform. The purpose of the study was to provide ERS

with descriptive information about the types of administrative changes States had implemented since the

passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). As a part

of that study, six case studies were conducted to examine how local programs have implemented State policy

changes. This report presents information obtained

from the six case studies.

Overview of Case Study Site Selection

The flexibility provided to States through the passage

of welfare reform has resulted in some creative and

innovative approaches in program administration and

client services. The goal of this case study report is to

provide descriptive information about some of the

innovative approaches used by States to implement reengineering efforts in response to welfare reform, and

to examine how local programs implement these

changes. In order to select appropriate case study sites,

information was obtained from a review of data compiled for the national survey of State re-engineering

efforts. The process for selecting the specific State and

local programs is described below.

• Selection of specific States was based upon two

factors. First, States were grouped by the type of

re-engineering efforts they were undertaking.This

grouping matched the six categories of re-engineering examined in the main study. These categories are:

 Changes in State organizational structure;

 Changes in the role of the caseworker;

 Efforts to improve client accessibility and

certification;

 Changes in client tracking and accountability 

systems;

 Attempts to conform the State FSP with the 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 

(TANF) program; and

 Efforts to increase program monitoring and|

evaluation.

• Next, a determination was made regarding which categories of re-engineering efforts would be represented in the case study selection process. ERS officials

indicated that there was more interest in expanding

the scope of some of the categories than in ensuring

that all categories were represented. As a result, a

decision was made to eliminate the categories of

client tracking and accountability systems and efforts

to increase program monitoring and evaluation.

• Once the categories were determined, it was agreed

that the States selected should include at least one that

administers its FSP through county governmental

agencies. In addition, when possible, States that implemented re-engineering changes in more than one category would be given priority consideration. Finally,

survey interviewers were asked to provide input into

the selection process, as they were in a better position

to identify innovative approaches that States may have

used to implement their re-engineering efforts.

• A preliminary list of diverse States was forwarded to

ERS for consideration. Upon review of the information provided about the re-engineering effort in each

State, ERS selected the six States for inclusion.

Individual States were contacted and asked to participate in the case studies. In addition, State program

administrators were asked to recommend local programs for site visits.

Each of the six case study sites, along with the rationale for their selection, is described below.

• Massachusetts. (Innovation: Efforts to increase program accessibility and outreach.) Massachusetts has

two very innovative outreach projects targeted to persons who are not participating in the FSP. For a number of years, Massachusetts has contracted with

Project Bread, a nonprofit agency located in Boston,

to provide outreach to potential food stamp clients.

Project Bread offers a variety of services, including a

toll-free Food Source Hotline that responds to more

than 30,000 calls a year. Callers can obtain information in 140 languages. In addition, the program funds

community agencies to help potential FSP clients

complete the application.

40 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Overview and Summary of Case Studies
After implementing welfare reform, Massachusetts

officials were concerned that clients who left the

TANF program might also be leaving the FSP, even

though they were still eligible for the FSP. A second

outreach project was developed, to target the clients

who have left TANF. Clients who drop off both

Temporary Assistance for Families with Dependent

Children (TAFDC, Massachusetts’ name for TANF)

and the FSP are contacted by a caseworker and staff

from contract agencies, sometimes through home visits, to ensure that they are aware that they can continue to receive food stamps. The FSP is promoted in

nutrition education classes and advertised in Head

Start newsletters, posters placed in high school teen

centers, and flyers provided to clients in other social

and health services programs.

In FY 2000, Massachusetts planned to expand categorical eligibility for the FSP and extend office hours

to include evening and early morning hours to

improve access to the FSP. Officials also planned to

use Public Service Announcements and print advertisements on public transportation to increase program awareness. 

• Texas. (Innovation: Changes in program certification in an urban area.) In February 1997, Texas

established a pilot program in two regions

(Beaumont and San Antonio) to allow clients participating in the TANF, FSP, and Medicaid programs to

report changes in eligibility status over the telephone.

A year later, a change center was opened in Houston

and an additional center is currently being established in Arlington. Officials stated that they established the change centers to make the certification

process more efficient and to make things easier for

clients by putting them in direct contact with eligibility workers when reporting changes. Clients in these

regions constitute an estimated 40 percent of the

State’s TANF, FSP, and Medicaid populations. Texas

hopes to open change centers in all regions of the

State by 2001. Clients must still go into local offices

for initial eligibility determination for the three programs, and for FSP recertification every 3 to 6

months. 

• Georgia. (Innovation: Changes in program certification in a rural area located in a county-administered

State.) Georgia has begun piloting a centralized call

center that may be used by clients being served by

local offices in nine counties, eight in the metropolitan Atlanta area and one in a rural county located in

the center of the State. The purpose of the call center

is to allow clients to report ongoing changes in their

eligibility status without having to go into a local

office. The call center is open to participants in

TANF, Medicaid, and the FSP. At present, the services are available to 15 percent of the State’s total food

stamp caseload. Recertification continues to be conducted in the local offices. With the implementation

of the call center, Georgia State employees will be

directly involved for the first time in client certification and change reporting, as client service activities

in the past have only been handled by county

employees. 

In FY 2000, Georgia officials hoped to add another

change center in the southern part of the State to

expand these services. In addition to serving the

clients noted above, the new center will allow elderly and disabled clients who do not have earned

income to call in ongoing changes. This population

has a certification period of 12 months. Georgia just

received a waiver that allows the State to conduct

annual recertification interviews for the elderly and

disabled over the telephone. 

• Kansas. (Innovation: Changes in the role of the 

caseworker; efforts to conform TANF and the FSP.)

As a result of welfare reform, Kansas undertook

major efforts to conform its TANF, Medicaid, and

FSP rules. In addition, officials made major changes

to the role of their caseworkers by combining functions from the three programs with employmentrelated functions that had been performed by staff in

separate job classifications. The implications of these

changes were examined in a rural county located in

the northeast corner of the State.

• Arizona. (Innovation: Changes in the role of the

caseworker; changes in certification systems.)

Caseworkers in Arizona have assumed the responsibilities of case managers whose primary role is to

move clients towards self-sufficiency. In addition,

Arizona is conducting a pilot program that privatizes

their TANF program in a portion of Phoenix. FSP

caseworkers must coordinate with caseworkers

employed by the private company that manages the

TANF program when clients are enrolled in both 

programs.

• Connecticut. (Innovation: Changes in organizational

structure.) Connecticut officials changed the organizational structure of their agency from a centrally

administered program to a regionally administered

program. They also contracted with another State

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 41
agency, the Department of Labor, to provide all

employment and training services. A case study was

conducted in a rural region of the State to determine

how the change in administrative structure and

increased flexibility affected program operations.

Overview of the Case 

Study Methodology

Individual site visits were conducted at each of the six

selected local programs over a 3-month period. The

primary method of data collection was interviews with

key program staff at the State and local level. Because

each State included in the case studies represents a different re-engineering category, customized interview

guides were developed for each State. Data from the

entire data collection effort in each State were aggregated and summarized into an individual case study

report. The six individual case study reports follow.

Each report provides an overview of the State’s innovative re-engineering efforts and State FSP administration, along with findings from the interviews with

State and local staff. 

42 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Massachusetts

Re-engineering Category

Massachusetts was selected as one of the six case

study States because of its innovative approach to

implementing outreach initiatives to increase accessibility to the FSP after the passage of the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act (PRWORA). In 1998, Massachusetts began operating the Follow-up Outreach and Referral Families

Program (F.O.R. Families Program) to ensure that

families who leave the Temporary Assistance for

Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC,

Massachusetts’ name for TANF) program, but who 

are still eligible for food stamps, continue to receive

benefits. In particular, clients that fail to recertify for

the FSP are contacted by the F.O.R. Families Program,

often through a home visit, to ensure they know of

their continued eligibility for food stamps. Along with

this followup of clients, the Department of Transitional

Assistance (DTA) offices in the Boston area expanded

their hours of operation to accommodate working

clients. In addition, the State has been working with

Project Bread, a nonprofit agency located in Boston, to

conduct outreach for the Food Stamp Program. Project

Bread manages social marketing campaigns, operates a

hotline that directs low-income individuals to emergency food sources, and trains volunteers to assist FSP

applicants with the certification process.

This case study report summarizes findings from

interviews that were conducted in Boston from

August 21 to August 23, 2000. State staff from DTA

who oversee the FSP and State staff from the

Department of Public Health (DPH) who administer

the F.O.R. Families Program were interviewed. In

addition, the regional coordinator and information

specialist at the F.O.R. Families regional office in

Boston were interviewed, along with supervisors and

caseworkers in two local DTA offices, New Market

and Roslindale. Because of time limitations, the

F.O.R. Families Program home visitors were interviewed by telephone the following week.

Food Stamp Program Context

The Massachusetts Food Stamp Program

The Federal FSP is a State-administered program in

Massachusetts. After welfare reform, Massachusetts

also began the State Supplemental Food Stamp

Program (SSFSP) to provide State-funded food stamp

benefits to noncitizens who are ineligible to participate

in the Federal FSP. SSFSP benefits are provided to

noncitizens who have resided in Massachusetts for 60

continuous days or more before application. Eligibility

and case management services for both programs are

administered by DTA. 

There are 4 DTA regions with 37 local offices that provide services to FSP clients. DTA has an interagency

service agreement with the Department of Public

Health (DPH) to provide outreach services for potential food stamp clients. DPH either provides the services directly through its F.O.R. Families offices or contracts out the services to Project Bread. Overviews of

the F.O.R. Families Program and Project Bread are

provided below.

The F.O.R. Families Program

The F.O.R. Families Program was created by DTA and

DPH after community advocates expressed concern

over the well-being of former welfare recipients. The

advocates argued that it was unwise to assume that

clients would become self-sufficient once they left

TAFDC. Many clients lacked the basic skills to get a

job and faced significant barriers that needed to be

addressed if they were to lead stable lives. The barriers

often included poor access to affordable housing, substance abuse problems, domestic violence, and transportation problems. 

In order to address these concerns, DTA set out to create an outreach program to help former TAFDC clients

transition off welfare. They envisioned an outreach

and referral service that could make clients aware of a

broad array of community and government services.

Through the program, clients would learn how to

access the services and receive assistance if they had

any problems. Officials believed that in order to be

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 43

Individual Case Study Reports
effective, the program would have to be staffed by

workers that were trusted by former TAFDC clients.

Since many clients distanced themselves from DTA

and the other services they provide after leaving the

TAFDC program, a decision was made not to use DTA

staff to conduct the outreach efforts. 

DTA approached DPH to determine if it would be

willing to administer the outreach program to former

TAFDC clients. It was believed that the program

would be a natural extension of outreach services the

department provided. DPH was already well versed in

providing early intervention for a variety of health and

nutrition programs, including the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants

and Children (WIC). DPH nurses and social workers

were located throughout the State, and the department’s field staff had experience working with community-based organizations. As a result, DPH staff

were well received by the former TAFDC clients. DPH

agreed to provide the services, and both departments

worked together to design the program. In 1998, the

F.O.R. Families program was established.

Project Bread

Project Bread is an organization begun in 1969 that

conducts a wide range of activities to prevent and alleviate hunger. The organization’s main objective is to

raise money through various fundraising events to support soup kitchens and food pantries across

Massachusetts. Its banner fundraising event is the

Walk for Hunger, which raises about $3 million each

year. Project Bread also lobbies the legislature to promote antihunger policies and conducts outreach to promote participation in various nutrition programs,

including the FSP.

Under a contract with DPH, Project Bread staff have

developed and distributed food stamp outreach materials to increase awareness of the FSP and other nutrition programs. Project Bread also operates the

FoodSource Hotline, which provides callers with

information about FSP eligibility rules, the application

process, and emergency food resources. The hotline

staff also distributes FSP applications when they are

requested. In addition, Project Bread collaborates with

local contract agencies to provide direct outreach in

communities. They train community groups to make

presentations about the FSP, screen potential clients,

and assist clients with the application process. Project

Bread has worked with community groups to target the

elderly and immigrants. Volunteers have been recruited

from local networks working with the elderly to assist

seniors with completing food stamp applications.

Volunteers have also been recruited from immigrantfocused networks.

Findings from State-Level Interviews

At the State food stamp office in Boston, interviews

were conducted with the Assistant DTA Commissioner

and the DTA director of the Boston region. The

Assistant DTA Commissioner is responsible for overseeing policy and program management for TAFDC,

FSP, SSFSP, Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled,

and Children (EAEDC) and Emergency Assistance

(EA). The director of the Boston region oversees nine

local DTA offices in Boston and the surrounding areas.

In addition to DTA officials, interviews were also conducted with the DPH Assistant Commissioner, who is

responsible for policy and program management, and

the director of the F.O.R. Families Program, who oversees the regional F.O.R. Families offices. The purpose

of these interviews was to obtain the State-level perspective on the outreach efforts conducted by Project

Bread and the F.O.R. Families Program.

Program Administration and the F.O.R. 

Families Project

As was noted earlier, the majority of the direct outreach services provided by DTA and DPH are conducted through the F.O.R. Families Program. This program

provides outreach and referral services to clients in

five areas of need: housing and environment, family

health, food and nutrition, economics, and social supports. There are six regional F.O.R. Families offices

across the State. Each office is staffed with a regional

coordinator, a resource specialist, and home visitors.

Regional coordinators are responsible for managing

the office and assigning cases to home visitors,

reviewing cases as necessary, and facilitating contact

with local DTA offices. Home visitors are either nurses

or social workers with experience in public health, and

are responsible for initiating contact with clients

referred to the program by DTA. The home visitors

complete their assessments over the telephone, or in

person when clients cannot be reached by telephone,

to determine whether a comprehensive home visit is

needed. Once clients have been assessed, assistance is

provided to help them access the services they need. 

Resource specialists are responsible for managing the

toll-free F.O.R. Families hotline. They assess clients

over the phone and pass client information on to their

44 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
regional coordinator if clients need a home visit. They

also refer clients to community and government services and assist them in accessing services when necessary. The resource specialists also support the home

visitors by keeping them abreast of what community

resources are available.

DTA caseworkers are in charge of referring clients to

the F.O.R. Families Program. Caseworkers refer

clients to the program if there are signs that clients

will have trouble transitioning off welfare. Such signs

can include an inability to access food, find work, pay

rent, combat domestic violence, and/or overcome substance abuse problems. Caseworkers refer clients

before they reach their 2-year TAFDC time limit so

F.O.R. Families Program staff can contact clients soon

after they stop receiving cash assistance. The referrals

they complete include contact information and a

description of the barriers the clients face. The referrals are then faxed to the F.O.R. Families Program

administrators at the State office, who route them to

regional F.O.R. Families offices.

Clients are also identified for the F.O.R. Families

Program if they fail to recertify for their food stamp

benefits after leaving TAFDC. While many clients

remain eligible for food stamps after they reach their

time limit, they must recertify within 30 days after

leaving TAFDC in order to continue receiving benefits. Each month the names of clients that fail to recertify for food stamps are compiled on a computer-generated list and forwarded to the F.O.R. Families State

staff by DTA State staff. The list is then distributed

among the six regional F.O.R. Families offices. When

the referral mechanisms were put into place, it was

assumed that 90 percent of the referrals would come

from the computer-generated list and 10 percent would

come from local DTA offices identifying at-risk

clients. In actuality, the majority of referrals are made

by local caseworkers. 

The regional offices are responsible for tracking the

number of home visits that are conducted, the number

of phone contacts that are made, and the numbers and

type of referrals that are made to outside services. In

order to compile the information, the resource coordinator obtains weekly summaries from the F.O.R.

Families staff. The information is provided to F.O.R.

Families staff at the State office. 

Program Administration and Project Bread

Project Bread began conducting food stamp outreach

in 1986 when it started operating a toll-free hotline.

When clients called, the hotline staff referred them to

emergency food services and conducted a basic

screening to determine whether they could be eligible

to receive food stamps. In 1990, Project Bread began

conducting food stamp outreach for DTA after it was

awarded a portion of the $75,000 the legislature earmarked for food stamp outreach. Project Bread used

the money to help fund the hotline activities and also

searched for low-cost advertising venues to promote

the hotline. In 1993, funding for food stamp outreach

rose to $350,000. In addition, DPH began managing

food stamp outreach on behalf of DTA. DPH entered

into a contract with Project Bread to implement a

number of statewide social marketing campaigns to

promote the FSP. As a result, Project Bread began promoting the FSP through such media as radio, television, newspapers, billboards, and transit posters. DPH

also decided to involve five other organizations to

train local groups and agencies to screen clients for the

FSP and to make presentations to potential FSP applicants and those that serve them. Project Bread was

asked to train and manage the five contractors.

In 1998, DPH awarded Project Bread a multiyear contract to continue conducting food stamp outreach services. Under the contract, Project Bread provides hotline callers with information on FSP eligibility rules,

the application process, and emergency food resources.

The hotline staff also prescreen applicants over the

phone and distribute applications to callers deemed 

eligible for the program. If clients encounter administrative barriers when they apply for food stamps,

Project Bread staff contact DTA to determine how the

barriers can be overcome. In order to accommodate

non-English speakers, Project Bread hired bilingual

staff for the hotline and opened an account with

AT&T’s language line that provides translation services in 145 languages. 

In addition, Project Bread continues to help local

groups develop community-based outreach. Staff from

Project Bread recruit local service providers to distribute food stamp outreach literature and train them to

make presentations to prospective applicants, prescreen applicants, and assist them in completing food

stamp applications. While these efforts are targeted to

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 45
the broad food stamp-eligible population, special

efforts are made by Project Bread to target the elderly

and immigrants.

Other State-Level Efforts To Improve

Program Access 

In order to accommodate the needs of working clients,

DTA expanded office hours in four local DTA offices.

The offices were chosen because officials believed that

they had the resources to handle the extended hours. In

May 2000, the Pittsfield office, located in Western

Massachusetts, the Lawrence office, which serves a

large urban area with a large public assistance program, and the Davis Square office in Summerville

began operating from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. In

addition, the Pittsfield and Davis Square offices stay

open until 7 p.m. once a week. In July 2000, a fourth

office, the Roslindale office in Boston, also started

operating from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. Unlike

the other offices, the Roslindale office serves clients

from all three DTA offices in Boston. Since it has limited access to information housed at the other three

offices, the Rosindale office cannot offer full-scale eligibility services. However, staff members do accept

applications and verification documents from clients

that are later forwarded to the appropriate office. A

number of clients have taken advantage of these

extended hours. 

Challenges Identified by State Officials

The interviewees all felt that the outreach services

offered through the F.O.R. Families Program and by

Project Bread were effective. When asked about challenges they had encountered while promoting access to

the FSP, they pointed to broader systematic issues.

• Massachusetts works with many nonprofit community-based organizations to improve access to the FSP.

They are used to helping clients complete applications and to make presentations promoting the FSP.

Respondents felt they could increase the number of

FSP clients by using these organizations to enroll

applicants, but noted that the role of these organizations is currently limited in order to assure that eligibility decisions are made by DTA employees.

• States have been told to keep their error rate down

while increasing access to the FSP. Respondents

noted that, at times, it has been difficult to achieve

both goals. This is because States that undertake

efforts to improve access to the FSP may end up 

with higher error rates. In addition, officials felt that

under-issuance should not count toward the error rate. 

• Many clients do not realize that they remain eligible to

receive food stamps even though they are no longer

eligible for cash assistance under TAFDC. Respondents

noted that efforts need to be made to differentiate eligibility rules in both programs. 

Findings From Interviews With Direct 

Service Providers

This section includes information obtained from interviews with staff that operate the various outreach

efforts at the local level. There are two different food

stamp outreach efforts in Massachusetts, one operating

through the F.O.R. Families Program and one conducted by Project Bread. Findings from interviews conducted with staff from each of these programs and

local DTA staff are included in this section. 

The F.O.R. Families Program

The majority of F.O.R. Families staff in the Boston

region are employed by the Boston Public Health

Commission (BPHC) and work out of the BPHC

offices. However, the Regional Resource Specialist is

employed by DPH and works out of a separate office.

All communication between the resource specialist and

the home visitors occurs by phone or fax. The F.O.R.

Families program conducts a number of outreach

activities designed to help individuals maintain their

FSP eligibility. These efforts are discussed below.

Serving Clients Through the Hotline. As noted earlier, the F.O.R. Families program maintains toll-free

hotlines in order to provide potential FSP applicants

with easy access to information about enrolling in the

FSP. The F.O.R. Families hotline operated in the

Boston region is different from hotlines in other parts

of the State because it is part of a general health services hotline. The Boston region hotline operates from 9

a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, but clients also

may leave messages for staff if they call when the

office is closed. The Resource Specialist is responsible

for staffing the hotline. DTA caseworkers are responsible for informing clients about the hotline before they

lose their TAFDC. The hotline number is also included

in a notice clients receive from DTA regarding the termination of their benefits. 

When a call comes in, the Resource Specialist begins

the conversation by gathering contact information

46 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
using a standard assessment form. Information collected includes citizenship status, employment status, family size, education level, race, marital status, and primary language. Over the course of the conversation,

the Resource Specialist documents whether the caller

has questions concerning housing, health, food,

income or employment, and social services or family

relations. He/she also documents whether the caller

questioned why TAFDC benefits were not extended. If

the caller is currently in a crisis situation, information

regarding the circumstances is recorded, and clients

are asked whether they are concerned about safety,

domestic violence, housing, food, health care, emotional stress, depression, or financial stress. This information is provided to the Regional Coordinator, who

then assigns the caller a home visitor. 

Respondents noted that, in many cases, clients are in a

desperate state by the time they contact the office.

Many callers report not having enough food to eat,

having trouble paying the rent, or being unable to

cover the cost of utilities. If callers are not receiving

food stamps, they are encouraged to apply and often

are referred to Project Bread to receive assistance with

the application. The Regional Resource Specialist in

Boston often advocates on behalf of the callers. For

example, if a client’s landlord is threatening eviction,

she will attempt to intervene by contacting the landlord herself. 

If a non-English-speaking individual contacts the hotline, the Resource Specialist first determines if the

caller’s language is Spanish; if so, he/she enlists the

help of another public health employee in the building

who can translate for Spanish-speaking clients. If the

caller speaks a language other than English or Spanish,

the Resource Specialist refers the person to the Boston

Public Health Commission, where staff has access to

translation services.

Following Up on Referrals. Each month the Boston

F.O.R. Families office receives a list of clients that

have failed to recertify for food stamps, along with

their contact information. The Resource Specialist contacts the clients on the list to determine why they did

not complete the recertification process. Resource

Specialists must make three attempts to reach each

client, and through the use of an assessment form each

call is documented. Over the course of the conversations, it is determined whether the clients are receiving

food stamps, and if not, whether they need food

stamps and any reasons for their not continuing participation in the FSP. If Resource Specialists determine

that a home visit is needed, they gather the demographic information noted earlier and document

responses on the assessment form. Any referrals made

over the telephone, such as to emergency food

providers, are also noted. A week later, the Resource

Specialist calls the client to determine if he/she was

able to access the FSP. However, respondents report

that in many cases, the client has not followed through

with the application process. If this is the case, the

client is referred to Project Bread in order to receive

assistance with completing the application process.

The Resource Specialist also passes the client’s name

and contact information over to the Regional

Coordinator, who assigns the case to a home visitor. 

Respondents felt that, for the most part, clients react

positively to calls from the Resource Specialist. Many

clients feel overwhelmed by their problems and need

someone to simply listen to what they are going

through. The Resource Specialists are empathetic, and

clients are often willing to trust them. 

Home Visits. Once clients are selected for home visits,

their names and contact information are forwarded to

home visiting staff. Home visitors initially contact

their clients by mail. After the letters are sent, the

home visitors make telephone calls to the client to try

and arrange a visit. If a home visitor is unable to reach

a client after three phone attempts or if the client does

not have a phone, the visitor usually goes to the

client’s home. If the client is not at home when the

home visitor first attempts to make contact, the visitor

leaves a F.O.R. Families brochure and a note saying

that he/she stopped by. If not successful in making

contact with the client, the home visitor must attempt

to reach the client two additional times. If still unable

to contact the client, by phone or through visits, the

home visitor often calls the DTA caseworker to verify

contact information. 

After successfully contacting the client by phone, the

home visitor attempts to set up an initial home visit.

Respondents noted that most clients agree to the visits,

though some are initially reluctant to deal with staff

from another State agency or to allow someone they

do not know to come into their home. 

During the initial meeting, home visitors use an

assessment tool to help determine the barriers faced by

the clients. The assessment tool covers questions in

five categories: housing and environment, family

health, family food and nutrition, economics, and

social supports. Each area includes a checklist that

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 47
must be reviewed with the client. Each item on the

checklist is rated with an intensity level, which ranges

from 0 to 4. The higher the intensity level, the less stable the client is in that area. For example, to assess

housing and environment, the home visitor must determine if the client: (1) owes back rent, (2) is facing

eviction, (3) has trouble paying for fuel or utilities, (4)

has safety concerns, or (5) has received emergency

assistance in the past. The intensity levels are summed

for each category to get an overall rating for clients’

well-being in each area. 

Once the assessment is complete, the information is

used to determine which course of action the home

visitor will recommend in order to assist the client.

These recommendations are customized to the specific

needs of the client. For example, clients who are

unable to pay their gas bill will be linked to different

services than clients who have been issued an eviction

notice. The course of action and recommendations are

then discussed with the client and documented on the

assessment form.

In order to assess client needs in the food and nutrition

area, home visitors ask clients whether they (1) are

receiving food stamps, (2) have access to a food

pantry, (3) are enrolled in WIC (when appropriate),

and (4) have children enrolled in the School Food

Service or Summer Meals Programs. In addition, they

try to assess the client’s overall food security status

through asking a series of open-ended questions. 

Home visitors are required to maintain contact and to

follow up on their clients for a period of 1 year. The

amount of contact during that time varies, based on

client needs. During the year, the home visitors are

required to contact their clients a minimum of five

times after the initial home visit. Depending on the

need, however, the home visitor may make contact

several times a week for short periods or make a single

contact each month to determine the client’s status and

whether further assistance is needed. 

Client Contact. Home visitors reported that most of

their contact with clients has been very positive. In

many cases, clients are reluctant to open up during the

initial home visits, but are quick to see the value of

utilizing the home visitor’s skills and access to

resources. Home visitors noted that making clients feel

comfortable is often the key to a successful visit. If

clients feel that they can trust the home visitor, they

are not only willing to allow the home visitor to conduct the assessment, but are also more likely to follow

up on the recommendations or referrals made during

the visit.

Respondents noted that some clients are angry over the

fact that they are no longer eligible to receive cash

assistance. However, since the home visit usually takes

place soon after clients leave TAFDC, the majority of

clients are not yet facing a financial crisis, as many of

their expenses are still being covered by their last

TAFDC check. Providing clients with information to

help them prepare for the subsequent months, when

they will not have their TAFDC check to help cover

expenses, is an important role for the home visitor.

Respondents noted that paying rent becomes a particularly stressful issue when the household share of

Section 8 housing costs increase because they are

working. 

All of the home visitors have encountered nonEnglish-speaking clients. To accommodate their needs,

the home visitors use translators that are either located

within their office or provided by the State. While

some non-English-speaking clients have relatives that

are willing to translate for them, this practice is not

encouraged as clients may be unwilling to raise certain

issues in the presence of a family member.

All of the home visitors said they refer their clients to

a wide range of services, most commonly to area food

banks and the FSP. Other services to which clients are

referred include MassHealth, in order to obtain free

health insurance for up to a year, DTA for childcare

vouchers, the Department of Revenue for child support

services, and Legal Services to address issues related

to housing. In addition, home visitors noted that they

sometimes make referrals to such services as domestic

violence intervention, substance abuse and housing

services, and GED classes.

Project Bread 

This section includes information from a group interview that was conducted with Project Bread staff

responsible for food stamp outreach. The respondents

included the food stamp outreach manager, a

FoodSource Hotline worker, an outreach worker, and a

legislative advocate. 

Piloting Food Stamp Outreach at Health Centers.

Project Bread received a grant from the Department of

Health and Human Services in August 2000 to implement a pilot program to provide food stamp outreach

in health centers. This outreach effort was developed

48 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
on the premise that hunger and access to food assistance is a health-related concern, and should be

addressed through a comprehensive health care setting.

The program has been operating in three cities: Fall

River, Lawrence, and Boston. Outreach workers

prescreen clients to determine whether they are eligible to receive food stamps. They help clients to

complete applications, determine which verifications are required, and assist with making copies of

required documents. The outreach workers send

completed applications to DTA and contact caseworkers to make sure applications are not missing

any required documents. If caseworkers need additional verification, they immediately send clients a

list of the missing documents.

A number of resources are available to better serve

clients who do not speak English. Project Bread hires

bilingual staff, the health centers have translators

available, and the outreach workers have access to a

language line, when needed. Having access to these

resources has made the application process less confusing for non-English-speaking clients. Staff believe

that the outreach services offered through the pilot

program have helped to eliminate language barriers

that have kept people from applying for food stamps. 

DTA staff have been very supportive of the food stamp

outreach pilot project. They have trained Project

Bread’s food stamp administrator, who went on to

train outreach workers at the health centers. DTA also

has designated one worker in each local office in the

pilot cities to address eligibility questions outreach

workers might have. The pilot was targeted to end in

October 2000, but one of the health centers will continue to offer food stamp outreach once a week, using

graduate students.

Reporting Requirements. Project Bread is required to

provide DPH with monthly summaries of its outreach

activities. Each month staff prepare reports containing

the number of calls received through the hotline, the

number of callers that requested general information,

the number of callers that requested food stamp information, and the number of followup calls made. The

report also includes the number of orders taken for

pamphlets and the number of agencies that contacted

the hotline for technical assistance. Data are also

reported on the number of non-English-speaking individuals calling the hotline, as well as information on

the age of the callers. Finally, staff also report on the

number of clients that were prescreened and the number who were deemed eligible and were sent applications. For callers deemed ineligible, the project documents the reasons for the determination. 

Evaluations. In FY 1998, Project Bread conducted a

survey at the request of DPH to determine whether

callers were satisfied with the services they received

through the FoodSource Hotline. Project Bread developed the survey and administered it to 150 callers.

Ninety-nine percent of those surveyed felt that the hotline was a valuable service. Ninety-three percent said

they received information that was useful to their situation. All of the respondents reported being treated

with respect. The respondents also found the hotline

accessible. Fifty-nine percent said they received immediate assistance when they called the hotline. Ten percent reported that they had experienced a wait time of

5 minutes. 

Since 1997, Project Bread has conducted two evaluations with DTA and DPH to determine whether clients

who are deemed eligible for the FSP actually do apply

for and receive FSP benefits. The last evaluation took

place from July 1997 to June 1998. During that time,

Project Bread collected the names and social security

numbers of callers who were thought to be eligible for

food stamps and who requested food stamp applications over the phone. Each month, the names and

social security numbers of approximately 75 of those

clients were randomly selected and forwarded to DTA

90 days after the clients had called the hotline. The 3-

month gap was used to ensure that there was enough

time for applications to be submitted and processed.

DTA then cross-referenced the names and social security numbers of the callers with its computer records to

determine how many clients applied for benefits and

were receiving benefits. It was assumed that callers

whose social security numbers were absent from DTA

records did not apply for food stamps. 

During the last evaluation period, Project Bread forwarded 902 names and social security numbers to

DTA. When social security numbers were cross-referenced with DTA records, 65 percent of the callers

(588) did not appear in DTA’s computer records, and

thus had not applied for the FSP. Among the callers

that did apply, 86 percent received food stamps and 14

percent were deemed ineligible. 

Local DTA Staff 

Of interest to this study was how local DTA staff

worked with the two outreach efforts. This section

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 49
includes information from interviews with staff in two

local DTA offices in Boston, the New Market office

and the Roslindale office. The New Market office is

the second largest office in Boston. It was created

when the State consolidated three other area offices.

The Roslindale office is the smallest office that serves

clients in the Boston area. One supervisor and two

caseworkers were interviewed in each office. 

Overview of Local Operations. In addition to providing basic TAFDC, FSP, and Medicaid eligibility services, DTA also provides transitional services and

postemployment services to TAFDC clients and former

TAFDC clients through the Employment Services

Program (ESP). Since Massachusetts currently uses a

generic worker model to provide TAFDC services,

individual TAFDC workers are responsible for providing all services related to eligibility, case management,

and employment. The employment services responsibilities include developing employment plans, linking

clients to employment resources, and encouraging

clients to participate in employment and training services. The local offices also have food stamp-only

workers. Staff at both offices said the caseloads carried

by food stamp-only workers increased significantly

after welfare reform. 

Roles and Responsibilities. Roles and responsibilities

at the New Market and Roslindale offices follow:

• New Market Office. During the site visit to the New

Market office, it was noted that the office has experienced difficulty keeping food stamp-only caseworkers employed because their caseloads are so high.

Just prior to the site visit, the office had lost 1 food

stamp-only worker who was carrying a caseload of

220 to 250 clients. In contrast, the caseload for

TAFDC workers ranges from 100 to 110. It was

noted that with welfare reform, the characteristics of

the food stamp caseload changed. The program now

attracts more elderly people, immigrants, SSI recipients, and people who are employed. 

The TAFDC caseworkers are responsible for providing eligibility and case management services to

TAFDC clients. They also are responsible for food

stamp certifications for TAFDC clients. The majority

of TAFDC clients also receive food stamps through

either the Federal or State-run program. When clients

reach their 2-year time limit, caseworkers are

required to inform them of their possible continuing

eligibility for food stamps. If they believe that clients

will not follow up on continued FSP participation

once they have reached their time limit, the client is

to be referred to the F.O.R. Families program. 

After a client loses the TAFDC benefit, caseworkers

continue to carry that case for a month, and then pass

it along to a food stamp-only caseworker. The caseworkers are also responsible for completing food

stamp recertifications in the first month. Respondents

noted that determining benefits for households with

some members that qualify for State food stamps and

others that qualify for Federal food stamps can be

extremely confusing. 

One of the primary responsibilities of the caseworker is to help TAFDC clients find work and obtain

training. When clients enter their second year on

TAFDC, caseworkers review their client status

every month to make sure that they are progressing

towards self-sufficiency. 

• Roslindale Office. Staff in the Roslindale office have

duties similar to those in the New Market Office. The

Roslindale office has 900 food stamp-only cases in

the office, which are divided among 9 workers. The

office staff reported receiving a number of food

stamp referrals from Project Bread, Catholic

Charities, refugee resettlement organizations, and

elderly outreach programs.

Caseworkers noted that in some instances, workload

has increased since welfare reform even though caseloads have fallen. This is because the scope of their

jobs has increased. In addition to normal TAFDC eligibility determination activities, caseworkers are also

now responsible for employment services as well as

for referring clients to the F.O.R. Families Program.

In addition, caseworkers may continue to carry a

client’s case as a “food stamp only” case for 1 year

after TAFDC eligibility ends. 

Food Stamp Recertification. After clients lose their

TAFDC benefits, they have 30 days to be recertified

for food stamps. The staff at the local offices noted

that clients are informed of the recertification deadline

during their exit interview, along with being provided

with information about other services available. In

most cases, clients do not want to take time to go

through the food stamp recertification process, but

some are willing return to the office in order to apply

for transitional childcare services. When clients return

to the office to request childcare services, their caseworker reminds them that they are still eligible to

receive food stamps.

50 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
DTA is trying to make the food stamp application

process easier to complete. Clients are now allowed 

to request an application through the mail. They can

also return their application through the mail instead of

dropping it off at an office. In order to promote participation in FSP, food stamp outreach workers have also

been stationed at the Social Security office, health centers, and housing facilities for the elderly. Before their

application is approved, potential clients have to attend

a face-to-face interview, although this can be waived

for elderly and disabled clients.

Referrals to F.O.R. Families. The TAFDC workers

noted that they often refer clients to the F.O.R.

Families Program before they lose their TAFDC benefit. Clients are referred to the program if they do not

have a plan for how they will transition off welfare or

if their extension request for continued TAFDC benefits is denied. The referrals are faxed to the F.O.R.

Families regional office, and staff from the F.O.R.

Families Program follow up with the caseworker.

Neither of the two local offices is tracking the number

of former TAFDC participants who later reapply for

the FSP through a referral from the F.O.R. Families

Program. 

Project Bread. All of the local DTA staff interviewed

have a high regard for the outreach services provided

through Project Bread. Respondents noted that Project

Bread is responsible for referring a significant number

of applicants to their office. Project Bread also helps

clients gather verifications that are necessary for completion of the application process. If information is

missing, caseworkers send clients a checklist indicating which documents they need to provide along with

a self-addressed stamped envelope. 

Staff at the New Market office said Project Bread

played an instrumental role in establishing the Saturday

office hours and gathered input for the health center

pilot program from their office. In addition, Project

Bread staff met with the supervisor at the Rosindale

office to develop a checklist for food stamp applications. The interviewees said that Project Bread became

more visible after welfare reform due, in part, to its

social marketing campaigns. Staff at both offices make

referrals to Project Bread, particularly in cases where

clients are ineligible for food stamps, so they can benefit from area food pantries and food banks.

Challenges Identified by Staff in Local 

Outreach Offices

The F.O.R. Families staff interviewed believe that the

program is a success because it is not invasive and

links clients with resources that help them obtain selfsufficiency. Staff said the program has increased

awareness of and participation in the FSP. Without the

F.O.R. Families Program, many clients would not

know that they were eligible for food stamps. The staff

also pointed out some barriers that still need to be

addressed: 

• Respondents noted that some clients report negative

experiences when applying for and receiving public

assistance benefits. As a result, some clients may be

distrustful of the social service delivery system.

When staff from the F.O.R. Families Program contact these clients, they are reluctant to accept help

because they have had negative experiences with

DTA in the past and are now distrustful of agencies

associated with the welfare system.

• DTA caseworkers are supposed to inform clients that

they may remain eligible for food stamps when their

TAFDC benefits are discontinued. According to

some respondents, clients report that that they were

not told they would still be eligible for FSP benefits.

Additionally, clients have reported that they have not

received food stamp recertification forms in the mail

as they were supposed to; in some cases, by the time

they do receive them there is not enough time to

reapply in order to prevent a break in service. 

• Home visitors carry a large caseload, ranging from 

90 to 140 cases. Managing so many cases can be

overwhelming, especially if a large portion of the

clients have significant problems, as these cases tend

to be very labor intensive. Home visitors suggested

that if the resource specialists could be responsible

for parts of low-intensity cases, such as making calls

on behalf of clients, their workload would ease up.

That would allow home visitors to work more closely with clients with multiple barriers.

• As mentioned earlier, the F.O.R. Families hotline for

the Boston region is unique because it takes calls for

several programs, including MassHealth, Healthy

Start, and FirstLink, in addition to calls from F.O.R.

Families clients. As a result, the Resources Specialist

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 51
has to be knowledgeable about a wide array of programs and services. At times, it can be overwhelming

to be responsible for so much information.

Project Bread staff believes there is much to be done

in the aftermath of welfare reform to ensure people

are not going hungry. A major concern is the dramatic fall in food stamp participation in Massachusetts.

The staff brought up the following problems when

asked about issues that have yet to be addressed:

• The rules governing the SSFSP and the Federal FSP

are complicated and can be confusing. The confusion often increases when caseworkers have to certify members of the same family for both programs.

This occurs when some members are eligible for or

receiving State food stamps while others are eligible

for or receiving Federal food stamps. DTA workers

often try to solve the problem by requiring all family

members to bring in the same verifications, even if

they are not required to do so under the rules of both

programs. This approach causes confusion and can

put an undue burden on the client.

• Administrators in Massachusetts pay considerable

attention to fraud prevention. One byproduct of this

is that the FSP pays a large amount of attention to

preventing fraud during the initial client orientation.

According to some respondents, this focus on fraud

prevention may deter clients from completing the

application process. Respondents noted that clients

have informed them that because of this focus, they

feel like they are treated with suspicion during the

application process.

The staff at the local DTA offices felt as though the

food stamp outreach services provided by the F.O.R.

Families Program and Project Bread were successful.

They said that Project Bread was particularly effective

at increasing the number of applications coming into

their office. They raised the following policy-related

issues that they felt needed to be addressed in order to

improve access to the FSP:

• Face-to-face recertification interviews can be problematic for clients who are working or who have

children. Respondents suggested that elimination of

the face-to-face interview requirement would

increase FSP participation.

• Some respondents felt that outreach services to the

elderly should be increased. The elderly are less likely to seek out the FSP, and outreach efforts directed

to them, while often needing to be more intensive in

nature, may help to bring them in for certification.

• Respondents also believe that the State should make

more of an effort to help the elderly meet their food

needs. Staff believe this could be done if there were a

way to increase or supplement the minimum food

stamp benefit from the current level of $10 per month.

Texas

Overview of Re-engineering Effort

Texas was selected as one of the six case study States

because it established a centralized system for food

stamp and other social service program clients to

report changes in their eligibility status. These

“change centers” are located in the Arlington,

Beaumont, Houston, and San Antonio regions and are

designed to allow participants to telephone in changes

that may affect their eligibility status within programs.

The change centers provide clients with access to State

program staff, known as “change agents,” who make

every attempt to verify and document the reported

changes while the client is on the telephone. Change

agents have the same job description and basic training

as regular eligibility workers in local field offices, but

receive additional training in change center procedures

and customer service. The centers serve TANF recipients, food stamp clients, and children and pregnant

women receiving Medicaid. The centers operate from

7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition,

the centers have telephone message systems that

clients may use after hours. As a result, clients can

report changes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365

days a year. 

This case study report summarizes findings from interviews that were conducted from September 11 to

September 13, 2000. An interview was conducted with

a Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign System (TIERS)

staff person who spearheaded the development of the

change center in San Antonio. TIERS, which includes

the change center pilots, is a large automation and reengineering program directed by the central headquarters of the Texas Department of Human Services

(TDHS). At the regional level, the TDHS regional director, the assistant to the regional director, two case analysts, and the change center program manager were

interviewed. Additionally, two supervisors and two

advisors working at the change center were interviewed.

To complete the process, supervisors, advisors, and case

52 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
readers located in two local TDHS offices served by the

change center were interviewed. The San Antonio

change center was chosen for closer examination

because it was the first change center established in

Texas. The local offices in Brighton and Sutton were

chosen for site visits because they serve clients living in

urban areas.

Food Stamp Program Administration

The FSP in Texas is a State-administered program.

Overall program administration is conducted through

the TDHS, with local services being provided by

TDHS staff working in field offices throughout the

State. Ten regional offices oversee the local offices.

TDHS eligibility workers, known as advisors, are

responsible for determining eligibility and conducting

recertifications for food stamp, TANF, and Medicaid

clients. Food stamp benefits are issued on a debit card

called a Lone Star Card. The Texas Workforce

Commission (TWC) oversees employment and training activities for the FSP. Rather than operate local

field offices, the TWC funds services provided by

local workforce development boards and one-stop

career centers. 

Findings From State and Regional Interviews

This section includes information gathered from the

TIERS change center leader, who was the regional

director when the change center was implemented in

San Antonio. Also interviewed were the current TDHS

regional director, the assistant to the regional director,

two case analysts at the regional office, and the change

center program manager.

Overview

The first change center was established in San

Antonio, and was fully implemented in February

1997. It currently serves 38 local offices in 28 counties. The San Antonio region covers a diverse range of

counties, including several on the Texas-Mexico border. In FY 2000, there were 48,982 food stamp households in the region. In addition to the San Antonio

center, change centers have been opened in

Beaumont, serving 15 counties in southeast Texas,

and in the Houston region. The Houston change center serves only the city of Houston, although the

region includes suburbs and several rural counties.

Recently, a change center was opened in the Arlington

region, which includes Dallas. The Arlington center

currently serves 70 percent of the region. 

History of San Antonio Change Center

The change center in San Antonio was born out of a

move to integrate and streamline eligibility services

for 15 health and human services programs through

the Texas Integrated Enrollment Systems (TIES) initiative. In order to promote efficiency and customer service, the State opened bidding for eligibility services to

private companies. TDHS entered into a partnership

with two private organizations, EDS and UNISYS, and

proposed the establishment of call centers1 as part of

its bid for the TIES contract. In 1997, the Clinton

Administration ruled that private employees could not

determine food stamp eligibility. In response to the ruling, the Texas legislature scaled back the TIES initiative so it included only the automation of the eligibility system. Because of the modifications to the TIES

initiative, eligibility determination remained a function

of TDHS. Re-engineering and automation efforts,

including the change centers, continue under TIERS,

the successor to the TIES initiative.

The bidding process for the TIES initiative made it

clear that State jobs could be endangered in the future

if TDHS did not become more competitive. As a

result, TDHS began looking for ways to make their

programs more efficient, provide better customer

service to clients, and improve quality control. In

1997, the regional director of the TDHS office in San

Antonio sought approval to implement a change center that clients could access to report changes. Local

TDHS offices had a history of either failing to document changes reported by clients or noting them long

after they were reported. Their inaction often adversely affected clients, who were forced to repay benefits

that were incorrectly issued. It also increased the

State’s food stamp error rate. Inaction on the part of

caseworkers led to “failure to act” and “failure to act

timely” errors. 

Reported changes were often ignored because documenting them was not the highest priority in local

offices and because the reporting process was cumbersome. The unwritten rule that governed eligibility services was that client certifications and recertifications

should take priority over change reporting. As a result,

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 53

1The proposed call center would have allowed clients to be certified and recertified over the telephone. USDA determined that,

under FSP rules, applications and reviews must be done face-toface, except in cases where recipients are eligible for SSI. Texas

requested a waiver that would allow most of the interviews to be

conducted over the telephone, with the “closing” interview to be

done at local offices. Its waiver request was denied. 
eligibility workers who were often overworked put off

their change-reporting responsibilities. The procedures

local offices used to document changes were also complicated. Clients could not report changes directly to

their eligibility worker. Instead, they had to report

changes by mail, telephone, or in person to a clerk at

their local TDHS office. The clerk entered the changes

into the computer system, and forwarded paperwork

noting the change to the advisor handling the case. If

verification documents were not provided when the

change was reported, advisors would have to “pend”

the case and send the client a letter requesting additional documentation. The reported change would then get

filed until the client contacted the advisor or clerk with

the proper documentation. When the client forwarded

the documentation, the change would be noted. 

The change center in San Antonio was designed to

simplify the change reporting process for local TDHS

staff and for clients. In 1997, program managers in the

Brighton and Sutton TDHS offices in San Antonio, the

two largest local offices in the region, began creating

change-processing units with six to eight advisors

each, under the direction of the regional office. The

advisors in the new units, who became known as

change agents, were responsible for documenting all

changes clients reported to the local office. Other advisors in local TDHS offices remained in charge of completing certifications, but were no longer responsible

for tracking client changes. The new division of labor

allowed advisors to become experts in completing certifications and recertifications, while agents became

experts in change reporting. It also created a staff

whose top priority was documenting changes. 

Staff in the local TDHS offices directed clients to

report their changes to the change units by fax, mail,

or over the telephone. When clients reported their

changes by telephone, they were directly linked to a

change agent. The agent documented their changes

and attempted to verify them through a three-way call

with a collateral contact. In the majority of cases, the

changes were verified during the initial telephone call.

When contacts could not be reached, the agents had

the option of using client statements as the “best

available information” or they could ask clients to

send verification documents through the mail.

Because so many verifications were done over the

phone, the number of paper verifications that were

required dropped sharply. 

The change processing units were eventually consolidated and housed in the basement of the Sutton office

building. The consolidation took roughly a year. The

regional office then began drawing advisors from other

urban and rural TDHS offices in the San Antonio

region to work at the change center. The change center

is currently staffed with over 50 change agents.

Sharing Case Files and Verification Documents

A virtual file sharing system is used to enable TDHS

staff and change center staff to access and update

client information stored in SAVERR, the Statewide

computer system. Client information is first entered

into SAVERR by local TDHS staff as part of the eligibility certification process. An online application form,

known as the Generic Worksheet (GWS), is used to

enter the information. Once the information is saved, it

is automatically stored in SAVERR. At that point, case

files are accessible to change center staff and local

DHS staff. 

In order to ensure that case files are not duplicated, the

system requires that the case files be checked out to

one worker at a time. If change center agents need to

access a record that has been checked out to a TDHS

worker at a local field office, they notify their customer service representative, who contacts the local

office to find out why the record is being used and

who is using it. If TDHS advisors need to access a

record checked out to the change center, they contact a

liaison (usually a supervisor) in the field office. The

liaison then contacts the customer service representative at the change center to try to get the record

released. This process often takes place when change

center agents have to pend cases because they were

unable to reach a collateral contact. It also takes place

when clients are served a notice of adverse action

because a change they reported affects their benefit

level. When the latter occurs, agents must hold the

case for a 13-day appeal period. 

Since change center agents try to verify reported

changes over the telephone, the number of paper documents clients have to provide has been significantly

reduced. When change agents ask clients to provide

verification documents, the documents are mailed or

faxed to the change center. Once the documents are

reviewed, they are forwarded to local offices, where

they are filed. At this point, the only change center that

maintains copies of verification documents is the

54 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Beaumont change center. In Beaumont, the documents

are scanned and filed on compact discs. Scanning

technologies have been purchased for the other offices

through the TIERS initiative and will be implemented

in the near future.

Quality Control Initiatives

Several quality control initiatives were implemented in

the San Antonio Region to reduce the food stamp error

rate. A food stamp case reading project began in

November 1998 to prevent certification errors. Local

offices are required to read 100 percent of food stamp

applications before processing and 50 percent of all

recertification applications. The review of recertification applications includes high-risk cases, as defined

by the program manager at each local field office.

Under the project, each program manager must provide a monthly case-reading report to the regional

office. In August 2000, the regional office added a validation process involving regional case analysts who

review the results of food stamp case-reading procedures at the local office. 

In September 1999, the regional office redefined food

stamp certification periods. Local offices were provided with the new guidelines. One-month to 2-month

certification periods were set for households facing

unpredictable circumstances. This category includes

households with an ABAWD who is reaching the 3-

month time limit, households with a member whose

alien eligibility status is about to change, and households with a member who applied for Unemployment

Insurance Benefits but has not begun to receive them.

A 3-month certification period was set for households

with an employable adult who is unemployed or

employed less than full time and does not meet the criteria defined for households facing the 1-month to 2-

month certification period. Certification periods of 6 to

12 months were set for households with more stable

conditions. 

In March 1999, a recall project was implemented to

reduce the number of changes that go unreported in

the San Antonio Region. Through State error rate

tracking, it was determined that the majority of unreported changes in the region occur during the first

month after certification. To ensure that changes are

acted upon in the first month, the region established a

recall center at the change center with staff who are

responsible for contacting food stamp clients in the

four urban offices with the highest error rates a month

after they are certified. The advisors take action on

any changes that clients report in the first month. In

order for the case to be tracked, clients must be

receiving between $100 and $499 in monthly food

stamp benefits. 

Evaluation

In 1999, TDHS requested funding to expand the change

centers statewide. The Texas legislature responded to

the request by mandating that an evaluation of the

change centers take place before granting funds. TDHS

has been charged with overseeing an evaluation of

existing centers. At the time of the interview, the department was in the planning phase of the evaluation and

hoped to have it completed by the beginning of the next

legislative session, February 2001. The evaluation will

be based on data from all four of the change centers and

cover a range of issues including customer satisfaction,

accuracy, and timeliness. 

Challenges Noted by State Officials

The State officials and the officials in the regional

office all felt that the change center in San Antonio

had improved eligibility services. It has made the

reporting process more efficient by allowing clients to

deal with one worker and has improved customer service by putting clients directly in touch with change

agents. Roughly 70 percent of the clients are able to

report their change with one telephone call. In addition, supervisors monitor calls to ensure clients are

being treated with respect. Also, because agents and

advisors have been allowed to specialize, fewer

changes go unreported. Nonetheless, there were still

some problems and challenges the officials would like

to see addressed. 

• The interviewees would like to see the wait time that

clients experience when they call the center reduced.

When the change center first opened, clients were

kept on hold for 30 to 45 minutes before their call

was transferred to a change agent. The wait time was

reduced to 1 minute and 15 seconds, but it has been

steadily increasing because of job vacancies.

Officials indicated that they need to address this

issue to ensure that clients keep calling the center. 

• Some policies were written with the assumption that

change reporting would take place at the field office

where clients and workers meet face-to-face. For

example, if reported changes affect benefit levels or

cause clients to become ineligible for food stamps,

they receive a “notice of adverse action” and are told

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 55
that they have 13 days to appeal. Under existing

rules, clients may waive their right to appeal during

the 13-day period if they are in their worker’s presence. Because all interactions at the change center

take place over the telephone, the policy had to be

interpreted by field staff. The interpretation used by

the change center allowed clients to waive the action

over the telephone and, as a result, have the change

processed immediately. But during a State review, it

was determined that under the existing policy, clients

could only waive their right to appeal in the presence

of a worker. The interpretation has increased the

workload for change center staff, who can no longer

process the change through one telephone call. The

change center has submitted a waiver request to the

State office requesting that the requirement be

waived in San Antonio.

• When the change centers were first established, some

local offices resisted relinquishing change reporting

responsibilities. Once the functions were removed,

the staff saw their local offices and the change centers as completely separate entities. But both offices

must work in tandem for eligibility services to be

seamless. Most caseworkers are willing to work with

the change center now because it has made their lives

easier, but some still need to be reminded that good

customer service requires cooperation. 

• Change center agents were pulled from the pool of

TDHS advisors, but the skills that make a good advisor are not the same skills that make a good agent.

The State needs to create a new job description for

the change agents so the distinctions are better understood. The same holds true for supervisors who work

in local offices and supervisors at the change center.

The change center uses a “matrix management” style

and requires supervisors to manage workers as a

team, unlike local TDHS offices, which assign supervisors their own unit.

• There are major differences in the way the four

change centers operate because they were established in different regions under different management. For example, the Beaumont change center still

uses clerks to answer telephones rather than transmitting calls directly to change agents. State officials

want to see things standardized so services are consistent when the centers are eventually expanded

statewide. 

Findings From the San Antonio 

Change Center

This section includes information gathered from the

program manager who oversees the San Antonio

change center. Two change center supervisors who

oversee the change reporting process and two change

center agents who respond to incoming calls from

clients reporting changes were also interviewed.

Overview

The change center in San Antonio is located in the

basement of the Sutton office building. It was modeled

after the call center of the QVC Shopping Channel,

which is one of many corporate call centers that were

established in San Antonio after Southwestern Bell

installed fiber optics across the city in the early 1990s.

When TDHS first consolidated the change units from

the Brighton and Sutton offices to form the change

center, many of the agents were employed part-time at

the QVC call center. Because the call center was a

popular place to work, senior staff at the change center

contacted management at QVC Shopping Channel to

learn more about their business practices. TDHS staff

developed a rapport with the management at QVC.

QVC staff worked with TDHS staff to set up the

change center and to train change center agents. 

Organization

The change center is responsible for documenting

client-generated changes and agency-generated

changes that affect food stamp, TANF, or Medicaid

benefits. Two call arenas and five specialized centers

were established to carry out those duties. The call arenas house all of the change agents. Each arena is

equipped with a running board that charts the number

of callers on hold, the number of callers that requested

services in English or in Spanish, and the average wait

time. One arena contains a “super cube” that is

equipped with a computer that tracks the status of all

incoming calls. The supervisor on floor duty occupies

the super cube. The other arena contains a cube that

houses the customer service representative. The customer service representative functions as the liaison

between the change center and the local offices. All of

the change agents sit in cubes that are equipped with

telephones and computers. Because of the proximity of

the super cube, they can easily access a supervisor

56 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
when they have questions. During the core hours of 8

a.m. to 5 p.m., there are 30 to 45 agents in the call arenas. Roughly 40 percent of the agents speak Spanish.

The technical center was developed to process

agency-generated changes that result from database

matches or reports, including SSI and social security

match reports from other States, and reports on incarcerated household members. The technical center staff

are also in charge of documenting new-hire reports.

Over 6,000 new-hire reports are generated each

month. Before they are documented, the reports are

forwarded to clerical units in the Eagle Pass and Del

Rio offices so they can be screened. New-hire reports

that need to be documented for change reporting are

referred back to the technical center in San Antonio.

The technical center also processes TANF sanctions

for the State, as well as cases that have been put on

hold due to unclaimed or returned mail. Staff are also

responsible for processing cases with clients transferring off TANF who are eligible for transitional

Medicaid. The technical center is staffed with an

assistant supervisor and seven technicians.

The clerical center monitors pending cases to ensure

that actions are taken before their due dates. The center receives all agency-generated reports and is responsible for distributing them to change agents, the technical center, or units in the Eagle Pass or Del Rio

offices. The center also maintains paper logs on all

cases and uses them to track down information when

there are inquiries about a case or disputes surrounding

a case. The clerical center is also responsible for

preparing and distributing written notices that are sent

to clients to confirm that reported changes were made

or to request that additional documents be provided.

The clerical center is staffed with a supervisor, an

assistant supervisor, and eight clerks. 

The recall center is responsible for implementing a

regional initiative to track error-prone cases 1 month

after recertification. Staff at the recall center contact

error-prone clients and take action on any changes that

they report in the first month. Clients must receive

between $100 and $499 in monthly food stamp benefits for their case to be tracked by the recall center.

The recall center is staffed with a supervisor, assistant

supervisor, and four advisors who handle between 400

and 700 cases each month. 

The completion center was established in response to a

review of practices used by the change center. Before

the review, the change center was allowing clients to

waive their right to appeal an adverse action over the

telephone. But, as was noted above, the State determined that the practice violated existing policy. The

change center was directed to place the case in a pending file for the 13-day period. As a result, the center

began pending all adverse action cases. The new policy interpretation significantly increased the change

center workload because clients facing an adverse

action could no longer be served through one telephone call. The completion center now processes all

pending cases. 

The policy support center is responsible for staying

up-to-date on policy changes and interpreting policy

for staff at the change center. They train staff, track

data for the change center, and conduct case reviews.

Roles

The roles of supervisors, agents, and customer service

representatives are as follows: 

Supervisors. The change center has five supervisors

who are responsible for managing the call arenas.

They are part of a matrix management team that oversees all of the change agents, unlike supervisors in

local TDHS offices that oversee their own units. At the

time of the visit, each supervisor had floor duty for 3

hours a day. During that time, the supervisor oversaw

all incoming calls, responded to questions from agents,

and silently monitored select calls to ensure that agents

were providing strong customer service. The supervisors are also responsible for conducting yearly evaluations, quarterly reviews, and case readings. They also

have other individual management responsibilities at

some of the centers. One supervisor manages the clerical center, another the technical center, and a third the

local computer system, while a fourth oversees the

recall center. 

Agents. At the time of the interviews, there were 53

change agents responding to client calls. The change

agents do not carry a caseload like advisors in local

offices. Instead, each day a certain number of calls are

routed to them based on their availability. During peak

time, agents may not be able to respond to clients

immediately. As a result, clients encounter a wait time

of up to 15 minutes. Informational messages about the

change centers and welfare reform are played during

the wait time. 

Agents follow specific steps when responding to

clients’ calls. They begin each call by greeting the

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 57
client and requesting the client’s name and social security number. They enter the social security number into

SAVERR so they can access the electronic file. They

ask the caller what changes he/she wants to report and

enter the changes into the case file. Then agents

attempt to verify the change through a three-way call

with a collateral contact. In 75 percent of the cases,

they are able to verify the change while they have their

client on the telephone. If change agents are unable to

reach the collateral contact, they may either use the

client’s statement as the best available information and

process the change or request that verification documents be sent to the change center. If further documentation is requested, agents send clients a “notice of

delay in eligibility” form with a return envelope. The

client has 10 days to respond. The agents then “pend”

the case. At the end of the day, all of the pended cases

are moved to supervisors’ open cases. When call volumes and wait times are high, agents document reported changes on paper to avoid spending time bringing

up electronic files and initiate calls to collateral contacts without having clients wait on the telephone.

Customer Service Representatives. The change center

has one customer service representative who serves as

a liaison between the center and local TDHS offices.

All contact between local TDHS offices and the

change center are routed between the local office

liaisons, typically supervisors, and the customer service representative. The customer service representative

interacts with local field office liaisons when change

agents and local office advisors must share virtual case

records. The representative also handles customer

service questions and complaints. Agents may transfer

calls to the customer service representative or provide

the caller with the customer service representative’s

number and e-mail address.

Quality Control

The change center reviews food stamp cases through

floor reviews and case readings. All reported changes

that affect food stamp benefits are reviewed before

they are processed through floor reviews. Floor

reviews take place after change agents document and

verify reported changes. To indicate that a case is

ready for review, agents stand up in their cubes. While

clients are still on the telephone, case reviewers or

case readers look over the computer screens that

include information on household composition,

income, and deductions. These items are reviewed

because they have historically caused the most errors.

The reviewers also check the management screen that

lists household income and expenses side-by-side. If

cases are free of errors, change agents process them. If

errors are found, the agent corrects them and notifies

the client of the changes. 

Each month approximately 650 cases are reviewed

after they are processed through case readings. The

case readings are much more comprehensive than the

floor reviews because the cases are read in their entirety. Each month, case readers review a sample of 250

cases drawn from the pool of cases that were

processed. In addition, supervisors review three cases

from the pool of cases change agents processed that

month. The cases are then further reviewed by case

analysts at the regional office. The case analysts read

five cases that were read by each supervisor and five

cases reviewed by each case reader.

Findings From Local Department of 

Human Services Offices

Researchers visited two local TDHS offices in San

Antonio to learn how they process food stamp applications and inform clients of the change center. At each

office, they interviewed supervisors, eligibility workers (called “advisors”), technicians, and case readers.

This section summarizes findings from the interviews.

Overview

The Sutton office and the Brighton offices are both

located in San Antonio. The Sutton office is located on

the east side of the city, close to downtown. It serves

clients living in the east and northeast sections of San

Antonio and clients living downtown. Its caseload is

currently 4,710 food stamp households. The Brighton

office is located on the south side of the city and

serves clients living in the same area. Its caseload is

currently 6,332 food stamp households. The staff in

the local offices are responsible for carrying out initial

certifications and recertifications for TANF clients,

food stamp clients, and children and pregnant women

receiving Medicaid. There is some variation in the way

the local offices are organized and in the way they

administer eligibility services, described below.

• Brighton Office. There are five ongoing units at the

Brighton office responsible for overseeing food

stamp certifications and recertifications. Each unit is

staffed with a supervisor, an assistant supervisor,

approximately 10 advisors, and a certification technician. The office also has an administrative unit

with a supervisor, seven front desk clerks, two case

58 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
analysts, four case readers and a risk assessment unit

with two eligibility examiners, and two verification

technicians. 

When clients walk into the Brighton office to apply

for food stamps, they receive an application from a

front desk clerk. While they are in the lobby, they

may view a bilingual video about DHS services that

provides an overview of the change center. After they

complete the application, the clerk screens it to determine whether they are eligible for expedited food

stamps. If they do not qualify for them, the clerk

schedules an appointment with an advisor. Before the

appointment, risk assessment unit staff use a data

brokering system to verify the information clients

provide on their application. They can assess information on property ownership, vehicle ownership,

and marital status and access credit reports, which

advisors use as case clues during the initial interview.

At the initial meeting, the advisor informs clients

about their rights and responsibilities, issues their

Lone Star card, and notifies them about the change

center. Clients receive a bilingual card with the telephone number and mailing address of the change

center. They are also told that they can use the workstation to report changes. The workstation has a telephone, a fax machine, and a copier. All food stamp

applications are forwarded to the administrative unit

to be read before they are processed. 

Clients who recertify for food stamps at the Brighton

office are required to attend a group orientation

meeting that is led by one of the advisors with the

help of the administrative assistant. During the orientation, advisors review work rules and sanctions and

remind clients to contact staff at the change center to

report changes. After the orientation, advisors meet

with clients one-on-one to guide them through the

certification process. After gathering verification

documents and entering their information into

SAVERR, advisors forward food stamp cases to the

administrative unit to be reviewed. After the review,

the cases are processed. 

• Sutton Office. The Sutton office has four ongoing 

units. Each unit has a supervisor, from two to three 

assistant supervisors, from six to eight advisors, and 

a certification technician. There is also an administrative unit with a supervisor, two case analysts, 

three case readers, and three clerks. In addition, the 

Sutton office has a specialized unit with risk assessment staff (which includes one eligibility examiner

and one verification technician) and support staff,

including front desk clerks. 

Clients begin the certification process by submitting a

completed application to a clerk who screens it to

determine whether the case should be expedited.

Clients then receive an appointment to talk with an

advisor. Before they meet with their advisors, TANF

and food stamp clients are required to attend an orientation session where they are provided with general information about work requirements, sanctions,

and change reporting requirements and procedures.

They receive a card with contact information for the

center and a stamped envelope addressed to the

change center that they can use to report changes.

They are also told that they can use the workstation

to report changes. After the orientation, clients meet

with their advisor, who gathers verification documents, reviews specific information about their case,

including when they will begin receiving benefits

and how much they will receive, and answers client

questions. Before the case is processed, a case reader

in the specialized unit reviews it for accuracy. 

During the recertification process, clients meet with a

certification technician who gathers and reviews their

verification documents and recertification form. After

the review, the technician forwards all of the paperwork to the advisor in charge of the case. The advisor enters the information into the client’s case file in

SAVERR. The advisor then forwards the case to the

specialized unit where a case reader reviews it. After

it is deemed to be error free, the case is returned to

the advisor, who processes it. 

Both local offices noted that they began using shorter

recertification periods for food stamp clients in the fall

of 1999. The shorter recertification periods, which

were set by the regional office, are intended to reduce

the number of unreported changes. Before that time,

most food stamp clients were recertified every 6

months. Now, recertification periods for food stamp

clients range from every month to every 12 months.

Working clients with a fluctuating income are required

to recertify every 3 to 6 months, depending on their

expenses. Clients who are unemployed and lack stable

housing must recertify every 1 to 2 months. Clients

with a stable income and predictable expenses are

allowed to recertify every 6 to 12 months. This group

usually includes elderly recipients who are receiving

SSI and are in good health. Most food stamp-only

recipients are required to recertify every 3 months. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 59
Quality Control

Each local office is required to review all certification applications before they are processed and 50

percent of the recertification applications. Depending

on the local office, case readers or assistant supervisors conduct the reviews. The Sutton office has five

case reader positions. Four of the positions are filled

by assistant supervisors who rotate out of their units

for 4-month periods to review cases. The fifth position is a full-time case reader who reviews cases

year-round. At the present time, only three of the

positions are filled because of staffing shortages. All

completed food stamp cases are forwarded to the

supervisor overseeing the case readers. The supervisor selects cases that need to be read and assigns

them to the case readers. Case readers in the Sutton

office try to read 25 cases per day. The Brighton

office has two case analysts and four case readers.

Between 225 and 250 cases are reviewed in the

Sutton office each month.

A selected number of cases go through a second

review after they are processed to ensure that advisors

and supervisors catch errors. Each month supervisors

in both local offices review five processed cases from

each advisor’s caseload to ensure that they were completed accurately. Five cases are pulled from each case

reader’s caseload and reviewed by the supervisor to

ensure they are being reviewed accurately. The most

common certification and recertification errors relate

to three aspects of client eligibility: determination of

household composition, calculation of household

income, and determining the shelter deduction.

Client and Staff Response

Staff at both local offices said that clients were initially leery about using the change center. Since

clients cannot go to the change center, they believed

that the center was staffed with a bunch of operators

rather than employees trained to take changes. In

addition, they had established relationships with their

advisors and staff at the local offices. The center, on

the other hand, is set up so clients rarely interact with

the same person. They did not see a need to involve

another person in the change reporting process. Now

most clients seem to enjoy using the change center

because, unlike in the past, their changes are being

documented. Each time they report a change, they

receive a confirmation number and a letter in the

mail. In addition, they no longer have to go into the

local office to report a change. All they have to do is

pick up their telephone. That is particularly important

for clients who face transportation barriers.

TDHS staff reacted to the change center in different

ways. Some staff embraced the change center because

they felt it would reduce their workload. Other staff

felt as though their cases were being given away. They

wanted to see them through rather than hand them

over to someone else. When the local offices began to

lose staff to the change center, staff had mixed feelings. On the one hand, the change center was reducing

their workload by taking on change reporting responsibilities. On the other hand, it was leading to staff

reductions at the local offices and increasing their

caseloads as a result.

The staff interviewed felt as though the change center

made their jobs easier overall. They indicated that not

having to track changes helped to offset the increased

client monitoring they are required to do under

PRWORA. It also eliminated the need to stay abreast

of policy changes that are related to change reporting.

The staff also said that advisors face fewer interruptions in their workday since they have been allowed

to specialize. 

Challenges Identified by Local Staff

The staff at the change center raised some of the same

challenges that the State interviewees and regional

staff pointed to when asked to list barriers they face.

They noted that some policies were written for traditional caseworker-client interactions that occur in field

offices rather than for services that are provided over

the telephone, and they pointed to the confusion over

the right to appeal an adverse action. They also said

that staff in some local offices do not see the change

center as part of TDHS and that this view disconnects

the services offered at local field offices from those

provided by the change center. They pointed to the following challenges:

• It is difficult to control workflow because of the variability in the number of calls that may come in on a

given day. Because peaks are unpredictable, it is difficult for supervisors to assess staffing needs. If there

are not enough agents in the call arena to handle the

volume of calls, they document reported changes on

paper and verify them later, rather than initiating a

three-way call to verify changes on the spot and enter

them into SAVERR. That approach can be frustrating

because the underlying goal is to serve clients

through one call.

60 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
• The change center generates a lot of paperwork

because every change or request for information has 

to be documented in writing. The center purchased a

bursting machine that is used to fold the notices.

Use of this machine, however, requires clerks to

spend a good deal of time inserting notices into

envelopes. For a little more money, the center could

have bought a machine that automatically prints the

notices, folds them, and puts them into envelopes

directly from the computer.

• The computers at the change center operate off of

three local area networks (LANs). When one LAN

crashes, it impacts the entire center. In August 2000,

the computers were down off and on for 3 or 4

days. During that time, agents took changes manually and called clients back to complete the change

reporting process. 

The staff interviewed at the local offices felt the change

center was successful. However, they cited two challenges that have arisen since its implementation: 

• Staff in both offices said their workload had

increased because they had lost workers to the

change center. As mentioned earlier, the first units of

the change center were composed of staff from the

Brighton and Sutton offices. The staff from the units

eventually moved to the change center settled in the

Sutton building. Because they were never replaced,

both offices have had to spread their work over a

smaller pool of people. 

• Staff indicated that accessing case files that have

been checked out by change agents can be frustrating. Advisors cannot contact the change center

directly. They have to go through their local office

liaison with a request that the file be released. The

liaison then contacts the customer service representative at the change center, who determines why the

case is unavailable. In some instances, it takes a day

or two to get a case from the change center. 

Georgia

Overview of Re-engineering Category

With the advent of welfare reform in Georgia, State

officials became concerned about the high level of

certification errors in county-run social service programs. An investigation into the source of these errors

found that most could be attributed to county-level

caseworkers processing changes in client eligibility

status outside of the approved processing timelines. In

looking for solutions to this problem, Georgia officials decided to pilot a project that established a Staterun change center to assume responsibility for helping

the counties process and complete changes in client

enrollment status. 

This project was modeled after a similar project that is

taking place in Texas. However, one key difference

between the Georgia pilot and the Texas program is

that Georgia administers its social service programs

through local county government offices, while Texas

administers its programs using State employees. Up

until the development of the change center, Georgia

State employees were not involved in the day-to-day

operations of the Food Stamp Program (FSP). With the

advent of the change center, the responsibility for

ensuring that changes are correctly reported in the

pilot counties became a State-level responsibility. The

initial pilot county for the project, which began in

1999, was Fulton County, encompassing parts of

Atlanta. During the first year, the pilot was expanded

to seven more urban counties in the greater Atlanta

area. Finally, in the year 2000, a rural county (Baldwin

County) was added.

The purpose of this case study is twofold. First, the

study is designed to provide information on the development and implementation of the change center and

how the project affected county-administered programs. Second, the study was interested in whether or

not the change center was effectively serving the needs

of the pilot rural county. To gather information for this

case study, interviews were conducted with the State

FSP manager, the director of the change center, the

administrator of the Baldwin County Economic

Support program, and program supervisors and caseworkers in Baldwin County.

Food Stamp Program Administration

As noted above, Georgia administers its social service

programs through county governments. State officials

provide counties with policy direction for the FSP,

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),

and Medicaid program, and operational responsibility

for these programs rests with the counties. State officials noted that there is little difference between counties in the way the FSP is administered.

State staff responsible for overseeing these programs

are located in a series of regional offices, which are

called field areas. Georgia has divided its counties into

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 61
14 field areas, with a Field Area Administrator responsible for communicating and implementing program

policy in each area. In addition, each field area has a

number of program consultants who are responsible

for helping county staff with policy questions, providing training on changes in policy, and monitoring program compliance with State regulations. 

In 1999, counties in the Atlanta area were given the

option of participating in the change center project. To

fund the project, the State used funds that normally

would have been returned to the U. S. Department of

Agriculture as a result of the high error rate.

Additionally, counties choosing to participate were

required to transfer county-funded positions to the

State for staffing purposes. Counties were initially

requested to provide one position for every 5000

cases they managed. In turn, the change centers

assumed all responsibility for recording and processing client status changes, including any error rates

associated with the processing of those changes. The

State plans to expand the pilot program in 2001,

adding an additional change center to serve 70-80

smaller counties in southwest Georgia.

The organizational location of the change center is

somewhat unique within Georgia’s social service

delivery system. The change center is not part of any

particular field area, but exists as a separate entity. The

change center is physically located in Atlanta, and uses

State employees to staff the project. Clients who wish

to report changes in their eligibility status are encouraged by the county caseworkers to telephone the

change center. In addition, the center staff uses computer matching to identify potential client changes.

When client records from the FSP are matched with

data from other programs and potential changes in the

client’s eligibility status are identified, the change center staff take a proactive approach by contacting the

clients to verify whether the change actually occurred.

For example, staff use the Medicaid birth records database to match new births with FSP and TANF client

records to determine if any infants should be added to

the family record.

Findings From State Administrators

Background on Change Center Operations

As noted above, the change center started out serving

clients residing in Fulton County, and then expanded

to seven other urban counties in 1999. Baldwin

County was added at the end of 1999 and was the first

rural county in Georgia to be added. As previously

noted, county programs were required to provide positions to staff the center. Each county was asked to

identify appropriate positions within their organization

at a civil service classification that could be used by

the State for staffing the center. Because many of the

civil service classifications used by the counties were

consistent with those needed by the State, the position

transfer process worked smoothly. However, it is

important to note that individuals who may have occupied the positions at the county level were not transferred along with their positions. This fact was important to State officials, as the skills needed to work in

the call center are different than those needed by local

caseworkers.

The primary purpose of the change center is to record

and document changes in eligibility status submitted

by clients. Changes can be reported by a telephone call

from a client or through a fax from a county caseworker. When a change is reported, it is the responsibility

of the “change agents” to verify the change, collect

documentation when needed, and process and record

the change. In addition, a separate unit is responsible

for recording and adding newborn infants to family

records. Change agents are also responsible for matching client records with other social service databases,

including Medicaid birth records and data from a

“new-hires” database. 

In January 1999, the change center began processing

Fulton County changes, which involved 26,500 cases.

In April, when the 7 additional counties were added,

the center processed 63,500 cases. In September, when

all of the counties were up and running, the total number of cases expanded to 119,500. This caseload continued to grow, and in March of 2000 the total number

of cases processed by the center was 152,600. 

The amount of time needed to respond to the calls

averages about 4 to 5 minutes each. Most of the calls

(55 percent) are related to the Medicaid program, with

about 35 percent of the calls involving FSP changes

and the remaining 10 percent being associated with

TANF program issues. While the center is designed to

be used by clients only for reporting changes, the

change center supervisor reported that at least onethird of all calls are general inquiries about the FSP.

When general calls are received, staff refer these

clients to their local county programs.

62 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Change Center Staffing

The change centers are primarily staffed with change

agents. At the time of these case study interviews,

there were a total of 30 change agents working in the

center. A recent assessment of the staffing needs for

the center indicated that current volume would support

a total of 55 agents. In addition to the change agents,

there are three supervisors and three program consultants representing each of the three social service programs and one quality control supervisor. The program

consultants provide assistance to the supervisors and

change agents with regard to policy questions, while

the quality control supervisor reviews a limited number of client records each day to ensure that they were

properly handled.

The change center director requested and received

approval for adjusting the job specifications for the

civil service classification used by the center. The original classifications transferred by the counties, while at

the same salary range, often were tied to job specifications that related to employment services. The new job

specifications focused more on the ability to manage

cases over the telephone. However, many of the staff

hired into the positions had not worked with a system

that used telephone calls for reporting client information along with a computer system for processing and

documenting changes. 

On-the-job training is provided to staff by the supervisors. New staff are first assigned to a mentor, someone

who has worked there for a while and is familiar with

the system. The change center supervisor noted that

the first 2 weeks are very hard for new employees, as

they are often not prepared for the constant telephone

calls. In addition, agents are required to finish up their

cases on the same day the report comes in, so there is

pressure to complete all of their cases, but at the same

time not to let clients remain on hold for long periods

of time.

Processing Client Changes

When a client first calls the change center, an automated answering system asks if they prefer to communicate in English or Spanish. The center maintains two

Spanish-speaking agents to handle clients who wish to

report in Spanish. Once the language of preference is

established, the clients are asked if they wish to add a

newborn infant to an existing family record or simply

report another type of change. Clients are then transferred to the first available change agent, who will

process and record the changes. Once the changes are

recorded, the change agent will send the county caseworker handling the case an e-mail or fax notifying

them of the change. Each county has a contact person

responsible for working with staff at the change center

to resolve any outstanding problems or issues. 

Clients may report changes any time the center is

open, which is from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays.

The average time for each call runs 4 to 7 minutes.

The center is equipped to handle up to 60 calls at a

time, but current staffing is such that only 30 calls can

be processed at a time. The computerized telephone

system used by the agents includes a feature that

tracks how long clients have been on hold waiting for

an agent, which clients hang-up, and how long clients

waited before they hung up. In addition, the system

can tell supervisors how many clients are waiting at

any given time. Through this system, supervisors can

monitor the flow of work and pull more agents into

telephone service when calls are heavy. While no formal client satisfaction system is in place, agents report

that clients seem to like the system and have not had

problems with long waits. Most of the clients who

hang up do so without waiting. 

Challenges Identified by State Staff

Both the State FSP manager and the Change Center

director reported that the counties are happy with the

services provided by the change center. However, they

did note the following challenges: 

• Training and retention of staff is often difficult, as

there are not many State employees with the type of

experience necessary to handle this unique job. Many

people who apply for jobs at the change center have

not worked with a computerized telephone system

before. New employees report a great deal of stress

in conducting their day-to-day business, simply

because of the high volume of calls they are expected

to handle. The requirement that all cases be completed on the day they are processed adds additional

stress. State officials believe that the addition of

more staff would reduce the amount of stress and

lead to a more productive work environment.

However, counties are not likely to transfer any more

positions than they must to the change center, so the

likelihood of obtaining increases in the number of

staff is low. 

• Even if new staff became available, a second problem identified by State officials is the limited amount

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 63
of space available at the current location. The change

center site, which is in the basement of leased space

in Atlanta, is currently very crowded and will not

hold more desks or cubicles. In order to expand

staffing, the change center would require additional

space, at a significant cost (for moving telephone and

computer lines). Currently, no funds are available to

expand the center’s physical layout.

• It is very difficult to consistently provide telephone

coverage if a person is absent due to illness or vacation. The leave policy of the change center requires

that only a limited number of change agents can be

out at one time. This has created some resentment

among staff who would like to take vacation time

around holidays, but are denied because of staffing

limitations. In addition, if a person is sick, the change

center can not bring in a trained replacement. This

means that staff who are there must pick up the

workload of the person who is absent. 

• The pay levels for change agents have created a problem with retention. The starting salary for a change

agent is $22,000 per year, which is low for the

Atlanta area. In addition, while the skills needed for

the change center are somewhat unique in State government, they are not unique on the open market, particularly in the areas of Internet customer support and

telemarketing. Sometimes agents find that they can

make more money with the same skills by leaving

State government and working for private companies. 

• State staff acknowledged that there were initial issues

with county staff’s resentment over the fact that they

would not be handling the entire case file of their

clients and that caseworker positions were being

transferred to the State. While State officials feel that

these issues have been resolved, they understand that

in some counties the loss of even one position may

have put a burden on the remaining staff. Officials

are hopeful that if the pilot projects are extended and

the program made permanent, the positions will be

established in the State budget, and the ones transferred from the counties could be returned.

Findings From Baldwin County

Overview

Baldwin County is a rural county located in the center

of Georgia. Much of the county’s economic base is

related to small manufacturing facilities, a local university, service industries, and agriculture. While the

county has a high employment rate, staff in Baldwin

County believe that many of the jobs available to the

low-income population they serve are minimum wage.

There are some manufacturing facilities in the county,

but they tend to limit their hiring to skilled workers.

The Baldwin County Department of Children and

Family Services is located in the county seat of

Milledgeville, and the Economic Support Division is

staffed with eight Family Independence case managers

and two supervisors. Family Independence case managers generally serve a caseload of around 400-450

clients. The caseworkers handle enrollment for the

FSP, Medicaid, and TANF programs. About 150 cases

of each caseworker’s load are food stamp recipients.

After welfare reform, TANF cases declined in the

county, FSP cases stayed the same, and Medicaid cases

increased. The county began having problems with

their error rates in 1997, and had an error rate as high

as 48 percent in 1998. At that time, the county was

processing an average of 150 changes a month, and

officials discovered that these changes were often not

processed in a timely manner. In order to bring the

error rates down, Baldwin County officials requested

to be included in the change center pilot project. This

choice was a difficult decision, as officials knew that

they would lose one of their staff positions if they

were accepted into the pilot, and this loss might create

staffing problems in the future. However, county officials came to the conclusion that it was worth losing a

position in order to reduce the error rates. Since their

inclusion in the change center, the error rate for

Baldwin County has dropped to less than 1 percent.

County Program Administration

Baldwin County accepts applications for Medicaid,

TANF, and the FSP 5 days a week, but schedules eligibility interview appointments only 2 days a week.

This system was established to allow staff time to

inform clients of the documentation they will need to

bring to the interview and to allow staff the time to

process the applications once the interview is complete. When a client submits an application, he/she is

assigned a caseworker who helps with completing the

application process. During the interview process,

clients are informed about other social service programs for which they may be eligible.

When the application process is complete, and a client

is found to be eligible for services, he/she is given an

information packet describing the types of changes in

economic and family situation that must be reported

64 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
and is provided a card with the change center telephone number. Clients are instructed to contact the

change center whenever they have a reportable

change. However, even with the change center information, some clients may still try to drop off change

information and documentation at the county office.

This practice is discouraged, as the county staff are

then required to fax the client’s changes to the change

center for processing. Instead, if a person shows up at

the office to report changes, the county has made

available a telephone “hotline” for the client to use to

call the change center.

At the time of the site visit, the office was shortstaffed, with three of eight eligibility workers being

new. It is often difficult to bring on new staff and

have them begin serving clients right away. The State

provides training to all new caseworkers through

training sites located around the State. Once a new

caseworker is hired, he/she must spend 5 weeks away

from the County at the training site to complete all of

the required training. This means that new employees

can not begin serving clients until 6 weeks after they

are hired. 

Challenges Identified by County Officials

In general, County officials are pleased with the use of

the change center. There were some initial problems

identified by county staff with changes getting recorded properly and in a timely manner. After the county

was accepted into the pilot, caseworkers monitored the

change center processing very closely to be sure the

materials that were sent to the center were handled

properly. During the first 3 months, caseworkers and

county officials identified a number of problems with

the way the change center was processing the information from Baldwin County, and supervisory staff spent

a great deal of time calling these problems to the attention of change center staff. As a result of Baldwin

County’s followup, the change center made a number

of adjustments to their procedures for recording

changes, and all are now satisfied that the process is

meeting the needs of Baldwin County officials.

Other implementation issues identified by county staff

are described below:

• The major issue for Baldwin County officials was the

loss of one staff person to the change center, representing a little over 10 percent of the total program

staffing. While TANF cases have been declining,

FSP caseloads have remained about the same, and

Medicaid cases have been increasing. The result of

the staff reduction has been to put additional burdens

on the remaining staff. Officials are hoping that in

the future the State will assume responsibility for the

change center staffing and the position will be

returned to Baldwin County.

• Some workers miss not having complete control of a

client’s case. In the past, the caseworker was in

charge of all aspects of the client’s enrollment and

participation in the programs. Now, the caseworkers

find that they are unaware of changes in their clients’

status until they are processed at the change center

and the change is reported to the caseworker. While

the reporting of changes to the caseworker is most

often done in a timely manner (within 30 days),

some caseworkers expressed a desire to have total

control of the cases.

Kansas

Overview of Re-engineering Changes

Prior to the implementation of welfare reform in

1997, the Kansas Food Stamp Program (FSP) operated under separate program rules from other public

assistance programs. With the passage of welfare

reform, Kansas officials decided to avail themselves

of the opportunity to consolidate and conform these

various programs. To do so, they decided to make

three major changes in how they operated their public

assistance programs. First, through the efforts of the

State legislature and the governor’s office, they

moved the programs toward emphasizing employment and self-sufficiency as a goal for all clients.

Second, Kansas program administrators decided to

combine operations for public assistance and employment programs, functions that were previously performed by separate organizational units. Finally,

Kansas officials attempted to simplify program rules

for the TANF, Food Stamp, and Medicaid programs

in order to provide consistency in program policy

whenever possible.

While Kansas officials were successful in accomplishing the first two of these objectives, the third objective, a consistent policy across programs, became more

difficult. Originally, Kansas officials hoped to be able

to consolidate a number of program rules and procedures to make the process of obtaining program benefits easier for workers and clearer for clients. However,

they were able to report only limited success. While

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 65
they were able to combine the operations manuals for

the three programs and were successful in conforming

some of the rules and procedures, a number of factors—such as inability to obtain necessary waivers,

conflicting program goals, inability to combine two

diverse data collection systems, and resistance from

some local offices—kept them from accomplishing

their goal completely.

However, among the changes Kansas officials were

able to accomplish, the largest single undertaking was

changing the roles and functions of local caseworkers.

The purpose of this case study is to describe how the

role of the caseworker was changed in Kansas and to

provide information on how these changes affected a

rural program in Atchison, Kansas. To accomplish this

purpose, interviews were conducted at the State headquarters office with the Director of Economic and

Employment Support, the Food Stamp Program

Manager, the Manager of the Economic and

Employment Support training programs, and the

Manager of Research and Planning. In the Atchison

office, interviews were conducted with the Area Chief

of Economic and Employment Support, two

Economic Employment Support Supervisors, and

three caseworkers.

Food Stamp Program Administration 

The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitative

Services is responsible for administering public assistance programs through State offices located in 11

management areas across the State. These management

areas cover 105 counties, with at least one office located in each county. Total FSP caseload in Kansas averages around 117,000 clients per month in 53,000

households. After the implementation of welfare

reform, FSP caseload dropped 30 percent over the

period 1997-99. However, in 1999, FSP participation

began to increase by about 4.5 percent. Kansas officials are unsure why FSP participation increased, as

they had not enacted any type of outreach program to

potentially eligible clients.

Program management in each of the 11 areas is provided by program directors, who, in turn, report to an

area director. The programs administered in these 11

management areas include Economic and Employment

Support (FSP, TANF, and Medicaid), vocational rehabilitation programs, and child support programs. 

Program policy is developed at the headquarters office

in Topeka, with input from regional staff. Each of the

major programs in the Economic and Employment

Support Division has a program head, who is responsible for identifying program policy changes that may be

required by Federal or State law. However, with the

advent of welfare reform, Kansas officials decided to

combine all of their Economic and Employment

Services policies into a single manual. Kansas has created a Policy Development Team, composed of four

central office staff and four representatives from the

management areas. It is the responsibility of the Policy

Development Team to review and approve any proposed policy changes the individual programs may

wish to implement. In addition, the Policy

Development Team identifies areas where program

requirements can be conformed in order to avoid confusion about different program rules and regulations at

the local level.

The growing number of Spanish-speaking clients has

increased the need for bilingual staff and the production of Spanish language materials. Currently, there are

very few bilingual staff, and many of the materials,

including the applications and notices, are not translated into Spanish. Clients often have to rely on family

members or friends to help them complete the application process. In addition, a growing number of Russian

immigrants have moved to Kansas. A few areas have

also seen a significant increase in clients who speak

only Southeast Asian languages. 

Findings From Interviews With State 

Headquarters Officials

Changes in the Role of the Caseworker

Prior to welfare reform, caseworkers worked with differing program regulations and multiple policy manuals for the three major public assistance programs. One

of the major goals of Kansas officials in implementing

welfare reform was to promote as much consistency

between programs as possible. While local areas have

flexibility in how they implement their programs, consistency in policy was pushed by headquarters staff as

a means to better serve clients and eliminate confusion

about different program requirements in similar areas.

While consistency in policy development was the

overall goal, Kansas officials realized that having multiple individuals responsible for implementing policies

across programs might defeat the purpose. To prevent

fragmentation of policy application at the local level, a

decision was made to combine the job functions of

staff responsible for program eligibility with those of

staff responsible for employment programs. 

66 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
In doing so, Kansas created a new civil service classification called Economic and Employment Support

Specialist. The purpose of the new job classification

was to combine activities related to determining program eligibility with those related to helping clients

find employment and gain self-sufficiency.

Caseworkers were expected to become case managers,

with an individual caseworker becoming responsible

for all program activities related to an individual

client. In combining these activities, State officials

envisioned that clients facing the challenges of welfare

reform would be more likely to respond positively to a

single worker handling their case than to having to

deal with multiple caseworkers. 

The development of the Economic and Employment

Support Specialist classification was a two-phased

process. First, State officials had to create the classification and identify the existing positions that would be

transferred to the new classification. With the cooperation of the State civil service board, specifications for

the class were developed, and new requirements for

qualification for the class were examined. To the

extent possible, the job requirements mirrored those of

the old classifications. However, the scope of responsibility for the new classification was much broader than

that of the old classifications.

The formal work on development of the new job classification was rather easy compared to that for the second phase, which was to convince local program staffs

that the change in job classification was appropriate

and necessary. Initially there was much resistance from

local caseworkers. This resistance was based upon a

lack of familiarity with the duties being performed by

each of the two groups of caseworkers and by concern

as to how combining functions would affect individual

jobs. For example, caseworkers responsible for program eligibility were not familiar with the activities of

their counterparts in employment services, nor were

those working in employment services familiar with

program eligibility. While some areas accepted the

change, others resisted cooperating. Finally, the secretary of the agency issued a letter to all Area Directors

requiring them to cooperate with the job classification

change. Some areas accepted this and moved ahead

quickly to implement it, while other areas were not as

cooperative. But by the end of 1998, the change was to

be fully implemented.

Staff Training

One of the major tasks faced by Kansas officials was

retraining staff for their new positions. Employees

needed training in three areas. First, because two different computer systems were being used to support

employment services and eligibility services, staff

needed to be cross-trained on at least one of the systems. Second, staff who had previously worked only in

employment services had to be trained on eligibility

determination, while eligibility caseworkers had to be

trained on employment services. Finally, because a

number of policies had been changed to promote consistency and a new, combined manual created to reflect

these changes, all staff needed training on the new

policies.

Once staff had been trained, local programs began

reassigning cases to individuals. In order to provide

support to staff who were working in an unfamiliar

program area, teams were developed so individuals

had a resource to provide support and answer questions they might have about a particular policy. 

Challenges Identified by State Officials

Kansas officials identified a number of challenges to

implementing welfare reform and changing the role of

the caseworker. A discussion of these challenges follows.

• More involvement of local caseworkers in the

process of creating the new job classifications

might have helped smooth implementation. Most of

the work on the new job classification was done by

headquarters staff working with local program

directors. Caseworkers themselves were not

involved in the process. As a result, caseworkers

were probably more resistant to the changes than

they might have been had they been directly

involved.

• At the same time the job reclassification was taking

place, Kansas made a number of changes in how it

implemented employment programs. Kansas had traditionally emphasized client participation in education and employment training programs, which

often had little impact on an individual’s ability to

find employment. However, over the years strong

relationships had been developed between Kansas

educational institutions, such as the University of

Kansas, and State employment programs. Through

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 67
contracts with the State, these institutions provided

education and training at various locations throughout the State. When the emphasis changed from

longer-term training to job readiness and actual

placement of clients into jobs, the educational institutions complained bitterly that they were being left

out of the process, and that caseworkers without adequate training in employment issues would be

responsible for implementing this important component of the program. 

• Many of the staff who had worked in employment

programs prior to welfare reform also had difficulty

with making the adjustment to the Kansas “work

first” philosophy. Local program staff had always

viewed their work as helping clients to find longterm solutions to self-sufficiency and to identify

potential long-term career paths. When caseworkers

were required to shift this philosophy to one of finding clients employment as quickly as possible, it was

a difficult transition. Caseworkers have expressed

concern that the short-term employment opportunities usually found for clients will disappear if the

economy takes a turn for the worse, and then clients

will not have the training or skills necessary to find

jobs requiring more skills.

• While combining functions has worked well in many

areas, the sometimes conflicting service philosophies

faced by caseworkers handling clients participating

in multiple programs can be problematic.

Caseworkers are often put in the position of pushing

clients towards employment and self-sufficiency in

order to help them leave the TANF rolls, while at the

same time promoting participation in the FSP and

Medicaid programs. This is often confusing to the

clients, who when pushed to leave the TANF rolls

believe they should be leaving the FSP or Medicaid

programs as well. 

• The antiquated nature of the Kansas computer systems is also a major problem that has not been

resolved. One of the selling points for the combined

jobs and policy manuals was a promise that the two

separate computer systems used by caseworkers (one

for eligibility, one for employment services) would

be discarded and a new combined system would be

developed. This, however, has not materialized. As a

result, caseworkers must work with two different

computer systems when serving their clients. State

officials still hope to eliminate this problem, but currently, no funds are available for data system development and computer purchases.

• Within the next 5 years, a large number of caseworkers will be retiring. This will result in a need for new

caseworker recruitment. Many of the caseworkers

that are retiring are located in rural areas, where it is

often difficult to recruit. In particular, the rural areas

of Western Kansas are facing a severe recruitment

problem in the near future.

Findings From Interviews in the 

Atchison Office

Overview of Service Delivery

The Atchison office is located in the northeast corner of

Kansas, and is included in a service area with six other,

mostly rural counties. Approximately 3,400 households

are being served in the area, with around 500 in the

Atchison office. Overall responsibility for the administration of Economic and Employment Support programs within the area belongs to the Program Chief,

who in turn relies on program supervisors within each

office. Each office has at least one program supervisor,

who is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the office. The recently created Economic and

Employment Support Specialists report to the supervisors and are responsible for enrollment of clients and

providing case management services. The office has

very little turnover, as the positions with the State are

some of the best paying in this rural area.

In their role as case managers, staff in the Atchison

office have developed strong ties to community organizations serving the same population. These strong ties

allow the case managers to assist the client with issues

that can not normally be resolved by the public assistance programs. For example, caseworkers noted

strong ties to the local community action agency,

which helps clients obtain energy assistance funds.

Among the various other agencies with which the

caseworkers coordinate are the local WIC program, the

Salvation Army, the local independent living center,

the county hunger task force, and local food banks.

Program representatives from these agencies meet on a

periodic basis to discuss community needs and to plan

for future services.

Changing the Role of the Caseworker

In general, the caseworkers in the Atchison office are

pleased with the change in their roles since the passage

of welfare reform. All three of the caseworkers interviewed said that they enjoyed being able to provide

true case management services by handing all of the

68 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
client’s issues and that they were able to devote more

time to case management than when they were responsible for only a portion of the case. The caseworkers

also noted that under the old system clients would be

passed back and forth between caseworkers, which

created some frustration for the clients.

The Atchison office had a relatively easy time with the

transition to the new job classification. Atchison was

somewhat fortunate during the transition, in that one

of the employment caseworkers had worked as an eligibility worker prior to coming to the county program

and was knowledgeable about both programs. With her

knowledge, other caseworkers had someone to whom

they could go to for answers to questions or to receive

help in working the computer systems. However, even

with this assistance, the caseworkers all had to be

cross-trained on systems with which they were not

familiar. The program chief credits the enthusiasm of

the staff with making the entire transition process

move smoothly.

The single biggest change in the day-to-day activities

of the caseworkers is working with clients under the

increased emphasis on employment services. Prior to

implementation of welfare reform, 70 percent of the

AFDC participants who were required to participate in

employment and training activities were attending the

University of Kansas. However, only 14 percent of the

clients completed the program. Of the group that completed the program, only 10 percent went on to complete a college degree program. Local officials

believed that they were paying for a program that was

not producing results. 

The new emphasis of the caseworkers is on employment readiness and preparation for job seeking.

Caseworkers have worked hard to build relationships

with employers in the area, who are mostly in servicerelated industries. Local employers have provided the

caseworkers with information about the kinds of

issues they have faced with hiring public assistance

clients. In turn, the caseworkers have begun working

with clients to help build their practical skills, including such basics as showing up for work on time and

notifying their supervisor when they will not be coming into work.

The major sources for employment for public assistance clients who live in this rural area are low-end

manufacturing plants, tribal casinos, telemarketing

companies, and food service providers. Over the past

year, the economy in the area has been strong and

there have been labor shortages in many of the service-related areas. As a result, clients who seek employment often can find a job in the service industry.

However, caseworkers noted that the major agricultural industries, such as the grain elevators, would not

hire public assistance clients.

Another function assumed by the caseworkers has

been increased effort to conduct outreach to FSP and

Medicaid clients. Two of the priorities for the office

are the enrollment of children in the State Child Health

Insurance Program and working to end hunger within

the region. As a result, the public assistance agency

has teamed up with local private agencies to form

what they call a “dream team” to address community

outreach needs. This group meets to assess community

needs and designs potential outreach efforts.

Representatives from the Atchison office participate

both on the steering committee for the dream team and

on special committees that are created to work on specific problems.

Another benefit of their changing role cited by the

caseworkers was the increased flexibility they have in

working with clients. Because they are now responsible for all aspects of the client’s case, they can work

with the clients to develop individual plans for dealing

with self-sufficiency issues. The caseworkers also

believe that clients like the new system better, as they

only have to deal with one caseworker, and clients can

feel comfortable that the caseworker is familiar with

their situation.

Challenges Faced by the Local Office

While noting that the staff in the Atchison office were

very pleased with the changes in the role of the caseworker, there were some challenges the local office

faced in making the transition, as discussed below.

• When welfare reform was first implemented, clients

who could be easily placed into employment situations were the first off the rolls. Clients currently

being served through TANF are very hard to serve,

and require much more time than other clients. As a

result, case management of clients is taking more

time, and the problems identified as barriers to

employment are much more difficult to resolve.

Caseworkers noted that many of the clients they are

currently serving have problems such as mental

health issues, substance abuse problems, and chronic

health conditions. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 69
• Finding employment in a rural area is difficult, and

can be frustrating for clients and caseworkers alike.

While the Atchison office has had success in finding

employment opportunities for clients who want to

work, they have run into resistance with firms that

pay higher wages. It is difficult to convince local

employers that TANF and FSP clients will make

good long-term employees. Many will not even interview clients if they find out they are on TANF.

• A large number of elderly individuals in the county

live at or near the poverty level. One of the key outreach goals of the office has been to encourage elderly individuals to apply for food stamps. Caseworkers

are concerned about the growing number of elderly

who are at risk of food insecurity. However, caseworkers have found it very difficult to convince elderly individuals that it is worth their effort to apply

for what end up being very limited program benefits. 

• Using the dual computer system is frustrating and

takes more time than it might if the two systems

were integrated. While the caseworkers noted that

they are now used to the two systems, it is still very

time consuming for them to work with both. The

caseworkers and the supervisors both noted that with

a more efficient system, they could spend more time

working on case management issues.

• While the caseworkers are pleased with their

increased case management role, they worry that their

FSP error rates are on the rise. Supervisors believe

that this increase can be attributed to both the difficulty of the cases now being carried and the complexity

of the rule changes that were implemented during

welfare reform. Supervisors are encouraging caseworkers to spend more time on quality control, even

if it means spending less time with the client.

Arizona

Overview of Re-engineering Effort

In 1997, the Arizona legislature passed a welfare

reform measure designed to begin a process of privatization of the welfare system. Influenced by

Wisconsin’s attempts to involve private enterprise in

managing the welfare caseload, the Arizona legislature established a nine-member procurement board

and charged them with developing plans for contracting with a private agency to help move public assistance clients into employment and off the welfare

rolls. Problems in the legislation and the inability to

obtain waivers for privatization of Medicaid and the

FSP limited privatization efforts to the Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The

procurement board issued a Request For Proposals in

1998 to pilot a project in Maricopa County (greater

Phoenix area) to allow private companies to manage

the TANF program.

Two companies bid for the project, with the award

being given to Maximus, a company located in

Virginia. The contract calls for a 4-year pilot program,

with a rural county to be added after year 2. The contract is incentive-based, with a requirement that

Maximus must show overall 10 percent savings in

total program costs. The basic contract provides for

funding of services provided to a specific caseload

level (currently over 4,000), but does not include the

cost of data systems and facilities, both of which are

provided by the State. Incentives for additional revenue are built into the contract based upon meeting

performance standards. The State named this project

“Arizona Works.”

The purpose of this case study is to examine how this

privatization effort has affected the Food Stamp

Program and how local State-run FSPs work with the

contractor to coordinate services. Interviewed for this

case study were the State’s project director for the

Arizona Works project, the coordinator for the

Maricopa County JOBS program, which competes

with the Maximus project in Maricopa County, two

local JOBS caseworkers, and an FSP supervisor. In

addition, the Maximus project director for Arizona

Works was interviewed, along with a project supervisor. Finally, two FSP caseworkers at the Salt River

Reservation were interviewed.

Food Stamp Program Administration

The FSP in Arizona is administered by the State, with

regional and local offices located throughout the

State. State employees handle eligibility determination in most areas of the State for the three major

public assistance programs, FSP, Medicaid, and

TANF. Clients apply at local offices, where their

applications are processed and eligibility is determined. Once determined to be eligible, clients who

must meet work requirements are placed in a special

JOBS program, where they are provided assistance in

finding employment and building job-seeking skills.

State officials report a strong job market, particularly

in Maricopa County, and placing clients in jobs has

been relatively easy.

70 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
There are two exceptions to the above description of

program services. In Maricopa County, the Arizona

Works program provides TANF and employment services to eligible clients, while a separate State-run

office located next door to Arizona Works provides

FSP and Medicaid services. The second exception to

the above relates to a number of Native American

Tribal programs that provide TANF services to clients

on reservations. In this circumstance, the State provides caseworkers that work at the Tribal public assistance offices to certify clients for FSP and Medicaid

services. In both cases, coordination between the State

employees and the Maximus and Tribal caseworkers is

important.

Findings From Interviews With

Headquarters Staff

Overview of the State Program in 

Maricopa County

Maricopa County is unique in that it has three separate

agencies operating TANF programs within the county.

The State-run TANF program covers the western part

of the county, the Arizona Works program covers

much of the eastern portion, and Tribal programs exist

on reservation land located within the county. Each of

the three programs works independently of the others.

However, the State stations FSP and Medicaid eligibility workers at the Tribal public assistance office so

that clients applying for TANF can also apply for these

other services. In addition, caseworkers located at the

Tribal offices process FSP and Medicaid-only applications for Tribal members. 

The primary focus of the Arizona public assistance programs is to assist clients with finding employment and

reaching a point of self-sufficiency. Major efforts are

undertaken to help clients find employment, including

motivational programs, resume development, job readiness training, and job placement services. Clients who

are in a mandatory employment category (TANF and

FSP Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents) are

required to attend these different sessions, but all FSP

participants are encouraged to attend.

Employment opportunities seem plentiful in Maricopa

County. The State JOBS Program supervisor reports that

a number of employers, including large trucking companies, State governmental agencies, small manufacturing

plants, and temporary agencies, hire public assistance

clients. The average wage for a public assistance client

is $7.40 per hour. Caseworkers are encouraged to make

followup contacts with clients to be sure that they are

successful in maintaining their employment. 

During interviews with caseworkers and the JOBS

supervisor it was noted that the initial placement of

clients was very successful after welfare reform, but

the current group of TANF clients is much harder to

place. Caseworkers cite mental health and substance

abuse issues as problems with the population they currently serve. In addition, the lack of job skills has

hampered successful retention of employment.

Caseworkers note that many of the hard-to-serve

clients will not show up for work if they have a minor

problem at home and will not call their employers to

let them know they will be absent. Many of these

clients end up coming back into the system, and the

State-run program has limited funds to provide support

services to help returning clients succeed.

State Services in Eastern Maricopa County

In eastern Maricopa County, State employees are

responsible for providing Medicaid and FSP services,

while Maximus provides the TANF and employment

services. The State office is located next door to the

Maximus office, and they share a common entry area.

When clients come into the State office to receive

services, they are first asked if they are applying for

TANF or for food stamps or Medicaid. If they are

applying for FSP or Medicaid services only, their

applications are taken at the State office. If they are

also applying for TANF, they must complete a separate

application in the Arizona Works office. The same is

true if someone applies for TANF at the Arizona

Works office and also desires food stamps or

Medicaid. Therefore, clients applying for TANF and

FSP/Medicaid services must go through two interview

processes.

The State office in eastern Maricopa County is staffed

with 31 workers who handle the FSP and Medicaid

caseloads. While the State-run program and the

Arizona Works programs operate as separate entities,

they have worked out a memorandum of understanding by which each of the programs will coordinate

operations on a limited basis. For example, caseworkers from both programs are required to coordinate with

each other when making changes to client records.

However, State-level caseworkers reported that they

sometimes have difficulty obtaining the information

from Arizona Works caseworkers, which often is the

basis for eligibility errors and for clients having to

return overpayments of their benefits. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 71
Services Provided by Arizona Works

The Arizona Works program began in 1999, with

4,000 TANF cases transferred from the State-run program in eastern Maricopa County to the new program. The primary purpose of the Arizona Works

project is to assist TANF clients with finding employment. The program is responsible for taking and

approving applications for TANF, providing support

services to TANF clients related to job placement,

and finding jobs for the clients. 

The Arizona Works program manager reports to the

State procurement board. The State Department of

Economic Security has appointed a project manager to

work with the Arizona Works program as a liaison

between Maximus and the Department and to serve as

a policy expert when policy interpretations are

required. It is the responsibility of the State Project

Director to coordinate and resolve issues that may

come up between the Arizona Works program and the

State-run program. For example, the program manager

was recently involved in negotiating additional space

for the Arizona Works program at the State’s leased

facility shared by the State-run program.

When Maximus assumed the responsibility for the

TANF program, they were allowed to hire their own

staff. This meant that a number of State employees

who were previously serving these clients needed to

find new jobs. Because Maximus had a short amount

of time to implement this program after the contract

was signed, they offered the State employees the

opportunity to join the project team at Maximus and

continue their work. Approximately 60 percent of

Arizona Works employees are former State employees

who chose to move over and accept employment with

Maximus, usually at a higher salary but with fewer

benefits. The remaining State employees were offered

transfer opportunities to other State programs. State

officials note that no State employee lost his/her job

through this transfer of function. 

The contract between Maximus and the State is a performance-based contract, with strong incentives for

placing clients in jobs. To carry out its mission, the

Arizona Works program has developed a number of

unique programs to support clients in obtaining

employment. Because the Maximus program can provide more support services than the State-run program,

caseworkers are able to conduct an assessment of

client barriers to employment and then provide financial and programmatic support to help the clients overcome these barriers. Specific support services included

assistance with paying rent and utilities to give the

client a month to earn money; providing clients with

transportation assistance to help them find and maintain a job; and providing specialized training in job

retention or other employment-related skills. To provide clients with training and assistance in finding

long-term employment, Maximus has established a

training program in partnership with a local community college to help clients develop skills needed for

employment. The programs available to clients range

from specific job-related skills, such as computer use

or basic trade skills, to employment readiness skills.

Clients even receive college credit for some of the

classes. In addition to the contract with the college,

Maximus has developed a network of vendors that is

used to provide support services. These vendors are

local businesses that contract with Maximus to help

with transportation, utility and rent payments, childcare, and other support services. 

In order to meet the performance standards in the contract, the Arizona Works project operates in direct

competition with the State-run program in western

Maricopa County. Statistics from both sites will be

compared to determine the extent to which Arizona

Works has reduced caseloads as compared to the Staterun program. Some of the State officials feel that this

comparison is unfair, as they believe the western portion of the county contains a higher percentage of

hard-to-place clients. In addition to this comparison,

the Arizona Works project is being evaluated by Abt

Associates, who will produce a final report in 2003.

The procurement board will use this report to determine if the project will be expanded statewide, modified in any way, or discontinued.

Officials at Maximus point out a number of advantages their program has over the State-run program. In

their initial year of operation, the Arizona Works program was able to reduce caseloads in their service

area by 24 percent. In addition, Arizona Works officials point to the high level of case management and

support services provided by the caseworkers as an

indication of the extent to which they will help clients

succeed in becoming self-sufficient. Officials also

believe that clients are happy with the services provided through Arizona Works. 

Maximus will open a second office in a rural Arizona

county in 2001. Maximus officials see this new office

as an important challenge, as employment opportunities in rural Arizona are not as plentiful as in the met72 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
ropolitan centers. In addition, transportation issues will

be a challenge in the rural county. As with the urban

center, the Arizona Works program in the rural county

will be compared with another rural county where a

State-run program exists. Planning for the new office

was underway at the time of the case study interviews. 

State Services on the Salt River Reservation

Two State employees assigned to the eastern Maricopa

County office are stationed at the Salt River Indian

Reservation. The purpose of the two out-stationed

workers is to provide FSP and Medicaid eligibility

services to Tribal members. As was noted earlier, the

Tribe provides all TANF services to its members. 

Clients applying for public assistance are met at a

counter in the Tribal office, where they are given an

application. If they are applying for both TANF and

for food stamps/Medicaid, the Tribal caseworker

involves the State caseworker to determine joint eligibility. Because the Tribal program uses the State’s

computer system, the data on eligibility is readily

shared between the two programs. 

As is true with the Arizona Works program, the Tribal

program operates on a different set of standards and

rules from the State TANF program. For example,

more efforts are made with the Tribal program to provide support services to clients. The Tribal program

also uses different income standards and payment

schedules. The main focus of the Tribal program is

self-sufficiency, but unlike most of Maricopa County,

employment opportunities on the reservation are very

limited. Often the cases handled by the Tribal caseworkers are very difficult to serve, with caseworkers

noting a high incidence of physical disabilities, health

problems, mental health issues, and substance abuse

problems as barriers to self-sufficiency. In addition,

transportation is cited as a problem with both obtaining employment and attending scheduled appointments

for certification interviews. The reservation covers a

very large area, and many Tribal members do not have

adequate transportation. As a result, the State caseworkers report a high no-show rate for clients who are

applying for food stamps. 

In contrast to the State employees at the Arizona

Works site, the caseworkers located on the reservation

feel the working relationship between the two programs is well managed. Information sharing is common, and the State workers feel that they have access

to all of the information they need to manage their

cases in coordination with the Tribal caseworkers.

Because of the informal atmosphere, as well as the fact

that the caseworkers do not feel as though they are in

competition, services seem to be provided in a wellcoordinated manner. 

Challenges Reported

A number of challenges are reported by both Statelevel staff providing services in Maricopa County and

by the Maximus staff. The greatest challenge appears

to be the competition between the Arizona Works program and the State-run program. There is an acknowledgment by both State and Maximus officials that the

Arizona Works program is in direct competition with

the State-run program, and, as a result, the two programs have some difficulties cooperating with each

other on issues of mutual interest. One State official

notes that it may be hard for State employees to help

Maximus succeed when their own jobs may be in

jeopardy as a result. Another official comments that

State-level caseworkers feel resentment towards the

Arizona Works program because it can offer clients

more in the way of support services than the State-run

program. Many individuals feel that this fact alone

makes the comparisons between the two programs

invalid.

Other specific problems and challenges include

the following.

• The short startup time for the Arizona Works project

created a high level of stress for both Maximus officials and State employees. Many State employees

were forced to make a choice about whether to

remain as State employees and work in other departments or join the private sector and lose their seniority in government. This level of stress caused some

State employees to be fearful of an expansion of the

Arizona Works program.

• State officials express some concern about the working relationship between caseworkers in the

Maximus office and those working in the Stateadministered program. In order to keep error rates to

a minimum and to avoid confusing clients, cooperation is necessary between caseworkers in the two

programs. For example, if a client served by both

systems finds employment, the information about

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 73
his/her new earnings must be passed on in a timely

manner to the caseworker in charge of the FSP portion of the case; otherwise the client may be required

to pay back benefits to the State. However, as one

State official noted, it is difficult for State employees

to cooperate and trust an entity that may, in the

future, cost them their jobs.

Respondents express concern that requiring clients to

undergo two separate eligibility processes may discourage them from participating in the FSP. In addition, officials are concerned that clients are becoming

confused as to whom they should report changes in

their status. As a result, officials are worried that

clients who may still be eligible for FSP and

Medicaid benefits after they leave the TANF program may not know they are eligible. At this time,

Maximus does not track whether clients who leave

the TANF program remain in the FSP or Medicaid

programs. 

• Maximus officials comment that under the current

system they are required to utilize the State’s data

system to process TANF enrollments. This creates a

situation that discourages the development of innovative approaches to computerizing enrollments and

makes the project dependent on State technical support, which at times can be slow in responding to the

project’s requests for assistance.

• A number of small issues have also contributed to the

lack of cooperation between the two programs. For

example, a recent expansion of Arizona Works staff

into space previously occupied by State caseworkers

resulted in the State’s caseworkers being moved into

another building within the same complex. This

move created resentment on the part of the Statelevel staff, as now the workers must travel between

buildings to meet with clients. Workers questioned

the need for Arizona Works to expand into the space,

and felt that they were not given a say in the matter.

Other issues include delays in providing information

to caseworkers needed for determining eligibility

(both entities noted this complaint), inconsistency in

following agreed-upon office procedures, and delays

in reporting client status changes. 

• Expansion of the Arizona Works program into a rural

county will create a new set of challenges for

Maximus staff. First, Maximus plans to offer the current State employees the opportunity to leave State

service and come to work for Arizona Works.

However, if State employees wish to remain with the

State, it is unlikely that they will be able to find

another State job in the county. This will mean that

these employees will either need to relocate to an

area where more State jobs are available or accept a

position with Maximus, which they may feel forced

to do to remain in the area.

• A second challenge for Maximus will be to find

employment opportunities for clients located in this

rural area. State officials point out that there are

nowhere near the employment opportunities in the

rural areas of the State that there are in more urban

areas. In addition, training and vendor resources are

limited in rural areas, which may limit the amount

and type of support services the Arizona Works program can provide.

Connecticut

Overview of the Re-engineering Effort

Prior to 1995, the State of Connecticut administered its

public assistance programs through a centralized

organization. State headquarters staff were responsible

for overall program operations, and programs were

implemented by State staff placed in local offices

throughout the State. These local offices were supervised by a district manager, who, in turn, reported to a

Director of Field Operations in Hartford. 

Connecticut began implementing welfare reform in

1996. One of the key elements to their welfare reform

effort was the decentralization of program administration and operations. The State created five “human

services regions” around the State, and it assigned

responsibility for the implementation of public assistance programs within each region to a Regional

Administrator. The Regional Administrators report

directly to the Agency Commissioner, and program

directors (e.g., of FSP, TANF, and Medicaid) have no

line authority over Regional Administrators.

With the passage of Federal welfare reform and

increased efforts on the part of Connecticut to move

clients towards self-sufficiency, the regional offices

were given broad authority to customize program

operations within their areas (although the regions are

bound by State civil service regulations). While overall

policy is still developed at the State level, Regional

Administrators play a strong role in deciding how policy will be implemented in their particular regions.

74 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
The purpose of this case study is to examine how welfare reform efforts were implemented in Connecticut

using a regional approach. Site visit interviews were

conducted with State headquarters staff in Hartford

and with staff located in the regional office in

Norwich. The Director of Family Services and the

Adult Services Manager responsible for the FSP were

interviewed in the State headquarters office. In the

regional office, the Regional Administrator, a Field

Manager, two program supervisors, and two caseworkers were interviewed. 

Social Service Program Administration

Responsibility for administering the FSP in

Connecticut is shared between Policy Managers

located in the State headquarters office and Regional

Administrators located within the five regional

offices throughout the State. Policy units are responsible for assuring that proper policies and regulations

are developed and communicated to the regions, and

the Regional Administrators are responsible for dayto-day operations of the program. The Regional

Administrators have a great deal of discretion in how

public assistance programs are implemented. 

The Adult Services Division, located within the

Department of Social Services, is responsible for the

development of FSP program policies. These policies

are communicated to the regional offices through a

policy manual. Staff within the Division of Adult

Services are responsible for communicating changes in

policy to the regions and answering any policy questions from regional staff. In addition, the headquarters

office is responsible for providing training to regional

office staff on new policies, reviewing program data

reports produced by the Department’s management

information system, and maintaining contracts with

programs providing support to the regions, such as a

contract with the University of Connecticut to provide

training to staff. 

Prior to welfare reform, the major emphasis of public

assistance programs was to provide clients with program benefits. With the passage of welfare reform in

Connecticut, the primary goal was revised to identifying potential employment opportunities for clients 

and assisting them in becoming self-sufficient.

Connecticut’s “Jobs First” program provides TANF,

employment services, and safety net services to lowincome families. 

The State provides a very generous benefit package to

its clients to assist them in making the transition from

welfare to work. In determining benefits, the State disregards all earnings when total household income is

below the poverty level. In addition to receiving a cash

benefit, most clients also receive food stamps,

Medicaid, and comprehensive support services to help

them find employment. While employment-related

services were transferred to the Department of Labor

in 1998, staff continue to work with clients on providing support services to facilitate obtaining employment. However, clients subject to work requirements

are only allowed to receive cash assistance for a total

of 21 months. They may continue to receive cash benefits and services beyond this 21-month period only if

they have been looking for work in good faith, if they

are working but not earning enough to make them

ineligible, or if they encountered circumstances

beyond their control that prevent them from working.

Findings From Interviews of State 

Headquarters Officials

Overview of State Headquarters Operations

In 1995, the FSP caseload in Connecticut was averaging 110,000 clients a month. The current FSP caseload

is 80,000 clients per month. State officials believe that

clients’ confusion about their eligibility for food

stamps once TANF benefits have been terminated is

responsible for the drop in caseload. It is the policy of

the State program to encourage clients who have continuing eligibility for Medicaid and FSP to continue in

these programs, even if their TANF eligibility has

ended. Regional staff are asked to conduct “exit interviews” with clients leaving the TANF program to

assess whether they are eligible to continue with

Medicaid and the FSP. However, officials believe that

inconsistent application of the exit interviews between

regions may be partially responsible for eligible clients

leaving the FSP. 

Another issue identified as a barrier to ongoing participation in the FSP is that clients who remain in the FSP

after their TANF eligibility has ended must then begin

monthly reporting of potential eligibility changes.

Headquarters staff believe that this monthly reporting

“hassle” may be enough to discourage ongoing participation in the FSP. Officials also noted that once clients

decide to leave the FSP, they tend not to return. The

drop-off in caseload was also evident in the State-run

Food Stamp Program for noncitizens. Prior to welfare

reform, there were around 4,000 noncitizens participatEconomic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 75
ing in the FSP. With the changes brought about by

welfare reform, only 2,000 of the noncitizens reenrolled in the State-funded FSP. 

Headquarters staff were generally supportive of the

regional structure used to administer the FSP and other

public assistance programs. The staff felt that the centralized administrative structure had been too inflexible and often created situations that hurt program operations. By allowing the regions to adapt their programs

to local needs, officials believe that the programs are

in a better position to serve clients. In addition, headquarters officials noted that the flexibility afforded in

the regional structure allows regional staff to develop

strong working relationships with private service agencies within their region, and therefore allows for better

coordination of services at the local level. In addition,

regional offices have the capacity to write local contracts for support services, which allows the region to

customize its support service network to meet the

unique needs of the region.

On the other hand, headquarters staff found that the

regional structure presented difficulties for the Statelevel Program Directors, since they have no line

authority over the Regional Administrators. These

individuals are responsible for programs that have

Federal rules about eligibility determination and redetermination, definition of “good cause” for noncompliance, and other aspects of program operations. Yet, the

Program Directors are limited in their ability to influence the decisions of the Regional Administrators with

regard to program operations. Regional Administrators

attend monthly meetings with the Department

Commissioner, but Program Directors only attend

these meetings if invited. 

Headquarters staff were asked if they believe there are

major differences between how public assistance programs are administered among the regions. The main

differences they noted were between urban and rural

areas. For example, officials noted that most offices in

rural areas operate on a very strict appointment schedule, while offices in urban areas operate more on a

walk-in basis. In addition, staff in rural areas tend to

function more as case managers, while staff in urban

areas tend to specialize as eligibility workers or workers reporting client changes, which means that in

urban areas clients are more likely to work with more

than one caseworker.

While headquarters staff believe that policy is implemented in a consistent manner, they believe that there

are a number of operational differences in how strict

regions are with client documentation. For example,

officials believe that some regions do a much better

job in keeping clients on the FSP by allowing more

flexibility in how and when clients produce documentation for reporting purposes. Another example provided by headquarters staff is the difference in the level of

effort made by caseworkers to conduct exit interviews.

In some regions, caseworkers are very aggressive in

scheduling exit interviews and recertifying clients for

FSP benefits. In other regions, caseworkers do not

make the same strong efforts, and as a result, many

clients do not come back to be recertified for the FSP.

Challenges Identified by State

Headquarters Staff

As noted above, headquarters staff were generally supportive of the regional structure from the perspective

of local operations. However, they did note a few challenges, as follows:

• In some cases, headquarters staff feel that they are

responsible for an activity, but have little control over

how the activity is managed. For example, error rates

are calculated based on statewide (not regional) data

and are handled through the headquarters office.

However, the headquarters staff feel they have little

say in directing the regional offices to undertake

activities related to improving the error rates. 

• State officials expressed concern as to how the TANF

limitations and variable efforts on the part of caseworkers to continue clients on the FSP will be

viewed if there is a downturn in the economy. If

headquarters officials are correct in their view that

operational flexibility at the local level is a contributing factor in the decline in FSP participation, then

there is concern about an increase in food insecurity

among low-income populations in the State.

• The waivers under which the FSP and TANF programs operate (including the 21-month time limits

and earnings disregard) will end in September of

2001. At that time officials believe it will be necessary to make major changes to program operations. For example, when the waiver expires, earned

income will be counted for TANF recipients when

calculating their FSP benefits. There was some concern expressed that additional major changes in the

way the programs operate will create more confusion at the local level, and may result in more

76 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
inconsistencies in program operations that could

ultimately have a negative impact on clients. 

Findings From Interviews With Regional 

Office Staff

Overview of the Regional Office

The Norwich regional office covers a mostly rural section of Connecticut in the northeast section of the

State. Currently there is an office in Norwich and a

satellite office open part-time in the Killington area

northeast of Norwich. Staff from the Norwich office

travel to the satellite office 4 days a week. 

The regional office is organized into three divisions,

one addressing the needs of families, one addressing

adult services, and one responsible for working with

the elderly and persons with disabilities. Much of the

FSP and TANF caseload is located within the Family

Services Division. Workers in this division are responsible for enrolling clients into the programs, providing

case management services, processing EBT cards for

clients, and processing changes in client eligibility status. Prior to welfare reform, caseworkers were far

more specialized, with some of them processing applications and others processing reported changes. With

the flexibility afforded with the regionalization of

services, caseworkers were provided the opportunity to

act more like case managers and handle all of a

client’s needs. Local staff felt that this holistic

approach to serving clients was more successful than

the old approach.

Under the organizational structure of the regional

office, three division directors, known as Field

Managers, have responsibility for program operations

within their division. Each of the Field Managers

reports to the Regional Administrator. Reporting to the

Field Managers are office supervisors, who in turn

direct the activities of the Family Independence

Representatives (FI Reps). Family Independence

Representatives handle varying caseloads, based upon

the programs in which the clients participate. An FI

Rep who works with TANF clients, or clients participating in multiple programs, is more likely to have a

smaller caseload than those working with FSP- or

Medicaid-only clients. FI Reps handling TANF cases

tend to have caseloads averaging around 100 clients,

while FI Reps who handle FSP- and Medicaid-only

cases tend to manage around 400 cases. 

In addition to the three division directors, the regional

office has two regional planners and one regional

trainer. The regional planners are responsible for helping to design the service delivery system within the

region, and for identifying any future activities that

may be necessary to implement new policy. The

regional trainer provides training to staff within the

region on both program and policy issues, as well as

general training on useful skill-building and management issues. 

Regional Service Delivery

Because of the large geographic area and limited public transportation, the Norwich region offices work on

a strict appointment system. Clients must come to the

office to enroll, but may report changes through telephone calls or faxes. Clients enrolled in the TANF program are connected with a caseworker in the

Department of Labor who can assist them with finding

employment. Caseworkers in the regional office keep

in close communication with the Department of Labor

staff to track the extent to which clients are finding

employment and to assist in providing support services

to help the clients reach self-sufficiency. While much

of the communication between regional office staff

and Department of Labor staff is by telephone and fax,

there are plans to install an electronic file-sharing system between the two departments to allow caseworkers to share files.

Employment options for clients living within the

region are somewhat limited. The majority of clients

who find work do so in the food service or hospitality

industries. The FI Reps noted that there are two very

large Native American casinos in the region, both of

which pay well and will hire public assistance clients.

However, experience has shown that it is very difficult

for clients with children to maintain employment at the

casinos, as employees are often asked to work different shifts and be available for overtime. Because childcare within the region is so limited, most clients with

families can not be flexible enough to meet the

demands of working at the casinos.

FI Reps work closely with other community agencies

to provide coordinated services and referrals to clients.

Staff within the regional office actively work with programs such as WIC, childcare providers, and housing

agencies to assist clients in overcoming barriers. One

of the FI Reps noted that their role is to identify the

barriers clients may face in becoming self-sufficient

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 77
and assist them with accessing resources within the

community to help them overcome these barriers.

The regional office staff also work with community

organizations to promote the FSP and Medicaid programs administered in their regions. Supervisors participate in a regional speakers’ bureau and travel to

meetings around the region to provide information

about the FSP and Medicaid programs to other programs that may be serving the same clients. In addition, caseworkers participate in outreach efforts for

the Connecticut Child Health Insurance Program.

Staff believe that most low-income families in their

region are aware of the services provided by their

office. Finally, regional office staff participate in

monthly regional advisory council meetings, which

include representatives from the community who can

provide guidance to the region on how to improve

program coordination.

Regional office staff have limited contact with headquarters staff. Most of the contact occurs between the

Field Manager and the policy staff in Hartford.

Communication revolves mostly around policy questions that require an interpretation. The majority of the

questions are related to defining “good cause” for

TANF clients attempting to extend their time on the

program or interpreting a question regarding the definition of a “household”. In addition, Field Managers

are given the opportunity to participate in statewide

workgroups. For example, recently a Field Manager

from the Norwich office participated in a workgroup

examining how to strengthen the help desk that assists

with EBT issues.

Regional Administration

The Regional Administrator who was interviewed

believes the flexibility permitted by the regional

approach allows administrators to better customize

their programs to meet the needs of their clients.

However, it was interesting to note that while the

Regional Administrator felt he had flexibility with

regard to operational issues, he expressed the belief

that the program continues to be much more centralized than it would appear. For example, budgets for

the regional office are still controlled by headquarters,

and the Regional Administrator has very little flexibility in making changes to the budget. A second example

provided by the Regional Administrator involves the

ability to reclassify positions within the region. The

regional offices do not have the flexibility to change

the job classifications of vacant positions in order to

meet what they view to be a local need. All changes in

job classifications must be approved by headquarters

staff. In addition, with a hiring freeze currently in

effect, the regions must compete with one another to

be able to fill the vacant positions within their regions.

In some cases, positions are moved from one region to

another based upon a strong justification for increasing

staffing within a region.

The Regional Administrator also said that it is his

belief that Regional Administrators have done a good

job in customizing their programs to meet local needs.

He did, however, acknowledge that there are differences in how some of the regions approach dealing

with clients. He cited as an example the emphasis his

region puts on followup with clients to be sure they are

reporting changes to their eligibility status in a timely

manner and providing proper documentation. He noted

that his caseworkers often make three or four attempts

to help a client in danger of being dropped from the

FSP, while in other regions clients are dropped after

only limited efforts to help or to understand why the

required report was not submitted on time. 

Challenges Identified by Regional Staff

The overall goal of regional administration of public

assistance programs was to allow more flexibility in

the day-to-day administration of program activities.

With the implementation of welfare reform, the

regional offices faced a number of challenges,

described below.

• While the regional offices were responsible for

implementing a number of changes as a result of

welfare reform, they were not given any additional

funds or staff with which to implement the changes.

As a result, staff were very stressed during the transition phase. Because priority within the Norwich

region was placed on ensuring smooth continuation

of client services, the error rate within the region

increased. Now that much of the implementation has

been complete, the region will focus more on quality

control and reducing errors.

• Lack of control over the regional budget and personnel system has created problems for the Regional

Administrator in implementing innovative ideas. The

Administrator noted that over the course of implementing welfare reform, staff have been able to identify uses for funds and staffing that will better serve

clients. However, the Regional Administrator did not

have the authority to make the necessary adjustments

78 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
to accommodate staff wishes. As a result, the

Regional Administrator believes that the regional

programs would be better served if they were given

more control of budgets and personnel.

• Staff noted that the large geographic area covered 

by the region makes it difficult for clients to come

into the offices for services. Staff are hopeful that

additional field offices can be established in order

to better serve clients living in the most rural

parts of the region.

• The Regional Administrator would like to develop

more internal quality control mechanisms. Currently

program supervisors are responsible for overseeing

the quality of the work of the FI Reps. The Regional

Administrator would like to develop an independent

quality control system in order to identify problems

that may span the region. This independent quality

control system would then be used as the basis for

changing program operations to improve program

accountability.

• Overall, Connecticut’s change in organizational

structure to a regional organization resulted in a limited degree of decentralization. While it provides the

advantage of some flexibility for Regional

Administrators to develop relationships with local

providers in order to tailor services, Regional 

Administrators have little control over budget allocation and personnel decisions. 

There is an inherent conflict between administering

programs that have federally mandated rules and

encouraging local control. The State must continue to

improve communication between headquarters and the

regions, including providing data to the regions for

program improvement. It was noted that there has

been some movement back towards centralization,

especially with respect to the FSP, in order to reduce

certification error rates. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 79
References

Bartlett, S., N.R. Burstein, G. Silverstein, and D.

Rosenbaum. The Food Stamp Application Process:

Office Operations and Client Experiences. Cambridge,

MA: Abt Associates Inc, Apr. 1992.

Coe, R. “Nonparticipation in Welfare Programs by

Eligible Households: The Case of the Food Stamp

Program.” Journal of Economic Issues 17(4), 1983.

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Food Stamp Program Average Monthly

Participation (households).

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfyhh.htm. 2000(a).

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Food Stamp Program Average Monthly

Participation (persons).

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfypart.htm. 2000(b).

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Food Stamp Program Participation and

Costs. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm.

2000(c).

Food and Nutrition Service Online, U.S. Department

of Agriculture. EBT.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/menu/admin/ebt/ebt.htm.

2000(d).

Gabor, Vivian, and Christopher Botsko. State Food

Stamp Policy Choices Under Welfare Reform:

Findings of 1997 50-State Survey. Washington, DC:

Health Systems Research, Inc., May 1998.

Ponza, M., J. Ohls, L. Moreno, A. Zambrowski, and R.

Cohen. Customer Service in the Food Stamp Program:

Final Report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc., July 1999.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Food Stamps:

Reasons for Nonparticipation. Washington, DC:

General Accounting Office, 1988.

80 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Appendix Tables
82 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 1—Method of data collection by State

State Phone survey only

Phone survey and State

documents received in the mail

Alabama

Alaska ✔

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

District of Columbia ✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

—Continued
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 83

Appendix table 1—Method of data collection by State—Continued

State Phone survey only

Phone survey and State

documents received in the mail

Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico ✔

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota ✔

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota ✔

Tennessee ✔

✔

Utah ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔

Washington ✔

West Virginia ✔

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming ✔

Texas
84 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

State

Changes in

organizational

structures

Changes in the

role of the case

worker

Program

accessibility

and changes in

certification

systems

Changes in

client tracking

and

accountability

systems

Conforming

 the State food

 stamp

 program and

TANF program

Increased

program

monitoring

and evaluation

Alabama ✔✔ ✔

Alaska ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

District of 

 Columbia ✔✔ ✔

Florida ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Georgia ✔✔ ✔

Hawaii ✔ ✔

Idaho ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔ ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔

Iowa ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔✔ ✔✔

Kentucky ✔ ✔

Louisiana ✔ ✔✔

Maine ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Maryland ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Massachusetts ✔ ✔

Michigan ✔ ✔

Minnesota ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Missouri ✔✔ ✔

Montana ✔✔ ✔

Nebraska ✔✔ ✔

Nevada ✔✔ ✔

New Hampshire ✔✔ ✔

New Jersey ✔✔ ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Appendix table 2—State re-engineering efforts that occurred as a result of welfare

reform prior to FY 2000 by category of change

—Continued
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 85

State

Changes in

organizational

structures

Changes in the

role of the case

worker

 Program

 accessibility

 and changes in

 certification

 systems

Changes in

client tracking

and

accountability

systems

 Conforming

 the State food

 stamp

 program and

TANF program

Increased

program

monitoring

and evaluation

Appendix table 2—State re-engineering efforts that occurred as a result of welfare reform 

prior to FY 2000 by category of change—Continued

North Dakota ✔ ✔

Ohio ✔ ✔✔ ✔✔

Oklahoma ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔✔ ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔ ✔

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina ✔✔ ✔

South Dakota ✔ ✔✔ ✔

Tennessee ✔ ✔

Texas ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Utah ✔ ✔ ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔✔ ✔

Washington ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔✔

Wisconsin ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Wyoming ✔✔ ✔

New York ✔ ✔✔

North Carolina ✔ ✔✔
86 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

State

Changes in

organizational

structures

Changes in the

role of the case

worker

Program

accessibility

and changes in

certification

systems

Changes in

client tracking

and

accountability

systems

Conforming

the State food

stamp

 program and

TANF program

Increased

program

monitoring

and evaluation

Appendix table 3—State re-engineering efforts that occurred during FY 2000 by category

of change

Alabama

Alaska ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔ ✔

Colorado

Connecticut ✔

District of 

 Columbia ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔ ✔✔

Hawaii

Idaho ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔ ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana ✔ ✔

Maine ✔ ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi

Missouri ✔ ✔

Montana ✔✔ ✔

Nebraska

Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔

—Continued
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 87

State

Changes in

organizational

structures

Changes in the

role of the case

worker

Program

accessibility

and changes in

certification

systems

Changes in

client tracking

and

accountability

systems

Conforming

the State food

stamp

 program and

TANF program

Increased

program

monitoring

and evaluation

North Dakota ✔ ✔

Ohio ✔ ✔ ✔

Oklahoma ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔ ✔ ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔

Rhode Island ✔ ✔

South Carolina ✔ ✔ ✔

South Dakota ✔ ✔

Tennessee ✔

Texas ✔

Utah ✔ ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming

Appendix table 3—State re-engineering efforts that occurred during FY 2000 by category 

of change—Continued

New York

North Carolina

✔ ✔ ✔

✔
88 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

—Continued

Appendix table 4—States by size of food stamp caseload

Size of food stamp caseload

State Small Medium Large

Alabama ✔

Alaska ✔

Arizona ✔

Arkansas ✔

California ✔

Colorado ✔

Connecticut ✔

District of Columbia ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔

Hawaii ✔

Idaho ✔

Illinois ✔

Indiana ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana ✔

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan ✔

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi ✔

Missouri ✔

Montana ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico ✔

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 89

Size of food stamp caseload

State Small Medium Large

North Dakota ✔

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota ✔

Tennessee ✔

Texas ✔

Utah ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔

Washington ✔

West Virginia ✔

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming ✔

Appendix table 4—States by size of food stamp caseload—Continued
90 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 5—States making changes to the role of the caseworker as a result of

welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by goal

Alaska ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔✔

✔

Hawaii ✔ ✔

Idaho ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔

Louisiana ✔

Maryland ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Michigan ✔ ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔ ✔ ✔

✔

New York ✔

South Carolina ✔ ✔ ✔

✔

Tennessee ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔ ✔

Connecticut

New Mexico

Goal of re-engineering change

State

Increase

coordination

between FSP

and TANF

program

Reduce

fragmentation

in the provision

of services

Increase

efficiency in

the

operation

of FSP

Increase

coordination

between FSP

and programs

other than

TANF Other

South Dakota
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 91

Appendix table 6—States making changes to the role of the caseworker as a result of welfare reform

prior to FY 2000 by required level of approval

State Other

Alaska ✔

Arizona ✔

Connecticut ✔

Idaho ✔

Kansas

Louisiana ✔

Maryland ✔✔ ✔

Michigan ✔ ✔✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔

New Mexico ✔

New York ✔ ✔

South Carolina ✔ ✔

South Dakota ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔

Civil

Service

Board or

State

personnel

agency

Governor’s

office

State

Labor

unions or

State

employee

agency

legislature

Level of approval
92 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

—Continued

Appendix table 7—States increasing access to their Food Stamp Program as a result of 

welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of change

Type of change

State

Certification

process

Local office

practices Increasing outreach

Alabama ✔

Alaska ✔

Arizona ✔✔✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔✔✔

Colorado ✔✔✔

Connecticut ✔✔✔

District of Columbia ✔ ✔ ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔✔✔

Idaho ✔✔✔

Indiana ✔✔✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔ ✔

Kentucky ✔

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔✔✔

Massachusetts ✔ ✔

Minnesota ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔

Missouri ✔

Montana ✔ ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada ✔✔✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 93

Appendix table 7—States increasing access to their Food Stamp Program as a result of 

welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of change—Continued

Type of change

State

Certification

process

Local office

practices Increasing outreach

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota ✔

Ohio ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔ ✔✔

Pennsylvania ✔

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota ✔ ✔

Texas ✔

Utah ✔ ✔✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔

Wyoming ✔ ✔
94

✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 8—States changing local office practices as a result of welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of change

Type of change

State

Arizona ✔ ✔✔ ✔Arkansas ✔ ✔✔ ✔California ✔ ✔Colorado ✔ ✔Connecticut ✔ ✔ ✔District of Columbia ✔ ✔Georgia ✔Idaho ✔ ✔✔✔Indiana ✔Kansas ✔Maryland ✔ ✔Massachusetts ✔Minnesota ✔ ✔

 Provide  child care at FS offices

 Improve transportation  to FS offices

 Establish satellite  offices to  take FS  applications  and provide re-certifications

 Establish satellite  offices to  only take FS applications

 Outstation  workers at other agencies

 Provide  weekend  and/or evening hours

 Use "private partners" to  assist clientsapplying for FS

—Continued

Missouri ✔ ✔Montana ✔ ✔✔

✔
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 95 Appendix table 8—States changing local office practices as a result of welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of change—Continued Type of change State Provide child care at FS offices Improve transportation to FS offices Establish satellite offices to only take FS applications Outstation workers at other agencies Provide weekend and/or evening hours Use "private partners" to assist clients applying for FS Nevada ✔ ✔ ✔✔ New Hampshire ✔ ✔ New Jersey ✔ North Carolina ✔ Ohio ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Oregon ✔ ✔✔ Pennsylvania ✔ South Carolina ✔ South Dakota ✔ Texas ✔ Utah ✔ ✔ Wisconsin ✔✔ ✔ ✔ Wyoming ✔ Establish satellite offices to take FS applications and provide re-certifications
96

✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 9—States planning to change local office practices during FY 2000 by type of a change

Type of change

State

 Provide  child care at FS offices

 Improve transportation  to FS offices

 Establish satellite  offices to  only take FS applications

 Outstation  workers at other agencies

 Provide  weekend  and/or evening hours

 Use "private partners" to assist clientsapplying for FS

 Establish satellite  offices to  take FS  applications  and provide re-certifications

Arizona ✔Arkansas ✔✔✔Indiana ✔Maryland ✔ ✔

Massachusetts ✔Montana ✔ ✔✔Nevada ✔New York ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Ohio ✔✔ ✔ ✔South Carolina ✔Texas ✔ ✔
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 97

Appendix table 10 States making changes to improve outreach as a result of welfare 

reform prior to FY 2000 by method of outreach

Method of outreach

State Other

Arizona ✔

Arkansas ✔

California ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔

District of Columbia ✔ ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔

Idaho ✔✔✔

Indiana ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi ✔

Nevada ✔ ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔

Ohio ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔

South Dakota ✔

Utah ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔

 Distribute 

 printed

 materials

 PSAs or 

 notices on 

TV or radio

 Distribute 

 food stamp 

 applications

 Referrals

 from other

 social

 service

 programs

—
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 98

Appendix table 11—States increasing their use of databases for client record matching

as a result of welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of database

Type of Database

State New hire Criminal records Social Security

Administration

Alabama ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔✔

Connecticut ✔

Georgia ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔

Louisiana ✔

Maryland ✔

Mississippi ✔

Montana ✔ ✔

New Hampshire ✔ ✔✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔ ✔✔

North Dakota ✔ ✔

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔

Tennessee ✔ ✔

Texas ✔

Utah ✔

Vermont ✔

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming ✔
Re-engineering the Welfare System—A Study of Administrative Changes to the Food

Stamp Program: Final Report. Prepared by Health Systems Research, Inc., and The Urban

Institute for the Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 17.

Abstract

All States in a recent study undertook at least one “re-engineering” activity in their Food

Stamp Programs (FSPs) as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). In addition, 35 States implemented changes in 3 or

more re-engineering categories, while 24 States planned changes for fiscal year (FY) 2000 in

2 or more categories. PRWORA dramatically changed the systems that provide cash assistance and food stamps to low-income Americans. Along with mandatory changes in food

stamp eligibility, States were given greater flexibility to administer their programs to meet

their unique needs. While States had begun changing the way program services were delivered before passage of welfare reform legislation, PRWORA provided additional opportunities for them to “re-engineer” FSPs. The purpose of the study was to examine State-level

administrative changes to FSPs as a result of PRWORA, both those made before FY 2000

and those planned for FY 2000. This report provides the study results. For the State data collection instrument, see Re-engineering the Welfare System—A Study of Administrative

Changes to the Food Stamp Program: State Data Collection Instrument at

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan01009.

Keywords: PRWORA, service delivery, structure, casework, accessibility, client tracking,

monitoring, conforming

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all of the people who were involved in the data collection

process for this study and who contributed to the development of this report. We are especially

grateful to the many food stamp officials who took time out of their busy schedules to speak to

us about administrative changes that were made to their State Food Stamp Programs after

Federal welfare reform. We want to thank Chris Miller and Mary Harkins from Health Systems

Research, who had a strong role in the data collection process, and Brandy Bauer, Shannon

Campbell, Isha Fleming, and Brooke Hardison, who played critical roles in the production of

this report. We also want to acknowledge the support and assistance we received from

Elizabeth Dagata, the project officer from the Economic Research Service, who provided valuable guidance and thoughtful review. Finally, we would like to thank Nancy Pindus, Robin

Koralek, and Randy Capps from the Urban Institute, who played a critical role in conducting

the case study visits.

This report was prepared under a research grant from the Economic Research Service. Section

A and the appendix were prepared by Loren Bell, Susan Pachikara, Susan Schreiber Williams,

and Vivian Gabor of Health Systems Research, Inc. Section B was prepared by Health Systems

Research and The Urban Institute. The views expressed are those of Health Systems Research

and The Urban Institute and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.

Washington, DC 20036-5831 June 2002
Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Background of the Food Stamp Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Study Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Research Plan and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Section A: State Survey

I. Overview of State Re-Engineering Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Categories of Administrative Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Number and Type of State Administrative Changes in the

FSP After PRWORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Comparison of Changes by State FSP Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . .11

States Reporting Variation in Administrative Changes 

for Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

II. State FSP Administrative Changes Since Welfare Reform . . . . . . . .19

Changes in Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Changes in the Role of the Caseworker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Changes in Program Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Changes in Client Tracking Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Changes in Program Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Conforming FSP and TANF Program Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

III. Discussion and Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Discussion of Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Section B: Case Study Reports

Overview and Summary of Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Overview of Case Study Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Overview of the Case Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Individual Case Study Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

ii ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Number of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of 

welfare reform before FY 2000 by number of category changes . . . . . . .10

2 Number of re-engineering efforts made by States as a result of 

welfare reform before FY 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

3 Number of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of 

welfare reform before FY 2000 by category of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

4 Number of re-engineering efforts planned by States for FY 2000 . . . . . .12

5 Number of States planning re-engineering efforts during 

FY 2000 by number of category changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

6 Number of States planning re-engineering efforts during 

FY 2000 by category of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

7 County- and State-administered programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

8 Percentage of State- and county-administered States enacting 

re-engineering changes as a result of welfare reform before 

FY 2000 by number of category changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

9 Percentage of State- and county-administered States

implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare 

reform before FY 2000 by category of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

10 Percentage of State- and county-administered States planning

re-engineering efforts during FY 2000 by category of change . . . . . . . . .16

11 Percentage of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a

result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by number of category

changes and by State caseload size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

12 Percentage of States enacting re-engineering efforts as a result 

of welfare reform before FY 2000 by category of change and 

State caseload size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

13 States making changes based on differing needs for urban 

and rural areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

14 Number of States combining food stamp activities with those 

previously performed by other agencies as a result of welfare 

reform before FY 2000 by type of program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

15 Number of States obtaining approval for caseworker role changes 

as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of agency 

conducting approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ iii
Figure Page

16 Number of States implementing changes to improve accessibility 

to the Food Stamp Program as a result of welfare reform before 

FY 2000 by number of changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

17 Number of changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp 

Program as a result of welfare reform implemented by States 

before FY 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

18 Number of States planning changes to improve accessibility to the 

Food Stamp Program during FY 2000 by number of changes . . . . . . . . .26

19 Number of States planning changes to improve accessibility to the 

Food Stamp Program during FY 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

20 Number of States changing local office practices as a result of welfare

reform before FY 2000 by type of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

21 Number of States targeting specific populations with outreach efforts 

as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of population . . . .30

22 Number of States planning to target specific populations with outreach

efforts during FY 2000 by type of population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

23 Number of States increasing monitoring efforts as a result of 

welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

24 Number of States coordinating TANF program rules to conform with

Federal Food Stamp Program rules as a result of welfare reform before 

FY 2000 by type of rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

iv ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
List of Tables

Table Page

1 States changing organizational structure by type of approach . . . . . . . . . .20

2 States making changes to their food stamp application processes

by type of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

3 States making changes to improve accessibility based on differing 

needs for urban and rural areas by type of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

4 States reporting program monitoring activities by type of activity . . . . . . .33

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ v
Executive Summary

All States in a recent study undertook at least one “re-engineering” activity in

their Food Stamp Programs (FSPs) as a result of the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). In addition, 35

States implemented changes in 3 or more re-engineering categories, while 24

States planned changes for FY 2000 in 2 or more categories. PRWORA dramatically changed the systems that provide cash assistance and food stamps to lowincome Americans. Along with mandatory changes in food stamp eligibility,

States were given greater flexibility to administer their programs to meet their

unique needs. While States had begun changing the way program services were

delivered before passage of welfare reform legislation, PRWORA provided

additional opportunities for them to “re-engineer” FSPs. The purpose of the

study was to examine State-level administrative changes to FSPs as a result of

PRWORA, both those made before fiscal year (FY) 2000 and those planned for

FY 2000.

To facilitate analysis of the broad array of State FSP re-engineering changes,

the information gathered for this study was categorized into six subject areas,

as follows:

1. Changes in State organizational structure;

2. Changes in the role of the caseworker;

3. Efforts to improve program accessibility and client certification;

4. Changes in client tracking and accountability systems;

5. Attempts to conform the FSP and TANF program rules; and

6. Efforts to increase program monitoring and evaluation.

The major research questions driving the study were:

• To what extent have States implemented administrative or operational changes

to their FSPs from the passage of PRWORA through FY 1999?

• To what extent were States planning to make changes to their FSP administrative practices or program operations during FY 2000?

• What were the primary motivating factors identified by States for making

administrative and operational changes to their FSPs, and to what extent did

the re-engineering efforts require the approval of different branches of 

government?

• How did efforts to re-engineer FSPs vary between States with county-administered programs and those who administer their FSPs at the State level?

Overview of the Study Methodology and Organization 

of the Final Report

A total of 49 States and the District of Columbia agreed to participate in the

study. Data were collected from States by a three-step process. First, States were

asked to provide documents that contained descriptions of their re-engineering

efforts, such as budget proposals, strategic planning documents, and legislative

initiatives. A total of 24 States were able to provide these documents, and data

for each of the 6 re-engineering categories were abstracted from them. Second,

all States in the study participated in a followup telephone survey, either to clarvi ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
ify data in the descriptive documents or to provide data not available through

written sources. Finally, a series of six case studies was conducted to examine

local implementation of re-engineering efforts. This report presents the findings

from the data abstraction process and the followup survey. 

The report is organized into two sections. Section I is divided into four chapters.

Chapter I provides an overview of the study and discusses the methodology

used for data collection and analysis. Findings from the study are organized into

chapters II and III, with chapter II providing “the big picture” of State re-engineering efforts and chapter III examining findings within each of the six categories of re-engineering change. Chapter IV provides a summary of key findings and implications for future research. Section II presents data from the case

study reports. The data collection instrument, Re-engineering the Welfare

System—A Study of Administrative Changes to the Food Stamp Program: State

Data Collection Instrument, can be found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan01009.

Summary of Key Findings on State Re-engineering Efforts

All the States included in the study undertook at least one re-engineering activity as a result of PRWORA, with many States implementing and planning reengineering efforts in more than one category. Thirty-five States implemented

changes in 3 or more re-engineering categories, while 24 States planned

changes for FY 2000 in 2 or more categories. The figure on page viii displays

the number of States planning and implementing re-engineering changes as a

result of PRWORA, by categories of the changes. (Some States reported

changes in more than one category.)

Because State FSP agencies are likely to have limited resources, activities in

multiple re-engineering categories might not be expected. The fact that 35 States

(70 percent) implemented activities falling into 3 or more categories shows the

importance of FSP re-engineering to State program administrators. 

Additional key findings are that: 

• A significant effort was focused on improving access to the FSP. Thirty-nine of

the 50 States (78 percent) implemented changes to improve program accessibility. In addition, 28 States planned to implement changes in FY 2000. This

may be related to the fact that States have become concerned about the decline

of FSP caseloads since welfare reform. 

• With the opportunity to bring FSPs into conformity with TANF programs, it

was expected that States would take steps to consolidate program functions by

changing their organizational structures. Thirty-four States (68 percent) took

steps to conform TANF and FSP rules, and 11 States reported changing their

organizational structures. However, only three cited conforming TANF and FSP

as the goal of their organizational changes. It would appear that PRWORA had

a modest impact on changing organizational structures of FSP offices.

• Twenty-four States implemented increased program monitoring and evaluation, while 15 States planned to implement some form of monitoring and evaluation in FY 2000. FSP client participation rates were the primary focus of

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ vii
increased monitoring, followed by tracking and evaluating FSP client satisfaction with program services and efforts to improve program accessibility.

• County-administered States (those in which FSP administration has been

devolved to the county) were expected to show less re-engineering activity

at the State level—the level of this study—than those whose FSPs were Stateadministered, since it was assumed that re-engineering efforts by the former

would be at the county level. In fact, 87 percent of county-administered States

undertook changes in three or more re-engineering categories, as compared

with 67 percent of the State-administered States. In addition, almost all (92

percent) of the county-administered States undertook changes to improve program accessibility. 

Data from this study provide a thorough overview of the administrative and

operational changes States have made or were planning to make to their FSPs in

response to welfare reform. These data provide baseline information about program changes that can be used for future evaluations of the consequences of reengineering efforts. In addition, this report can be used by State FSP administrators planning changes in a particular category to help generate ideas about

approaches that may work for their State.

viii ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

11

1

4

39

28

40

18

34

7

24

15

18

Number of States planning and implementing re-engineering efforts

by category of change

Implemented before FY 2000

Planned before FY 2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

 Role of the

 caseworker

 Program

 accessibility 

 and

 certification 

 systems 

 Client 

 tracking and 

 accountability

 systems

Conforming 

 TANF

 and 

 FSP rules

 Program

 monitoring

and evaluation

Category of change

Number of States

Organizational

 structure 
Introduction

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) dramatically

changed the system that had provided cash assistance

and food stamp benefits to low-income households

since the early 1970s. While the primary focus of

PRWORA was to replace the Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC) Federal entitlement program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) block grant, it also included major

reforms to the Food Stamp Program (FSP). Eligibility

rules were changed for some categories of low-income

clients, benefits were modestly scaled back, and States

were given increased flexibility to coordinate the

administration of the FSP with their TANF programs.

As a result of this increased flexibility and the reduction in TANF participation, States not only changed

their FSP policies, but also changed many of the traditional administrative operations of the program at the

State and local levels. The extent and nature of these

administrative changes are the subject of this report.

Background of the Food Stamp Program

The primary objective of the FSP is to increase the

food purchasing power of low-income citizens so that

they may obtain a nutritious diet. The FSP provides

food assistance in the form of food coupons or electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards that are redeemable

at authorized food stores. FSP benefits are available to

all persons who meet the national eligibility criteria

established in each of three broad areas: income level,

value of assets, and willingness to comply with work

requirements. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides broad

policy guidance to the States for implementing the

Federal standards for the FSP set by Congress. 

Day-to-day administration of the program is carried

out by the States and, in some areas, by local governments under State supervision (“county-administered”

programs), with the administrative costs shared by

Federal, State, and local governments. States have

always had a great deal of flexibility in how they

administer the FSP, which was further expanded with

the removal of certain State mandates and the creation

of many new options for program administration in

PRWORA. To accomplish the Federal goals for the

FSP, States provided food stamp benefits to a monthly

average of over 18 million individuals in 7.67 million

households in Federal fiscal year (FY) 1999 (Food and

Nutrition Service, 2000 (a)).

In 1996, PRWORA brought major changes to the FSP.

The legislation includes more than 60 provisions

directly affecting the FSP. Some of these changes had

significant effects on food stamp eligibility and benefits, while others may have changed how States administer the FSP. The key provisions of PRWORA that

affect FSP eligibility and benefits include:

• Eligibility Restrictions 

 Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents 

(ABAWDs). PRWORA imposed the first time 

limits on FSP participation. ABAWDs are only 

allowed to receive food stamps for 3 months in 

each 36-month period, if they are not working or 

participating in a workfare or employment and 

training program that involves more than a job 

search. This requirement, however, can be and 

has been waived in some areas within individual 

States. This new eligibility rule requires States to 

develop tracking systems to determine when these

individuals hit their food stamp time limit and are 

no longer eligible to receive food stamps.

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 1

Re-engineering the Welfare System—

A Study of Administrative Changes

to the Food Stamp Program

Final Report
 Immigrants. PRWORA also ended food stamp 

eligibility for many legal immigrants. Noncitizen 

eligibility now depends on an array of rules 

involving age, date of U.S. entry, veteran status, 

work history with social security coverage, dis

abilitystatus, and refugee status. 

• Reductions in Benefit Levels. PRWORA also 

reduced the maximum food stamp benefit level,

froze the standard deduction at FY 1996 levels,

established lower caps on the excess shelter deduction and froze them at FY 2001 levels, and required

households to include State energy assistance and

the earnings of children under age 18 as income.

• Electronic Benefit Transfer. Since the 1980s States

have been issuing food stamp benefits through electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems, where participants are provided food stamp debit cards. Each time

a participant shops at a participating retailer, he or

she submits the debit card and the system draws

down on available funds in the household’s food

stamp account after the food purchase is made.

PRWORA requires all States to set up EBT systems

by the year 2002. About 75 percent of food stamp

benefits are currently being issued by EBT.

In addition to changing the eligibility and benefit provisions of the FSP, PRWORA also established new

requirements and gave States more freedom to coordinate rules in the Food Stamp and TANF programs. Key

PRWORA provisions in this area are described below.

• Simplified Food Stamp Program. Given the significant differences in each State’s eligibility determination rules for TANF and the Federal standard rules

for food stamps, PRWORA gives States the option

to operate an approved Simplified Food Stamp

Program under which States can determine food

stamp benefits using TANF rules, regular food

stamp rules, or a combination of the two, as long as

the new rules do not reduce food stamp benefits

more than a certain amount or increase Federal food

stamp costs.

• Prohibition on Increasing Food Stamp Benefits 

for Sanctioned TANF Households. Administrative 

action by the Clinton Administration, just prior to 

passage of PRWORA, prohibited an increase in 

food stamp benefits when a household’s income is 

reduced because of a sanction imposed under TANF 

for noncompliance with TANF work or with other 

requirements (such as school attendance or immunization of children). Before this action, food stamp 

benefits would have increased and partially compensated for the loss of cash assistance when a 

household’s TANF benefits were reduced due to a 

TANF sanction.

• Optional Coordination of TANF and Food Stamp 

Sanctions. PRWORA also gives States the authority to either reduce food stamp benefits or disqualify from food stamps the noncompliant individual in

the sanctioned TANF household. These PRWORA

provisions also allow all States the ability to sanction the food stamp benefits of a TANF household 

with children under age 6—a group that had previously been exempt from any food stamp sanctions. 

According to published survey data on State food 

stamp choices after PRWORA, 12 States had chosen to disqualify food stamp recipients for failure 

to comply with TANF and 7 States selected the 

option to reduce food stamp benefits when a household is sanctioned for noncompliance with a TANF 

rule (Gabor and Botsko, 1998).

• Optional Child Support Sanctions. States also 

have the option of disqualifying a custodial or noncustodial parent from food stamps until they cooperate with child support enforcement offices. Eight 

States chose this option (Gabor and Botsko, 1998).

• Elimination of Joint Application Mandate.

PRWORA eliminated the requirement that States

have a joint application form and process for food

stamps and cash assistance. While most States

have retained the joint application form, a few

States conduct the application for food stamps and

TANF at separate locations for persons applying

for both programs (Gabor and Botsko, 1998). 

Most important, the new law provided increased flexibility for States to customize their administration of

the FSP to conform to changes being made in TANF,

since these two programs are usually administered by

the same State agency and at the same local welfare

office sites. These changes in program administration

could create significant variation among programs

across the country. In some cases, these State variations will conform to changes being made for recipients of the TANF block grant program. In other cases,

State variations in FSP administration will be specific

to FSP recipients. 

2 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Study Purpose 

The goal of this study is to inform Federal and State

officials of the ways States have altered or re-engineered the FSP at the State and local levels after passage of PRWORA. Recognizing that States have been

making a wide array of changes to their FSP since

implementation of welfare reform, both in policy and

administrative practices, and that the timing of State

implementation of welfare reform has varied greatly,

the scope of this study was specifically defined to

include only administrative and operational practices

and only changes in those practices that were implemented or planned to be implemented after passage 

of PRWORA.

The information gathered for this study has two primary uses. First, the data will provide a thorough

overview of the administrative and operational

changes States have made to their FSPs, or were planning to make, in response to welfare reform. It will

enable prediction of changes likely to be seen in the

near future. In addition, information about the types of

administrative changes States made, and about some of

the motivations of the State program administrators in

making these changes, provides baseline information

for future evaluations of the intentional and unintentional consequences of these changes. Finally, this

report will be informative for State program administrators who have not yet implemented administrative

and operational changes, who can consider how these

changes may apply to their own State FSP agencies

and local delivery systems.

Research Plan and Methodology

Categories of State Administrative Changes

To describe and facilitate analysis of the broad array of

State FSP re-engineering efforts, the information gathered from the States was divided into the following six

categories of change.

• Changes in Organizational Structures. This 

includes the ways States have restructured program 

functions and organizational units as a result of 

PRWORA. In order to be included in the study, the 

organizational changes must have directly impacted 

the operation of the FSP.

• Changes in the Role of the Caseworker. This 

includes the ways States have altered the role of the 

caseworkers who are serving food stamp clients at 

the local level. For the purpose of this study, the 

term “caseworker” includes any staff members that 

determine eligibility, conduct ongoing eligibility 

assessments, or provide case management services 

to food stamp recipients. 

• Program Accessibility and Client Certification.

Once a potential client decides he/she is interested in

applying for program benefits, a number of factors

influence ability to apply for these benefits. First, the

ability of a client to present himself or herself at the

local FSP office may be an issue. Second, the complexity of the application process may influence

whether the client feels it is worth the time and effort

to complete the application process. 

This category includes data on two major activities

undertaken by States. First, the study examined

efforts by States to improve the client’s ability to

physically access the local FSP office. An example of

administrative changes in this category is the development of support services, such as childcare and

transportation, that local offices may offer to eligible

individuals who want to apply for food stamps.

Improving accessibility also covers expanding office

hours to better serve working clients, opening additional offices in outlying areas, and sending caseworkers to other health and social service program

locations to take applications. In addition, State outreach efforts to increase awareness of the FSP, such

as publicizing the program through print and public

service announcements, were examined. 

A second activity in this category consisted of

changes States have made to their application process

and certification systems, both through increased use

of computer technology and by improving their certification process and/or food stamp application form.

Changes in client certification may have an impact

on whether clients find it easy to access the program

by completing their applications. For example, if

States increased the required documentation, clients

might be less likely to complete the application

process. In contrast, if the State simplified its application or recertification process, clients might be

more likely to enroll and continue in the program.

• Changes in Client Tracking and Accountability

Systems. For this category, the study examined

States’ use of database matching to support program

integrity efforts, their development of computer software to track sanction policies and time limits, and

their efforts to reduce error rates. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 3
• Conforming FSP and TANF Program Rules. This

includes information describing the extent to which

States decided to align TANF Program rules and FSP

rules.

• Program Monitoring and Evaluation. This category

summarizes States’ efforts to monitor and evaluate

their FSPs. For the purpose of this study, efforts to

monitor the FSP include: (1) routine assessment of

program operations, (2) attempts to track food stamp

clients after they leave the program, and (3) formal

evaluations States have undertaken to assess the

impact of policy or operational changes.

The data collected and analyzed for this study are

based on information gathered from the States in FY

2000 (see the data collection methods section). At the

time of the data collection, States were asked to provide information about changes they had implemented

since the passage of PRWORA, as well as any changes

they were planning to implement during the remainder

of the fiscal year. While some States have already

made many of their welfare reform-related FSP policy

changes, implementation is proceeding in others at

varying speeds. Some of the administrative changes

discussed in this report have yet to be completed and

others are still in the planning stages, as State officials

assess how best to rework their administrative systems

to support their policy choices. However, it is clear at

this point that a number of the changes under PRWORA have important implications for administrative

practices and information systems. 

Research Questions

Since the overall purpose of the study is to provide a

description of the re-engineering efforts made by

States since the passage of welfare reform, the

research questions were designed both to capture

information that describes these initiatives and to

examine how the initiatives varied among States. In

addition, to the extent possible, the study examines

some of the motivation of State FSP administrators for

implementing the changes. The major research questions were as follows:

• To what extent have States implemented administrative or operational changes to their FSPs since the

passage of PRWORA through FY 1999?

• To what extent were States planning to make changes

to their FSP administrative practices or program

operations during FY 2000?

• What were the motivating factors identified by States

for making administrative and operational changes to

their FSPs, and to what extent do the re-engineering

efforts require the approval of different branches of

government prior to implementation?

• How did States’ efforts to re-engineer their FSPs vary

between States with county-administered programs

and those who administer the FSP at the State level?

Data Collection Methods

A three-part data collection process was developed to

gather detailed information on administrative changes

States have made or are making to their FSPs as a

result of PRWORA. This process included: (1)

abstracting data from State documents that describe

the program changes, (2) administering a followup

telephone survey to State officials to clarify and

enhance the data abstraction, and (3) conducting a

series of six case studies to examine local-level implementation of different re-engineering categories. The

primary focus of each of the individual case studies

was on one of the six major re-engineering categories.

The studies are presented and discussed in Section II

of this report.

Data Abstraction. The first step in the data collection

process was gathering existing documents from States

that described their re-engineering efforts in the six

categories of change. The goal of the data abstraction

process was to minimize the data collection burden on

State government officials. Allowing officials to send

existing documents for the project team to review and

cross reference with the survey document meant that

less of their time would be needed to obtain the data

required for this study. The data abstraction process

would also enable the team to ask fewer questions during the survey phase of the data collection process. In

addition, because few States were likely to have made

changes in all six categories, the review of existing

documents meant that the followup telephone survey

could focus on pertinent areas of administrative

change, reducing the burden on respondents. 

States were asked to send documents to the study team

describing relevant changes to their programs. The

types of documents gathered in this way were those

used by States to obtain legislative authorization or

project approval through an executive authority before

implementing any FSP changes. The research team

assumed that a number of documents generated from

the States’ planning and approval process could be for4 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
warded for data collection. The specific documents

requested were legislative budget change proposals,

departmental decision packages, strategic planning

documents, advance planning documents, and other

implementation plans.

However, because of the broad scope of the re-engineering categories and because the proposed changes

may have affected other programs beside the FSP,

some States informed the research team that gathering

relevant documents would be a very cumbersome

process. These State officials noted, for example, that

since a number of re-engineering efforts were initiated

outside the food stamp division, they would have to

retrieve documents from other organizational units.

Participants also indicated that relevant changes were

not always documented in a way that would be helpful

to the research team. In the end, 24 States were able to

forward documents, 26 States asked to participate in

the telephone survey only, and one State elected not to

participate in the study because its food stamp office

was significantly understaffed and it had not made any

re-engineering changes that qualified under the six categories. A listing of the 24 States that were able to provide documents is found in appendix table 1.

Followup Telephone Survey. The second step in the

data collection process consisted of conducting followup telephone surveys with State officials to clarify

information from State documents, gathering information that was lacking in the material collected, and

undertaking a data collection effort with States that

could not provide documents for the data abstraction.

The followup survey was useful not only for collecting

data, but also for ensuring that the information the

project team gleaned from the State documents was

correctly interpreted.

The survey played the central role in the overall data

collection. The survey instrument was divided into six

sections of questions, corresponding to each of the reengineering categories. Each section began with a

screening question to determine whether a re-engineering effort in that specific category had taken place or

was being planned for FY 2000. If the screening question received a negative response, that whole section

of the survey was skipped. 

As noted earlier, 49 States and the District of Columbia

participated in the study. Forty-eight respondents participated in the followup telephone survey. One variation in the data collection methods did occur towards

the end of the data collection period: at the request of

two States, the survey form was modified so it could be

completed by mail. These two States provided written

responses to the survey questions but did not participate in the followup telephone survey. The combined

data collection instrument for the document abstraction

and followup survey is presented in the State data collection instrument at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan01009.

Limitations of the Data

This study was designed to gather descriptive information about State re-engineering efforts in order to present a picture of how States have changed the administrative and operational practices of their FSP as a

result of welfare reform. Though the research was able

to accomplish this objective, a number of limitations

to the data must be considered in reviewing the findings, as explained below.

• Since this study was designed to capture changes 

that occurred as a result of PRWORA, information

on reforms that took place before PRWORA is not

included. It is well known that States’ welfare reform

efforts began before the passage of PRWORA

through the use of program waivers. For example,

Utah made changes to its organizational structure by

consolidating five agencies into a single Department

of Workforce Development, but the restructuring was

not included in the study because it took place prior

to the passage of PRWORA.

• Planned changes may not have been implemented.

The findings include information on changes that

were planned for FY 2000 but that had not been fully

implemented. A “planned” activity was defined as one

that had been approved for implementation but had

not begun or been completed at the time of the survey. However, this does not mean that the plan will

be implemented in FY 2000. Problems such as budgetary or staffing limitations might interfere with full

implementation of a State’s re-engineering changes. 

• Information was not collected to reflect changes

made at the county level in county-administered

States. Thirteen States pass on the responsibility of

running their TANF and FSP to local county jurisdictions. In these States, the local jurisdictions often

have the same kind of flexibility States have, and as

a result modify their administration of the FSP to

meet their own local needs and requirements. While

variations between county-administered programs

and State-administered programs are examined in the

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 5
findings section of this report, it was beyond the

scope of this study to examine variations in the

administration of the FSP among local areas within

county-administered programs. 

• Finally, it is important to note that the scope of State

re-engineering efforts is both diverse and, in some

cases, unique to particular situations within a State.

When States were developing their re-engineering

plans, they were not thinking about them in the categorical fashion used for this report, but rather were

considering how they might modify their overall FSP

administrative operations to meet the demands of

welfare reform. While this report can provide a broad

overview of re-engineering efforts, capturing data

about specific State-by-State implementation steps

and the level of effort needed to implement changes

was beyond the scope of this project. To capture this

type of detail would have required an expanded data

collection process and created a significantly heavier

burden on State program administrators. 

The methodology used for this study tried to capture

operational changes at a level that would allow comparable data to be examined across States. However, the

research team was aware that there was a great deal of

interest in examining some of the more innovative

approaches used by States to implement their changes.

Therefore, these new approaches were included in the

six case study reports, which are the subject of Volume

II of this report. These case study reports provide a

higher level of detail with regard to the implementation and operational aspects of the specific State’s reengineering effort.

Findings from this study are organized into three chapters. Chapter I provides an overview of the extent to

which States implemented re-engineering efforts in

one or more of the categories described previously.

Chapter II provides a detailed description of changes

made by States in each of the re-engineering categories. Chapter III presents a discussion of the implications of the findings for future research. Tables presenting more detailed information on key survey

responses from individual States are presented in

appendix A. 

6 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Section A: State Survey
Categories of Administrative Change

Each of the six categories of State FSP administrative

change analyzed for this study was chosen for its relevance to the FSP in a post-welfare reform environment. These categories were also chosen, in part,

because these areas were of greatest policy interest to

program managers at the Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS) and were items for which FNS had no standardized means of collecting information. The policy

premise upon which each of the six categories of

administrative change was determined is briefly summarized below.

• Change in Organizational Structure of the State

FSP Agency. In the broader context of State efforts

to reorganize the State agency administering TANF

and to increase the emphasis on moving clients into

the workforce, many States have been merging

agencies or consolidating functions at the State level.

With the increased flexibility in developing program

rules for the TANF block grant, some States are also

moving from a centralized to a decentralized

approach in the administration of their TANF programs. It was the purpose of this study to determine

whether and how the administration of the FSP was

altered during this same period.

• Changes in the Role of the Caseworker. As States are

changing the orientation of the TANF program to

focus on promoting work and self-sufficiency, and on

identifying barriers to employment and how to overcome them, the role of the caseworker is pivotal.

While States are required to pay more attention to

client eligibility restrictions in the FSP, they are also

changing the role of caseworkers who see TANF

clients into more of a case manager role. As a case

manager, the caseworker has added responsibilities,

related to helping clients to become more self-sufficient, to find support services such as child care, and

to identify opportunities for finding and maintaining a

job. In addition, some States began dividing caseworker responsibilities by the type of client being served.

For example, some States created classifications for

caseworkers who handled clients eligible for multiple

social and health services programs (TANF, FSP, and

Medicaid), while creating separate classifications for

workers who saw FSP participants only. This study

sought to determine whether and how States changed

the caseworker’s role and the division of caseworker

roles within local offices, including how caseworkers

served both TANF and non-TANF clients.

• Changes To Improve Program Accessibility and

Modify Client Certification Systems. The need to

improve access to the FSP became increasingly clear

in the mid-1990s, as program statistics indicated not

only a dramatic decline in TANF participation

nationwide, but also a significant decline in food

stamp participation. This study sought to determine

whether and how States varied in terms of their

efforts not only to bring in eligible clients to apply

for food stamps, but also whether and how they were

encouraging eligible households to stay in the FSP

after they took jobs and lost cash assistance. PRWORA gave States more flexibility in the food stamp

application process, and the study also looked at how

States modified the initial application and recertification processes in ways that may have affected program efficiency and coordination at the local level.

• Client Tracking and Accountability Systems. Unlike

those in the other categories, the State changes

assessed in this category are mostly a consequence of

new Federal requirements enacted by PRWORA.

Because of these new requirements, States need new

methods for collecting and tracking information

about applicants and current food stamp recipients in

order to determine FSP eligibility and prevent errors

in program certification. Examples of the new data

States are required to maintain or be able to track

through database matching efforts include: information on TANF clients’ participation in work programs

and their employment status; information on

ABAWDs’ employment, participation in FSP

employment and training activities, and months of

participation in the FSP; information on the immigration status and year of entry into the United States of

legal aliens; and information from Federal and State

records on clients’ prior convictions for felonies. 

• Conforming FSP and TANF Program Rules.

Because of the new option of the Simplified FSP,

along with Federal and State policymakers’ interest in

reducing program complexity and promoting conformity between TANF and the FSP, an important category of change was the extent of conformity that

States initiated between these two programs. The

study assessed the number of States that had con8 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

I. Overview of State Re-engineering Efforts
formed the FSP to their State TANF rules, either

through the Simplified FSP option or by shaping

TANF rules to existing Federal FSP rules. 

• Program Monitoring and Evaluation. With the significant changes in welfare reform, it became important for public policymakers to know how the

changes were affecting client outcomes. In the FSP, 

it is important to know whether and how States are

investing in systems or special studies to monitor and

evaluate the success of the FSP, both in terms of

employment outcomes and of ensuring that families

are receiving the food assistance to which they are

entitled. 

Number and Type of State

Administrative Changes in 

the FSP After PRWORA

This section discusses the extent to which States made

changes in their FSPs that fall into the six categories

of re-engineering changes. Two approaches were used

to examine these data. First, the total number of activities that fell into each of the six re-engineering categories was examined. These results are presented by

displaying the number of States completing or planning an activity that fell into the specific re-engineering category. Second, the total effort made by States 

is displayed, that is, the number of States that undertook or planned re-engineering activities in one or

more categories. Analyses of these data are therefore

designed to provide a “big picture” view of the efforts

made by States to re-engineer their FSPs. Details on

the specific activities themselves within each of the six

categories are presented in chapter II.

When viewing these data, it is important to remember

that from the State agency’s point of view, the changes

to its FSP were likely the result of a single effort to

change the way the program is administered. It was

the purpose of this study to examine the State efforts

and place the various activities into the six categories

of re-engineering changes. For example, if a State

decided to implement a project that redefined the role

of the caseworker, and at the same time restructured

reporting relationships by creating new organizational

units, the State was classified in this study as having

made changes in two re-engineering categories. 

The data discussed below are divided into two general

categories: activities implemented after PRWORA but

prior to FY 2000, followed by activities planned for

FY 2000.

How Many FSP Administrative Changes Did

States Implement After PRWORA? 

Every State agency included in the study (49 States

and the District of Columbia) reported making administrative changes to their FSP that fell into one or more

re-engineering categories. Figure 1 displays the number of States that have made changes, by the number

of categories into which those changes fall. As can be

seen, 48 (96 percent) of the States made changes that

fall into two or more categories, while 19 States (38

percent) made changes falling into four or more reengineering categories. Figure 2 displays each of the

States and the number of re-engineering categories in

which they made changes after PRWORA.

What Categories of Administrative Change

Were Most Common? 

As can be seen below in fig. 3, three categories of

change were reported by the majority of respondents

(see appendix table 2 for specific States). Forty States

reported they had enacted re-engineering efforts in the

category of client tracking and accountability systems—not a surprising finding, since this category of

change was driven in large part by new requirements

in the law. Thirty-nine States reported changes to

improve FSP accessibility and client certification systems. Responses in this latter category included States’

efforts to improve FSP participation by those eligible,

as well as efforts to modify their application and certification systems. While efforts for improving access

were consistent with the concern over large declines in

FSP participation and the increasing public attention

being paid to this, efforts to change the certification

system may also have been a result of needing to

reduce FSP certification error rates. 

Of interest—and an unexpected result—was the third

most frequently reported category of change: changes

to conform FSP and TANF rules. Though only a small

number of States opted to utilize the Simplified FSP

option, a total of 34 States reported some efforts to

conform the State’s TANF and FSP rules.

A large number of States made changes in more than

one of these three categories. Specifically, 22 States

made changes in all 3 of these categories and 32 States

made administrative changes in both their client tracking and accountability systems and in improving proEconomic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 9
10 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

One Two Three Four or more

Number of category changes

Figure 1

Number of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000

by number of category changes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Number of States

13

16

19

2

Figure 2

Number of re-engineering efforts by States as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

NY MA

VT

NH

ME

MI

AK

HI

N One change

Two changes

Three changes

Four or more

changes

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

Number of changes
gram accessibility and/or modifying their FSP certification systems.

What Changes Did States Plan to Implement

by the End of FY 2000?

In addition to asking about activities implemented

since 1996 as a result of welfare reform, the study also

questioned State officials about plans for implementing re-engineering efforts in FY 2000. States that were

planning to enact one or more re-engineering changes

in FY 2000 are displayed on the map in fig. 4. As can

be seen in fig. 5, only 10 States reported no plans to

implement any re-engineering efforts. One-third (16)

of States reported plans to implement one change, 17

planned to enact 2 categories of change, 6 planned on

implementing 3 changes, and one planned on implementing 5 changes by the end of the fiscal year. All 10

of the States not planning to implement any further

changes had already implemented 2 or more changes

in the prior years. 

Of the States planning to implement changes in FY

2000 (see appendix table 3 for listing of States), the

majority (28 States) planned to implement changes in

program accessibility and certification systems (fig. 6).

This may be a direct result of the concerns regarding

drops in FSP participation rates. It was also interesting

to note that nearly one-third of the States (15) planned

to increase their program monitoring and evaluation

activities in FY 2000. This also may be related to the

drop in program participation, as States may be wishing to analyze the impact of welfare reform on client

services and caseload. The increased interest in program monitoring and evaluation will be discussed further in chapters III and IV.

Comparison of Changes By 

State FSP Characteristics 

In examining the level of the effort with which States

have re-engineered their FSPs, it is important to assess

whether the extent of State changes was correlated

with the level at which the FSP is administered (county or State) and the size of the FSP caseload, as measured by the average number of monthly FSP participants in each State.

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 11

Figure 3 

Number of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 

by category of change

11

18

39 40

34

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

 Role of the

 caseworker

 Program

 accessibility and

 certification systems 

 Client 

 tracking and 

 accountability

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules

 Program

 monitoring 

and evaluation

Category of change

Number of States

Organizational

 structure 

 
12 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 4

Number of re-engineering efforts planned by States for FY 2000

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MI

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN

WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

MA NY

NH

ME

MI

HAWAII AK

HI No change

One change

Two changes

Three changes

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

VT

Four or more

changes

Number of changes

Figure 5

Number of States planning re-engineering efforts during FY 2000 by number of category changes

Zero One Two Three Four or more

Number of category changes

Number of States

0

5

10

15

20

25

10

16

17

6

1
Are There Differences Between States 

With County-Administered and StateAdministered Programs?

One hypothesis underlying this study was that States

that allow counties to administer their FSPs would be

more likely to place less emphasis on their re-engineering efforts than States that administer their programs at the State level. A total of 13 States (26 percent of the study States) have county-administered

FSPs. The map in fig. 7 shows which States run county-administered FSPs and which run their FSPs from

the State level.

Since the FSP rules are determined primarily at the

Federal level, the major difference between countyand State-administered FSPs is that, in the former, a

number of the decisions about administrative activities

related to direct client services are passed down to

local jurisdictions, depending on the level of flexibility

allowed by the State. It was therefore thought that in

county-administered States, the survey of State officials would find a smaller number of reported administrative changes because the re-engineering efforts

might occur at the local level, where staff were not

being surveyed. 

However, when the data were examined, this assumption was not validated. County-administered States

were just as active as, and in some categories more

active than, their State-administered counterparts.

When States with county-administered FSPs were

compared with States administering their programs at

the State level as to the number of re-engineering

efforts enacted since PRWORA, some interesting contrasts were noted. Figure 8 compares the number of

reengineering efforts enacted by the county- and Stateadministered programs. As can be seen, 7 of the States

with county-administered programs (54 percent) made

4 or more changes, while 12 States with State-administered programs (32 percent) made 4 or more changes.

All of the States with county-administered programs

made more than two changes.

When the States reporting different categories of reengineering efforts were broken down by countyadministered and State-administered programs, some

variations were found (fig. 9). While the most frequent

categories of change in both kinds of States were the

same—tracking and accountability systems, program

accessibility and certification systems, and conforming

the TANF and FSP rules—the most common types of

administrative changes among county-administered

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 13

1

4

28

18

7

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Organizational

 structure

Role of the

caseworker

 Program

 asccessibility 

and certification 

 systems

 Client tracking 

and accountability 

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules 

 Program

 monitoring and

 evaluation

Number of States

Number of States planning re-engineering efforts during FY 2000 by category of change

Figure 6

Category of change
14 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 8

Percentage of State- and county-administered States enacting re-engineering changes as a

result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by the number of category changes 

5

27

35

32

0

23 23

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

One Two Three Four or more

Number of category changes

Percentage of States

State-administered refers to States whose FSP's are administered at the State level; in county-administered States, FSP responsibiity has 

been given to the counties.

1

1 

State-administered (N=37)

County-administered (N=13)

Figure 7

County- and State-administered programs

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KA

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS

GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN

WV VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

MA NY

VT

NH

ME

MI

AK

County-administered

State-administered

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

IL

AL

HI

State-administered refers to States whose FSP's are administered at the State level; in county-administered States, 

FSP responsibiity has been given to the counties.

1

1
States (for 92 percent of the States) were changes in

program accessibility and certification systems, while

the most frequently reported administrative changes

among State-administered programs (for 81 percent of

the States) were changes to their client tracking and

accountability systems. 

When the types of changes planned for FY 2000 were

examined (fig. 10), the county- and State-administered

States had similar responses. For both kinds of programs, the most frequently reported planned change

was to their program accessibility and certification

systems—a program area that is being heavily stressed

by FNS and the public to ensure FSP access for the

working poor and those leaving the welfare rolls. In

the latter case, the county-administered States reported

planning additional changes in their program accessibility and certification systems, since the majority had

made such changes prior to FY 2000. While 7 of the

13 States with county-administered programs (54 percent) made organizational structure changes prior to

FY 2000, none were planning any changes of this type

in FY 2000. 

Do Differences Across States Relate to

Caseload Size?

Another factor believed to influence the variability of

State re-engineering efforts was the size of the State’s

food stamp caseload. For purposes of this study, States

were divided into those with small, medium, and large

FSPs, based upon their average monthly caseload in

FY 1999, the latest fiscal year for which final FSP participation data were available. A small State was

defined as having a caseload of 100,000 persons or

less, and a medium-sized State as having a caseload of

between 100,000 and 500,000. Large States had caseloads over 500,000 (Food and Nutrition Service

2000(b)). (See appendix table 4 for specific State

groupings.)

A total of 13 States fit into the small category, while

25 States were considered medium-sized and 12 were

defined as large. When comparing the variation in the

number of administrative changes across States by

caseload size, minimal differences were found (fig.

11). All of the States with medium and large caseloads

had enacted two or more administrative changes

through FY 1999, while 85 percent of the small States

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 15

Organizational

 structure

Role of the

caseworker

 Program

 accessibility 

and certification 

 systems

 Client tracking 

and accountability 

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules 

 Program

 monitoring and

 evaluation

Figure 9

Percentage of State- and county-administered States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of

welfare reform before FY 2000 by category of change

38

73

46

31

92

77

54

11

81

65

54

77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage of States

State-administered (N=37)

County-administered (N=13)

State-administered refers to States whose FSP's are administered at the State level; in county-administered States, FSP responsibiity has 

been given to the counties.

1

1 
16 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Organizational

 structure

Role of the

caseworker

 Program

 accessibility 

and certification 

 systems

 Client tracking 

and accountability 

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules 

 Program

 monitoring and

 evaluation

by category of change

Figure 10 

Percentage of State- and county-administered States planning re-engineering efforts during FY 2000 

3 5

54

32

16

22

15

62

46

8

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage of States

State-administered (N=37)

County-administered (N=13)

0

State-administered refers to States whose FSP's are administered at the State level; in county-administered States, FSP responsibiity has 

been given to the counties.

1

1 

One Two Three Four or more

Percentage of States

Figure 11 

Percentage of States implementing re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare reform before

FY 2000 by number of category changes and by State caseload size

15

8

54

23

32

24

44

33

25

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Small caseload (N=13)

Medium caseload (N=25)

Large caseload (N=12)

0 0
had enacted changes in two or more categories.

Seventy-seven percent of the small States had enacted

changes in three or more categories, as compared with

68 percent of the medium States and 66 percent of the

large States.

In contrast, there were some differences found by State

caseload size in the type of administrative changes

most frequently reported, as illustrated in fig. 12. All 13

States with small caseloads reported making changes in

their client tracking and accountability systems prior to

FY 1999. Among States with medium-sized food stamp

caseloads, the most common re-engineering efforts

were in program accessibility and certification systems,

with 20 of 25 States (80 percent) noting changes in this

category. The 12 States with large caseloads divided

their preference, with 10 (83 percent) making changes

in client tracking and accountability systems and the

same percentage making changes in conforming their

FSP to their TANF program.

States Reporting Variation 

in Administrative Changes 

for Rural Areas

In examining the activities States undertake to re-engineer their FSPs, one can not assume that the changes

in a particular category are the same across the State.

For example, States might modify their re-engineering

plans to accommodate the special needs of areas they

consider rural. As part of this study, State officials

were asked if they made different types of changes

within their States based upon whether the program

was providing services in a rural or an urban/suburban

area. For example, accessibility issues may be greater

in rural areas, which have limited transportation and

long distances between clients and FSP offices. In

addition, fewer staff may be available in rural areas,

requiring adjustments in the role of the caseworker,

such as creating generic caseworkers to serve all types

of food stamp clients; conversely, the availability of a

larger number of caseworkers in more urban areas may

result in more specialization of caseworker activities. 

For purposes of this study, States were not given a standardized definition of what constitutes a “rural” area,

but were simply asked if different re-engineering

changes were made based upon their own definitions of

rural. A total of 18 States indicated that they implemented different types of re-engineering efforts based upon

their perception of differing needs in rural areas of their

State. The map in fig. 13 displays the States that decided to vary their re-engineering efforts in this way.

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 17

Organizational

 structure

 Role of the

caseworker

 Program

 accessibility 

and certification 

 systems

 Client tracking 

and accountability 

 systems

Conforming TANF

 and FSP rules 

 Program

 monitoring and

 evaluation

Percentage of States

Figure 12 

Percentage of States enacting re-engineering efforts as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by 

category of change and State caseload size

8

23

85

62

31 28

44

80

68

64

56

25

33

67

83 83

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 Small caseload (N=13)

Medium caseload (N=25)

Large caseload (N=12)

 

100

110
States were specifically asked if they took different

approaches in their rural areas when they implemented

changes in the categories of program accessibility and

certification systems or when they changed the role of

the caseworkers serving food stamp clients. Nineteen

States reported some variation between changes they

made in rural versus nonrural areas, with 14 States

reporting variation in the area of program accessibility

and certification systems and 3 States reporting they

had customized changes in the role of the food stamp

caseworker for their rural areas. 

This chapter has provided a general overview of the

level of effort engaged in by States in re-engineering

their FSPs as a result of welfare reform. While an

examination into the categories of changes is necessary, it is important to note that the specific activities

undertaken by States within each category may vary

significantly. The next chapter provides an in-depth

look at the specific administrative and program operations activities that States performed within the various

re-engineering categories.

18 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 13

States making changes based on differing needs for urban and rural areas

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MI

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN

WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

MA NY VT

NH

ME

MI

HAWAII AK

HI

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

VT

States with changes
The key findings of the re-engineering survey are presented in this chapter. While the previous chapter

described aggregated categories of change in State

FSP administrative practices, this chapter details specific changes within these categories. Each of the six

re-engineering categories is broken into subcategories

to show in detail how States changed or planned to

change their FSPs. 

Changes in Organizational Structure

Reorganization efforts undertaken by States can vary

from simply restructuring reporting relationships within the organization to transferring major program units

and/or functions in or out of existing organizational

structures. Of interest to this study was whether the

increased FSP requirements of PRWORA, combined

with the added flexibility provided by PRWORA,

resulted in State reorganizations of FSP administration.

As was noted in chapter I, 11 of the 50 States included

in the study decided to undertake organizational

changes related to PRWORA. 

The primary goal of States’ reorganization efforts was

to increase overall program efficiency, expressed in

varying ways, with 6 of the 11 States noting this as

their main goal. Better coordination between TANF

and the FSP were cited by three States as their reason

for reorganizing. Other goals included becoming more

responsive to local needs, focusing on work issues and

self-sufficiency of clients, and improving program

accountability. 

States used a variety of approaches in changing their

organizational structures to meet their intended goals.

One of the key areas of interest for this study was the

extent to which State FSP administrative responsibilities were expanded or reduced as a result of PRWORA. To obtain information on this, a series of questions were asked regarding the movement of program

functions or operations in or out of the FSP administrative unit. Of particular interest was whether the

State FSPs added functions or program operations to

their existing organizational units, moved functions or

program operations out of the FSP administrative unit,

or made changes that could be classified as having

done both. Second, the study examined whether program operations and functions were added to the

responsibilities of the State agency administering the

FSP, whether the State eliminated functions that were

no longer necessary, or whether it created new functions within its organizational unit that did not exist

within the FSP before. The findings in these two areas

are discussed below.

Movement of Organizational Functions and 

Program Activities

One reason States may change their organizational

structures is to increase the span of control over program activities by moving functions into a single organizational unit (centralization) or to spread functions

that once had been carried out by a single organizational unit into multiple units (decentralization). This

study examined whether changes in organizational

structure resulted in a more centralized FSP or a more

decentralized program.

• Centralized Activities or Functions. States were

considered to have centralized an activity or function if one or both of two activities took place.

First, if a single State agency absorbed functions

that were previously performed by different organizational units within State government, it was

considered to have centralized its operations.

Second, if States decided to assume activities or

functions formerly conducted by local jurisdictions

(counties or other localities), then they were considered to have centralized a component of their FSP

operations. For example, if a State decided to take

over monitoring and evaluation activities that had

been the responsibility of local or regional food

stamp offices, it was considered to have centralized

this operation.

• Decentralized Activities or Functions. States were

considered to have decentralized activities or functions when the converse of the above activities took

place. First, if a State decided to identify functions

that had been the responsibility of a single organizational unit and distribute these functions to a number of organizational units within the State government, it was considered to have decentralized its

operations. In addition, if the State decided to move

functions that were previously the responsibility of

the State central office to regional or county agencies,

then the State was classified as having decentralized

that function as well. For example, if States moved

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 19

II. State FSP Administrative Changes Since Welfare Reform
the responsibility for conducting staff training to their

regional offices, then they were considered to have

decentralized that component of their operations.

The moves to centralize and decentralize State FSPs

are not mutually exclusive. A State can make changes

in one part of its program that result in a more centralized structure and at the same time can make other

changes to decentralize it. This was observed in this

study. Of the 11 States that made changes to their

organizational structure, 5 States undertook activities

that would be characterized as centralizing activities or

functions, while 6 States engaged in efforts that decentralized a program activity or function. However, 3 of

the 11 States reporting the above changes indicated

that they had taken actions that centralized one component of their program while decentralizing another.

Therefore, in an unduplicated count, three States

decentralized activities, two States centralized activities, and three States implemented a combination of

both. Also, three States implemented changes to their

organizational structure that resulted in no change in

centralization or decentralization of activities. Table 1

displays the States falling into each of these four categories. The case study conducted in Connecticut, discussed in the second section of this report, provides a

detailed description of how State reorganization efforts

can affect Food Stamp Program operations. 

In the States where functions were transferred to

another organizational unit or agency, the program elements most commonly transferred were activities related to employment and training. Five of the six States

that decentralized functions either transferred employment and training units to a different agency or department or contracted with outside agencies or private

organizations to perform this function.

Changes in the Responsibilities of the FSP

Administrative Agency

One focus of this study was how the changes in organizational structure discussed above affected the overall operation of the State FSP agency. In particular,

State officials were asked about two ways change

might have occurred. First, the officials were asked if

they made any efforts to take over functions or organizational units that were previously the responsibility of

organizations located in other State departments. Two

States reported that they had absorbed functions previously performed by different departments into the

State FSP agency. 

Second, State officials were asked if they had eliminated any organizational units or functions that were no

longer necessary as a result of PRWORA, or whether

new functions or organizational units were created that

had not been part of the State FSP agency prior to

PRWORA. None of the 11 States reported having

eliminated any functions or organizational units as no

longer necessary. Four States (California, New York,

Virginia, and Washington) noted that they had created

new organizational units that had not existed prior to

PRWORA to implement time limits for ABAWDs or

to increase employment and training programs targeted

to this population. This is likely the result of increased

tracking requirements for ABAWDs and the increased

funding of employment and training programs resulting from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

One of the interesting aspects of this re-engineering

category is the extent to which States eliminated jobs

or positions as a result of their organizational changes.

With State reorganization efforts, particularly those

that involved consolidating or transferring functions

from one organizational unit to another, it would seem

reasonable to expect that some jobs or positions would

be eliminated. However, none of the States that made

organizational changes reduced the number of State

positions in the FSP, even when organizational units

were consolidated. Finally, States were asked if they

planned to make any changes to their organizational

structure in FY 2000. The only State reporting a

planned change in FY 2000 was Arkansas, which had

adopted the Simplified Food Stamp Program option

but was planning to return to the standard Federal food

stamp rules.

20 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1—States changing organizational structure

by type of approach 

Both 

centralized Neither

and centralized

Centralized Decentralized decentralized nor

activities only activities only activities decentralized

Virginia Colorado California Maryland

Washington Idaho Connecticut Ohio

New Mexico New York Wisconsin 
Changes in the Role of the Caseworker

The second re-engineering category examined in this

study comprised changes that affected the role of the

caseworker. As noted in the previous chapter, the focus

of the welfare system on a “work and self-sufficiency”

model was likely to change the role of the caseworker.

Prior to PRWORA, the caseworker’s main role was to

determine eligibility and then to monitor changes in

income or other factors affecting eligibility status.

Often caseworkers specialized in particular programs,

which meant that clients participating in multiple programs dealt with different caseworkers. With the passage of PRWORA, States had the opportunity to

change the role of the caseworker in a number of

ways. Additionally, innovations in program administration, such as the establishment of call centers to recertify clients—along with the increased emphasis on

helping clients become self-sufficient—brought about

changes in caseworker responsibility in some States. 

These changes involve a redirection of program

responsibilities and activities beyond the traditional

role of determining eligibility. In some States, caseworkers have begun to assume responsibility for

assessing eligibility for both the TANF and FSP, as

well as for assisting clients with finding employment

or support services such as child care or transportation.

These changes in caseworker responsibility are documented through job descriptions and employment

requirements. 

However, there is a second type of change that, while

not detailed here, should be mentioned. This more

informal change in the role of the caseworker takes

place at the level of individual interaction between

caseworkers and clients. By taking on responsibilities

for helping the client become more self-sufficient, the

caseworkers may find themselves spending much more

time getting to know the needs of their clients and

helping them to develop plans for improving their

overall well-being. For example, there may be pressure

on the caseworker, whether real or implied, to move

clients off the welfare roles and into a job, or there

may be an effort on the part of the State to increase

support services to allow clients better access to

employment opportunities. As a result, the caseworker

may find that the fundamental relationship between the

client and caseworker has changed in ways that cannot

be described by examining civil service job descriptions. It is important to recognize that these types of

changes most probably occurred, even though examining them was not within the scope of this study. The

case study conducted in Kansas, in Section II of this

report, provides an excellent example of how caseworker roles were changed to consolidate functions. It

also demonstrates the dilemma faced by caseworkers

responsible for moving clients off the TANF rolls

while at the same time promoting FSP and Medicaid

participation.

State Goals Related to Changing the Role 

of the Caseworker

Of the 50 States included in the study, 18 reported that

they made changes to the role of their caseworkers

(see appendix table 5 for specific States). When they

were asked about their goals related to these changes,

four specific goals emerged. As was true with their

reorganization efforts, the States often had more than

one outcome in mind when planning changes to the

role of the caseworkers. The four main goals noted by

States were to:

• Increase coordination between the FSP and the

TANF program. This was the most frequent goal,

cited by 11 of the 18 States. In particular, some

States noted the importance of coordinating eligibility and case management services in order to

increase continuity between these programs. This

resulted in some caseworkers serving clients who

were eligible for both TANF and the FSP (and

Medicaid as well) and other caseworkers being

responsible for FSP-only participants. 

Note that one State, Arizona, is piloting a project that

takes the responsibility for certification of TANF

clients, and the commensurate responsibility of helping them find employment, away from government

workers and puts it in the hands of a private company. In addition, Arizona Native American tribes are

allowed to run their own TANF programs, with State

employees remaining responsible for FSP certification. This means that FSP caseworkers must work

with the private provider and tribal caseworkers to

coordinate certification activities, program change

reporting, and followup on persons leaving the

TANF program. The case study conducted in

Arizona describes how these two programs are functioning and the issues faced by public, tribal, and

private caseworkers.

• Reduce Fragmentation in the Provision of

Services. Nine States noted that they changed the

role of the caseworker as a way to accomplish this,

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 21
often by making caseworkers responsible for the

eligibility process for multiple programs. Some

States noted the benefits of information not having

to be collected repeatedly on the same household by

different workers and of caseworkers being able to

work with clients to identify additional services and

benefits for which they may be eligible. 

• Increase Efficiency of the FSP. Six States reported

improved efficiency in the operation of their FSP

after changing the role of the caseworker. Examples

included better management and coordination of

client self-sufficiency activities by caseworkers and

less time spent by caseworkers on the recertification

process. For instance, Utah, Georgia, and Texas

established centers to handle client status-change

reporting and recertification activities. Removing this

responsibility from the local caseworkers has both

helped to reduce error rates and allowed caseworkers

more time to assist clients at the time of certification.

Case studies in Texas and Georgia describe how such

“change centers” have affected both the role of the

caseworkers in those States (one State being “Stateadministered” and the other “county-administered”)

and the process by which clients are recertified for

the FSP.

• Increase Coordination Between the FSP and Programs other than TANF. Four States noted that their

main goal for changing the role of the caseworker

was to improve the coordination of food stamp services with other social and health services for nonTANF food stamp households. In particular, better

coordination with Medicaid and employment and

training activities was cited as a reason for broadening the role of caseworkers serving non-TANF

applicants.

Changing the responsibilities of the caseworker often

requires formal revisions to civil service job descriptions, which also may alter the education and experience requirements for the job. In addition, the caseworker may assume duties that were previously performed by staff in other job classifications. As a result,

the State FSP agency may have been required to obtain

formal approval for these changes from other governmental agencies, labor unions, or the State legislature.

In addition, once the changes were approved, a transition period was likely to have been allowed so caseworkers could receive training for their new responsibilities. The extent to which changes in the role of the

caseworker required formal changes in civil service

job classifications, the approval of other organizations,

and retraining was examined.

Changes in Civil Service Job Requirements

Of the 18 States reporting that they changed the role of

the caseworker, 10 did so by retiring or reclassifying

the civil service positions used for the caseworker and

by restructuring the caseworker’s job description to

include responsibilities previously conducted by

employees in other job classifications. However, while

10 States made changes to the civil service job classifications, only 3 States altered the education and experience requirements for their new caseworkers. Several

States noted that they added new responsibilities to the

caseworker job description that were once performed

by staff in other State programs. In particular, duties

related to helping clients find employment opportunities were most often cited as roles removed from outside agencies and added to the job description of caseworkers serving food stamp clients, thereby changing

the role of the caseworker. Figure 14 shows the number of States that combined functions in FSP with

those previously performed by other agencies, by the

type of programs from which these functions were

transferred.

The extent to which States were required to obtain the

approval of other governmental agents to implement

changes to the caseworkers’ role was also examined to

determine which State agents were indirectly involved

in State re-engineering efforts. In addition, it was

assumed that since State agencies receive funding

from different sources, they often need approvals

before they can implement any programmatic changes

they have planned. Figure 15 displays the type of governmental agency or organization from which approval

for changing the role of the caseworker was obtained

(see appendix table 6 for specific States). The most

common agency approvals, as might be expected in

changing the job descriptions of civil service employees, were requested of formal civil service boards or

personnel agencies. Eleven States reported having to

obtain this approval. The governor’s office in five

States approved the changes to the role of the caseworker, while four States went to their State legislature

for approval.

The extent to which the caseworkers themselves were

involved in the planning process for changing their

roles was also examined. Three States obtained

approval of State employee unions or organizations to

which the caseworkers belonged, while 12 States

22 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 23

Figure 14 

Number of States combining food stamp activities with those previously performed by other agencies 

as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of program 

7

6

5

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

 Employment 

security or training

TANF Medicaid Other social

service or health 

Type of program

Number of States

Figure 15

Number of States obtaining approval for caseworker role changes as a result of welfare reform 

before FY 2000 by type of agency conducting approval

11

5

4

3

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

 Civil service board or

 State personnel agency

Governor's office State legislature Labor unions or State

 employee agency

Other

Type of agency conducting approval

Number of States
reported involving the caseworkers themselves through

less formal means when changes were being planned.

An issue of interest to this study was the extent to

which State officials felt they had increased the overall

workload of caseworkers when their duties were

changed. Of the 15 States that changed the role of the

caseworker, officials in 10 of the States believed they

had increased the overall workloads and 5 felt the

workload remained about the same. Officials in Idaho,

Virginia, and Wisconsin reported that they believed

caseworker workloads had changed, but they were

uncertain of the extent. 

Additional Training for Caseworkers 

In States where the role of the caseworker was

expanded to incorporate new activities, it seemed likely that States would need to retrain caseworkers to

assume their new responsibilities. This proved to be

the case, since 16 of the 18 States making changes

identified additional training to their caseworkers as

critical to their re-engineering efforts. 

Most frequently mentioned was training to increase the

case management skills of former eligibility workers.

Seven States noted that caseworkers who once worked

only on client eligibility determination were now

trained in topics that required both new program

knowledge and improved interpersonal skills. Topics

for training mentioned by States included how to assist

clients in finding employment opportunities and

improving case management skills to help clients

access health care and other support services.

Six of the 18 States noted that they were required to

train their caseworkers on new program requirements,

such as changes in eligibility rules, employment

requirements, or job training programs. Three States

noted that they were required to provide training to

TANF workers on FSP rules, and vice versa. Two

States reported that they had to train their caseworkers

on new computer systems being used to implement

new program requirements.

While eligibility determination is still a primary

responsibility of the caseworker, States that had made

changes in the role of the caseworker noted that other

responsibilities related to management of the client

cases were important as well. When asked to describe

how the roles of the caseworker had changed, the most

common response from State officials was that caseworkers now tend to spend more time working with

their clients on individual issues related to self-sufficiency. Officials in six States commented that the caseworkers had become more like case managers, assisting clients with both eligibility determination and

issues related to finding employment, accessing child

care, and accessing other social and health services. 

Changes in Program Accessibility

With the increased flexibility provided by PRWORA

and the fundamental changes brought about by altering

the focus of the welfare system, a number of States

have also begun to develop approaches to improve

accessibility to their FSPs. As was noted in earlier

chapters, there have been dramatic declines in FSP

participation since the mid-1990s that are greater than

could be accounted for by the economic boom during

this period. This is of concern to State and Federal

officials as well as advocates. Improving access to the

FSP has been viewed as an important component of

the continuing food security efforts of Federal and

State food assistance programs.

Thirty-nine States reported that they made re-engineering changes to improve program accessibility as a

result of PRWORA. As shown in figures 16 and 17, 10

States made 1 change to their program to improve

accessibility, while 29 States made 2 or more. Equally

important, 28 States reported they planned to make

changes in this area in FY 2000, with 18 of those

States planning 2 or more activities (figs. 18 and 19).

Program accessibility is related to a number of different activities that affect how clients may access the

FSP. For purposes of this study, changes made by

States to improve accessibility were divided into three

classifications. First, activities related to changing certification systems were examined, both by looking at

efforts to improve automated eligibility systems and at

other steps taken by States to make it easier for clients

to complete the application and recertification process

for the FSP. As noted earlier, the complexity of State

applications and certification systems may have an

impact, positive or negative, on clients’ willingness to

complete the certification process. Second, the study

examined the extent to which States have altered local

office practices to help improve access to the FSP,

such as changing office hours, providing transportation

services and onsite child care, and establishing satellite

offices. Finally, efforts made by State FSPs to increase

their program outreach services were examined. Each

of these three areas is discussed. (See appendix table 7

for specific States.)

24 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 25

 Figure 16

11 10

8

5

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

None One Two Three Four or more

Number of changes to improve accessibility

Number of States

Number of States implementing changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp Program as a result 

of welfare reform before FY 2000 by number of changes

Figure 17

Number of changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp Program as a result of welfare reform

implemented by States before FY 2000

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN

WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

MA

NY

NH

ME

MI

HAWAII AK

HI

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

VT

N No change

One change

Two changes

Four or more

changes

Three changes

Number of changes
26 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 18

Number of States planning changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp Program during

FY 2000 by number of changes

Number of States

22

10

8

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of changes to improve accessibility

Zero One Two Three or more

Figure 19

Number of States planning changes to improve accessibility to the Food Stamp Program

during FY 2000

WA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ NM

TX

OK

CO

WY

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS

IL

AL GA

FL

OR

TN

KY

SC

NC

IN WV

VA

MD

PA

OH NJ

DC

CT

RI

NY MA

VT

NH

ME

MI

AK

HI N No change

One change

Two changes

Three or more

changes

Note: Delaware did not participate in the study.

Number of changes
Changes to the Food Stamp 

Application Process 

The food stamp application process has traditionally

required significant effort on the part of the applicant,

which has served as a barrier to food stamp participation. Research conducted by USDA found that applicants spent an average of 5 hours and $10.31 to complete the FSP application process (Food and Nutrition

Service, 2000). Working households and those with

long trips to the food stamp office were more likely

than other types of households to drop out of the

application process before their eligibility was determined (Bartlett et al., 1992). Other surveys of food

stamp nonparticipants have found that 10 to 25 percent of respondents report administrative hassles in

the application process as their reason for not participating (Coe, 1983; GAO, 1988). The current study

reveals that in the last several years States have taken

a number of steps to reduce the burden on clients and

improve the reapplication and certification processes,

utilizing the increased flexibility granted by PRWORA and the technological development of State computer systems.

Twenty-one States reported making changes to their

FSP application process as a result of PRWORA.

States gave different reasons for changing their certification systems, with several reporting multiple goals.

Of the 21 States who made changes, 9 reported that

improving the overall efficiency of their certification

system was a major goal, while 8 said that reducing

the number of certification errors was their primary

reason. Six States hoped to reduce the time it took a

caseworker to certify a client, and five hoped to

improve access to other social service programs by

changing their certification procedures. 

Changes in the certification system were divided into

two categories: changes in computer systems and

changes unrelated to computer systems. A total of

eight States made changes to their computer systems

to improve client certification, with the two most frequent reasons being the need to update the systems to

reflect policy changes (three States) and the need to

better integrate programs or services (three States).

A larger number of States, however, made changes to

their client certification systems that were unrelated to

their computer systems. The most frequent was a

reduction of the number of questions on the FSP application form; five States reported that they had made

this change. Ironically, the second most popular

change, implemented by four States, was requiring

clients to provide caseworkers with additional documentation of their eligibility. Interestingly, three States

combined their FSP application with applications used

by other social service programs to allow for certification in more than one program. Table 2 below displays

the States that made changes only to their computer

systems, made changes unrelated to their computer

systems, or made changes to both.

Regarding changes planned for FY 2000, three States

reported planning to increase computer automation in

their certification systems, while nine States indicated

that they planned to make changes in their certification

process that are unrelated to their computer systems.

Of these nine States, two planned to reduce the number and type of questions on their application, while

none planned to increase the documentation requirements of people applying for benefits. 

Local Office Practices

States also increased accessibility to program services

by changing local office practices. These practices

have become an important part of the overall FSP. In

particular, States made a number of changes to allow

food stamp applicants to have their interviews at more

convenient times and more accessible places. States’

efforts in this area are discussed below. 

A total of 28 States made efforts to improve their local

office practices in order to facilitate client accessibility

(see appendix table 8 for specific States). As has been

true in other categories, States may have made more

than one such change. Figure 20 displays the number

of States that made changes to their local office practices to improve FSP access, along with the types of

changes made. 

As can be seen, the most frequent change was extending the hours of operation of local offices by adding or

expanding weekend and evening hours to allow clients

more convenient times to apply for food stamp benefits. Nine States involved private partners in their

efforts to increase accessibility to the FSP. These partners are often nonprofit agencies concerned with food

security issues who help the States identify and overcome barriers to FSP participation.

Eleven States planned to increase services provided by

local offices in FY 2000 (see appendix table 9 for specific States). Of these, seven planned to increase the

times available for clients to apply for food stamp benEconomic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 27
28 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 20

Number of States changing local office practices as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000

by type of change 

5 5

8

2

12

20

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

 Provide child care

 at FS offices

 Improve

 transportation

 to FS offices

 Establish 

 satellite

 offices to 

 take FS 

 applications

 and provide

 recertifications

 Establish

 satellite 

 offices to 

 only take 

FS applications

 Outstation

workers at

 other 

 agencies

 Provide

weekend 

 and/or 

 evening 

 hours

 Use "Private 

 Partners" to 

 assist clients 

applying for FS

Number of States

Type of change

Table 2—States making changes to their food stamp application processes by type of change 

Changes not involving Both computer and

Computer changes computer systems noncomputer changes 

Connecticut Alabama Alaska

Arizona California

District of Columbia Colorado

Georgia Maryland

Idaho Montana

Indiana Nevada

Kentucky North Dakota 

Maine

Nebraska

New York

Oregon

Utah

Wyoming 
efits by expanding evening and weekend hours.

However, while only five States had implemented programs to assist with transportation for food stamp

clients after PRWORA, five States planned to implement transportation assistance in FY 2000.

Efforts To Increase Outreach to Clients

The final type of changes examined with regard to

program accessibility involves the efforts States made

or are making to improve outreach to potential clients.

This has become particularly important because of the

decline in food stamp participation discussed earlier in

this chapter. Outreach is also important in connection

with the extensive efforts being made by States to

improve accessibility to local food stamp offices.

While making certification times more convenient and

welfare offices more accessible is an important part of

State efforts to re-engineer the FSP, ensuring that

potential clients understand they may be eligible for

FSP benefits is also critical. The case study conducted

in Massachusetts describes an extensive campaign

being made by State officials to reach potential food

stamp clients.

Many States are concerned about reaching eligible

individuals who are experiencing food insecurity and

are not participating in the FSP, as well as about former food stamp clients who have left the FSP but

remain eligible for benefits. State efforts to conduct

food stamp outreach are exemplified by the number of

States making changes in this area or who were planning changes in FY 2000. A total of 24 States (see

appendix table 10 for specific States and outreach

methods) began or increased outreach efforts prior to

FY 2000, with an additional 18 States planning outreach efforts in FY 2000 (fig. 21). These efforts were

often targeted at special populations that were identified by State officials as being underserved by the FSP.

Figure 22 displays the various target populations and

the number of States that tried to reach those populations after PRWORA and on through FY 2000. As can

be seen, the populations targeted by the largest number

of States were the elderly, the working poor, and

ABAWDs. Figure 22 shows that the elderly and working poor populations remain targets for program outreach efforts planned by States for FY 2000. States are

also planning to target new groups, including former

TANF recipients and persons with disabilities.

The groups targeted least often by the States that

increased their outreach before FY 2000 were the disabled and former TANF recipients. In contrast,

ABAWDs were the least likely to be targeted by States

in the outreach efforts that were planned for FY 2000,

followed by the parents of young children and “others.”

States used a variety of methods to reach their target

populations. Thirteen States distributed printed materials such as brochures, posters, and flyers in lowincome communities, while five States relied on public

service announcements on television and radio and

five expanded referral services at other means-tested

programs. Three States noted that they had begun distributing FSP applications at locations such as food

banks and hospitals.

As mentioned above, States expanded their use of

referrals. Seven States reported efforts to increase the

number of referrals to the FSP from other means-tested

social service programs. Among the programs mentioned were TANF, where clients leaving the program

may still be eligible for FSP benefits, Medicaid, and

the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children (WIC). 

Finally, as was noted in chapter I, efforts to increase

program accessibility sometimes varied within States

with regard to urban and rural areas. A total of 14

States reported making different changes to promote

accessibility based on the special needs of these areas

within their State. Of the 14 States that mentioned

urban-rural differences, 4 placed a greater emphasis on

providing transportation services to rural clients. Other

differences reported by States included establishing

more satellite offices in urban areas, providing nutrition education services in urban areas to increase the

program’s exposure, moving toward a system of telephone contact for initial certification interviews in

rural areas, giving greater decision-making authority to

offices located in rural areas, and allowing rural

offices to develop their own methods to improve

accessibility. Table 3 displays the 14 States that

accommodated the different needs of rural and urban

areas with regard to accessibility issues.

Changes in Client Tracking Systems

While PRWORA created a great deal of flexibility in

how States manage their FSPs, several mandatory provisions, as described in the introduction, were also

enacted. These mandatory provisions have greatly

increased the pressure on States to meet program compliance and audit requirements and to reduce error

rates in client certification and the provision of benefits. As a result of these increased pressures, States

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 29
30 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

3

4

5 5

2 2

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

Parents of young

children

ABAWDs Working poor Elderly Disabled Former TANF

recipients

Other

Type of population

Number of States

Figure 21

Number of States targeting specific populations with outreach efforts as a result of welfare reform

before FY 2000 by type of population

Figure 22

Number of States planning to target specific populations with outreach efforts during FY 2000

by type of population 

4

2

8

10

5

6

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Parents of young

children

ABAWDs Working poor Elderly Disabled Former TANF

recipients

Other

Type of population

Number of States
have had to rethink how they collect and maintain

information about clients. 

One of the methods States used to improve program

integrity efforts, improving technology and computer

systems used to certify clients, was noted above.

Another method is matching client databases for the

FSP with those of other social service programs. The

purpose of this section is to examine some of the ways

that States have increased efforts to improve program

accountability through enhanced client tracking systems and computer matching.

While States have collected data regarding client eligibility and program benefits for years, the new

approaches taken by States to meet the demands of

PRWORA have created a need to collect new types of

information. Because of the increased complexity of

the FSP, as well as the interest shown by States in

improving program accessibility, caseworkers may

need information about clients’ participation in other

social service programs in order to be effective in

moving them toward self-sufficiency. In addition,

matching food stamp administrative data with data

from other social service programs has been found to

be an effective tool in controlling error rates in client

certification and detecting fraud in the delivery of program benefits. Through the use of sophisticated computer programs, States can determine whether clients

should be disqualified from FSP benefits because they

are categorically ineligible (for instance, as a fleeing

felon), have reported different income information to

other social service agencies (such as to Medicaid), or

have attempted to participate in the FSP in more than

one location (dual participation). 

A total of 40 States increased their efforts to improve

client tracking and accountability systems as a result

of PRWORA. The single largest group of States making changes to their client tracking systems did so to

meet the PRWORA requirement for tracking time limits on ABAWDs. Of the 40 States that enhanced their

client tracking systems, 33 focused their efforts on

developing systems for tracking time limits on

ABAWDs. In FY 2000 three States were planning to

adopt systems to better track the same limits. 

While States have been matching FSP administrative

data against other databases for years, the passage of

PRWORA seems to have motivated them to increase

these efforts. A total of 29 States reported that they had

increased the number and type of databases within

their States with which FSP data were matched. Six

States reported that they had begun matching records

with programs in neighboring States. Four of the

States reported that they also began using private contractors to assist them with client record matching. In

addition to these efforts, nine States reported that they

had planned to increase the number of databases

against which to match FSP records in FY 2000, while

two States planned to begin matching records with

neighboring States. States noted a number of programs

or departments against whose databases their increased

FSP matching efforts have taken place (see appendix

table 11 for specific States). Some of the more common programs or departments with which matching

activities have taken place, or were planned for FY

2000, include: 

• New-Hires Databases. In order to track employment

of individuals receiving TANF and food stamps,

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 31

Table 3—States making changes to improve accessibility based on differing needs for urban and rural

areas by type of change 

Food stamp application Efforts to increase

process Local office practices outreach to clients 

Georgia

Montana Colorado Connecticut

Idaho Georgia

Indiana Idaho

Maryland Oregon

Massachusetts Utah 

Montana

Nevada

South Carolina

Utah

Wisconsin

Wyoming 
States enhanced their tracking of new hires, particularly those reported through State departments of

labor or employment. A total of 17 States reported

having increased their data-matching with new-hires

data, and 3 States reported planning to increase datamatching in this area during FY 2000. 

• Criminal Records Databases. Because PRWORA

restricted certain persons with criminal records from

receiving FSP benefits, States began matching FSP

client information with databases maintained by various criminal justice organizations. A total of 13

States began matching FSP records with criminal justice organizations as a result of PRWORA, and 2

States planned to expand their data-matching to this

area in FY 2000.

• Records of the Social Security Administration. A total

of eight States began matching their FSP databases

with records from the Social Security Administration.

Two additional States planned to begin matching with

the Social Security Administration in FY 2000. The

purpose is to verify the social security numbers of

clients in order to be sure clients are who they say they

are and to match clients’ social security numbers with

the Social Security Administration’s records of

deceased clients, to be sure fraud is not being attempted.

Changes in Program

Monitoring and Evaluation

In addition to making changes in client tracking systems for purposes of controlling fraud and abuse,

States also began to recognize that the fundamental

changes to the FSP created by PRWORA would result

in program outcomes requiring new measurement

tools. As a result, some States began to develop systems by which changes in the FSP could be monitored

for evaluating program outcomes. These systems,

which differ from client tracking systems designed to

preserve program integrity, monitor key program outcome measures established by program administrators.

In addition, some States have begun to conduct formal

evaluations of FSP activities. In this section, the extent

to which States increased activities to monitor and

evaluate their FSPs is examined.

For the purposes of this study, efforts to monitor the

FSP include routinely assessing program operations

(such as tracking the number of cases each case manager has or the number of clients enrolled in FSP).

Efforts to evaluate the FSP, on the other hand, were

generally more formal studies that assessed the program’s effectiveness.

A total of 22 States developed new program monitoring tools to help them examine components of their

FSPs. In addition, seven States planned to implement

changes in program monitoring in FY 2000. Figure 23

displays the types of monitoring activities implemented by States as a result of PRWORA. As shown, monitoring efforts were most often focused on tracking

changes in client participation rates (14 States), evaluating client satisfaction (12 States), and evaluating

efforts to increase program accessibility (10 States). In

addition to the categories identified in figure 23, 11

States noted other areas in which they were increasing

monitoring activities. Areas in the “other” category

included increased monitoring of error rate reduction

measures of the status of TANF recipients who leave

the TANF program but may still be eligible for food

stamps (leaver studies), of outreach efforts, and of

client progress toward finding employment. Table 4

displays the States that undertook these monitoring

activities, by type of activity. 

In addition to the monitoring efforts noted above,

States began conducting formal evaluations of Food

Stamp Program activities. Evaluations are considered

important because they enable States to determine

whether their administrative changes are accomplishing

the goals for which they were implemented. Once that

assessment is made, States can begin to modify or redirect their re-engineering efforts to maximize the benefits of their programmatic changes. A total of 9 States

conducted formal evaluations of one or more FSP

activities prior to FY 2000, and 10 States planned evaluation activities in FY 2000. Eleven States noted that

they conducted evaluations of program participation

levels, as well as the level of client satisfaction with the

FSP. These evaluations were primarily done by FSP

staff, with seven of the nine States reporting having

used State FSP staff for conducting the evaluation.

Conforming FSP and 

TANF Program Rules

As noted in the introduction, PRWORA provided

States with the opportunity to coordinate the program

policies and activities of the FSP with their TANF programs. The purposes of this coordination were to assist

States in simplifying program policies, to improve the

overall efficiency of the two programs, to allow States

32 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
to better coordinate caseworker activities at the local

level, and to increase case management activities that

promote client self-sufficiency.

A total of 34 States coordinated some portion of the

TANF program rules with their FSP. As can be seen in

figure 24, the most common attempts to conform the

FSP with TANF were in the area of income and

resources eligibility criteria, with 25 States adopting

conformance measures. In addition, a total of seven

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 33

Table 4—States reporting program monitoring activities by type of activity 

Tracking changes Improving Evaluating Evaluating client

in program accessibility to caseworker satisfaction 

participation FSP efficiency

Alaska Arizona Arizona Alaska

Arizona Colorado Colorado Arizona

California Idaho Florida Colorado

Colorado Iowa Idaho Florida

Florida Kansas Iowa Idaho

Idaho Maryland Maryland Iowa

Iowa New Jersey New Mexico Maryland

Maryland New York New York New York

New Jersey Washington Wisconsin Ohio

New York Wyoming Utah

Ohio Washington

Washington Wisconsin

Wisconsin

Wyoming

14

10

9

12

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 23

Number of States increasing monitoring efforts as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000

by type of activity

Number of States

Tracking changes

 in the number of 

 people receiving

 food stamps

 Improving

accessibility

 to the FSP

 Evaluating

caseworker

 efficiency

Evaluating

 client

satisfaction

Other 

Type of monitoring activity
States planned to coordinate FSP and TANF program

rules in FY 2000. 

Another way States coordinated program rules was by

adopting the Simplified Food Stamp Program (SFSP).

Because TANF and the FSP have separate rules, applying to both programs can be a cumbersome process,

both for clients and caseworkers. In order to streamline the determination process for individuals applying

for TANF and food stamps, PRWORA gave States the

option of adopting the SFSP. Under the SFSP, States

may establish one set of rules for both programs. The

law also allows States to establish a limited SFSP,

which involves only aligning food stamp work requirements with work requirements in the TANF program. 

Respondents noted two administrative drawbacks of

the SFSP. First, States that adopt an SFSP must also

continue to operate a separate FSP, since not all clients

receive both TANF and food stamps. Second, the law

requires States to prove that the costs associated with

operating the SFSP do not exceed the costs incurred by

operating two separate programs, which has been difficult to accomplish. 

A total of seven States adopted a limited SFSP by

coordinating work requirements for TANF and the

FSP. As noted earlier in the chapter, Arkansas was the

only State to attempt to implement a complete SFSP.

However, Arkansas officials made the decision in 1999

to abandon their SFSP and return to a more traditional

FSP. The main reason cited by Arkansas officials for

this change was the complexity that the State faced in

trying to administer the SFSP, while administering a

separate FSP for non-TANF food stamp households.

The officials noted that caseworkers found the systems

confusing and were often unable to determine which

clients of the SFSP should receive certain benefits. No

State planned to implement either a limited or a complete SFSP in FY 2000. 

Conclusion

In this chapter, the specific re-engineering efforts

States implemented or planned to implement were

described. As can be seen, the numbers and varieties

of changes States made have significantly altered how

the FSP is administered across the country. Because

State re-engineering efforts are not static, it is likely

that the landscape of the FSP will continue to change

in the future. In chapter III, the study findings are

revisited and implications for future research are presented.

This report has provided a description of the efforts

undertaken by States to re-engineer their FSPs.

34 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 24

Number of States coordinating TANF program rules to conform with Federal food stamp

program rules as a result of welfare reform before FY 2000 by type of rule 

13

25

4

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

 Work

requirements

Income/resource

 eligibility criteria

 Income

deductions

Other

Type of rule

Number of States
However, the results of this study should not be

viewed as an end in themselves, but rather as the first

outcome of a process through which the effectiveness

of re-engineering efforts are examined over time. The

very notion of re-engineering a program the size of the

FSP carries with it issues related to the time needed to

fully implement changes and the additional time needed to assess the results of these changes. 

With the flexibility created by the passage of PRWORA, States have begun the process of restructuring

how they deliver services, including changing the role

of the caseworkers, increasing program accessibility,

tracking client participation, and evaluating program

components. While many States have implemented

changes in these areas, it will require additional time

for them to fine-tune these changes to improve their

program operations. 

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize some of

the key findings of this report and to provide

Economic Research Service with suggestions for

future research. It is important to note that while this

was a point-in-time study, the survey collected information on both changes implemented and activities the

States planned to undertake as a result of PRWORA.

The survey also was designed to capture information

about a wide variety of re-engineering efforts that

States made to the administration of their FSPs and

about the States’ goals for these changes. It is not,

however, designed to assess how effective these

changes have been. The consequences are unknown,

and States will need time to assess how well they were

able to meet their goals in re-engineering their FSPs.

Discussion of Key Findings

The number of re-engineering activities that took place

as a result of the passage of PRWORA is impressive.

While some States began re-engineering their FSPs

prior to the passage of the bill, there is no doubt that

Federal welfare reform led States to restructure administrative activities related to their FSPs. When the findings of this study are examined together, some interesting aspects of State re-engineering efforts can be

noted. A summary of these key findings follows.

• While States have focused on implementing mandatory provisions of PRWORA, a significant amount of

effort has been focused on improving access to the

FSP. It would be expected that States would make

major efforts to restructure their administrative activities in order to implement mandatory provisions of

PRWORA. The findings of this study confirm this, as

40 of the 50 States (80 percent) reported completing

re-engineering activities in the category of changes to

their client tracking systems. However, it is interesting to note that 39 of the 50 States (78 percent)

implemented changes to improve program accessibility. In addition, 28 States planned to implement

changes to improve accessibility in FY 2000. This

finding clearly shows that States are attempting to

address concerns related to the decline in FSP caseloads over the past several years.

• The number of States that implemented and planned

activities that fall into multiple re-engineering categories was higher than expected. Because State FSP

agencies are likely to have limited resources, one

would assume that undertaking a large number of

activities across multiple re-engineering categories

would be uncommon. However, 35 States (70 percent) implemented activities falling into three or

more re-engineering categories. 

• It would appear that changing organizational structures to implement activities related to PRWORA is

not a high priority with States. With the opportunity

to conform FSPs with their TANF programs, one

might have expected a large number of States to

combine or consolidate program functions by

changing their organizational structures. However,

while 34 States (68 percent) took steps to conform

TANF and FSP rules, only 11 States reported

changing their organizational structures, and of

those, only 3 cited conforming TANF and FSP as

the goal of the changes. In addition, only one State

reported that it planned to make changes in its organizational structure in FY 2000, and that State was

going to discontinue its SFSP. 

• There appears to be growing interest on the part of

States to increase program monitoring and evaluation activities within their FSPs. Twenty-four States

had implemented some form of increased monitoring

and evaluation, while 15 States planned to do so in

FY 2000. While tracking client participation rates

was the primary focus of this monitoring, a number

of States also recognized the importance of tracking

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 35

III. Discussion and Implications for Future Research 
and evaluating client satisfaction and efforts to

improve program accessibility. 

• The level of re-engineering activity demonstrated by

county-administered States was also noteworthy. As

mentioned in chapter I, less re-engineering activity

was expected from county-administered States

because it was assumed that many of the re-engineering efforts would take place at the county level.

However, 87 percent of the county-administered

States undertook changes that fell into three or more

re-engineering categories, as compared to 67 percent

of the State-administered States. In addition, the finding that 92 percent of the county-administered States

undertook changes to improve program accessibility

was not expected.

Implications for Future Research

While the findings of this study provide a strong baseline for examining State re-engineering efforts, they

must also be viewed in terms of opportunities for

future research. Simply knowing that these activities

took place, while important, should not be viewed as

an end in itself. Over the course of collecting and analyzing data for this study, a number of factors came to

the attention of the study team that have implications

for further research. These factors are discussed in

detail below. 

Evaluating County Efforts To 

Re-engineer FSPs

More research may be warranted in States that pass

down the responsibility of administering their FSPs to

county governmental agencies. With the flexibility

afforded by PRWORA, along with the decisions by

States to decentralize FSP operations, counties may

have had the same opportunity to adjust how they

administer their FSPs as many States have. However,

because of this local flexibility in how county programs are administered, State officials were unable to

provide information about the types of change taking

place within their counties. 

Examining the extent to which counties re-engineered

their FSPs was beyond the scope of this study. In order

to have a complete picture of how the FSP has been

re-engineered, a survey of county-run programs would

be useful. It must be considered that some county-run

programs may have caseloads as large as some State

programs (such as Los Angeles County, California) or

have some of the same issues related to urban and

rural divisions (for example, Riverside County,

California) that the States have. A complete picture of

the extent to which county-administered programs

have re-engineered their FSPs within the categories

identified for this study would add significantly to the

overall picture of State re-engineering efforts.

Evaluating the Extent to Which Planned 

Re-engineering Efforts Were Fully

Implemented

This study gathered information about the re-engineering efforts implemented prior to FY 2000 along with the

activities being planned for FY 2000. In the introduction, it was noted that while planned activities could be

described, there was no way of knowing whether they

were actually implemented. A followup study would

provide a more complete picture of State re-engineering

efforts. In particular, States planned a number of initiatives for increasing program accessibility. Because of

concerns about decreases in the FSP caseload, it would

be interesting to know if the plans for increasing client

accessibility were actually implemented. 

Evaluating Components of State 

Re-engineering Efforts

Another area that deserves consideration is the evaluation of some of the specific re-engineering changes

made by States as a result of PRWORA. As mentioned

earlier, the amount of time to fully implement a reengineering change will vary, but the change will not

often produce measurable results until years later. The

changes described in chapter II were each designed to

improve some components of the FSP. They should be

evaluated individually in terms of whether the proposed change met the goals of the State, whether the

re-engineering change was modified as a result of

problems identified during implementation, and

whether the State plans to continue the change over

the next several years. 

Specific research questions could be developed for

each of the re-engineering categories, including specific measures for evaluating the process and outcomes

of the changes. A number of areas raise questions and

stand out as deserving further evaluation, as follows:

• How has the changing role of the caseworker affected

the interaction between caseworkers and clients? One

of the key results of this study is the description of

the changes States have made to the role of the caseworker. But as noted in chapter II, the formal

36 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
changes in the role of the caseworker may not fully

describe how the interaction has changed between

caseworkers and clients. 

Because interviews and surveys with caseworkers

and clients were not within the scope of this study,

there was little information available about how the

changing role of the caseworker may affect delivery

of services. However, the ways that caseworkers now

interact with clients, particularly how they manage

client cases, the extent to which they provide services to clients in order to support self-sufficiency

efforts, and the attitudes of the caseworkers and

clients with regard to the changed role, deserve further examination. 

• Have efforts to improve client accessibility been

effective? Because of the concern over falling caseloads in the FSP, it would seem important to evaluate

the numerous efforts being made by States to improve

client accessibility. Of particular interest would be an

examination of how well efforts to improve accessibility through expanding office hours, improving

transportation services, and adding child care have

been coordinated with outreach efforts to bring in

new clients. In addition, the methods used by States

to conduct outreach efforts to potential clients should

also be examined. By evaluating the critical components of re-engineering efforts in the area of accessibility, valuable information could be provided to

States who are in the beginning phases of developing

increased accessibility efforts.

• Have States’ efforts to improve client tracking systems resulted in increased program integrity?

Chapter II discussed how a number of States have

increased their efforts in tracking clients to meet the

new requirements of PRWORA. These efforts have

included increased use of computer technology to

track client groups (such as ABAWDs) and of

matching FSP administrative files against those of

other social service programs and new-employment

databases. Because these efforts are often complex

and costly, it would make sense to determine which

ones seem to be the most cost-effective in reducing

program errors.

• To what extent have efforts to conform FSP and

TANF rules simplified or complicated the administration of the FSP at the State and local levels? In

chapter II, it was noted that the programmatic and

eligibility links between the TANF program and the

FSP might be conducive to better coordination

between the two programs. However, the practical

implementation of efforts to conform program

requirements may be too difficult for States to implement. The extent to which States have successfully

integrated components of the two programs, and the

extent to which problems or issues have discouraged

this practice, would also seem to deserve future

research.

Tracking State Efforts To Evaluate

Re-engineering Changes

As described in chapters I and II, States have begun

conducting their own evaluations of FSP components.

Developing a mechanism to collect and catalog State

evaluation efforts would enable tracking of the extent

to which individual States have evaluated their reengineering efforts. 

In addition to State-sponsored evaluations of FSP components, there may be other evaluation efforts at the

State level that it would be important to include in

such a catalog. A number of State governments have

audit agencies in their executive or legislative branches, and these agencies evaluate the effectiveness of

such areas as governmental reorganization, local service delivery systems, and State data collection systems.

While these evaluations may not be specific to the

FSP, they may encompass the entire department or

division in which the FSP is located. Because changes

in these administrative areas comprise a significant

part of States’ re-engineering efforts for their FSPs,

they may be of value in assessing the effectiveness of

administrative changes brought about by State re-engineering efforts. 

Future research might also focus on creating a mechanism by which evaluation reports commissioned by

State food stamp or welfare agencies, as well as by

other evaluation or audit agencies, could be collected

on a periodic basis and made available to researchers

and FSP program administrators. This would provide a

secondary source of data on how well individual State

re-engineering efforts have worked.

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 37
Ongoing Tracking Systems To Describe

Changes in State Re-engineering Efforts

Re-engineering State FSPs is a continuing process,

with States conducting ongoing efforts to fine-tune

existing re-engineering changes as well as to develop

new initiatives. ERS may want to consider a method

for promoting continuing research into the types of reengineering changes being made in State programs.

The regional offices of FNS may be able to play a

strong role, as they often are made aware of changes in

how State FSPs are administered. Information concerning ongoing State efforts may be found through

State FSP management evaluations or through changes

in the State’s Plan of Operations.

38 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Section B: Case Study Reports
In 1998, the Economic Research Service (ERS) commissioned a study of State-level efforts to re-engineer

Food Stamp Programs (FSPs) in response to welfare

reform. The purpose of the study was to provide ERS

with descriptive information about the types of administrative changes States had implemented since the

passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). As a part

of that study, six case studies were conducted to examine how local programs have implemented State policy

changes. This report presents information obtained

from the six case studies.

Overview of Case Study Site Selection

The flexibility provided to States through the passage

of welfare reform has resulted in some creative and

innovative approaches in program administration and

client services. The goal of this case study report is to

provide descriptive information about some of the

innovative approaches used by States to implement reengineering efforts in response to welfare reform, and

to examine how local programs implement these

changes. In order to select appropriate case study sites,

information was obtained from a review of data compiled for the national survey of State re-engineering

efforts. The process for selecting the specific State and

local programs is described below.

• Selection of specific States was based upon two

factors. First, States were grouped by the type of

re-engineering efforts they were undertaking.This

grouping matched the six categories of re-engineering examined in the main study. These categories are:

 Changes in State organizational structure;

 Changes in the role of the caseworker;

 Efforts to improve client accessibility and

certification;

 Changes in client tracking and accountability 

systems;

 Attempts to conform the State FSP with the 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 

(TANF) program; and

 Efforts to increase program monitoring and|

evaluation.

• Next, a determination was made regarding which categories of re-engineering efforts would be represented in the case study selection process. ERS officials

indicated that there was more interest in expanding

the scope of some of the categories than in ensuring

that all categories were represented. As a result, a

decision was made to eliminate the categories of

client tracking and accountability systems and efforts

to increase program monitoring and evaluation.

• Once the categories were determined, it was agreed

that the States selected should include at least one that

administers its FSP through county governmental

agencies. In addition, when possible, States that implemented re-engineering changes in more than one category would be given priority consideration. Finally,

survey interviewers were asked to provide input into

the selection process, as they were in a better position

to identify innovative approaches that States may have

used to implement their re-engineering efforts.

• A preliminary list of diverse States was forwarded to

ERS for consideration. Upon review of the information provided about the re-engineering effort in each

State, ERS selected the six States for inclusion.

Individual States were contacted and asked to participate in the case studies. In addition, State program

administrators were asked to recommend local programs for site visits.

Each of the six case study sites, along with the rationale for their selection, is described below.

• Massachusetts. (Innovation: Efforts to increase program accessibility and outreach.) Massachusetts has

two very innovative outreach projects targeted to persons who are not participating in the FSP. For a number of years, Massachusetts has contracted with

Project Bread, a nonprofit agency located in Boston,

to provide outreach to potential food stamp clients.

Project Bread offers a variety of services, including a

toll-free Food Source Hotline that responds to more

than 30,000 calls a year. Callers can obtain information in 140 languages. In addition, the program funds

community agencies to help potential FSP clients

complete the application.

40 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Overview and Summary of Case Studies
After implementing welfare reform, Massachusetts

officials were concerned that clients who left the

TANF program might also be leaving the FSP, even

though they were still eligible for the FSP. A second

outreach project was developed, to target the clients

who have left TANF. Clients who drop off both

Temporary Assistance for Families with Dependent

Children (TAFDC, Massachusetts’ name for TANF)

and the FSP are contacted by a caseworker and staff

from contract agencies, sometimes through home visits, to ensure that they are aware that they can continue to receive food stamps. The FSP is promoted in

nutrition education classes and advertised in Head

Start newsletters, posters placed in high school teen

centers, and flyers provided to clients in other social

and health services programs.

In FY 2000, Massachusetts planned to expand categorical eligibility for the FSP and extend office hours

to include evening and early morning hours to

improve access to the FSP. Officials also planned to

use Public Service Announcements and print advertisements on public transportation to increase program awareness. 

• Texas. (Innovation: Changes in program certification in an urban area.) In February 1997, Texas

established a pilot program in two regions

(Beaumont and San Antonio) to allow clients participating in the TANF, FSP, and Medicaid programs to

report changes in eligibility status over the telephone.

A year later, a change center was opened in Houston

and an additional center is currently being established in Arlington. Officials stated that they established the change centers to make the certification

process more efficient and to make things easier for

clients by putting them in direct contact with eligibility workers when reporting changes. Clients in these

regions constitute an estimated 40 percent of the

State’s TANF, FSP, and Medicaid populations. Texas

hopes to open change centers in all regions of the

State by 2001. Clients must still go into local offices

for initial eligibility determination for the three programs, and for FSP recertification every 3 to 6

months. 

• Georgia. (Innovation: Changes in program certification in a rural area located in a county-administered

State.) Georgia has begun piloting a centralized call

center that may be used by clients being served by

local offices in nine counties, eight in the metropolitan Atlanta area and one in a rural county located in

the center of the State. The purpose of the call center

is to allow clients to report ongoing changes in their

eligibility status without having to go into a local

office. The call center is open to participants in

TANF, Medicaid, and the FSP. At present, the services are available to 15 percent of the State’s total food

stamp caseload. Recertification continues to be conducted in the local offices. With the implementation

of the call center, Georgia State employees will be

directly involved for the first time in client certification and change reporting, as client service activities

in the past have only been handled by county

employees. 

In FY 2000, Georgia officials hoped to add another

change center in the southern part of the State to

expand these services. In addition to serving the

clients noted above, the new center will allow elderly and disabled clients who do not have earned

income to call in ongoing changes. This population

has a certification period of 12 months. Georgia just

received a waiver that allows the State to conduct

annual recertification interviews for the elderly and

disabled over the telephone. 

• Kansas. (Innovation: Changes in the role of the 

caseworker; efforts to conform TANF and the FSP.)

As a result of welfare reform, Kansas undertook

major efforts to conform its TANF, Medicaid, and

FSP rules. In addition, officials made major changes

to the role of their caseworkers by combining functions from the three programs with employmentrelated functions that had been performed by staff in

separate job classifications. The implications of these

changes were examined in a rural county located in

the northeast corner of the State.

• Arizona. (Innovation: Changes in the role of the

caseworker; changes in certification systems.)

Caseworkers in Arizona have assumed the responsibilities of case managers whose primary role is to

move clients towards self-sufficiency. In addition,

Arizona is conducting a pilot program that privatizes

their TANF program in a portion of Phoenix. FSP

caseworkers must coordinate with caseworkers

employed by the private company that manages the

TANF program when clients are enrolled in both 

programs.

• Connecticut. (Innovation: Changes in organizational

structure.) Connecticut officials changed the organizational structure of their agency from a centrally

administered program to a regionally administered

program. They also contracted with another State

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 41
agency, the Department of Labor, to provide all

employment and training services. A case study was

conducted in a rural region of the State to determine

how the change in administrative structure and

increased flexibility affected program operations.

Overview of the Case 

Study Methodology

Individual site visits were conducted at each of the six

selected local programs over a 3-month period. The

primary method of data collection was interviews with

key program staff at the State and local level. Because

each State included in the case studies represents a different re-engineering category, customized interview

guides were developed for each State. Data from the

entire data collection effort in each State were aggregated and summarized into an individual case study

report. The six individual case study reports follow.

Each report provides an overview of the State’s innovative re-engineering efforts and State FSP administration, along with findings from the interviews with

State and local staff. 

42 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Massachusetts

Re-engineering Category

Massachusetts was selected as one of the six case

study States because of its innovative approach to

implementing outreach initiatives to increase accessibility to the FSP after the passage of the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act (PRWORA). In 1998, Massachusetts began operating the Follow-up Outreach and Referral Families

Program (F.O.R. Families Program) to ensure that

families who leave the Temporary Assistance for

Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC,

Massachusetts’ name for TANF) program, but who 

are still eligible for food stamps, continue to receive

benefits. In particular, clients that fail to recertify for

the FSP are contacted by the F.O.R. Families Program,

often through a home visit, to ensure they know of

their continued eligibility for food stamps. Along with

this followup of clients, the Department of Transitional

Assistance (DTA) offices in the Boston area expanded

their hours of operation to accommodate working

clients. In addition, the State has been working with

Project Bread, a nonprofit agency located in Boston, to

conduct outreach for the Food Stamp Program. Project

Bread manages social marketing campaigns, operates a

hotline that directs low-income individuals to emergency food sources, and trains volunteers to assist FSP

applicants with the certification process.

This case study report summarizes findings from

interviews that were conducted in Boston from

August 21 to August 23, 2000. State staff from DTA

who oversee the FSP and State staff from the

Department of Public Health (DPH) who administer

the F.O.R. Families Program were interviewed. In

addition, the regional coordinator and information

specialist at the F.O.R. Families regional office in

Boston were interviewed, along with supervisors and

caseworkers in two local DTA offices, New Market

and Roslindale. Because of time limitations, the

F.O.R. Families Program home visitors were interviewed by telephone the following week.

Food Stamp Program Context

The Massachusetts Food Stamp Program

The Federal FSP is a State-administered program in

Massachusetts. After welfare reform, Massachusetts

also began the State Supplemental Food Stamp

Program (SSFSP) to provide State-funded food stamp

benefits to noncitizens who are ineligible to participate

in the Federal FSP. SSFSP benefits are provided to

noncitizens who have resided in Massachusetts for 60

continuous days or more before application. Eligibility

and case management services for both programs are

administered by DTA. 

There are 4 DTA regions with 37 local offices that provide services to FSP clients. DTA has an interagency

service agreement with the Department of Public

Health (DPH) to provide outreach services for potential food stamp clients. DPH either provides the services directly through its F.O.R. Families offices or contracts out the services to Project Bread. Overviews of

the F.O.R. Families Program and Project Bread are

provided below.

The F.O.R. Families Program

The F.O.R. Families Program was created by DTA and

DPH after community advocates expressed concern

over the well-being of former welfare recipients. The

advocates argued that it was unwise to assume that

clients would become self-sufficient once they left

TAFDC. Many clients lacked the basic skills to get a

job and faced significant barriers that needed to be

addressed if they were to lead stable lives. The barriers

often included poor access to affordable housing, substance abuse problems, domestic violence, and transportation problems. 

In order to address these concerns, DTA set out to create an outreach program to help former TAFDC clients

transition off welfare. They envisioned an outreach

and referral service that could make clients aware of a

broad array of community and government services.

Through the program, clients would learn how to

access the services and receive assistance if they had

any problems. Officials believed that in order to be

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 43

Individual Case Study Reports
effective, the program would have to be staffed by

workers that were trusted by former TAFDC clients.

Since many clients distanced themselves from DTA

and the other services they provide after leaving the

TAFDC program, a decision was made not to use DTA

staff to conduct the outreach efforts. 

DTA approached DPH to determine if it would be

willing to administer the outreach program to former

TAFDC clients. It was believed that the program

would be a natural extension of outreach services the

department provided. DPH was already well versed in

providing early intervention for a variety of health and

nutrition programs, including the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants

and Children (WIC). DPH nurses and social workers

were located throughout the State, and the department’s field staff had experience working with community-based organizations. As a result, DPH staff

were well received by the former TAFDC clients. DPH

agreed to provide the services, and both departments

worked together to design the program. In 1998, the

F.O.R. Families program was established.

Project Bread

Project Bread is an organization begun in 1969 that

conducts a wide range of activities to prevent and alleviate hunger. The organization’s main objective is to

raise money through various fundraising events to support soup kitchens and food pantries across

Massachusetts. Its banner fundraising event is the

Walk for Hunger, which raises about $3 million each

year. Project Bread also lobbies the legislature to promote antihunger policies and conducts outreach to promote participation in various nutrition programs,

including the FSP.

Under a contract with DPH, Project Bread staff have

developed and distributed food stamp outreach materials to increase awareness of the FSP and other nutrition programs. Project Bread also operates the

FoodSource Hotline, which provides callers with

information about FSP eligibility rules, the application

process, and emergency food resources. The hotline

staff also distributes FSP applications when they are

requested. In addition, Project Bread collaborates with

local contract agencies to provide direct outreach in

communities. They train community groups to make

presentations about the FSP, screen potential clients,

and assist clients with the application process. Project

Bread has worked with community groups to target the

elderly and immigrants. Volunteers have been recruited

from local networks working with the elderly to assist

seniors with completing food stamp applications.

Volunteers have also been recruited from immigrantfocused networks.

Findings from State-Level Interviews

At the State food stamp office in Boston, interviews

were conducted with the Assistant DTA Commissioner

and the DTA director of the Boston region. The

Assistant DTA Commissioner is responsible for overseeing policy and program management for TAFDC,

FSP, SSFSP, Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled,

and Children (EAEDC) and Emergency Assistance

(EA). The director of the Boston region oversees nine

local DTA offices in Boston and the surrounding areas.

In addition to DTA officials, interviews were also conducted with the DPH Assistant Commissioner, who is

responsible for policy and program management, and

the director of the F.O.R. Families Program, who oversees the regional F.O.R. Families offices. The purpose

of these interviews was to obtain the State-level perspective on the outreach efforts conducted by Project

Bread and the F.O.R. Families Program.

Program Administration and the F.O.R. 

Families Project

As was noted earlier, the majority of the direct outreach services provided by DTA and DPH are conducted through the F.O.R. Families Program. This program

provides outreach and referral services to clients in

five areas of need: housing and environment, family

health, food and nutrition, economics, and social supports. There are six regional F.O.R. Families offices

across the State. Each office is staffed with a regional

coordinator, a resource specialist, and home visitors.

Regional coordinators are responsible for managing

the office and assigning cases to home visitors,

reviewing cases as necessary, and facilitating contact

with local DTA offices. Home visitors are either nurses

or social workers with experience in public health, and

are responsible for initiating contact with clients

referred to the program by DTA. The home visitors

complete their assessments over the telephone, or in

person when clients cannot be reached by telephone,

to determine whether a comprehensive home visit is

needed. Once clients have been assessed, assistance is

provided to help them access the services they need. 

Resource specialists are responsible for managing the

toll-free F.O.R. Families hotline. They assess clients

over the phone and pass client information on to their

44 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
regional coordinator if clients need a home visit. They

also refer clients to community and government services and assist them in accessing services when necessary. The resource specialists also support the home

visitors by keeping them abreast of what community

resources are available.

DTA caseworkers are in charge of referring clients to

the F.O.R. Families Program. Caseworkers refer

clients to the program if there are signs that clients

will have trouble transitioning off welfare. Such signs

can include an inability to access food, find work, pay

rent, combat domestic violence, and/or overcome substance abuse problems. Caseworkers refer clients

before they reach their 2-year TAFDC time limit so

F.O.R. Families Program staff can contact clients soon

after they stop receiving cash assistance. The referrals

they complete include contact information and a

description of the barriers the clients face. The referrals are then faxed to the F.O.R. Families Program

administrators at the State office, who route them to

regional F.O.R. Families offices.

Clients are also identified for the F.O.R. Families

Program if they fail to recertify for their food stamp

benefits after leaving TAFDC. While many clients

remain eligible for food stamps after they reach their

time limit, they must recertify within 30 days after

leaving TAFDC in order to continue receiving benefits. Each month the names of clients that fail to recertify for food stamps are compiled on a computer-generated list and forwarded to the F.O.R. Families State

staff by DTA State staff. The list is then distributed

among the six regional F.O.R. Families offices. When

the referral mechanisms were put into place, it was

assumed that 90 percent of the referrals would come

from the computer-generated list and 10 percent would

come from local DTA offices identifying at-risk

clients. In actuality, the majority of referrals are made

by local caseworkers. 

The regional offices are responsible for tracking the

number of home visits that are conducted, the number

of phone contacts that are made, and the numbers and

type of referrals that are made to outside services. In

order to compile the information, the resource coordinator obtains weekly summaries from the F.O.R.

Families staff. The information is provided to F.O.R.

Families staff at the State office. 

Program Administration and Project Bread

Project Bread began conducting food stamp outreach

in 1986 when it started operating a toll-free hotline.

When clients called, the hotline staff referred them to

emergency food services and conducted a basic

screening to determine whether they could be eligible

to receive food stamps. In 1990, Project Bread began

conducting food stamp outreach for DTA after it was

awarded a portion of the $75,000 the legislature earmarked for food stamp outreach. Project Bread used

the money to help fund the hotline activities and also

searched for low-cost advertising venues to promote

the hotline. In 1993, funding for food stamp outreach

rose to $350,000. In addition, DPH began managing

food stamp outreach on behalf of DTA. DPH entered

into a contract with Project Bread to implement a

number of statewide social marketing campaigns to

promote the FSP. As a result, Project Bread began promoting the FSP through such media as radio, television, newspapers, billboards, and transit posters. DPH

also decided to involve five other organizations to

train local groups and agencies to screen clients for the

FSP and to make presentations to potential FSP applicants and those that serve them. Project Bread was

asked to train and manage the five contractors.

In 1998, DPH awarded Project Bread a multiyear contract to continue conducting food stamp outreach services. Under the contract, Project Bread provides hotline callers with information on FSP eligibility rules,

the application process, and emergency food resources.

The hotline staff also prescreen applicants over the

phone and distribute applications to callers deemed 

eligible for the program. If clients encounter administrative barriers when they apply for food stamps,

Project Bread staff contact DTA to determine how the

barriers can be overcome. In order to accommodate

non-English speakers, Project Bread hired bilingual

staff for the hotline and opened an account with

AT&T’s language line that provides translation services in 145 languages. 

In addition, Project Bread continues to help local

groups develop community-based outreach. Staff from

Project Bread recruit local service providers to distribute food stamp outreach literature and train them to

make presentations to prospective applicants, prescreen applicants, and assist them in completing food

stamp applications. While these efforts are targeted to

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 45
the broad food stamp-eligible population, special

efforts are made by Project Bread to target the elderly

and immigrants.

Other State-Level Efforts To Improve

Program Access 

In order to accommodate the needs of working clients,

DTA expanded office hours in four local DTA offices.

The offices were chosen because officials believed that

they had the resources to handle the extended hours. In

May 2000, the Pittsfield office, located in Western

Massachusetts, the Lawrence office, which serves a

large urban area with a large public assistance program, and the Davis Square office in Summerville

began operating from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. In

addition, the Pittsfield and Davis Square offices stay

open until 7 p.m. once a week. In July 2000, a fourth

office, the Roslindale office in Boston, also started

operating from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. Unlike

the other offices, the Roslindale office serves clients

from all three DTA offices in Boston. Since it has limited access to information housed at the other three

offices, the Rosindale office cannot offer full-scale eligibility services. However, staff members do accept

applications and verification documents from clients

that are later forwarded to the appropriate office. A

number of clients have taken advantage of these

extended hours. 

Challenges Identified by State Officials

The interviewees all felt that the outreach services

offered through the F.O.R. Families Program and by

Project Bread were effective. When asked about challenges they had encountered while promoting access to

the FSP, they pointed to broader systematic issues.

• Massachusetts works with many nonprofit community-based organizations to improve access to the FSP.

They are used to helping clients complete applications and to make presentations promoting the FSP.

Respondents felt they could increase the number of

FSP clients by using these organizations to enroll

applicants, but noted that the role of these organizations is currently limited in order to assure that eligibility decisions are made by DTA employees.

• States have been told to keep their error rate down

while increasing access to the FSP. Respondents

noted that, at times, it has been difficult to achieve

both goals. This is because States that undertake

efforts to improve access to the FSP may end up 

with higher error rates. In addition, officials felt that

under-issuance should not count toward the error rate. 

• Many clients do not realize that they remain eligible to

receive food stamps even though they are no longer

eligible for cash assistance under TAFDC. Respondents

noted that efforts need to be made to differentiate eligibility rules in both programs. 

Findings From Interviews With Direct 

Service Providers

This section includes information obtained from interviews with staff that operate the various outreach

efforts at the local level. There are two different food

stamp outreach efforts in Massachusetts, one operating

through the F.O.R. Families Program and one conducted by Project Bread. Findings from interviews conducted with staff from each of these programs and

local DTA staff are included in this section. 

The F.O.R. Families Program

The majority of F.O.R. Families staff in the Boston

region are employed by the Boston Public Health

Commission (BPHC) and work out of the BPHC

offices. However, the Regional Resource Specialist is

employed by DPH and works out of a separate office.

All communication between the resource specialist and

the home visitors occurs by phone or fax. The F.O.R.

Families program conducts a number of outreach

activities designed to help individuals maintain their

FSP eligibility. These efforts are discussed below.

Serving Clients Through the Hotline. As noted earlier, the F.O.R. Families program maintains toll-free

hotlines in order to provide potential FSP applicants

with easy access to information about enrolling in the

FSP. The F.O.R. Families hotline operated in the

Boston region is different from hotlines in other parts

of the State because it is part of a general health services hotline. The Boston region hotline operates from 9

a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, but clients also

may leave messages for staff if they call when the

office is closed. The Resource Specialist is responsible

for staffing the hotline. DTA caseworkers are responsible for informing clients about the hotline before they

lose their TAFDC. The hotline number is also included

in a notice clients receive from DTA regarding the termination of their benefits. 

When a call comes in, the Resource Specialist begins

the conversation by gathering contact information

46 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
using a standard assessment form. Information collected includes citizenship status, employment status, family size, education level, race, marital status, and primary language. Over the course of the conversation,

the Resource Specialist documents whether the caller

has questions concerning housing, health, food,

income or employment, and social services or family

relations. He/she also documents whether the caller

questioned why TAFDC benefits were not extended. If

the caller is currently in a crisis situation, information

regarding the circumstances is recorded, and clients

are asked whether they are concerned about safety,

domestic violence, housing, food, health care, emotional stress, depression, or financial stress. This information is provided to the Regional Coordinator, who

then assigns the caller a home visitor. 

Respondents noted that, in many cases, clients are in a

desperate state by the time they contact the office.

Many callers report not having enough food to eat,

having trouble paying the rent, or being unable to

cover the cost of utilities. If callers are not receiving

food stamps, they are encouraged to apply and often

are referred to Project Bread to receive assistance with

the application. The Regional Resource Specialist in

Boston often advocates on behalf of the callers. For

example, if a client’s landlord is threatening eviction,

she will attempt to intervene by contacting the landlord herself. 

If a non-English-speaking individual contacts the hotline, the Resource Specialist first determines if the

caller’s language is Spanish; if so, he/she enlists the

help of another public health employee in the building

who can translate for Spanish-speaking clients. If the

caller speaks a language other than English or Spanish,

the Resource Specialist refers the person to the Boston

Public Health Commission, where staff has access to

translation services.

Following Up on Referrals. Each month the Boston

F.O.R. Families office receives a list of clients that

have failed to recertify for food stamps, along with

their contact information. The Resource Specialist contacts the clients on the list to determine why they did

not complete the recertification process. Resource

Specialists must make three attempts to reach each

client, and through the use of an assessment form each

call is documented. Over the course of the conversations, it is determined whether the clients are receiving

food stamps, and if not, whether they need food

stamps and any reasons for their not continuing participation in the FSP. If Resource Specialists determine

that a home visit is needed, they gather the demographic information noted earlier and document

responses on the assessment form. Any referrals made

over the telephone, such as to emergency food

providers, are also noted. A week later, the Resource

Specialist calls the client to determine if he/she was

able to access the FSP. However, respondents report

that in many cases, the client has not followed through

with the application process. If this is the case, the

client is referred to Project Bread in order to receive

assistance with completing the application process.

The Resource Specialist also passes the client’s name

and contact information over to the Regional

Coordinator, who assigns the case to a home visitor. 

Respondents felt that, for the most part, clients react

positively to calls from the Resource Specialist. Many

clients feel overwhelmed by their problems and need

someone to simply listen to what they are going

through. The Resource Specialists are empathetic, and

clients are often willing to trust them. 

Home Visits. Once clients are selected for home visits,

their names and contact information are forwarded to

home visiting staff. Home visitors initially contact

their clients by mail. After the letters are sent, the

home visitors make telephone calls to the client to try

and arrange a visit. If a home visitor is unable to reach

a client after three phone attempts or if the client does

not have a phone, the visitor usually goes to the

client’s home. If the client is not at home when the

home visitor first attempts to make contact, the visitor

leaves a F.O.R. Families brochure and a note saying

that he/she stopped by. If not successful in making

contact with the client, the home visitor must attempt

to reach the client two additional times. If still unable

to contact the client, by phone or through visits, the

home visitor often calls the DTA caseworker to verify

contact information. 

After successfully contacting the client by phone, the

home visitor attempts to set up an initial home visit.

Respondents noted that most clients agree to the visits,

though some are initially reluctant to deal with staff

from another State agency or to allow someone they

do not know to come into their home. 

During the initial meeting, home visitors use an

assessment tool to help determine the barriers faced by

the clients. The assessment tool covers questions in

five categories: housing and environment, family

health, family food and nutrition, economics, and

social supports. Each area includes a checklist that

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 47
must be reviewed with the client. Each item on the

checklist is rated with an intensity level, which ranges

from 0 to 4. The higher the intensity level, the less stable the client is in that area. For example, to assess

housing and environment, the home visitor must determine if the client: (1) owes back rent, (2) is facing

eviction, (3) has trouble paying for fuel or utilities, (4)

has safety concerns, or (5) has received emergency

assistance in the past. The intensity levels are summed

for each category to get an overall rating for clients’

well-being in each area. 

Once the assessment is complete, the information is

used to determine which course of action the home

visitor will recommend in order to assist the client.

These recommendations are customized to the specific

needs of the client. For example, clients who are

unable to pay their gas bill will be linked to different

services than clients who have been issued an eviction

notice. The course of action and recommendations are

then discussed with the client and documented on the

assessment form.

In order to assess client needs in the food and nutrition

area, home visitors ask clients whether they (1) are

receiving food stamps, (2) have access to a food

pantry, (3) are enrolled in WIC (when appropriate),

and (4) have children enrolled in the School Food

Service or Summer Meals Programs. In addition, they

try to assess the client’s overall food security status

through asking a series of open-ended questions. 

Home visitors are required to maintain contact and to

follow up on their clients for a period of 1 year. The

amount of contact during that time varies, based on

client needs. During the year, the home visitors are

required to contact their clients a minimum of five

times after the initial home visit. Depending on the

need, however, the home visitor may make contact

several times a week for short periods or make a single

contact each month to determine the client’s status and

whether further assistance is needed. 

Client Contact. Home visitors reported that most of

their contact with clients has been very positive. In

many cases, clients are reluctant to open up during the

initial home visits, but are quick to see the value of

utilizing the home visitor’s skills and access to

resources. Home visitors noted that making clients feel

comfortable is often the key to a successful visit. If

clients feel that they can trust the home visitor, they

are not only willing to allow the home visitor to conduct the assessment, but are also more likely to follow

up on the recommendations or referrals made during

the visit.

Respondents noted that some clients are angry over the

fact that they are no longer eligible to receive cash

assistance. However, since the home visit usually takes

place soon after clients leave TAFDC, the majority of

clients are not yet facing a financial crisis, as many of

their expenses are still being covered by their last

TAFDC check. Providing clients with information to

help them prepare for the subsequent months, when

they will not have their TAFDC check to help cover

expenses, is an important role for the home visitor.

Respondents noted that paying rent becomes a particularly stressful issue when the household share of

Section 8 housing costs increase because they are

working. 

All of the home visitors have encountered nonEnglish-speaking clients. To accommodate their needs,

the home visitors use translators that are either located

within their office or provided by the State. While

some non-English-speaking clients have relatives that

are willing to translate for them, this practice is not

encouraged as clients may be unwilling to raise certain

issues in the presence of a family member.

All of the home visitors said they refer their clients to

a wide range of services, most commonly to area food

banks and the FSP. Other services to which clients are

referred include MassHealth, in order to obtain free

health insurance for up to a year, DTA for childcare

vouchers, the Department of Revenue for child support

services, and Legal Services to address issues related

to housing. In addition, home visitors noted that they

sometimes make referrals to such services as domestic

violence intervention, substance abuse and housing

services, and GED classes.

Project Bread 

This section includes information from a group interview that was conducted with Project Bread staff

responsible for food stamp outreach. The respondents

included the food stamp outreach manager, a

FoodSource Hotline worker, an outreach worker, and a

legislative advocate. 

Piloting Food Stamp Outreach at Health Centers.

Project Bread received a grant from the Department of

Health and Human Services in August 2000 to implement a pilot program to provide food stamp outreach

in health centers. This outreach effort was developed

48 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
on the premise that hunger and access to food assistance is a health-related concern, and should be

addressed through a comprehensive health care setting.

The program has been operating in three cities: Fall

River, Lawrence, and Boston. Outreach workers

prescreen clients to determine whether they are eligible to receive food stamps. They help clients to

complete applications, determine which verifications are required, and assist with making copies of

required documents. The outreach workers send

completed applications to DTA and contact caseworkers to make sure applications are not missing

any required documents. If caseworkers need additional verification, they immediately send clients a

list of the missing documents.

A number of resources are available to better serve

clients who do not speak English. Project Bread hires

bilingual staff, the health centers have translators

available, and the outreach workers have access to a

language line, when needed. Having access to these

resources has made the application process less confusing for non-English-speaking clients. Staff believe

that the outreach services offered through the pilot

program have helped to eliminate language barriers

that have kept people from applying for food stamps. 

DTA staff have been very supportive of the food stamp

outreach pilot project. They have trained Project

Bread’s food stamp administrator, who went on to

train outreach workers at the health centers. DTA also

has designated one worker in each local office in the

pilot cities to address eligibility questions outreach

workers might have. The pilot was targeted to end in

October 2000, but one of the health centers will continue to offer food stamp outreach once a week, using

graduate students.

Reporting Requirements. Project Bread is required to

provide DPH with monthly summaries of its outreach

activities. Each month staff prepare reports containing

the number of calls received through the hotline, the

number of callers that requested general information,

the number of callers that requested food stamp information, and the number of followup calls made. The

report also includes the number of orders taken for

pamphlets and the number of agencies that contacted

the hotline for technical assistance. Data are also

reported on the number of non-English-speaking individuals calling the hotline, as well as information on

the age of the callers. Finally, staff also report on the

number of clients that were prescreened and the number who were deemed eligible and were sent applications. For callers deemed ineligible, the project documents the reasons for the determination. 

Evaluations. In FY 1998, Project Bread conducted a

survey at the request of DPH to determine whether

callers were satisfied with the services they received

through the FoodSource Hotline. Project Bread developed the survey and administered it to 150 callers.

Ninety-nine percent of those surveyed felt that the hotline was a valuable service. Ninety-three percent said

they received information that was useful to their situation. All of the respondents reported being treated

with respect. The respondents also found the hotline

accessible. Fifty-nine percent said they received immediate assistance when they called the hotline. Ten percent reported that they had experienced a wait time of

5 minutes. 

Since 1997, Project Bread has conducted two evaluations with DTA and DPH to determine whether clients

who are deemed eligible for the FSP actually do apply

for and receive FSP benefits. The last evaluation took

place from July 1997 to June 1998. During that time,

Project Bread collected the names and social security

numbers of callers who were thought to be eligible for

food stamps and who requested food stamp applications over the phone. Each month, the names and

social security numbers of approximately 75 of those

clients were randomly selected and forwarded to DTA

90 days after the clients had called the hotline. The 3-

month gap was used to ensure that there was enough

time for applications to be submitted and processed.

DTA then cross-referenced the names and social security numbers of the callers with its computer records to

determine how many clients applied for benefits and

were receiving benefits. It was assumed that callers

whose social security numbers were absent from DTA

records did not apply for food stamps. 

During the last evaluation period, Project Bread forwarded 902 names and social security numbers to

DTA. When social security numbers were cross-referenced with DTA records, 65 percent of the callers

(588) did not appear in DTA’s computer records, and

thus had not applied for the FSP. Among the callers

that did apply, 86 percent received food stamps and 14

percent were deemed ineligible. 

Local DTA Staff 

Of interest to this study was how local DTA staff

worked with the two outreach efforts. This section

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 49
includes information from interviews with staff in two

local DTA offices in Boston, the New Market office

and the Roslindale office. The New Market office is

the second largest office in Boston. It was created

when the State consolidated three other area offices.

The Roslindale office is the smallest office that serves

clients in the Boston area. One supervisor and two

caseworkers were interviewed in each office. 

Overview of Local Operations. In addition to providing basic TAFDC, FSP, and Medicaid eligibility services, DTA also provides transitional services and

postemployment services to TAFDC clients and former

TAFDC clients through the Employment Services

Program (ESP). Since Massachusetts currently uses a

generic worker model to provide TAFDC services,

individual TAFDC workers are responsible for providing all services related to eligibility, case management,

and employment. The employment services responsibilities include developing employment plans, linking

clients to employment resources, and encouraging

clients to participate in employment and training services. The local offices also have food stamp-only

workers. Staff at both offices said the caseloads carried

by food stamp-only workers increased significantly

after welfare reform. 

Roles and Responsibilities. Roles and responsibilities

at the New Market and Roslindale offices follow:

• New Market Office. During the site visit to the New

Market office, it was noted that the office has experienced difficulty keeping food stamp-only caseworkers employed because their caseloads are so high.

Just prior to the site visit, the office had lost 1 food

stamp-only worker who was carrying a caseload of

220 to 250 clients. In contrast, the caseload for

TAFDC workers ranges from 100 to 110. It was

noted that with welfare reform, the characteristics of

the food stamp caseload changed. The program now

attracts more elderly people, immigrants, SSI recipients, and people who are employed. 

The TAFDC caseworkers are responsible for providing eligibility and case management services to

TAFDC clients. They also are responsible for food

stamp certifications for TAFDC clients. The majority

of TAFDC clients also receive food stamps through

either the Federal or State-run program. When clients

reach their 2-year time limit, caseworkers are

required to inform them of their possible continuing

eligibility for food stamps. If they believe that clients

will not follow up on continued FSP participation

once they have reached their time limit, the client is

to be referred to the F.O.R. Families program. 

After a client loses the TAFDC benefit, caseworkers

continue to carry that case for a month, and then pass

it along to a food stamp-only caseworker. The caseworkers are also responsible for completing food

stamp recertifications in the first month. Respondents

noted that determining benefits for households with

some members that qualify for State food stamps and

others that qualify for Federal food stamps can be

extremely confusing. 

One of the primary responsibilities of the caseworker is to help TAFDC clients find work and obtain

training. When clients enter their second year on

TAFDC, caseworkers review their client status

every month to make sure that they are progressing

towards self-sufficiency. 

• Roslindale Office. Staff in the Roslindale office have

duties similar to those in the New Market Office. The

Roslindale office has 900 food stamp-only cases in

the office, which are divided among 9 workers. The

office staff reported receiving a number of food

stamp referrals from Project Bread, Catholic

Charities, refugee resettlement organizations, and

elderly outreach programs.

Caseworkers noted that in some instances, workload

has increased since welfare reform even though caseloads have fallen. This is because the scope of their

jobs has increased. In addition to normal TAFDC eligibility determination activities, caseworkers are also

now responsible for employment services as well as

for referring clients to the F.O.R. Families Program.

In addition, caseworkers may continue to carry a

client’s case as a “food stamp only” case for 1 year

after TAFDC eligibility ends. 

Food Stamp Recertification. After clients lose their

TAFDC benefits, they have 30 days to be recertified

for food stamps. The staff at the local offices noted

that clients are informed of the recertification deadline

during their exit interview, along with being provided

with information about other services available. In

most cases, clients do not want to take time to go

through the food stamp recertification process, but

some are willing return to the office in order to apply

for transitional childcare services. When clients return

to the office to request childcare services, their caseworker reminds them that they are still eligible to

receive food stamps.

50 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
DTA is trying to make the food stamp application

process easier to complete. Clients are now allowed 

to request an application through the mail. They can

also return their application through the mail instead of

dropping it off at an office. In order to promote participation in FSP, food stamp outreach workers have also

been stationed at the Social Security office, health centers, and housing facilities for the elderly. Before their

application is approved, potential clients have to attend

a face-to-face interview, although this can be waived

for elderly and disabled clients.

Referrals to F.O.R. Families. The TAFDC workers

noted that they often refer clients to the F.O.R.

Families Program before they lose their TAFDC benefit. Clients are referred to the program if they do not

have a plan for how they will transition off welfare or

if their extension request for continued TAFDC benefits is denied. The referrals are faxed to the F.O.R.

Families regional office, and staff from the F.O.R.

Families Program follow up with the caseworker.

Neither of the two local offices is tracking the number

of former TAFDC participants who later reapply for

the FSP through a referral from the F.O.R. Families

Program. 

Project Bread. All of the local DTA staff interviewed

have a high regard for the outreach services provided

through Project Bread. Respondents noted that Project

Bread is responsible for referring a significant number

of applicants to their office. Project Bread also helps

clients gather verifications that are necessary for completion of the application process. If information is

missing, caseworkers send clients a checklist indicating which documents they need to provide along with

a self-addressed stamped envelope. 

Staff at the New Market office said Project Bread

played an instrumental role in establishing the Saturday

office hours and gathered input for the health center

pilot program from their office. In addition, Project

Bread staff met with the supervisor at the Rosindale

office to develop a checklist for food stamp applications. The interviewees said that Project Bread became

more visible after welfare reform due, in part, to its

social marketing campaigns. Staff at both offices make

referrals to Project Bread, particularly in cases where

clients are ineligible for food stamps, so they can benefit from area food pantries and food banks.

Challenges Identified by Staff in Local 

Outreach Offices

The F.O.R. Families staff interviewed believe that the

program is a success because it is not invasive and

links clients with resources that help them obtain selfsufficiency. Staff said the program has increased

awareness of and participation in the FSP. Without the

F.O.R. Families Program, many clients would not

know that they were eligible for food stamps. The staff

also pointed out some barriers that still need to be

addressed: 

• Respondents noted that some clients report negative

experiences when applying for and receiving public

assistance benefits. As a result, some clients may be

distrustful of the social service delivery system.

When staff from the F.O.R. Families Program contact these clients, they are reluctant to accept help

because they have had negative experiences with

DTA in the past and are now distrustful of agencies

associated with the welfare system.

• DTA caseworkers are supposed to inform clients that

they may remain eligible for food stamps when their

TAFDC benefits are discontinued. According to

some respondents, clients report that that they were

not told they would still be eligible for FSP benefits.

Additionally, clients have reported that they have not

received food stamp recertification forms in the mail

as they were supposed to; in some cases, by the time

they do receive them there is not enough time to

reapply in order to prevent a break in service. 

• Home visitors carry a large caseload, ranging from 

90 to 140 cases. Managing so many cases can be

overwhelming, especially if a large portion of the

clients have significant problems, as these cases tend

to be very labor intensive. Home visitors suggested

that if the resource specialists could be responsible

for parts of low-intensity cases, such as making calls

on behalf of clients, their workload would ease up.

That would allow home visitors to work more closely with clients with multiple barriers.

• As mentioned earlier, the F.O.R. Families hotline for

the Boston region is unique because it takes calls for

several programs, including MassHealth, Healthy

Start, and FirstLink, in addition to calls from F.O.R.

Families clients. As a result, the Resources Specialist

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 51
has to be knowledgeable about a wide array of programs and services. At times, it can be overwhelming

to be responsible for so much information.

Project Bread staff believes there is much to be done

in the aftermath of welfare reform to ensure people

are not going hungry. A major concern is the dramatic fall in food stamp participation in Massachusetts.

The staff brought up the following problems when

asked about issues that have yet to be addressed:

• The rules governing the SSFSP and the Federal FSP

are complicated and can be confusing. The confusion often increases when caseworkers have to certify members of the same family for both programs.

This occurs when some members are eligible for or

receiving State food stamps while others are eligible

for or receiving Federal food stamps. DTA workers

often try to solve the problem by requiring all family

members to bring in the same verifications, even if

they are not required to do so under the rules of both

programs. This approach causes confusion and can

put an undue burden on the client.

• Administrators in Massachusetts pay considerable

attention to fraud prevention. One byproduct of this

is that the FSP pays a large amount of attention to

preventing fraud during the initial client orientation.

According to some respondents, this focus on fraud

prevention may deter clients from completing the

application process. Respondents noted that clients

have informed them that because of this focus, they

feel like they are treated with suspicion during the

application process.

The staff at the local DTA offices felt as though the

food stamp outreach services provided by the F.O.R.

Families Program and Project Bread were successful.

They said that Project Bread was particularly effective

at increasing the number of applications coming into

their office. They raised the following policy-related

issues that they felt needed to be addressed in order to

improve access to the FSP:

• Face-to-face recertification interviews can be problematic for clients who are working or who have

children. Respondents suggested that elimination of

the face-to-face interview requirement would

increase FSP participation.

• Some respondents felt that outreach services to the

elderly should be increased. The elderly are less likely to seek out the FSP, and outreach efforts directed

to them, while often needing to be more intensive in

nature, may help to bring them in for certification.

• Respondents also believe that the State should make

more of an effort to help the elderly meet their food

needs. Staff believe this could be done if there were a

way to increase or supplement the minimum food

stamp benefit from the current level of $10 per month.

Texas

Overview of Re-engineering Effort

Texas was selected as one of the six case study States

because it established a centralized system for food

stamp and other social service program clients to

report changes in their eligibility status. These

“change centers” are located in the Arlington,

Beaumont, Houston, and San Antonio regions and are

designed to allow participants to telephone in changes

that may affect their eligibility status within programs.

The change centers provide clients with access to State

program staff, known as “change agents,” who make

every attempt to verify and document the reported

changes while the client is on the telephone. Change

agents have the same job description and basic training

as regular eligibility workers in local field offices, but

receive additional training in change center procedures

and customer service. The centers serve TANF recipients, food stamp clients, and children and pregnant

women receiving Medicaid. The centers operate from

7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition,

the centers have telephone message systems that

clients may use after hours. As a result, clients can

report changes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365

days a year. 

This case study report summarizes findings from interviews that were conducted from September 11 to

September 13, 2000. An interview was conducted with

a Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign System (TIERS)

staff person who spearheaded the development of the

change center in San Antonio. TIERS, which includes

the change center pilots, is a large automation and reengineering program directed by the central headquarters of the Texas Department of Human Services

(TDHS). At the regional level, the TDHS regional director, the assistant to the regional director, two case analysts, and the change center program manager were

interviewed. Additionally, two supervisors and two

advisors working at the change center were interviewed.

To complete the process, supervisors, advisors, and case

52 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
readers located in two local TDHS offices served by the

change center were interviewed. The San Antonio

change center was chosen for closer examination

because it was the first change center established in

Texas. The local offices in Brighton and Sutton were

chosen for site visits because they serve clients living in

urban areas.

Food Stamp Program Administration

The FSP in Texas is a State-administered program.

Overall program administration is conducted through

the TDHS, with local services being provided by

TDHS staff working in field offices throughout the

State. Ten regional offices oversee the local offices.

TDHS eligibility workers, known as advisors, are

responsible for determining eligibility and conducting

recertifications for food stamp, TANF, and Medicaid

clients. Food stamp benefits are issued on a debit card

called a Lone Star Card. The Texas Workforce

Commission (TWC) oversees employment and training activities for the FSP. Rather than operate local

field offices, the TWC funds services provided by

local workforce development boards and one-stop

career centers. 

Findings From State and Regional Interviews

This section includes information gathered from the

TIERS change center leader, who was the regional

director when the change center was implemented in

San Antonio. Also interviewed were the current TDHS

regional director, the assistant to the regional director,

two case analysts at the regional office, and the change

center program manager.

Overview

The first change center was established in San

Antonio, and was fully implemented in February

1997. It currently serves 38 local offices in 28 counties. The San Antonio region covers a diverse range of

counties, including several on the Texas-Mexico border. In FY 2000, there were 48,982 food stamp households in the region. In addition to the San Antonio

center, change centers have been opened in

Beaumont, serving 15 counties in southeast Texas,

and in the Houston region. The Houston change center serves only the city of Houston, although the

region includes suburbs and several rural counties.

Recently, a change center was opened in the Arlington

region, which includes Dallas. The Arlington center

currently serves 70 percent of the region. 

History of San Antonio Change Center

The change center in San Antonio was born out of a

move to integrate and streamline eligibility services

for 15 health and human services programs through

the Texas Integrated Enrollment Systems (TIES) initiative. In order to promote efficiency and customer service, the State opened bidding for eligibility services to

private companies. TDHS entered into a partnership

with two private organizations, EDS and UNISYS, and

proposed the establishment of call centers1 as part of

its bid for the TIES contract. In 1997, the Clinton

Administration ruled that private employees could not

determine food stamp eligibility. In response to the ruling, the Texas legislature scaled back the TIES initiative so it included only the automation of the eligibility system. Because of the modifications to the TIES

initiative, eligibility determination remained a function

of TDHS. Re-engineering and automation efforts,

including the change centers, continue under TIERS,

the successor to the TIES initiative.

The bidding process for the TIES initiative made it

clear that State jobs could be endangered in the future

if TDHS did not become more competitive. As a

result, TDHS began looking for ways to make their

programs more efficient, provide better customer

service to clients, and improve quality control. In

1997, the regional director of the TDHS office in San

Antonio sought approval to implement a change center that clients could access to report changes. Local

TDHS offices had a history of either failing to document changes reported by clients or noting them long

after they were reported. Their inaction often adversely affected clients, who were forced to repay benefits

that were incorrectly issued. It also increased the

State’s food stamp error rate. Inaction on the part of

caseworkers led to “failure to act” and “failure to act

timely” errors. 

Reported changes were often ignored because documenting them was not the highest priority in local

offices and because the reporting process was cumbersome. The unwritten rule that governed eligibility services was that client certifications and recertifications

should take priority over change reporting. As a result,

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 53

1The proposed call center would have allowed clients to be certified and recertified over the telephone. USDA determined that,

under FSP rules, applications and reviews must be done face-toface, except in cases where recipients are eligible for SSI. Texas

requested a waiver that would allow most of the interviews to be

conducted over the telephone, with the “closing” interview to be

done at local offices. Its waiver request was denied. 
eligibility workers who were often overworked put off

their change-reporting responsibilities. The procedures

local offices used to document changes were also complicated. Clients could not report changes directly to

their eligibility worker. Instead, they had to report

changes by mail, telephone, or in person to a clerk at

their local TDHS office. The clerk entered the changes

into the computer system, and forwarded paperwork

noting the change to the advisor handling the case. If

verification documents were not provided when the

change was reported, advisors would have to “pend”

the case and send the client a letter requesting additional documentation. The reported change would then get

filed until the client contacted the advisor or clerk with

the proper documentation. When the client forwarded

the documentation, the change would be noted. 

The change center in San Antonio was designed to

simplify the change reporting process for local TDHS

staff and for clients. In 1997, program managers in the

Brighton and Sutton TDHS offices in San Antonio, the

two largest local offices in the region, began creating

change-processing units with six to eight advisors

each, under the direction of the regional office. The

advisors in the new units, who became known as

change agents, were responsible for documenting all

changes clients reported to the local office. Other advisors in local TDHS offices remained in charge of completing certifications, but were no longer responsible

for tracking client changes. The new division of labor

allowed advisors to become experts in completing certifications and recertifications, while agents became

experts in change reporting. It also created a staff

whose top priority was documenting changes. 

Staff in the local TDHS offices directed clients to

report their changes to the change units by fax, mail,

or over the telephone. When clients reported their

changes by telephone, they were directly linked to a

change agent. The agent documented their changes

and attempted to verify them through a three-way call

with a collateral contact. In the majority of cases, the

changes were verified during the initial telephone call.

When contacts could not be reached, the agents had

the option of using client statements as the “best

available information” or they could ask clients to

send verification documents through the mail.

Because so many verifications were done over the

phone, the number of paper verifications that were

required dropped sharply. 

The change processing units were eventually consolidated and housed in the basement of the Sutton office

building. The consolidation took roughly a year. The

regional office then began drawing advisors from other

urban and rural TDHS offices in the San Antonio

region to work at the change center. The change center

is currently staffed with over 50 change agents.

Sharing Case Files and Verification Documents

A virtual file sharing system is used to enable TDHS

staff and change center staff to access and update

client information stored in SAVERR, the Statewide

computer system. Client information is first entered

into SAVERR by local TDHS staff as part of the eligibility certification process. An online application form,

known as the Generic Worksheet (GWS), is used to

enter the information. Once the information is saved, it

is automatically stored in SAVERR. At that point, case

files are accessible to change center staff and local

DHS staff. 

In order to ensure that case files are not duplicated, the

system requires that the case files be checked out to

one worker at a time. If change center agents need to

access a record that has been checked out to a TDHS

worker at a local field office, they notify their customer service representative, who contacts the local

office to find out why the record is being used and

who is using it. If TDHS advisors need to access a

record checked out to the change center, they contact a

liaison (usually a supervisor) in the field office. The

liaison then contacts the customer service representative at the change center to try to get the record

released. This process often takes place when change

center agents have to pend cases because they were

unable to reach a collateral contact. It also takes place

when clients are served a notice of adverse action

because a change they reported affects their benefit

level. When the latter occurs, agents must hold the

case for a 13-day appeal period. 

Since change center agents try to verify reported

changes over the telephone, the number of paper documents clients have to provide has been significantly

reduced. When change agents ask clients to provide

verification documents, the documents are mailed or

faxed to the change center. Once the documents are

reviewed, they are forwarded to local offices, where

they are filed. At this point, the only change center that

maintains copies of verification documents is the

54 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Beaumont change center. In Beaumont, the documents

are scanned and filed on compact discs. Scanning

technologies have been purchased for the other offices

through the TIERS initiative and will be implemented

in the near future.

Quality Control Initiatives

Several quality control initiatives were implemented in

the San Antonio Region to reduce the food stamp error

rate. A food stamp case reading project began in

November 1998 to prevent certification errors. Local

offices are required to read 100 percent of food stamp

applications before processing and 50 percent of all

recertification applications. The review of recertification applications includes high-risk cases, as defined

by the program manager at each local field office.

Under the project, each program manager must provide a monthly case-reading report to the regional

office. In August 2000, the regional office added a validation process involving regional case analysts who

review the results of food stamp case-reading procedures at the local office. 

In September 1999, the regional office redefined food

stamp certification periods. Local offices were provided with the new guidelines. One-month to 2-month

certification periods were set for households facing

unpredictable circumstances. This category includes

households with an ABAWD who is reaching the 3-

month time limit, households with a member whose

alien eligibility status is about to change, and households with a member who applied for Unemployment

Insurance Benefits but has not begun to receive them.

A 3-month certification period was set for households

with an employable adult who is unemployed or

employed less than full time and does not meet the criteria defined for households facing the 1-month to 2-

month certification period. Certification periods of 6 to

12 months were set for households with more stable

conditions. 

In March 1999, a recall project was implemented to

reduce the number of changes that go unreported in

the San Antonio Region. Through State error rate

tracking, it was determined that the majority of unreported changes in the region occur during the first

month after certification. To ensure that changes are

acted upon in the first month, the region established a

recall center at the change center with staff who are

responsible for contacting food stamp clients in the

four urban offices with the highest error rates a month

after they are certified. The advisors take action on

any changes that clients report in the first month. In

order for the case to be tracked, clients must be

receiving between $100 and $499 in monthly food

stamp benefits. 

Evaluation

In 1999, TDHS requested funding to expand the change

centers statewide. The Texas legislature responded to

the request by mandating that an evaluation of the

change centers take place before granting funds. TDHS

has been charged with overseeing an evaluation of

existing centers. At the time of the interview, the department was in the planning phase of the evaluation and

hoped to have it completed by the beginning of the next

legislative session, February 2001. The evaluation will

be based on data from all four of the change centers and

cover a range of issues including customer satisfaction,

accuracy, and timeliness. 

Challenges Noted by State Officials

The State officials and the officials in the regional

office all felt that the change center in San Antonio

had improved eligibility services. It has made the

reporting process more efficient by allowing clients to

deal with one worker and has improved customer service by putting clients directly in touch with change

agents. Roughly 70 percent of the clients are able to

report their change with one telephone call. In addition, supervisors monitor calls to ensure clients are

being treated with respect. Also, because agents and

advisors have been allowed to specialize, fewer

changes go unreported. Nonetheless, there were still

some problems and challenges the officials would like

to see addressed. 

• The interviewees would like to see the wait time that

clients experience when they call the center reduced.

When the change center first opened, clients were

kept on hold for 30 to 45 minutes before their call

was transferred to a change agent. The wait time was

reduced to 1 minute and 15 seconds, but it has been

steadily increasing because of job vacancies.

Officials indicated that they need to address this

issue to ensure that clients keep calling the center. 

• Some policies were written with the assumption that

change reporting would take place at the field office

where clients and workers meet face-to-face. For

example, if reported changes affect benefit levels or

cause clients to become ineligible for food stamps,

they receive a “notice of adverse action” and are told

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 55
that they have 13 days to appeal. Under existing

rules, clients may waive their right to appeal during

the 13-day period if they are in their worker’s presence. Because all interactions at the change center

take place over the telephone, the policy had to be

interpreted by field staff. The interpretation used by

the change center allowed clients to waive the action

over the telephone and, as a result, have the change

processed immediately. But during a State review, it

was determined that under the existing policy, clients

could only waive their right to appeal in the presence

of a worker. The interpretation has increased the

workload for change center staff, who can no longer

process the change through one telephone call. The

change center has submitted a waiver request to the

State office requesting that the requirement be

waived in San Antonio.

• When the change centers were first established, some

local offices resisted relinquishing change reporting

responsibilities. Once the functions were removed,

the staff saw their local offices and the change centers as completely separate entities. But both offices

must work in tandem for eligibility services to be

seamless. Most caseworkers are willing to work with

the change center now because it has made their lives

easier, but some still need to be reminded that good

customer service requires cooperation. 

• Change center agents were pulled from the pool of

TDHS advisors, but the skills that make a good advisor are not the same skills that make a good agent.

The State needs to create a new job description for

the change agents so the distinctions are better understood. The same holds true for supervisors who work

in local offices and supervisors at the change center.

The change center uses a “matrix management” style

and requires supervisors to manage workers as a

team, unlike local TDHS offices, which assign supervisors their own unit.

• There are major differences in the way the four

change centers operate because they were established in different regions under different management. For example, the Beaumont change center still

uses clerks to answer telephones rather than transmitting calls directly to change agents. State officials

want to see things standardized so services are consistent when the centers are eventually expanded

statewide. 

Findings From the San Antonio 

Change Center

This section includes information gathered from the

program manager who oversees the San Antonio

change center. Two change center supervisors who

oversee the change reporting process and two change

center agents who respond to incoming calls from

clients reporting changes were also interviewed.

Overview

The change center in San Antonio is located in the

basement of the Sutton office building. It was modeled

after the call center of the QVC Shopping Channel,

which is one of many corporate call centers that were

established in San Antonio after Southwestern Bell

installed fiber optics across the city in the early 1990s.

When TDHS first consolidated the change units from

the Brighton and Sutton offices to form the change

center, many of the agents were employed part-time at

the QVC call center. Because the call center was a

popular place to work, senior staff at the change center

contacted management at QVC Shopping Channel to

learn more about their business practices. TDHS staff

developed a rapport with the management at QVC.

QVC staff worked with TDHS staff to set up the

change center and to train change center agents. 

Organization

The change center is responsible for documenting

client-generated changes and agency-generated

changes that affect food stamp, TANF, or Medicaid

benefits. Two call arenas and five specialized centers

were established to carry out those duties. The call arenas house all of the change agents. Each arena is

equipped with a running board that charts the number

of callers on hold, the number of callers that requested

services in English or in Spanish, and the average wait

time. One arena contains a “super cube” that is

equipped with a computer that tracks the status of all

incoming calls. The supervisor on floor duty occupies

the super cube. The other arena contains a cube that

houses the customer service representative. The customer service representative functions as the liaison

between the change center and the local offices. All of

the change agents sit in cubes that are equipped with

telephones and computers. Because of the proximity of

the super cube, they can easily access a supervisor

56 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
when they have questions. During the core hours of 8

a.m. to 5 p.m., there are 30 to 45 agents in the call arenas. Roughly 40 percent of the agents speak Spanish.

The technical center was developed to process

agency-generated changes that result from database

matches or reports, including SSI and social security

match reports from other States, and reports on incarcerated household members. The technical center staff

are also in charge of documenting new-hire reports.

Over 6,000 new-hire reports are generated each

month. Before they are documented, the reports are

forwarded to clerical units in the Eagle Pass and Del

Rio offices so they can be screened. New-hire reports

that need to be documented for change reporting are

referred back to the technical center in San Antonio.

The technical center also processes TANF sanctions

for the State, as well as cases that have been put on

hold due to unclaimed or returned mail. Staff are also

responsible for processing cases with clients transferring off TANF who are eligible for transitional

Medicaid. The technical center is staffed with an

assistant supervisor and seven technicians.

The clerical center monitors pending cases to ensure

that actions are taken before their due dates. The center receives all agency-generated reports and is responsible for distributing them to change agents, the technical center, or units in the Eagle Pass or Del Rio

offices. The center also maintains paper logs on all

cases and uses them to track down information when

there are inquiries about a case or disputes surrounding

a case. The clerical center is also responsible for

preparing and distributing written notices that are sent

to clients to confirm that reported changes were made

or to request that additional documents be provided.

The clerical center is staffed with a supervisor, an

assistant supervisor, and eight clerks. 

The recall center is responsible for implementing a

regional initiative to track error-prone cases 1 month

after recertification. Staff at the recall center contact

error-prone clients and take action on any changes that

they report in the first month. Clients must receive

between $100 and $499 in monthly food stamp benefits for their case to be tracked by the recall center.

The recall center is staffed with a supervisor, assistant

supervisor, and four advisors who handle between 400

and 700 cases each month. 

The completion center was established in response to a

review of practices used by the change center. Before

the review, the change center was allowing clients to

waive their right to appeal an adverse action over the

telephone. But, as was noted above, the State determined that the practice violated existing policy. The

change center was directed to place the case in a pending file for the 13-day period. As a result, the center

began pending all adverse action cases. The new policy interpretation significantly increased the change

center workload because clients facing an adverse

action could no longer be served through one telephone call. The completion center now processes all

pending cases. 

The policy support center is responsible for staying

up-to-date on policy changes and interpreting policy

for staff at the change center. They train staff, track

data for the change center, and conduct case reviews.

Roles

The roles of supervisors, agents, and customer service

representatives are as follows: 

Supervisors. The change center has five supervisors

who are responsible for managing the call arenas.

They are part of a matrix management team that oversees all of the change agents, unlike supervisors in

local TDHS offices that oversee their own units. At the

time of the visit, each supervisor had floor duty for 3

hours a day. During that time, the supervisor oversaw

all incoming calls, responded to questions from agents,

and silently monitored select calls to ensure that agents

were providing strong customer service. The supervisors are also responsible for conducting yearly evaluations, quarterly reviews, and case readings. They also

have other individual management responsibilities at

some of the centers. One supervisor manages the clerical center, another the technical center, and a third the

local computer system, while a fourth oversees the

recall center. 

Agents. At the time of the interviews, there were 53

change agents responding to client calls. The change

agents do not carry a caseload like advisors in local

offices. Instead, each day a certain number of calls are

routed to them based on their availability. During peak

time, agents may not be able to respond to clients

immediately. As a result, clients encounter a wait time

of up to 15 minutes. Informational messages about the

change centers and welfare reform are played during

the wait time. 

Agents follow specific steps when responding to

clients’ calls. They begin each call by greeting the

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 57
client and requesting the client’s name and social security number. They enter the social security number into

SAVERR so they can access the electronic file. They

ask the caller what changes he/she wants to report and

enter the changes into the case file. Then agents

attempt to verify the change through a three-way call

with a collateral contact. In 75 percent of the cases,

they are able to verify the change while they have their

client on the telephone. If change agents are unable to

reach the collateral contact, they may either use the

client’s statement as the best available information and

process the change or request that verification documents be sent to the change center. If further documentation is requested, agents send clients a “notice of

delay in eligibility” form with a return envelope. The

client has 10 days to respond. The agents then “pend”

the case. At the end of the day, all of the pended cases

are moved to supervisors’ open cases. When call volumes and wait times are high, agents document reported changes on paper to avoid spending time bringing

up electronic files and initiate calls to collateral contacts without having clients wait on the telephone.

Customer Service Representatives. The change center

has one customer service representative who serves as

a liaison between the center and local TDHS offices.

All contact between local TDHS offices and the

change center are routed between the local office

liaisons, typically supervisors, and the customer service representative. The customer service representative

interacts with local field office liaisons when change

agents and local office advisors must share virtual case

records. The representative also handles customer

service questions and complaints. Agents may transfer

calls to the customer service representative or provide

the caller with the customer service representative’s

number and e-mail address.

Quality Control

The change center reviews food stamp cases through

floor reviews and case readings. All reported changes

that affect food stamp benefits are reviewed before

they are processed through floor reviews. Floor

reviews take place after change agents document and

verify reported changes. To indicate that a case is

ready for review, agents stand up in their cubes. While

clients are still on the telephone, case reviewers or

case readers look over the computer screens that

include information on household composition,

income, and deductions. These items are reviewed

because they have historically caused the most errors.

The reviewers also check the management screen that

lists household income and expenses side-by-side. If

cases are free of errors, change agents process them. If

errors are found, the agent corrects them and notifies

the client of the changes. 

Each month approximately 650 cases are reviewed

after they are processed through case readings. The

case readings are much more comprehensive than the

floor reviews because the cases are read in their entirety. Each month, case readers review a sample of 250

cases drawn from the pool of cases that were

processed. In addition, supervisors review three cases

from the pool of cases change agents processed that

month. The cases are then further reviewed by case

analysts at the regional office. The case analysts read

five cases that were read by each supervisor and five

cases reviewed by each case reader.

Findings From Local Department of 

Human Services Offices

Researchers visited two local TDHS offices in San

Antonio to learn how they process food stamp applications and inform clients of the change center. At each

office, they interviewed supervisors, eligibility workers (called “advisors”), technicians, and case readers.

This section summarizes findings from the interviews.

Overview

The Sutton office and the Brighton offices are both

located in San Antonio. The Sutton office is located on

the east side of the city, close to downtown. It serves

clients living in the east and northeast sections of San

Antonio and clients living downtown. Its caseload is

currently 4,710 food stamp households. The Brighton

office is located on the south side of the city and

serves clients living in the same area. Its caseload is

currently 6,332 food stamp households. The staff in

the local offices are responsible for carrying out initial

certifications and recertifications for TANF clients,

food stamp clients, and children and pregnant women

receiving Medicaid. There is some variation in the way

the local offices are organized and in the way they

administer eligibility services, described below.

• Brighton Office. There are five ongoing units at the

Brighton office responsible for overseeing food

stamp certifications and recertifications. Each unit is

staffed with a supervisor, an assistant supervisor,

approximately 10 advisors, and a certification technician. The office also has an administrative unit

with a supervisor, seven front desk clerks, two case

58 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
analysts, four case readers and a risk assessment unit

with two eligibility examiners, and two verification

technicians. 

When clients walk into the Brighton office to apply

for food stamps, they receive an application from a

front desk clerk. While they are in the lobby, they

may view a bilingual video about DHS services that

provides an overview of the change center. After they

complete the application, the clerk screens it to determine whether they are eligible for expedited food

stamps. If they do not qualify for them, the clerk

schedules an appointment with an advisor. Before the

appointment, risk assessment unit staff use a data

brokering system to verify the information clients

provide on their application. They can assess information on property ownership, vehicle ownership,

and marital status and access credit reports, which

advisors use as case clues during the initial interview.

At the initial meeting, the advisor informs clients

about their rights and responsibilities, issues their

Lone Star card, and notifies them about the change

center. Clients receive a bilingual card with the telephone number and mailing address of the change

center. They are also told that they can use the workstation to report changes. The workstation has a telephone, a fax machine, and a copier. All food stamp

applications are forwarded to the administrative unit

to be read before they are processed. 

Clients who recertify for food stamps at the Brighton

office are required to attend a group orientation

meeting that is led by one of the advisors with the

help of the administrative assistant. During the orientation, advisors review work rules and sanctions and

remind clients to contact staff at the change center to

report changes. After the orientation, advisors meet

with clients one-on-one to guide them through the

certification process. After gathering verification

documents and entering their information into

SAVERR, advisors forward food stamp cases to the

administrative unit to be reviewed. After the review,

the cases are processed. 

• Sutton Office. The Sutton office has four ongoing 

units. Each unit has a supervisor, from two to three 

assistant supervisors, from six to eight advisors, and 

a certification technician. There is also an administrative unit with a supervisor, two case analysts, 

three case readers, and three clerks. In addition, the 

Sutton office has a specialized unit with risk assessment staff (which includes one eligibility examiner

and one verification technician) and support staff,

including front desk clerks. 

Clients begin the certification process by submitting a

completed application to a clerk who screens it to

determine whether the case should be expedited.

Clients then receive an appointment to talk with an

advisor. Before they meet with their advisors, TANF

and food stamp clients are required to attend an orientation session where they are provided with general information about work requirements, sanctions,

and change reporting requirements and procedures.

They receive a card with contact information for the

center and a stamped envelope addressed to the

change center that they can use to report changes.

They are also told that they can use the workstation

to report changes. After the orientation, clients meet

with their advisor, who gathers verification documents, reviews specific information about their case,

including when they will begin receiving benefits

and how much they will receive, and answers client

questions. Before the case is processed, a case reader

in the specialized unit reviews it for accuracy. 

During the recertification process, clients meet with a

certification technician who gathers and reviews their

verification documents and recertification form. After

the review, the technician forwards all of the paperwork to the advisor in charge of the case. The advisor enters the information into the client’s case file in

SAVERR. The advisor then forwards the case to the

specialized unit where a case reader reviews it. After

it is deemed to be error free, the case is returned to

the advisor, who processes it. 

Both local offices noted that they began using shorter

recertification periods for food stamp clients in the fall

of 1999. The shorter recertification periods, which

were set by the regional office, are intended to reduce

the number of unreported changes. Before that time,

most food stamp clients were recertified every 6

months. Now, recertification periods for food stamp

clients range from every month to every 12 months.

Working clients with a fluctuating income are required

to recertify every 3 to 6 months, depending on their

expenses. Clients who are unemployed and lack stable

housing must recertify every 1 to 2 months. Clients

with a stable income and predictable expenses are

allowed to recertify every 6 to 12 months. This group

usually includes elderly recipients who are receiving

SSI and are in good health. Most food stamp-only

recipients are required to recertify every 3 months. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 59
Quality Control

Each local office is required to review all certification applications before they are processed and 50

percent of the recertification applications. Depending

on the local office, case readers or assistant supervisors conduct the reviews. The Sutton office has five

case reader positions. Four of the positions are filled

by assistant supervisors who rotate out of their units

for 4-month periods to review cases. The fifth position is a full-time case reader who reviews cases

year-round. At the present time, only three of the

positions are filled because of staffing shortages. All

completed food stamp cases are forwarded to the

supervisor overseeing the case readers. The supervisor selects cases that need to be read and assigns

them to the case readers. Case readers in the Sutton

office try to read 25 cases per day. The Brighton

office has two case analysts and four case readers.

Between 225 and 250 cases are reviewed in the

Sutton office each month.

A selected number of cases go through a second

review after they are processed to ensure that advisors

and supervisors catch errors. Each month supervisors

in both local offices review five processed cases from

each advisor’s caseload to ensure that they were completed accurately. Five cases are pulled from each case

reader’s caseload and reviewed by the supervisor to

ensure they are being reviewed accurately. The most

common certification and recertification errors relate

to three aspects of client eligibility: determination of

household composition, calculation of household

income, and determining the shelter deduction.

Client and Staff Response

Staff at both local offices said that clients were initially leery about using the change center. Since

clients cannot go to the change center, they believed

that the center was staffed with a bunch of operators

rather than employees trained to take changes. In

addition, they had established relationships with their

advisors and staff at the local offices. The center, on

the other hand, is set up so clients rarely interact with

the same person. They did not see a need to involve

another person in the change reporting process. Now

most clients seem to enjoy using the change center

because, unlike in the past, their changes are being

documented. Each time they report a change, they

receive a confirmation number and a letter in the

mail. In addition, they no longer have to go into the

local office to report a change. All they have to do is

pick up their telephone. That is particularly important

for clients who face transportation barriers.

TDHS staff reacted to the change center in different

ways. Some staff embraced the change center because

they felt it would reduce their workload. Other staff

felt as though their cases were being given away. They

wanted to see them through rather than hand them

over to someone else. When the local offices began to

lose staff to the change center, staff had mixed feelings. On the one hand, the change center was reducing

their workload by taking on change reporting responsibilities. On the other hand, it was leading to staff

reductions at the local offices and increasing their

caseloads as a result.

The staff interviewed felt as though the change center

made their jobs easier overall. They indicated that not

having to track changes helped to offset the increased

client monitoring they are required to do under

PRWORA. It also eliminated the need to stay abreast

of policy changes that are related to change reporting.

The staff also said that advisors face fewer interruptions in their workday since they have been allowed

to specialize. 

Challenges Identified by Local Staff

The staff at the change center raised some of the same

challenges that the State interviewees and regional

staff pointed to when asked to list barriers they face.

They noted that some policies were written for traditional caseworker-client interactions that occur in field

offices rather than for services that are provided over

the telephone, and they pointed to the confusion over

the right to appeal an adverse action. They also said

that staff in some local offices do not see the change

center as part of TDHS and that this view disconnects

the services offered at local field offices from those

provided by the change center. They pointed to the following challenges:

• It is difficult to control workflow because of the variability in the number of calls that may come in on a

given day. Because peaks are unpredictable, it is difficult for supervisors to assess staffing needs. If there

are not enough agents in the call arena to handle the

volume of calls, they document reported changes on

paper and verify them later, rather than initiating a

three-way call to verify changes on the spot and enter

them into SAVERR. That approach can be frustrating

because the underlying goal is to serve clients

through one call.

60 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
• The change center generates a lot of paperwork

because every change or request for information has 

to be documented in writing. The center purchased a

bursting machine that is used to fold the notices.

Use of this machine, however, requires clerks to

spend a good deal of time inserting notices into

envelopes. For a little more money, the center could

have bought a machine that automatically prints the

notices, folds them, and puts them into envelopes

directly from the computer.

• The computers at the change center operate off of

three local area networks (LANs). When one LAN

crashes, it impacts the entire center. In August 2000,

the computers were down off and on for 3 or 4

days. During that time, agents took changes manually and called clients back to complete the change

reporting process. 

The staff interviewed at the local offices felt the change

center was successful. However, they cited two challenges that have arisen since its implementation: 

• Staff in both offices said their workload had

increased because they had lost workers to the

change center. As mentioned earlier, the first units of

the change center were composed of staff from the

Brighton and Sutton offices. The staff from the units

eventually moved to the change center settled in the

Sutton building. Because they were never replaced,

both offices have had to spread their work over a

smaller pool of people. 

• Staff indicated that accessing case files that have

been checked out by change agents can be frustrating. Advisors cannot contact the change center

directly. They have to go through their local office

liaison with a request that the file be released. The

liaison then contacts the customer service representative at the change center, who determines why the

case is unavailable. In some instances, it takes a day

or two to get a case from the change center. 

Georgia

Overview of Re-engineering Category

With the advent of welfare reform in Georgia, State

officials became concerned about the high level of

certification errors in county-run social service programs. An investigation into the source of these errors

found that most could be attributed to county-level

caseworkers processing changes in client eligibility

status outside of the approved processing timelines. In

looking for solutions to this problem, Georgia officials decided to pilot a project that established a Staterun change center to assume responsibility for helping

the counties process and complete changes in client

enrollment status. 

This project was modeled after a similar project that is

taking place in Texas. However, one key difference

between the Georgia pilot and the Texas program is

that Georgia administers its social service programs

through local county government offices, while Texas

administers its programs using State employees. Up

until the development of the change center, Georgia

State employees were not involved in the day-to-day

operations of the Food Stamp Program (FSP). With the

advent of the change center, the responsibility for

ensuring that changes are correctly reported in the

pilot counties became a State-level responsibility. The

initial pilot county for the project, which began in

1999, was Fulton County, encompassing parts of

Atlanta. During the first year, the pilot was expanded

to seven more urban counties in the greater Atlanta

area. Finally, in the year 2000, a rural county (Baldwin

County) was added.

The purpose of this case study is twofold. First, the

study is designed to provide information on the development and implementation of the change center and

how the project affected county-administered programs. Second, the study was interested in whether or

not the change center was effectively serving the needs

of the pilot rural county. To gather information for this

case study, interviews were conducted with the State

FSP manager, the director of the change center, the

administrator of the Baldwin County Economic

Support program, and program supervisors and caseworkers in Baldwin County.

Food Stamp Program Administration

As noted above, Georgia administers its social service

programs through county governments. State officials

provide counties with policy direction for the FSP,

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),

and Medicaid program, and operational responsibility

for these programs rests with the counties. State officials noted that there is little difference between counties in the way the FSP is administered.

State staff responsible for overseeing these programs

are located in a series of regional offices, which are

called field areas. Georgia has divided its counties into

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 61
14 field areas, with a Field Area Administrator responsible for communicating and implementing program

policy in each area. In addition, each field area has a

number of program consultants who are responsible

for helping county staff with policy questions, providing training on changes in policy, and monitoring program compliance with State regulations. 

In 1999, counties in the Atlanta area were given the

option of participating in the change center project. To

fund the project, the State used funds that normally

would have been returned to the U. S. Department of

Agriculture as a result of the high error rate.

Additionally, counties choosing to participate were

required to transfer county-funded positions to the

State for staffing purposes. Counties were initially

requested to provide one position for every 5000

cases they managed. In turn, the change centers

assumed all responsibility for recording and processing client status changes, including any error rates

associated with the processing of those changes. The

State plans to expand the pilot program in 2001,

adding an additional change center to serve 70-80

smaller counties in southwest Georgia.

The organizational location of the change center is

somewhat unique within Georgia’s social service

delivery system. The change center is not part of any

particular field area, but exists as a separate entity. The

change center is physically located in Atlanta, and uses

State employees to staff the project. Clients who wish

to report changes in their eligibility status are encouraged by the county caseworkers to telephone the

change center. In addition, the center staff uses computer matching to identify potential client changes.

When client records from the FSP are matched with

data from other programs and potential changes in the

client’s eligibility status are identified, the change center staff take a proactive approach by contacting the

clients to verify whether the change actually occurred.

For example, staff use the Medicaid birth records database to match new births with FSP and TANF client

records to determine if any infants should be added to

the family record.

Findings From State Administrators

Background on Change Center Operations

As noted above, the change center started out serving

clients residing in Fulton County, and then expanded

to seven other urban counties in 1999. Baldwin

County was added at the end of 1999 and was the first

rural county in Georgia to be added. As previously

noted, county programs were required to provide positions to staff the center. Each county was asked to

identify appropriate positions within their organization

at a civil service classification that could be used by

the State for staffing the center. Because many of the

civil service classifications used by the counties were

consistent with those needed by the State, the position

transfer process worked smoothly. However, it is

important to note that individuals who may have occupied the positions at the county level were not transferred along with their positions. This fact was important to State officials, as the skills needed to work in

the call center are different than those needed by local

caseworkers.

The primary purpose of the change center is to record

and document changes in eligibility status submitted

by clients. Changes can be reported by a telephone call

from a client or through a fax from a county caseworker. When a change is reported, it is the responsibility

of the “change agents” to verify the change, collect

documentation when needed, and process and record

the change. In addition, a separate unit is responsible

for recording and adding newborn infants to family

records. Change agents are also responsible for matching client records with other social service databases,

including Medicaid birth records and data from a

“new-hires” database. 

In January 1999, the change center began processing

Fulton County changes, which involved 26,500 cases.

In April, when the 7 additional counties were added,

the center processed 63,500 cases. In September, when

all of the counties were up and running, the total number of cases expanded to 119,500. This caseload continued to grow, and in March of 2000 the total number

of cases processed by the center was 152,600. 

The amount of time needed to respond to the calls

averages about 4 to 5 minutes each. Most of the calls

(55 percent) are related to the Medicaid program, with

about 35 percent of the calls involving FSP changes

and the remaining 10 percent being associated with

TANF program issues. While the center is designed to

be used by clients only for reporting changes, the

change center supervisor reported that at least onethird of all calls are general inquiries about the FSP.

When general calls are received, staff refer these

clients to their local county programs.

62 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Change Center Staffing

The change centers are primarily staffed with change

agents. At the time of these case study interviews,

there were a total of 30 change agents working in the

center. A recent assessment of the staffing needs for

the center indicated that current volume would support

a total of 55 agents. In addition to the change agents,

there are three supervisors and three program consultants representing each of the three social service programs and one quality control supervisor. The program

consultants provide assistance to the supervisors and

change agents with regard to policy questions, while

the quality control supervisor reviews a limited number of client records each day to ensure that they were

properly handled.

The change center director requested and received

approval for adjusting the job specifications for the

civil service classification used by the center. The original classifications transferred by the counties, while at

the same salary range, often were tied to job specifications that related to employment services. The new job

specifications focused more on the ability to manage

cases over the telephone. However, many of the staff

hired into the positions had not worked with a system

that used telephone calls for reporting client information along with a computer system for processing and

documenting changes. 

On-the-job training is provided to staff by the supervisors. New staff are first assigned to a mentor, someone

who has worked there for a while and is familiar with

the system. The change center supervisor noted that

the first 2 weeks are very hard for new employees, as

they are often not prepared for the constant telephone

calls. In addition, agents are required to finish up their

cases on the same day the report comes in, so there is

pressure to complete all of their cases, but at the same

time not to let clients remain on hold for long periods

of time.

Processing Client Changes

When a client first calls the change center, an automated answering system asks if they prefer to communicate in English or Spanish. The center maintains two

Spanish-speaking agents to handle clients who wish to

report in Spanish. Once the language of preference is

established, the clients are asked if they wish to add a

newborn infant to an existing family record or simply

report another type of change. Clients are then transferred to the first available change agent, who will

process and record the changes. Once the changes are

recorded, the change agent will send the county caseworker handling the case an e-mail or fax notifying

them of the change. Each county has a contact person

responsible for working with staff at the change center

to resolve any outstanding problems or issues. 

Clients may report changes any time the center is

open, which is from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays.

The average time for each call runs 4 to 7 minutes.

The center is equipped to handle up to 60 calls at a

time, but current staffing is such that only 30 calls can

be processed at a time. The computerized telephone

system used by the agents includes a feature that

tracks how long clients have been on hold waiting for

an agent, which clients hang-up, and how long clients

waited before they hung up. In addition, the system

can tell supervisors how many clients are waiting at

any given time. Through this system, supervisors can

monitor the flow of work and pull more agents into

telephone service when calls are heavy. While no formal client satisfaction system is in place, agents report

that clients seem to like the system and have not had

problems with long waits. Most of the clients who

hang up do so without waiting. 

Challenges Identified by State Staff

Both the State FSP manager and the Change Center

director reported that the counties are happy with the

services provided by the change center. However, they

did note the following challenges: 

• Training and retention of staff is often difficult, as

there are not many State employees with the type of

experience necessary to handle this unique job. Many

people who apply for jobs at the change center have

not worked with a computerized telephone system

before. New employees report a great deal of stress

in conducting their day-to-day business, simply

because of the high volume of calls they are expected

to handle. The requirement that all cases be completed on the day they are processed adds additional

stress. State officials believe that the addition of

more staff would reduce the amount of stress and

lead to a more productive work environment.

However, counties are not likely to transfer any more

positions than they must to the change center, so the

likelihood of obtaining increases in the number of

staff is low. 

• Even if new staff became available, a second problem identified by State officials is the limited amount

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 63
of space available at the current location. The change

center site, which is in the basement of leased space

in Atlanta, is currently very crowded and will not

hold more desks or cubicles. In order to expand

staffing, the change center would require additional

space, at a significant cost (for moving telephone and

computer lines). Currently, no funds are available to

expand the center’s physical layout.

• It is very difficult to consistently provide telephone

coverage if a person is absent due to illness or vacation. The leave policy of the change center requires

that only a limited number of change agents can be

out at one time. This has created some resentment

among staff who would like to take vacation time

around holidays, but are denied because of staffing

limitations. In addition, if a person is sick, the change

center can not bring in a trained replacement. This

means that staff who are there must pick up the

workload of the person who is absent. 

• The pay levels for change agents have created a problem with retention. The starting salary for a change

agent is $22,000 per year, which is low for the

Atlanta area. In addition, while the skills needed for

the change center are somewhat unique in State government, they are not unique on the open market, particularly in the areas of Internet customer support and

telemarketing. Sometimes agents find that they can

make more money with the same skills by leaving

State government and working for private companies. 

• State staff acknowledged that there were initial issues

with county staff’s resentment over the fact that they

would not be handling the entire case file of their

clients and that caseworker positions were being

transferred to the State. While State officials feel that

these issues have been resolved, they understand that

in some counties the loss of even one position may

have put a burden on the remaining staff. Officials

are hopeful that if the pilot projects are extended and

the program made permanent, the positions will be

established in the State budget, and the ones transferred from the counties could be returned.

Findings From Baldwin County

Overview

Baldwin County is a rural county located in the center

of Georgia. Much of the county’s economic base is

related to small manufacturing facilities, a local university, service industries, and agriculture. While the

county has a high employment rate, staff in Baldwin

County believe that many of the jobs available to the

low-income population they serve are minimum wage.

There are some manufacturing facilities in the county,

but they tend to limit their hiring to skilled workers.

The Baldwin County Department of Children and

Family Services is located in the county seat of

Milledgeville, and the Economic Support Division is

staffed with eight Family Independence case managers

and two supervisors. Family Independence case managers generally serve a caseload of around 400-450

clients. The caseworkers handle enrollment for the

FSP, Medicaid, and TANF programs. About 150 cases

of each caseworker’s load are food stamp recipients.

After welfare reform, TANF cases declined in the

county, FSP cases stayed the same, and Medicaid cases

increased. The county began having problems with

their error rates in 1997, and had an error rate as high

as 48 percent in 1998. At that time, the county was

processing an average of 150 changes a month, and

officials discovered that these changes were often not

processed in a timely manner. In order to bring the

error rates down, Baldwin County officials requested

to be included in the change center pilot project. This

choice was a difficult decision, as officials knew that

they would lose one of their staff positions if they

were accepted into the pilot, and this loss might create

staffing problems in the future. However, county officials came to the conclusion that it was worth losing a

position in order to reduce the error rates. Since their

inclusion in the change center, the error rate for

Baldwin County has dropped to less than 1 percent.

County Program Administration

Baldwin County accepts applications for Medicaid,

TANF, and the FSP 5 days a week, but schedules eligibility interview appointments only 2 days a week.

This system was established to allow staff time to

inform clients of the documentation they will need to

bring to the interview and to allow staff the time to

process the applications once the interview is complete. When a client submits an application, he/she is

assigned a caseworker who helps with completing the

application process. During the interview process,

clients are informed about other social service programs for which they may be eligible.

When the application process is complete, and a client

is found to be eligible for services, he/she is given an

information packet describing the types of changes in

economic and family situation that must be reported

64 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
and is provided a card with the change center telephone number. Clients are instructed to contact the

change center whenever they have a reportable

change. However, even with the change center information, some clients may still try to drop off change

information and documentation at the county office.

This practice is discouraged, as the county staff are

then required to fax the client’s changes to the change

center for processing. Instead, if a person shows up at

the office to report changes, the county has made

available a telephone “hotline” for the client to use to

call the change center.

At the time of the site visit, the office was shortstaffed, with three of eight eligibility workers being

new. It is often difficult to bring on new staff and

have them begin serving clients right away. The State

provides training to all new caseworkers through

training sites located around the State. Once a new

caseworker is hired, he/she must spend 5 weeks away

from the County at the training site to complete all of

the required training. This means that new employees

can not begin serving clients until 6 weeks after they

are hired. 

Challenges Identified by County Officials

In general, County officials are pleased with the use of

the change center. There were some initial problems

identified by county staff with changes getting recorded properly and in a timely manner. After the county

was accepted into the pilot, caseworkers monitored the

change center processing very closely to be sure the

materials that were sent to the center were handled

properly. During the first 3 months, caseworkers and

county officials identified a number of problems with

the way the change center was processing the information from Baldwin County, and supervisory staff spent

a great deal of time calling these problems to the attention of change center staff. As a result of Baldwin

County’s followup, the change center made a number

of adjustments to their procedures for recording

changes, and all are now satisfied that the process is

meeting the needs of Baldwin County officials.

Other implementation issues identified by county staff

are described below:

• The major issue for Baldwin County officials was the

loss of one staff person to the change center, representing a little over 10 percent of the total program

staffing. While TANF cases have been declining,

FSP caseloads have remained about the same, and

Medicaid cases have been increasing. The result of

the staff reduction has been to put additional burdens

on the remaining staff. Officials are hoping that in

the future the State will assume responsibility for the

change center staffing and the position will be

returned to Baldwin County.

• Some workers miss not having complete control of a

client’s case. In the past, the caseworker was in

charge of all aspects of the client’s enrollment and

participation in the programs. Now, the caseworkers

find that they are unaware of changes in their clients’

status until they are processed at the change center

and the change is reported to the caseworker. While

the reporting of changes to the caseworker is most

often done in a timely manner (within 30 days),

some caseworkers expressed a desire to have total

control of the cases.

Kansas

Overview of Re-engineering Changes

Prior to the implementation of welfare reform in

1997, the Kansas Food Stamp Program (FSP) operated under separate program rules from other public

assistance programs. With the passage of welfare

reform, Kansas officials decided to avail themselves

of the opportunity to consolidate and conform these

various programs. To do so, they decided to make

three major changes in how they operated their public

assistance programs. First, through the efforts of the

State legislature and the governor’s office, they

moved the programs toward emphasizing employment and self-sufficiency as a goal for all clients.

Second, Kansas program administrators decided to

combine operations for public assistance and employment programs, functions that were previously performed by separate organizational units. Finally,

Kansas officials attempted to simplify program rules

for the TANF, Food Stamp, and Medicaid programs

in order to provide consistency in program policy

whenever possible.

While Kansas officials were successful in accomplishing the first two of these objectives, the third objective, a consistent policy across programs, became more

difficult. Originally, Kansas officials hoped to be able

to consolidate a number of program rules and procedures to make the process of obtaining program benefits easier for workers and clearer for clients. However,

they were able to report only limited success. While

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 65
they were able to combine the operations manuals for

the three programs and were successful in conforming

some of the rules and procedures, a number of factors—such as inability to obtain necessary waivers,

conflicting program goals, inability to combine two

diverse data collection systems, and resistance from

some local offices—kept them from accomplishing

their goal completely.

However, among the changes Kansas officials were

able to accomplish, the largest single undertaking was

changing the roles and functions of local caseworkers.

The purpose of this case study is to describe how the

role of the caseworker was changed in Kansas and to

provide information on how these changes affected a

rural program in Atchison, Kansas. To accomplish this

purpose, interviews were conducted at the State headquarters office with the Director of Economic and

Employment Support, the Food Stamp Program

Manager, the Manager of the Economic and

Employment Support training programs, and the

Manager of Research and Planning. In the Atchison

office, interviews were conducted with the Area Chief

of Economic and Employment Support, two

Economic Employment Support Supervisors, and

three caseworkers.

Food Stamp Program Administration 

The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitative

Services is responsible for administering public assistance programs through State offices located in 11

management areas across the State. These management

areas cover 105 counties, with at least one office located in each county. Total FSP caseload in Kansas averages around 117,000 clients per month in 53,000

households. After the implementation of welfare

reform, FSP caseload dropped 30 percent over the

period 1997-99. However, in 1999, FSP participation

began to increase by about 4.5 percent. Kansas officials are unsure why FSP participation increased, as

they had not enacted any type of outreach program to

potentially eligible clients.

Program management in each of the 11 areas is provided by program directors, who, in turn, report to an

area director. The programs administered in these 11

management areas include Economic and Employment

Support (FSP, TANF, and Medicaid), vocational rehabilitation programs, and child support programs. 

Program policy is developed at the headquarters office

in Topeka, with input from regional staff. Each of the

major programs in the Economic and Employment

Support Division has a program head, who is responsible for identifying program policy changes that may be

required by Federal or State law. However, with the

advent of welfare reform, Kansas officials decided to

combine all of their Economic and Employment

Services policies into a single manual. Kansas has created a Policy Development Team, composed of four

central office staff and four representatives from the

management areas. It is the responsibility of the Policy

Development Team to review and approve any proposed policy changes the individual programs may

wish to implement. In addition, the Policy

Development Team identifies areas where program

requirements can be conformed in order to avoid confusion about different program rules and regulations at

the local level.

The growing number of Spanish-speaking clients has

increased the need for bilingual staff and the production of Spanish language materials. Currently, there are

very few bilingual staff, and many of the materials,

including the applications and notices, are not translated into Spanish. Clients often have to rely on family

members or friends to help them complete the application process. In addition, a growing number of Russian

immigrants have moved to Kansas. A few areas have

also seen a significant increase in clients who speak

only Southeast Asian languages. 

Findings From Interviews With State 

Headquarters Officials

Changes in the Role of the Caseworker

Prior to welfare reform, caseworkers worked with differing program regulations and multiple policy manuals for the three major public assistance programs. One

of the major goals of Kansas officials in implementing

welfare reform was to promote as much consistency

between programs as possible. While local areas have

flexibility in how they implement their programs, consistency in policy was pushed by headquarters staff as

a means to better serve clients and eliminate confusion

about different program requirements in similar areas.

While consistency in policy development was the

overall goal, Kansas officials realized that having multiple individuals responsible for implementing policies

across programs might defeat the purpose. To prevent

fragmentation of policy application at the local level, a

decision was made to combine the job functions of

staff responsible for program eligibility with those of

staff responsible for employment programs. 

66 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
In doing so, Kansas created a new civil service classification called Economic and Employment Support

Specialist. The purpose of the new job classification

was to combine activities related to determining program eligibility with those related to helping clients

find employment and gain self-sufficiency.

Caseworkers were expected to become case managers,

with an individual caseworker becoming responsible

for all program activities related to an individual

client. In combining these activities, State officials

envisioned that clients facing the challenges of welfare

reform would be more likely to respond positively to a

single worker handling their case than to having to

deal with multiple caseworkers. 

The development of the Economic and Employment

Support Specialist classification was a two-phased

process. First, State officials had to create the classification and identify the existing positions that would be

transferred to the new classification. With the cooperation of the State civil service board, specifications for

the class were developed, and new requirements for

qualification for the class were examined. To the

extent possible, the job requirements mirrored those of

the old classifications. However, the scope of responsibility for the new classification was much broader than

that of the old classifications.

The formal work on development of the new job classification was rather easy compared to that for the second phase, which was to convince local program staffs

that the change in job classification was appropriate

and necessary. Initially there was much resistance from

local caseworkers. This resistance was based upon a

lack of familiarity with the duties being performed by

each of the two groups of caseworkers and by concern

as to how combining functions would affect individual

jobs. For example, caseworkers responsible for program eligibility were not familiar with the activities of

their counterparts in employment services, nor were

those working in employment services familiar with

program eligibility. While some areas accepted the

change, others resisted cooperating. Finally, the secretary of the agency issued a letter to all Area Directors

requiring them to cooperate with the job classification

change. Some areas accepted this and moved ahead

quickly to implement it, while other areas were not as

cooperative. But by the end of 1998, the change was to

be fully implemented.

Staff Training

One of the major tasks faced by Kansas officials was

retraining staff for their new positions. Employees

needed training in three areas. First, because two different computer systems were being used to support

employment services and eligibility services, staff

needed to be cross-trained on at least one of the systems. Second, staff who had previously worked only in

employment services had to be trained on eligibility

determination, while eligibility caseworkers had to be

trained on employment services. Finally, because a

number of policies had been changed to promote consistency and a new, combined manual created to reflect

these changes, all staff needed training on the new

policies.

Once staff had been trained, local programs began

reassigning cases to individuals. In order to provide

support to staff who were working in an unfamiliar

program area, teams were developed so individuals

had a resource to provide support and answer questions they might have about a particular policy. 

Challenges Identified by State Officials

Kansas officials identified a number of challenges to

implementing welfare reform and changing the role of

the caseworker. A discussion of these challenges follows.

• More involvement of local caseworkers in the

process of creating the new job classifications

might have helped smooth implementation. Most of

the work on the new job classification was done by

headquarters staff working with local program

directors. Caseworkers themselves were not

involved in the process. As a result, caseworkers

were probably more resistant to the changes than

they might have been had they been directly

involved.

• At the same time the job reclassification was taking

place, Kansas made a number of changes in how it

implemented employment programs. Kansas had traditionally emphasized client participation in education and employment training programs, which

often had little impact on an individual’s ability to

find employment. However, over the years strong

relationships had been developed between Kansas

educational institutions, such as the University of

Kansas, and State employment programs. Through

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 67
contracts with the State, these institutions provided

education and training at various locations throughout the State. When the emphasis changed from

longer-term training to job readiness and actual

placement of clients into jobs, the educational institutions complained bitterly that they were being left

out of the process, and that caseworkers without adequate training in employment issues would be

responsible for implementing this important component of the program. 

• Many of the staff who had worked in employment

programs prior to welfare reform also had difficulty

with making the adjustment to the Kansas “work

first” philosophy. Local program staff had always

viewed their work as helping clients to find longterm solutions to self-sufficiency and to identify

potential long-term career paths. When caseworkers

were required to shift this philosophy to one of finding clients employment as quickly as possible, it was

a difficult transition. Caseworkers have expressed

concern that the short-term employment opportunities usually found for clients will disappear if the

economy takes a turn for the worse, and then clients

will not have the training or skills necessary to find

jobs requiring more skills.

• While combining functions has worked well in many

areas, the sometimes conflicting service philosophies

faced by caseworkers handling clients participating

in multiple programs can be problematic.

Caseworkers are often put in the position of pushing

clients towards employment and self-sufficiency in

order to help them leave the TANF rolls, while at the

same time promoting participation in the FSP and

Medicaid programs. This is often confusing to the

clients, who when pushed to leave the TANF rolls

believe they should be leaving the FSP or Medicaid

programs as well. 

• The antiquated nature of the Kansas computer systems is also a major problem that has not been

resolved. One of the selling points for the combined

jobs and policy manuals was a promise that the two

separate computer systems used by caseworkers (one

for eligibility, one for employment services) would

be discarded and a new combined system would be

developed. This, however, has not materialized. As a

result, caseworkers must work with two different

computer systems when serving their clients. State

officials still hope to eliminate this problem, but currently, no funds are available for data system development and computer purchases.

• Within the next 5 years, a large number of caseworkers will be retiring. This will result in a need for new

caseworker recruitment. Many of the caseworkers

that are retiring are located in rural areas, where it is

often difficult to recruit. In particular, the rural areas

of Western Kansas are facing a severe recruitment

problem in the near future.

Findings From Interviews in the 

Atchison Office

Overview of Service Delivery

The Atchison office is located in the northeast corner of

Kansas, and is included in a service area with six other,

mostly rural counties. Approximately 3,400 households

are being served in the area, with around 500 in the

Atchison office. Overall responsibility for the administration of Economic and Employment Support programs within the area belongs to the Program Chief,

who in turn relies on program supervisors within each

office. Each office has at least one program supervisor,

who is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the office. The recently created Economic and

Employment Support Specialists report to the supervisors and are responsible for enrollment of clients and

providing case management services. The office has

very little turnover, as the positions with the State are

some of the best paying in this rural area.

In their role as case managers, staff in the Atchison

office have developed strong ties to community organizations serving the same population. These strong ties

allow the case managers to assist the client with issues

that can not normally be resolved by the public assistance programs. For example, caseworkers noted

strong ties to the local community action agency,

which helps clients obtain energy assistance funds.

Among the various other agencies with which the

caseworkers coordinate are the local WIC program, the

Salvation Army, the local independent living center,

the county hunger task force, and local food banks.

Program representatives from these agencies meet on a

periodic basis to discuss community needs and to plan

for future services.

Changing the Role of the Caseworker

In general, the caseworkers in the Atchison office are

pleased with the change in their roles since the passage

of welfare reform. All three of the caseworkers interviewed said that they enjoyed being able to provide

true case management services by handing all of the

68 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
client’s issues and that they were able to devote more

time to case management than when they were responsible for only a portion of the case. The caseworkers

also noted that under the old system clients would be

passed back and forth between caseworkers, which

created some frustration for the clients.

The Atchison office had a relatively easy time with the

transition to the new job classification. Atchison was

somewhat fortunate during the transition, in that one

of the employment caseworkers had worked as an eligibility worker prior to coming to the county program

and was knowledgeable about both programs. With her

knowledge, other caseworkers had someone to whom

they could go to for answers to questions or to receive

help in working the computer systems. However, even

with this assistance, the caseworkers all had to be

cross-trained on systems with which they were not

familiar. The program chief credits the enthusiasm of

the staff with making the entire transition process

move smoothly.

The single biggest change in the day-to-day activities

of the caseworkers is working with clients under the

increased emphasis on employment services. Prior to

implementation of welfare reform, 70 percent of the

AFDC participants who were required to participate in

employment and training activities were attending the

University of Kansas. However, only 14 percent of the

clients completed the program. Of the group that completed the program, only 10 percent went on to complete a college degree program. Local officials

believed that they were paying for a program that was

not producing results. 

The new emphasis of the caseworkers is on employment readiness and preparation for job seeking.

Caseworkers have worked hard to build relationships

with employers in the area, who are mostly in servicerelated industries. Local employers have provided the

caseworkers with information about the kinds of

issues they have faced with hiring public assistance

clients. In turn, the caseworkers have begun working

with clients to help build their practical skills, including such basics as showing up for work on time and

notifying their supervisor when they will not be coming into work.

The major sources for employment for public assistance clients who live in this rural area are low-end

manufacturing plants, tribal casinos, telemarketing

companies, and food service providers. Over the past

year, the economy in the area has been strong and

there have been labor shortages in many of the service-related areas. As a result, clients who seek employment often can find a job in the service industry.

However, caseworkers noted that the major agricultural industries, such as the grain elevators, would not

hire public assistance clients.

Another function assumed by the caseworkers has

been increased effort to conduct outreach to FSP and

Medicaid clients. Two of the priorities for the office

are the enrollment of children in the State Child Health

Insurance Program and working to end hunger within

the region. As a result, the public assistance agency

has teamed up with local private agencies to form

what they call a “dream team” to address community

outreach needs. This group meets to assess community

needs and designs potential outreach efforts.

Representatives from the Atchison office participate

both on the steering committee for the dream team and

on special committees that are created to work on specific problems.

Another benefit of their changing role cited by the

caseworkers was the increased flexibility they have in

working with clients. Because they are now responsible for all aspects of the client’s case, they can work

with the clients to develop individual plans for dealing

with self-sufficiency issues. The caseworkers also

believe that clients like the new system better, as they

only have to deal with one caseworker, and clients can

feel comfortable that the caseworker is familiar with

their situation.

Challenges Faced by the Local Office

While noting that the staff in the Atchison office were

very pleased with the changes in the role of the caseworker, there were some challenges the local office

faced in making the transition, as discussed below.

• When welfare reform was first implemented, clients

who could be easily placed into employment situations were the first off the rolls. Clients currently

being served through TANF are very hard to serve,

and require much more time than other clients. As a

result, case management of clients is taking more

time, and the problems identified as barriers to

employment are much more difficult to resolve.

Caseworkers noted that many of the clients they are

currently serving have problems such as mental

health issues, substance abuse problems, and chronic

health conditions. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 69
• Finding employment in a rural area is difficult, and

can be frustrating for clients and caseworkers alike.

While the Atchison office has had success in finding

employment opportunities for clients who want to

work, they have run into resistance with firms that

pay higher wages. It is difficult to convince local

employers that TANF and FSP clients will make

good long-term employees. Many will not even interview clients if they find out they are on TANF.

• A large number of elderly individuals in the county

live at or near the poverty level. One of the key outreach goals of the office has been to encourage elderly individuals to apply for food stamps. Caseworkers

are concerned about the growing number of elderly

who are at risk of food insecurity. However, caseworkers have found it very difficult to convince elderly individuals that it is worth their effort to apply

for what end up being very limited program benefits. 

• Using the dual computer system is frustrating and

takes more time than it might if the two systems

were integrated. While the caseworkers noted that

they are now used to the two systems, it is still very

time consuming for them to work with both. The

caseworkers and the supervisors both noted that with

a more efficient system, they could spend more time

working on case management issues.

• While the caseworkers are pleased with their

increased case management role, they worry that their

FSP error rates are on the rise. Supervisors believe

that this increase can be attributed to both the difficulty of the cases now being carried and the complexity

of the rule changes that were implemented during

welfare reform. Supervisors are encouraging caseworkers to spend more time on quality control, even

if it means spending less time with the client.

Arizona

Overview of Re-engineering Effort

In 1997, the Arizona legislature passed a welfare

reform measure designed to begin a process of privatization of the welfare system. Influenced by

Wisconsin’s attempts to involve private enterprise in

managing the welfare caseload, the Arizona legislature established a nine-member procurement board

and charged them with developing plans for contracting with a private agency to help move public assistance clients into employment and off the welfare

rolls. Problems in the legislation and the inability to

obtain waivers for privatization of Medicaid and the

FSP limited privatization efforts to the Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The

procurement board issued a Request For Proposals in

1998 to pilot a project in Maricopa County (greater

Phoenix area) to allow private companies to manage

the TANF program.

Two companies bid for the project, with the award

being given to Maximus, a company located in

Virginia. The contract calls for a 4-year pilot program,

with a rural county to be added after year 2. The contract is incentive-based, with a requirement that

Maximus must show overall 10 percent savings in

total program costs. The basic contract provides for

funding of services provided to a specific caseload

level (currently over 4,000), but does not include the

cost of data systems and facilities, both of which are

provided by the State. Incentives for additional revenue are built into the contract based upon meeting

performance standards. The State named this project

“Arizona Works.”

The purpose of this case study is to examine how this

privatization effort has affected the Food Stamp

Program and how local State-run FSPs work with the

contractor to coordinate services. Interviewed for this

case study were the State’s project director for the

Arizona Works project, the coordinator for the

Maricopa County JOBS program, which competes

with the Maximus project in Maricopa County, two

local JOBS caseworkers, and an FSP supervisor. In

addition, the Maximus project director for Arizona

Works was interviewed, along with a project supervisor. Finally, two FSP caseworkers at the Salt River

Reservation were interviewed.

Food Stamp Program Administration

The FSP in Arizona is administered by the State, with

regional and local offices located throughout the

State. State employees handle eligibility determination in most areas of the State for the three major

public assistance programs, FSP, Medicaid, and

TANF. Clients apply at local offices, where their

applications are processed and eligibility is determined. Once determined to be eligible, clients who

must meet work requirements are placed in a special

JOBS program, where they are provided assistance in

finding employment and building job-seeking skills.

State officials report a strong job market, particularly

in Maricopa County, and placing clients in jobs has

been relatively easy.

70 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
There are two exceptions to the above description of

program services. In Maricopa County, the Arizona

Works program provides TANF and employment services to eligible clients, while a separate State-run

office located next door to Arizona Works provides

FSP and Medicaid services. The second exception to

the above relates to a number of Native American

Tribal programs that provide TANF services to clients

on reservations. In this circumstance, the State provides caseworkers that work at the Tribal public assistance offices to certify clients for FSP and Medicaid

services. In both cases, coordination between the State

employees and the Maximus and Tribal caseworkers is

important.

Findings From Interviews With

Headquarters Staff

Overview of the State Program in 

Maricopa County

Maricopa County is unique in that it has three separate

agencies operating TANF programs within the county.

The State-run TANF program covers the western part

of the county, the Arizona Works program covers

much of the eastern portion, and Tribal programs exist

on reservation land located within the county. Each of

the three programs works independently of the others.

However, the State stations FSP and Medicaid eligibility workers at the Tribal public assistance office so

that clients applying for TANF can also apply for these

other services. In addition, caseworkers located at the

Tribal offices process FSP and Medicaid-only applications for Tribal members. 

The primary focus of the Arizona public assistance programs is to assist clients with finding employment and

reaching a point of self-sufficiency. Major efforts are

undertaken to help clients find employment, including

motivational programs, resume development, job readiness training, and job placement services. Clients who

are in a mandatory employment category (TANF and

FSP Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents) are

required to attend these different sessions, but all FSP

participants are encouraged to attend.

Employment opportunities seem plentiful in Maricopa

County. The State JOBS Program supervisor reports that

a number of employers, including large trucking companies, State governmental agencies, small manufacturing

plants, and temporary agencies, hire public assistance

clients. The average wage for a public assistance client

is $7.40 per hour. Caseworkers are encouraged to make

followup contacts with clients to be sure that they are

successful in maintaining their employment. 

During interviews with caseworkers and the JOBS

supervisor it was noted that the initial placement of

clients was very successful after welfare reform, but

the current group of TANF clients is much harder to

place. Caseworkers cite mental health and substance

abuse issues as problems with the population they currently serve. In addition, the lack of job skills has

hampered successful retention of employment.

Caseworkers note that many of the hard-to-serve

clients will not show up for work if they have a minor

problem at home and will not call their employers to

let them know they will be absent. Many of these

clients end up coming back into the system, and the

State-run program has limited funds to provide support

services to help returning clients succeed.

State Services in Eastern Maricopa County

In eastern Maricopa County, State employees are

responsible for providing Medicaid and FSP services,

while Maximus provides the TANF and employment

services. The State office is located next door to the

Maximus office, and they share a common entry area.

When clients come into the State office to receive

services, they are first asked if they are applying for

TANF or for food stamps or Medicaid. If they are

applying for FSP or Medicaid services only, their

applications are taken at the State office. If they are

also applying for TANF, they must complete a separate

application in the Arizona Works office. The same is

true if someone applies for TANF at the Arizona

Works office and also desires food stamps or

Medicaid. Therefore, clients applying for TANF and

FSP/Medicaid services must go through two interview

processes.

The State office in eastern Maricopa County is staffed

with 31 workers who handle the FSP and Medicaid

caseloads. While the State-run program and the

Arizona Works programs operate as separate entities,

they have worked out a memorandum of understanding by which each of the programs will coordinate

operations on a limited basis. For example, caseworkers from both programs are required to coordinate with

each other when making changes to client records.

However, State-level caseworkers reported that they

sometimes have difficulty obtaining the information

from Arizona Works caseworkers, which often is the

basis for eligibility errors and for clients having to

return overpayments of their benefits. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 71
Services Provided by Arizona Works

The Arizona Works program began in 1999, with

4,000 TANF cases transferred from the State-run program in eastern Maricopa County to the new program. The primary purpose of the Arizona Works

project is to assist TANF clients with finding employment. The program is responsible for taking and

approving applications for TANF, providing support

services to TANF clients related to job placement,

and finding jobs for the clients. 

The Arizona Works program manager reports to the

State procurement board. The State Department of

Economic Security has appointed a project manager to

work with the Arizona Works program as a liaison

between Maximus and the Department and to serve as

a policy expert when policy interpretations are

required. It is the responsibility of the State Project

Director to coordinate and resolve issues that may

come up between the Arizona Works program and the

State-run program. For example, the program manager

was recently involved in negotiating additional space

for the Arizona Works program at the State’s leased

facility shared by the State-run program.

When Maximus assumed the responsibility for the

TANF program, they were allowed to hire their own

staff. This meant that a number of State employees

who were previously serving these clients needed to

find new jobs. Because Maximus had a short amount

of time to implement this program after the contract

was signed, they offered the State employees the

opportunity to join the project team at Maximus and

continue their work. Approximately 60 percent of

Arizona Works employees are former State employees

who chose to move over and accept employment with

Maximus, usually at a higher salary but with fewer

benefits. The remaining State employees were offered

transfer opportunities to other State programs. State

officials note that no State employee lost his/her job

through this transfer of function. 

The contract between Maximus and the State is a performance-based contract, with strong incentives for

placing clients in jobs. To carry out its mission, the

Arizona Works program has developed a number of

unique programs to support clients in obtaining

employment. Because the Maximus program can provide more support services than the State-run program,

caseworkers are able to conduct an assessment of

client barriers to employment and then provide financial and programmatic support to help the clients overcome these barriers. Specific support services included

assistance with paying rent and utilities to give the

client a month to earn money; providing clients with

transportation assistance to help them find and maintain a job; and providing specialized training in job

retention or other employment-related skills. To provide clients with training and assistance in finding

long-term employment, Maximus has established a

training program in partnership with a local community college to help clients develop skills needed for

employment. The programs available to clients range

from specific job-related skills, such as computer use

or basic trade skills, to employment readiness skills.

Clients even receive college credit for some of the

classes. In addition to the contract with the college,

Maximus has developed a network of vendors that is

used to provide support services. These vendors are

local businesses that contract with Maximus to help

with transportation, utility and rent payments, childcare, and other support services. 

In order to meet the performance standards in the contract, the Arizona Works project operates in direct

competition with the State-run program in western

Maricopa County. Statistics from both sites will be

compared to determine the extent to which Arizona

Works has reduced caseloads as compared to the Staterun program. Some of the State officials feel that this

comparison is unfair, as they believe the western portion of the county contains a higher percentage of

hard-to-place clients. In addition to this comparison,

the Arizona Works project is being evaluated by Abt

Associates, who will produce a final report in 2003.

The procurement board will use this report to determine if the project will be expanded statewide, modified in any way, or discontinued.

Officials at Maximus point out a number of advantages their program has over the State-run program. In

their initial year of operation, the Arizona Works program was able to reduce caseloads in their service

area by 24 percent. In addition, Arizona Works officials point to the high level of case management and

support services provided by the caseworkers as an

indication of the extent to which they will help clients

succeed in becoming self-sufficient. Officials also

believe that clients are happy with the services provided through Arizona Works. 

Maximus will open a second office in a rural Arizona

county in 2001. Maximus officials see this new office

as an important challenge, as employment opportunities in rural Arizona are not as plentiful as in the met72 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
ropolitan centers. In addition, transportation issues will

be a challenge in the rural county. As with the urban

center, the Arizona Works program in the rural county

will be compared with another rural county where a

State-run program exists. Planning for the new office

was underway at the time of the case study interviews. 

State Services on the Salt River Reservation

Two State employees assigned to the eastern Maricopa

County office are stationed at the Salt River Indian

Reservation. The purpose of the two out-stationed

workers is to provide FSP and Medicaid eligibility

services to Tribal members. As was noted earlier, the

Tribe provides all TANF services to its members. 

Clients applying for public assistance are met at a

counter in the Tribal office, where they are given an

application. If they are applying for both TANF and

for food stamps/Medicaid, the Tribal caseworker

involves the State caseworker to determine joint eligibility. Because the Tribal program uses the State’s

computer system, the data on eligibility is readily

shared between the two programs. 

As is true with the Arizona Works program, the Tribal

program operates on a different set of standards and

rules from the State TANF program. For example,

more efforts are made with the Tribal program to provide support services to clients. The Tribal program

also uses different income standards and payment

schedules. The main focus of the Tribal program is

self-sufficiency, but unlike most of Maricopa County,

employment opportunities on the reservation are very

limited. Often the cases handled by the Tribal caseworkers are very difficult to serve, with caseworkers

noting a high incidence of physical disabilities, health

problems, mental health issues, and substance abuse

problems as barriers to self-sufficiency. In addition,

transportation is cited as a problem with both obtaining employment and attending scheduled appointments

for certification interviews. The reservation covers a

very large area, and many Tribal members do not have

adequate transportation. As a result, the State caseworkers report a high no-show rate for clients who are

applying for food stamps. 

In contrast to the State employees at the Arizona

Works site, the caseworkers located on the reservation

feel the working relationship between the two programs is well managed. Information sharing is common, and the State workers feel that they have access

to all of the information they need to manage their

cases in coordination with the Tribal caseworkers.

Because of the informal atmosphere, as well as the fact

that the caseworkers do not feel as though they are in

competition, services seem to be provided in a wellcoordinated manner. 

Challenges Reported

A number of challenges are reported by both Statelevel staff providing services in Maricopa County and

by the Maximus staff. The greatest challenge appears

to be the competition between the Arizona Works program and the State-run program. There is an acknowledgment by both State and Maximus officials that the

Arizona Works program is in direct competition with

the State-run program, and, as a result, the two programs have some difficulties cooperating with each

other on issues of mutual interest. One State official

notes that it may be hard for State employees to help

Maximus succeed when their own jobs may be in

jeopardy as a result. Another official comments that

State-level caseworkers feel resentment towards the

Arizona Works program because it can offer clients

more in the way of support services than the State-run

program. Many individuals feel that this fact alone

makes the comparisons between the two programs

invalid.

Other specific problems and challenges include

the following.

• The short startup time for the Arizona Works project

created a high level of stress for both Maximus officials and State employees. Many State employees

were forced to make a choice about whether to

remain as State employees and work in other departments or join the private sector and lose their seniority in government. This level of stress caused some

State employees to be fearful of an expansion of the

Arizona Works program.

• State officials express some concern about the working relationship between caseworkers in the

Maximus office and those working in the Stateadministered program. In order to keep error rates to

a minimum and to avoid confusing clients, cooperation is necessary between caseworkers in the two

programs. For example, if a client served by both

systems finds employment, the information about

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 73
his/her new earnings must be passed on in a timely

manner to the caseworker in charge of the FSP portion of the case; otherwise the client may be required

to pay back benefits to the State. However, as one

State official noted, it is difficult for State employees

to cooperate and trust an entity that may, in the

future, cost them their jobs.

Respondents express concern that requiring clients to

undergo two separate eligibility processes may discourage them from participating in the FSP. In addition, officials are concerned that clients are becoming

confused as to whom they should report changes in

their status. As a result, officials are worried that

clients who may still be eligible for FSP and

Medicaid benefits after they leave the TANF program may not know they are eligible. At this time,

Maximus does not track whether clients who leave

the TANF program remain in the FSP or Medicaid

programs. 

• Maximus officials comment that under the current

system they are required to utilize the State’s data

system to process TANF enrollments. This creates a

situation that discourages the development of innovative approaches to computerizing enrollments and

makes the project dependent on State technical support, which at times can be slow in responding to the

project’s requests for assistance.

• A number of small issues have also contributed to the

lack of cooperation between the two programs. For

example, a recent expansion of Arizona Works staff

into space previously occupied by State caseworkers

resulted in the State’s caseworkers being moved into

another building within the same complex. This

move created resentment on the part of the Statelevel staff, as now the workers must travel between

buildings to meet with clients. Workers questioned

the need for Arizona Works to expand into the space,

and felt that they were not given a say in the matter.

Other issues include delays in providing information

to caseworkers needed for determining eligibility

(both entities noted this complaint), inconsistency in

following agreed-upon office procedures, and delays

in reporting client status changes. 

• Expansion of the Arizona Works program into a rural

county will create a new set of challenges for

Maximus staff. First, Maximus plans to offer the current State employees the opportunity to leave State

service and come to work for Arizona Works.

However, if State employees wish to remain with the

State, it is unlikely that they will be able to find

another State job in the county. This will mean that

these employees will either need to relocate to an

area where more State jobs are available or accept a

position with Maximus, which they may feel forced

to do to remain in the area.

• A second challenge for Maximus will be to find

employment opportunities for clients located in this

rural area. State officials point out that there are

nowhere near the employment opportunities in the

rural areas of the State that there are in more urban

areas. In addition, training and vendor resources are

limited in rural areas, which may limit the amount

and type of support services the Arizona Works program can provide.

Connecticut

Overview of the Re-engineering Effort

Prior to 1995, the State of Connecticut administered its

public assistance programs through a centralized

organization. State headquarters staff were responsible

for overall program operations, and programs were

implemented by State staff placed in local offices

throughout the State. These local offices were supervised by a district manager, who, in turn, reported to a

Director of Field Operations in Hartford. 

Connecticut began implementing welfare reform in

1996. One of the key elements to their welfare reform

effort was the decentralization of program administration and operations. The State created five “human

services regions” around the State, and it assigned

responsibility for the implementation of public assistance programs within each region to a Regional

Administrator. The Regional Administrators report

directly to the Agency Commissioner, and program

directors (e.g., of FSP, TANF, and Medicaid) have no

line authority over Regional Administrators.

With the passage of Federal welfare reform and

increased efforts on the part of Connecticut to move

clients towards self-sufficiency, the regional offices

were given broad authority to customize program

operations within their areas (although the regions are

bound by State civil service regulations). While overall

policy is still developed at the State level, Regional

Administrators play a strong role in deciding how policy will be implemented in their particular regions.

74 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
The purpose of this case study is to examine how welfare reform efforts were implemented in Connecticut

using a regional approach. Site visit interviews were

conducted with State headquarters staff in Hartford

and with staff located in the regional office in

Norwich. The Director of Family Services and the

Adult Services Manager responsible for the FSP were

interviewed in the State headquarters office. In the

regional office, the Regional Administrator, a Field

Manager, two program supervisors, and two caseworkers were interviewed. 

Social Service Program Administration

Responsibility for administering the FSP in

Connecticut is shared between Policy Managers

located in the State headquarters office and Regional

Administrators located within the five regional

offices throughout the State. Policy units are responsible for assuring that proper policies and regulations

are developed and communicated to the regions, and

the Regional Administrators are responsible for dayto-day operations of the program. The Regional

Administrators have a great deal of discretion in how

public assistance programs are implemented. 

The Adult Services Division, located within the

Department of Social Services, is responsible for the

development of FSP program policies. These policies

are communicated to the regional offices through a

policy manual. Staff within the Division of Adult

Services are responsible for communicating changes in

policy to the regions and answering any policy questions from regional staff. In addition, the headquarters

office is responsible for providing training to regional

office staff on new policies, reviewing program data

reports produced by the Department’s management

information system, and maintaining contracts with

programs providing support to the regions, such as a

contract with the University of Connecticut to provide

training to staff. 

Prior to welfare reform, the major emphasis of public

assistance programs was to provide clients with program benefits. With the passage of welfare reform in

Connecticut, the primary goal was revised to identifying potential employment opportunities for clients 

and assisting them in becoming self-sufficient.

Connecticut’s “Jobs First” program provides TANF,

employment services, and safety net services to lowincome families. 

The State provides a very generous benefit package to

its clients to assist them in making the transition from

welfare to work. In determining benefits, the State disregards all earnings when total household income is

below the poverty level. In addition to receiving a cash

benefit, most clients also receive food stamps,

Medicaid, and comprehensive support services to help

them find employment. While employment-related

services were transferred to the Department of Labor

in 1998, staff continue to work with clients on providing support services to facilitate obtaining employment. However, clients subject to work requirements

are only allowed to receive cash assistance for a total

of 21 months. They may continue to receive cash benefits and services beyond this 21-month period only if

they have been looking for work in good faith, if they

are working but not earning enough to make them

ineligible, or if they encountered circumstances

beyond their control that prevent them from working.

Findings From Interviews of State 

Headquarters Officials

Overview of State Headquarters Operations

In 1995, the FSP caseload in Connecticut was averaging 110,000 clients a month. The current FSP caseload

is 80,000 clients per month. State officials believe that

clients’ confusion about their eligibility for food

stamps once TANF benefits have been terminated is

responsible for the drop in caseload. It is the policy of

the State program to encourage clients who have continuing eligibility for Medicaid and FSP to continue in

these programs, even if their TANF eligibility has

ended. Regional staff are asked to conduct “exit interviews” with clients leaving the TANF program to

assess whether they are eligible to continue with

Medicaid and the FSP. However, officials believe that

inconsistent application of the exit interviews between

regions may be partially responsible for eligible clients

leaving the FSP. 

Another issue identified as a barrier to ongoing participation in the FSP is that clients who remain in the FSP

after their TANF eligibility has ended must then begin

monthly reporting of potential eligibility changes.

Headquarters staff believe that this monthly reporting

“hassle” may be enough to discourage ongoing participation in the FSP. Officials also noted that once clients

decide to leave the FSP, they tend not to return. The

drop-off in caseload was also evident in the State-run

Food Stamp Program for noncitizens. Prior to welfare

reform, there were around 4,000 noncitizens participatEconomic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 75
ing in the FSP. With the changes brought about by

welfare reform, only 2,000 of the noncitizens reenrolled in the State-funded FSP. 

Headquarters staff were generally supportive of the

regional structure used to administer the FSP and other

public assistance programs. The staff felt that the centralized administrative structure had been too inflexible and often created situations that hurt program operations. By allowing the regions to adapt their programs

to local needs, officials believe that the programs are

in a better position to serve clients. In addition, headquarters officials noted that the flexibility afforded in

the regional structure allows regional staff to develop

strong working relationships with private service agencies within their region, and therefore allows for better

coordination of services at the local level. In addition,

regional offices have the capacity to write local contracts for support services, which allows the region to

customize its support service network to meet the

unique needs of the region.

On the other hand, headquarters staff found that the

regional structure presented difficulties for the Statelevel Program Directors, since they have no line

authority over the Regional Administrators. These

individuals are responsible for programs that have

Federal rules about eligibility determination and redetermination, definition of “good cause” for noncompliance, and other aspects of program operations. Yet, the

Program Directors are limited in their ability to influence the decisions of the Regional Administrators with

regard to program operations. Regional Administrators

attend monthly meetings with the Department

Commissioner, but Program Directors only attend

these meetings if invited. 

Headquarters staff were asked if they believe there are

major differences between how public assistance programs are administered among the regions. The main

differences they noted were between urban and rural

areas. For example, officials noted that most offices in

rural areas operate on a very strict appointment schedule, while offices in urban areas operate more on a

walk-in basis. In addition, staff in rural areas tend to

function more as case managers, while staff in urban

areas tend to specialize as eligibility workers or workers reporting client changes, which means that in

urban areas clients are more likely to work with more

than one caseworker.

While headquarters staff believe that policy is implemented in a consistent manner, they believe that there

are a number of operational differences in how strict

regions are with client documentation. For example,

officials believe that some regions do a much better

job in keeping clients on the FSP by allowing more

flexibility in how and when clients produce documentation for reporting purposes. Another example provided by headquarters staff is the difference in the level of

effort made by caseworkers to conduct exit interviews.

In some regions, caseworkers are very aggressive in

scheduling exit interviews and recertifying clients for

FSP benefits. In other regions, caseworkers do not

make the same strong efforts, and as a result, many

clients do not come back to be recertified for the FSP.

Challenges Identified by State

Headquarters Staff

As noted above, headquarters staff were generally supportive of the regional structure from the perspective

of local operations. However, they did note a few challenges, as follows:

• In some cases, headquarters staff feel that they are

responsible for an activity, but have little control over

how the activity is managed. For example, error rates

are calculated based on statewide (not regional) data

and are handled through the headquarters office.

However, the headquarters staff feel they have little

say in directing the regional offices to undertake

activities related to improving the error rates. 

• State officials expressed concern as to how the TANF

limitations and variable efforts on the part of caseworkers to continue clients on the FSP will be

viewed if there is a downturn in the economy. If

headquarters officials are correct in their view that

operational flexibility at the local level is a contributing factor in the decline in FSP participation, then

there is concern about an increase in food insecurity

among low-income populations in the State.

• The waivers under which the FSP and TANF programs operate (including the 21-month time limits

and earnings disregard) will end in September of

2001. At that time officials believe it will be necessary to make major changes to program operations. For example, when the waiver expires, earned

income will be counted for TANF recipients when

calculating their FSP benefits. There was some concern expressed that additional major changes in the

way the programs operate will create more confusion at the local level, and may result in more

76 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
inconsistencies in program operations that could

ultimately have a negative impact on clients. 

Findings From Interviews With Regional 

Office Staff

Overview of the Regional Office

The Norwich regional office covers a mostly rural section of Connecticut in the northeast section of the

State. Currently there is an office in Norwich and a

satellite office open part-time in the Killington area

northeast of Norwich. Staff from the Norwich office

travel to the satellite office 4 days a week. 

The regional office is organized into three divisions,

one addressing the needs of families, one addressing

adult services, and one responsible for working with

the elderly and persons with disabilities. Much of the

FSP and TANF caseload is located within the Family

Services Division. Workers in this division are responsible for enrolling clients into the programs, providing

case management services, processing EBT cards for

clients, and processing changes in client eligibility status. Prior to welfare reform, caseworkers were far

more specialized, with some of them processing applications and others processing reported changes. With

the flexibility afforded with the regionalization of

services, caseworkers were provided the opportunity to

act more like case managers and handle all of a

client’s needs. Local staff felt that this holistic

approach to serving clients was more successful than

the old approach.

Under the organizational structure of the regional

office, three division directors, known as Field

Managers, have responsibility for program operations

within their division. Each of the Field Managers

reports to the Regional Administrator. Reporting to the

Field Managers are office supervisors, who in turn

direct the activities of the Family Independence

Representatives (FI Reps). Family Independence

Representatives handle varying caseloads, based upon

the programs in which the clients participate. An FI

Rep who works with TANF clients, or clients participating in multiple programs, is more likely to have a

smaller caseload than those working with FSP- or

Medicaid-only clients. FI Reps handling TANF cases

tend to have caseloads averaging around 100 clients,

while FI Reps who handle FSP- and Medicaid-only

cases tend to manage around 400 cases. 

In addition to the three division directors, the regional

office has two regional planners and one regional

trainer. The regional planners are responsible for helping to design the service delivery system within the

region, and for identifying any future activities that

may be necessary to implement new policy. The

regional trainer provides training to staff within the

region on both program and policy issues, as well as

general training on useful skill-building and management issues. 

Regional Service Delivery

Because of the large geographic area and limited public transportation, the Norwich region offices work on

a strict appointment system. Clients must come to the

office to enroll, but may report changes through telephone calls or faxes. Clients enrolled in the TANF program are connected with a caseworker in the

Department of Labor who can assist them with finding

employment. Caseworkers in the regional office keep

in close communication with the Department of Labor

staff to track the extent to which clients are finding

employment and to assist in providing support services

to help the clients reach self-sufficiency. While much

of the communication between regional office staff

and Department of Labor staff is by telephone and fax,

there are plans to install an electronic file-sharing system between the two departments to allow caseworkers to share files.

Employment options for clients living within the

region are somewhat limited. The majority of clients

who find work do so in the food service or hospitality

industries. The FI Reps noted that there are two very

large Native American casinos in the region, both of

which pay well and will hire public assistance clients.

However, experience has shown that it is very difficult

for clients with children to maintain employment at the

casinos, as employees are often asked to work different shifts and be available for overtime. Because childcare within the region is so limited, most clients with

families can not be flexible enough to meet the

demands of working at the casinos.

FI Reps work closely with other community agencies

to provide coordinated services and referrals to clients.

Staff within the regional office actively work with programs such as WIC, childcare providers, and housing

agencies to assist clients in overcoming barriers. One

of the FI Reps noted that their role is to identify the

barriers clients may face in becoming self-sufficient

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 77
and assist them with accessing resources within the

community to help them overcome these barriers.

The regional office staff also work with community

organizations to promote the FSP and Medicaid programs administered in their regions. Supervisors participate in a regional speakers’ bureau and travel to

meetings around the region to provide information

about the FSP and Medicaid programs to other programs that may be serving the same clients. In addition, caseworkers participate in outreach efforts for

the Connecticut Child Health Insurance Program.

Staff believe that most low-income families in their

region are aware of the services provided by their

office. Finally, regional office staff participate in

monthly regional advisory council meetings, which

include representatives from the community who can

provide guidance to the region on how to improve

program coordination.

Regional office staff have limited contact with headquarters staff. Most of the contact occurs between the

Field Manager and the policy staff in Hartford.

Communication revolves mostly around policy questions that require an interpretation. The majority of the

questions are related to defining “good cause” for

TANF clients attempting to extend their time on the

program or interpreting a question regarding the definition of a “household”. In addition, Field Managers

are given the opportunity to participate in statewide

workgroups. For example, recently a Field Manager

from the Norwich office participated in a workgroup

examining how to strengthen the help desk that assists

with EBT issues.

Regional Administration

The Regional Administrator who was interviewed

believes the flexibility permitted by the regional

approach allows administrators to better customize

their programs to meet the needs of their clients.

However, it was interesting to note that while the

Regional Administrator felt he had flexibility with

regard to operational issues, he expressed the belief

that the program continues to be much more centralized than it would appear. For example, budgets for

the regional office are still controlled by headquarters,

and the Regional Administrator has very little flexibility in making changes to the budget. A second example

provided by the Regional Administrator involves the

ability to reclassify positions within the region. The

regional offices do not have the flexibility to change

the job classifications of vacant positions in order to

meet what they view to be a local need. All changes in

job classifications must be approved by headquarters

staff. In addition, with a hiring freeze currently in

effect, the regions must compete with one another to

be able to fill the vacant positions within their regions.

In some cases, positions are moved from one region to

another based upon a strong justification for increasing

staffing within a region.

The Regional Administrator also said that it is his

belief that Regional Administrators have done a good

job in customizing their programs to meet local needs.

He did, however, acknowledge that there are differences in how some of the regions approach dealing

with clients. He cited as an example the emphasis his

region puts on followup with clients to be sure they are

reporting changes to their eligibility status in a timely

manner and providing proper documentation. He noted

that his caseworkers often make three or four attempts

to help a client in danger of being dropped from the

FSP, while in other regions clients are dropped after

only limited efforts to help or to understand why the

required report was not submitted on time. 

Challenges Identified by Regional Staff

The overall goal of regional administration of public

assistance programs was to allow more flexibility in

the day-to-day administration of program activities.

With the implementation of welfare reform, the

regional offices faced a number of challenges,

described below.

• While the regional offices were responsible for

implementing a number of changes as a result of

welfare reform, they were not given any additional

funds or staff with which to implement the changes.

As a result, staff were very stressed during the transition phase. Because priority within the Norwich

region was placed on ensuring smooth continuation

of client services, the error rate within the region

increased. Now that much of the implementation has

been complete, the region will focus more on quality

control and reducing errors.

• Lack of control over the regional budget and personnel system has created problems for the Regional

Administrator in implementing innovative ideas. The

Administrator noted that over the course of implementing welfare reform, staff have been able to identify uses for funds and staffing that will better serve

clients. However, the Regional Administrator did not

have the authority to make the necessary adjustments

78 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
to accommodate staff wishes. As a result, the

Regional Administrator believes that the regional

programs would be better served if they were given

more control of budgets and personnel.

• Staff noted that the large geographic area covered 

by the region makes it difficult for clients to come

into the offices for services. Staff are hopeful that

additional field offices can be established in order

to better serve clients living in the most rural

parts of the region.

• The Regional Administrator would like to develop

more internal quality control mechanisms. Currently

program supervisors are responsible for overseeing

the quality of the work of the FI Reps. The Regional

Administrator would like to develop an independent

quality control system in order to identify problems

that may span the region. This independent quality

control system would then be used as the basis for

changing program operations to improve program

accountability.

• Overall, Connecticut’s change in organizational

structure to a regional organization resulted in a limited degree of decentralization. While it provides the

advantage of some flexibility for Regional

Administrators to develop relationships with local

providers in order to tailor services, Regional 

Administrators have little control over budget allocation and personnel decisions. 

There is an inherent conflict between administering

programs that have federally mandated rules and

encouraging local control. The State must continue to

improve communication between headquarters and the

regions, including providing data to the regions for

program improvement. It was noted that there has

been some movement back towards centralization,

especially with respect to the FSP, in order to reduce

certification error rates. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 79
References

Bartlett, S., N.R. Burstein, G. Silverstein, and D.

Rosenbaum. The Food Stamp Application Process:

Office Operations and Client Experiences. Cambridge,

MA: Abt Associates Inc, Apr. 1992.

Coe, R. “Nonparticipation in Welfare Programs by

Eligible Households: The Case of the Food Stamp

Program.” Journal of Economic Issues 17(4), 1983.

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Food Stamp Program Average Monthly

Participation (households).

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfyhh.htm. 2000(a).

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Food Stamp Program Average Monthly

Participation (persons).

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfypart.htm. 2000(b).

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Food Stamp Program Participation and

Costs. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm.

2000(c).

Food and Nutrition Service Online, U.S. Department

of Agriculture. EBT.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/menu/admin/ebt/ebt.htm.

2000(d).

Gabor, Vivian, and Christopher Botsko. State Food

Stamp Policy Choices Under Welfare Reform:

Findings of 1997 50-State Survey. Washington, DC:

Health Systems Research, Inc., May 1998.

Ponza, M., J. Ohls, L. Moreno, A. Zambrowski, and R.

Cohen. Customer Service in the Food Stamp Program:

Final Report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc., July 1999.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Food Stamps:

Reasons for Nonparticipation. Washington, DC:

General Accounting Office, 1988.

80 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA
Appendix Tables
82 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 1—Method of data collection by State

State Phone survey only

Phone survey and State

documents received in the mail

Alabama

Alaska ✔

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

District of Columbia ✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

—Continued
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 83

Appendix table 1—Method of data collection by State—Continued

State Phone survey only

Phone survey and State

documents received in the mail

Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico ✔

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota ✔

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota ✔

Tennessee ✔

✔

Utah ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔

Washington ✔

West Virginia ✔

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming ✔

Texas
84 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

State

Changes in

organizational

structures

Changes in the

role of the case

worker

Program

accessibility

and changes in

certification

systems

Changes in

client tracking

and

accountability

systems

Conforming

 the State food

 stamp

 program and

TANF program

Increased

program

monitoring

and evaluation

Alabama ✔✔ ✔

Alaska ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

District of 

 Columbia ✔✔ ✔

Florida ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Georgia ✔✔ ✔

Hawaii ✔ ✔

Idaho ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔ ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔

Iowa ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔✔ ✔✔

Kentucky ✔ ✔

Louisiana ✔ ✔✔

Maine ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Maryland ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Massachusetts ✔ ✔

Michigan ✔ ✔

Minnesota ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Missouri ✔✔ ✔

Montana ✔✔ ✔

Nebraska ✔✔ ✔

Nevada ✔✔ ✔

New Hampshire ✔✔ ✔

New Jersey ✔✔ ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Appendix table 2—State re-engineering efforts that occurred as a result of welfare

reform prior to FY 2000 by category of change

—Continued
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 85

State

Changes in

organizational

structures

Changes in the

role of the case

worker

 Program

 accessibility

 and changes in

 certification

 systems

Changes in

client tracking

and

accountability

systems

 Conforming

 the State food

 stamp

 program and

TANF program

Increased

program

monitoring

and evaluation

Appendix table 2—State re-engineering efforts that occurred as a result of welfare reform 

prior to FY 2000 by category of change—Continued

North Dakota ✔ ✔

Ohio ✔ ✔✔ ✔✔

Oklahoma ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔✔ ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔ ✔

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina ✔✔ ✔

South Dakota ✔ ✔✔ ✔

Tennessee ✔ ✔

Texas ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Utah ✔ ✔ ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔✔ ✔

Washington ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔✔

Wisconsin ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Wyoming ✔✔ ✔

New York ✔ ✔✔

North Carolina ✔ ✔✔
86 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

State

Changes in

organizational

structures

Changes in the

role of the case

worker

Program

accessibility

and changes in

certification

systems

Changes in

client tracking

and

accountability

systems

Conforming

the State food

stamp

 program and

TANF program

Increased

program

monitoring

and evaluation

Appendix table 3—State re-engineering efforts that occurred during FY 2000 by category

of change

Alabama

Alaska ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔ ✔

Colorado

Connecticut ✔

District of 

 Columbia ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔ ✔✔

Hawaii

Idaho ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔ ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana ✔ ✔

Maine ✔ ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi

Missouri ✔ ✔

Montana ✔✔ ✔

Nebraska

Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔

—Continued
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 87

State

Changes in

organizational

structures

Changes in the

role of the case

worker

Program

accessibility

and changes in

certification

systems

Changes in

client tracking

and

accountability

systems

Conforming

the State food

stamp

 program and

TANF program

Increased

program

monitoring

and evaluation

North Dakota ✔ ✔

Ohio ✔ ✔ ✔

Oklahoma ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔ ✔ ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔

Rhode Island ✔ ✔

South Carolina ✔ ✔ ✔

South Dakota ✔ ✔

Tennessee ✔

Texas ✔

Utah ✔ ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming

Appendix table 3—State re-engineering efforts that occurred during FY 2000 by category 

of change—Continued

New York

North Carolina

✔ ✔ ✔

✔
88 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

—Continued

Appendix table 4—States by size of food stamp caseload

Size of food stamp caseload

State Small Medium Large

Alabama ✔

Alaska ✔

Arizona ✔

Arkansas ✔

California ✔

Colorado ✔

Connecticut ✔

District of Columbia ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔

Hawaii ✔

Idaho ✔

Illinois ✔

Indiana ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana ✔

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan ✔

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi ✔

Missouri ✔

Montana ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico ✔

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 89

Size of food stamp caseload

State Small Medium Large

North Dakota ✔

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota ✔

Tennessee ✔

Texas ✔

Utah ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔

Washington ✔

West Virginia ✔

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming ✔

Appendix table 4—States by size of food stamp caseload—Continued
90 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 5—States making changes to the role of the caseworker as a result of

welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by goal

Alaska ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔✔

✔

Hawaii ✔ ✔

Idaho ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔

Louisiana ✔

Maryland ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔

Michigan ✔ ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔ ✔ ✔

✔

New York ✔

South Carolina ✔ ✔ ✔

✔

Tennessee ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔ ✔

Connecticut

New Mexico

Goal of re-engineering change

State

Increase

coordination

between FSP

and TANF

program

Reduce

fragmentation

in the provision

of services

Increase

efficiency in

the

operation

of FSP

Increase

coordination

between FSP

and programs

other than

TANF Other

South Dakota
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 91

Appendix table 6—States making changes to the role of the caseworker as a result of welfare reform

prior to FY 2000 by required level of approval

State Other

Alaska ✔

Arizona ✔

Connecticut ✔

Idaho ✔

Kansas

Louisiana ✔

Maryland ✔✔ ✔

Michigan ✔ ✔✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔

New Mexico ✔

New York ✔ ✔

South Carolina ✔ ✔

South Dakota ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔

Civil

Service

Board or

State

personnel

agency

Governor’s

office

State

Labor

unions or

State

employee

agency

legislature

Level of approval
92 ✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

—Continued

Appendix table 7—States increasing access to their Food Stamp Program as a result of 

welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of change

Type of change

State

Certification

process

Local office

practices Increasing outreach

Alabama ✔

Alaska ✔

Arizona ✔✔✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔✔✔

Colorado ✔✔✔

Connecticut ✔✔✔

District of Columbia ✔ ✔ ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔✔✔

Idaho ✔✔✔

Indiana ✔✔✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔ ✔

Kentucky ✔

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔✔✔

Massachusetts ✔ ✔

Minnesota ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔

Missouri ✔

Montana ✔ ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada ✔✔✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 93

Appendix table 7—States increasing access to their Food Stamp Program as a result of 

welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of change—Continued

Type of change

State

Certification

process

Local office

practices Increasing outreach

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota ✔

Ohio ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔ ✔✔

Pennsylvania ✔

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota ✔ ✔

Texas ✔

Utah ✔ ✔✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔

Wyoming ✔ ✔
94

✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 8—States changing local office practices as a result of welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of change

Type of change

State

Arizona ✔ ✔Arkansas ✔ ✔California Colorado ✔ Connecticut ✔ ✔ District of Columbia ✔ Georgia Idaho ✔ ✔✔Indiana ✔Kansas Maryland ✔ Massachusetts Minnesota ✔ ✔

 Provide  child care at FS offices

 Improve transportation  to FS offices

 Establish satellite  offices to  take FS  applications  and provide re-certifications

 Establish satellite  offices to  only take FS applications

 Outstation  workers at other agencies

 Pr we aneven

Missouri ✔ ✔Montana ✔ ✔
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 95 Appendix table 8—States changing local office practices as a result of welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of change—Continued Type of change State Provide child care at FS offices Improve transportation to FS offices Establish satellite offices to only take FS applications Outstation workers at other agencies Prov

week

and

evening 

Nevada ✔ ✔ ✔New Hampshire 

New Jersey North Carolina Ohio ✔ ✔ ✔Oregon ✔ ✔Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Texas ✔ Utah ✔ 

Wisconsin ✔✔ ✔ Wyoming 

 Establish satellite offices to take FS applications and provide re-certifications
96

✥ Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 9—States planning to change local office practices during FY 2000 by type of a change

Type of change

State

 Provide  child care at FS offices

 Improve transportation  to FS offices

 Establish satellite  offices to  only take FS applications

 Outstation  workers at other agencies

 Prov week andevening 

 Establish satellite  offices to  take FS  applications  and provide re-certifications

Arizona ✔Arkansas ✔✔Indiana ✔Maryland ✔ ✔

Massachusetts ✔Montana ✔ ✔✔Nevada ✔New York ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Ohio ✔✔ ✔ South Carolina ✔Texas ✔ 
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 97

Appendix table 10 States making changes to improve outreach as a result of welfare 

reform prior to FY 2000 by method of outreach

Method of outreach

State Other

Arizona ✔

Arkansas ✔

California ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔

District of Columbia ✔ ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔

Idaho ✔✔✔

Indiana ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi ✔

Nevada ✔ ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔

Ohio ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔

South Dakota ✔

Utah ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔

 Distribute 

 printed

 materials

 PSAs or 

 notices on 

TV or radio

 Distribute 

 food stamp 

 applications

 Referrals

 from other

 social

 service

 programs

—
Economic Research Service/USDA Re-engineering the Welfare System/FANRR-17 ✥ 98

Appendix table 11—States increasing their use of databases for client record matching

as a result of welfare reform prior to FY 2000 by type of database

Type of Database

State New hire Criminal records Social Security

Administration

Alabama ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔✔

Connecticut ✔

Georgia ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔

Louisiana ✔

Maryland ✔

Mississippi ✔

Montana ✔ ✔

New Hampshire ✔ ✔✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔ ✔✔

North Dakota ✔ ✔

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔

Tennessee ✔ ✔

Texas ✔

Utah ✔

Vermont ✔

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming ✔