SEPTEMBER 2011 
 

WEB‐BASED SCREENERS AND

APPLICATIONS: POTENTIAL TOOLS

FOR IMPROVING BENEFIT ACCESS

AND PROGRAM EFFICIENCY

The rising demand for social services presents a challenge for

public and private organizations that connect low‐income

households to public benefits. Tight budgets require public

agencies to administer benefits with increasing efficiency, while

economic pressures expand the pool of clients served by public

agencies and private organizations. Web‐based tools that

facilitate access to benefits and increase administrative

efficiencies have captured the attention of public and private

entities in search of ways to address these issues. Some are

available to the public, while others are “assisted” models that

require help from a trained counselor at organizations such as

workforce centers, community‐ and faith‐based organizations,

child care centers, and correctional or health facilities.

This brief provides a framework for thinking about the design

and operation of web‐based tools. It is not a prescription for

implementing a new tool. Rather, it outlines some common

functions of web‐based tools, describes their potential

advantages for stakeholders, and presents considerations in

designing, implementing, and maintaining such tools. The brief is

based on in‐depth case studies of eight initiatives (Table 1).

Examples from the case studies throughout the brief illustrate

how certain tools operate. More information on these and other

tools is available in an earlier report from the Department of

Health and Human Services. 1

ABOUT THIS ISSUE BRIEF 

This brief draws on findings from

eight case studies of web‐based

benefit access tools. The tools were

purposefully selected from among

those identified in a national scan of

the field. Results from that scan are

available at ASPE’s website:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/

BenefitsAccess/index.shtml

The brief was prepared by Emily

Sama‐Miller and Jacqueline Kauff of

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

under contract to ASPE.

This work was co‐funded by ASPE, the

Administration for Children and

Families, and the HHS Center for

Faith‐Based and Neighborhood

Partnerships.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Planning and Evaluation

Office of Human Services Policy

US Department of Health and Human

Services

Washington, DC 20201

1

 Kauff, Jacqueline, Emily Sama-Miller, and Elizabeth Makowsky. “Promoting Public Benefits Through Web-Based Tools and 

Outreach: A National Scan of Efforts.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, April 2011. 
                 

      

                                 

                         

                       

         

   

   

                                

                

                            

         

                                

                               

                        

                

     

       

                                  

                     

                          

           

         

                         

                             

                           

                         

                     

                           

                       

         

  

  

  

  

  

  

                                 

                                           

                                     

                           

                             

                 

Table 1. Selected Benefit Access Initiatives Involving Web‐Based Tools

Case

Study

Initiative Site Tool Description

ACCESS NYC NYC City of New York’s public screener for 35 programs and application portal for 5

programs.

Benefits CalWIN CA Public screener and application portal for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in a

consortium of 18 California counties.

Benefits Enrollment NM Assisted screener, operated by Single Stop USA, for a variety of federal programs (9 in

Network (BEN) New Mexico) in select areas in 5 states.

Delaware ASSIST DE Statewide public screening and application portal for TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, General

Assistance, and child care assistance.

EarnBenefits Online NYC Assisted screener, developed and operated by Seedco, for a variety of federal, state,

(EBO) and city programs (at least 20 in New York City) in select areas in 8 states.

Health‐e‐Arizona AZ Statewide screener and application portal (both public and assisted versions available)

(One‐e‐App) for 7 programs including SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid.

The Benefit Bank OH Assisted screener for a variety of programs (22 in Ohio) in 10 states. In some locations

(Ohio Benefit Bank – (including Ohio), applications and a public screener are also available online.

OBB)

Utah Helps/myCase UT Statewide public screener and application portal for 13 programs including TANF, child

care assistance, SNAP, and medical programs.

What Do Web‐Based Tools Do?

Web‐based tools can provide clients with convenient and comprehensive access to program information

and applications for program services. Some tools help clients find out whether they qualify for new

benefits (screener). Others allow clients to obtain, complete, and even submit an application online

(application submission). Still others transfer information from an online form to the eligibility and

benefit determination system used by caseworkers (systems integration). Table 1 summarizes the

functions of the tools in the case studies; they are described more fully below.

Table 2. Core Functions of Web‐Based Tools in Selected Benefits Access Initiatives

Initiative Screenera Electronic Application Submissiona Systems Integrationa

ACCESS NYC X X X

Benefits CalWIN X X X

BENb X

Delaware ASSIST X X X

EBOb X

Health‐e‐Arizona X X X

OBB X X X

Utah Helps/myCasec X X a

This function is available for at least one (but not necessarily all) programs included in the tool.
 

b BEN and EBO are capable of allowing electronic application submission, but this feature is not currently available in any of the
 

sites. Rather, online applications can be pre‐populated and printed for submission by the client, and EBO and BEN counselors
 

can assist clients with using external online application submission tools (such as ACCESS NYC).
 

c An enhancement currently in development will automatically transfer application and case change data into the electronic
 

Resource and Eligibility Product (eREP), the state’s eligibility system.

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 2 
                               

                       

                           

                         

                                       

                                     

                               

  

     

                                 

                               

                                         

                             

                               

                                       

          

                         

                         

                                   

                                       

                             

                         

                               

                                     

                 

   

                                 

                                       

                        

                           

                                     

                               

                               

                         

                             

                                 

                               

                                 

       

Screener

Screeners tell clients what benefits they may qualify for based on information clients enter online about

their income, assets, family composition, and other circumstances; computer code compares program

eligibility rules to the data entered. Different screeners require different amounts of information and

therefore may produce different results. Some very accurately predict program eligibility by asking

clients to input a lot of detailed information, but they take a lot of time to complete. Others ask clients

to answer a few simple questions and take less time to complete, but the results may be less accurate.

In addition to predicting eligibility, some screeners predict the amount of benefits for which clients may

qualify.

Screeners in Practice

ACCESS NYC: The goal of ACCESS NYC was to create a centralized repository of information on public benefit

programs that are administered by 15 different agencies. A mayoral directive called for quickly streamlining public

access to information, so the tool was developed as a simple screener that would be easy for the general public to

use. It asks a few basic questions that help determine potential eligibility for numerous programs. Administrators

decided against an approach that would more precisely predict eligibility because they worried that clients might

abandon the process if it took too long to complete the screener. They also wanted to avoid duplicating the effort

of programs’ actual eligibility determination processes.

EBO: Seedco facilitates the welfare‐to‐work transition by contracting with local organizations that work with

clients whose transitional employment benefits are expiring. These organizations noticed that many clients

returned to the rolls because they lacked critical work supports. Seedco developed EBO for service providers to use

as a component of a broader array of retention services, so the tool uses an assisted model; staff enter very

detailed client information during an interview and the system determines potential eligibility and benefit amounts

for multiple programs, pre‐populating some online applications for interested clients. Administrators and staff

believe detailed questions help accurately assess potential eligibility and benefit levels and that without this level

of accuracy screeners waste clients’ time. Because staff help clients use the tool, there is little worry that clients

will abandon the process, despite the time it takes.

Application Submission

Application tools vary widely in sophistication. Some are simple forms that are printed out and filled in

by hand, while others can be filled in online and then printed (neither of these types was the focus of

our study). Both must be submitted by fax, mail, or in person.

More advanced web technology allows individuals to submit applications online. In this model, users

answer questions on a web page or web form and the tool conveys the information to the local office

electronically. Some tools can store a client’s information so that the application need not be completed

in one sitting; these tools might also pre‐populate an application with information from a screener or

previous online application. Some application tools also accept an electronic signature, but obtaining

legal approval to accept an electronic signature can take time for program administrators. A signature

tablet (similar to that used in retail credit card transactions) that electronically applies an image of a

client’s signature may offer a short‐term solution while an agency awaits approval. Tools that do not

have an electronic signature feature require clients to mail, fax, or deliver a separate signature page to

the local benefits office.

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 3 
       

                           

                                         

                                   

                               

                             

                

                         

                                 

                                 

                                

  

                         

                         

                               

                                     

                               

  

       

                             

                               

                               

                       

                                     

                          

                                

                                   

                           

                           

                    

             

                               

                       

                                 

                                     

                           

Application Submission in Practice

Health‐e‐Arizona: This customized version of One‐e‐App is available online both at assisting organizations (where

clients use a signature tablet to submit an application they complete or fax or upload a signed hard copy of the

signature page with help from a trained counselor) and online to the general public (where clients create an

account and consent to share information with the state before they electronically sign their application). The

system stores data and faxed or uploaded documents for later sessions, streamlining both recertification and

application for additional benefits available through the system.

Utah Helps/myCase: Utah Helps allows clients to complete and submit applications online, though state workers

must re‐key the data into eREP, the state’s eligibility determination system. A separate tool, myCase, allows clients

to access information online about their case; a planned enhancement will replace Utah Helps and enable clients

to apply and submit case changes online, and will then automatically transfer application data into eREP.

Systems Integration

The most advanced tools automatically transfer application data into program eligibility and benefit

determination systems (see box). Developing this feature can be a resource‐intensive effort, particularly

if the systems rely on older technology. The alternative, however, requires caseworkers to key in some

or all of the information from a hard‐copy application or a digital image; this may be burdensome if the

online tool results in more applications being submitted at a time when staff resources are already

strained.

Systems Integration in Practice

Benefits CalWIN: Application data submitted online through Benefits CalWIN go into a “holding tank” to be

approved by a caseworker before going into the eligibility and benefit determination system. During the client

interview (or application intake for programs that do not require an interview), a floating window containing

application information appears alongside the case record. As workers ask questions, they can electronically

import (with a click of a button) the application information. Workers may choose to import each piece of data

they encounter, some portions, or none at all (reentering everything), at their discretion.

OBB: In Ohio, the private organization that developed The Benefit Bank software, the nonprofit organization that

sponsors the tool for the state, and several state offices collaborated to develop a software bridge, the Eligibility

Gateway, to transfer data automatically from the OBB application into the system of record.

Delaware ASSIST: This tool is directly connected to the state’s mainframe eligibility system. Workers automatically

download application data into the mainframe without reentering any data.

What Are Potential Advantages of Web‐Based Tools?

Web‐based tools offer potential advantages for clients as well as public and private agencies (Table 3).

Clients may have increased access and customer service, while agencies may realize administrative

efficiencies and cost savings. The extent to which the tools will produce these results, however, is still

unclear and depends largely on how a tool is designed and the context in which it operates. To realize

potential advantages, it may be necessary to pair web‐based tools with other innovations such as

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 4 
                     

                             

  

             

     

   

     

       

       

     

       

               

           

       

         

   

       

       

         

           

   

       

   

       

     

       

       

       

       

   

     

   

     

       

         

       

  

  

                             

                                 

                                         

                                     

                               

                       

                         

  

                     

                                 

                                   

                             

                                 

                                   

                         

                       

                                   

document imaging, business‐process reengineering (modifying how staff and clients approach phases of

the eligibility process, especially shifting workers to manage tasks rather than caseloads), and client and

staff education.

Table 3. Potential Advantages of Web‐Based Tools

Potential Advantages to...

Clients Private Organizations Public Agencies

Increased Access  ‐ Get screening information

outside of local office

‐ More locations to apply,

including from home

‐ More times to apply

‐ More holistically serve

clients

‐ Reach new clients in need

‐ Bring more federal dollars to states

Efficiencies  ‐ Shorter wait times for

interview

‐ Shorter wait times for benefit

determination and

redetermination

‐ Reduced cycling in and

out of program services

‐ Reduced phone calls and lobby

traffic

‐ Reduced cycling in and out of

program services

‐ More complete and legible

application information

‐ Verification may come with

application

‐ Streamlined data entry

Cost Savings  ‐ Reduced number of trips

required to program office

(especially helpful for clients

with limited mobility or

transportation access)

‐ Reduced demands on

private organizations if

clients are served

elsewhere

‐ Resources available for other

priorities, or to process more

applications

‐ Lower program administrative cost

for taxpayers

Increased Access

For clients, web‐based tools have the obvious advantage of increasing access to benefits. People using

these tools can find out whether they may be eligible for benefits and submit applications from more

locations, at any time of day, and on more days of the week than ever before. In some cases, the privacy

of applying from an off‐site location such as home or a library may address the stigma some feel when

applying for benefits in a program office. For program administrators, web‐based tools may be seen as

an opportunity to reach previously underserved clients or new populations, and private organizations

may also appreciate the opportunity to serve their existing clients in new ways.

Efficiencies

Web‐based tools offer programs several business‐process efficiencies. For example, tools that help

clients resolve questions about eligibility and how to apply for benefits may lift the burden on program

staff (and, perhaps also on partner organization staff) by reducing the number of calls and visits to the

program office. For partner organizations, these tools may eventually reduce demands for staff time if

they help clients who are eligible for public programs connect to those benefits. Applications that can be

submitted and signed electronically can save clients a trip to the office and save program staff the time

they spend opening mailed‐in applications, struggling to read poor handwriting, and dealing with

incomplete applications. Tools that automatically transfer application data to the eligibility and benefit

determination system may give staff more time to serve a larger caseload even during a hiring freeze. If

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 5 
                         

                 

  

                           

                           

                             

                                   

                                 

                               

                       

                 

                       

                                   

                               

   

        

                             

                           

                             

                                 

                             

               

                             

                               

                           

                               

                             

                         

                       

                       

                             

                                         

                

           

                           

            

                   

                           

program offices successfully redesign their business processes to accommodate new tools, clients may

also begin to see their applications processed more quickly.

Cost Savings

Some benefit access tools may result in costs savings for benefit programs and partner organizations.

For example, online applications may make staffing increases unnecessary and reduce the need for

physical storage space. Partner organizations may offset some demand for their services (for example, if

food banks can help connect eligible clients with SNAP benefits, they may be able to serve more clients

with resources from their pantries). These savings will be offset to some extent by the costs associated

with creating and maintaining an online tool, and potential increases in caseloads. Any savings that are

in fact realized may allow programs to divert resources to other priorities.

What Are Some Key Considerations in Designing Web‐Based Tools?

When designing or purchasing web‐based benefit access tools, public agencies and private organizations

must consider how clients will access the tools, which programs the tools will include, and how data will

be used and stored. The case studies provide examples of how and when some administrators made

these decisions.

Self‐Service or Assisted Access?

Self‐service model. In a self‐service model, anyone with an internet connection can access the tool at

any time from any location, although trained staff at community organizations may support clients

throughout the process. The advantages of this model include convenience, the potential to reach a

large segment of the population, and the opportunity to eliminate the stigma of applying for benefits by

offering clients more privacy. The disadvantages include lack of internet access and/or low literacy or

computer skills among many vulnerable individuals and families.

Assisted model. Not all web‐based tools offer unrestricted access. In an assisted model, trained staff at

public or private organizations input and retrieve information on a client’s behalf or work with clients

who use a specially designated kiosk. Administrators of such tools reported that assistance with

navigation, interpreting questions, and entering data can be essential, so they enlist the help of trained

counselors (some of whom are volunteers). Some self‐service models also have an assisted option for

clients who want help. Partnerships between assisting organizations and public agencies may be

formalized in writing, and public agencies may offer assisting organizations support and oversight—

including ongoing training and technical assistance. Performance measures that carry incentives and

consequences can help assisting organizations make the most of the tool. Although this model may

address low literacy and lack of internet access, it limits the use of a tool to applicants who are, or are

willing to become, engaged with an assisting organization.

What Benefit Programs Will Be Included?

The following factors, among others, can influence decisions about which programs are included in web‐

based tools and in what order.

	 Community needs. Many communities are experiencing a need for benefits among

populations that have not needed them in the past. Including programs like the Earned

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 6 
                               

                           

                             

                       

                           

                     

                   

           

                   

                               

                           

               

                                 

                  

         

                               

                                 

                         

                                   

                                  

                             

                                   

                                   

                                 

              

                                 

                                 

            

                     

                               

                                 

                               

                           

                         

                                 

                                 

                             

                                 

Income Tax Credit or child care assistance may be a way to target these populations that

might not apply for other programs they associate more with public assistance (such as

TANF or SNAP). A broadly accessible tool may address the needs of new populations (for

example, a system already collecting household and income information may also help

clients file for tax refunds), or may provide an opportunity for additional outreach to

traditionally underserved populations.

	 Resources. Funding streams that administrators employ to support these tools‐‐such as

Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) or SNAP outreach

grants–may dictate which programs are included.

	 Program complexity and compatibility. Tools built to accommodate programs with

complex rules may be able to include programs with simpler rules for little extra effort. Or,

to deliver a tool more quickly, administrators may begin with programs that have simpler

rules and then add programs with more complex rules.

To illustrate how these factors may affect program choices, we describe how three of the eight case

study initiatives made decisions about program inclusion (see box).

Program Selection Drivers in Practice

Community needs: Including Medicaid and SNAP was the priority for ACCESS NYC stakeholders, but they did not

want a tool just geared toward the low‐income community, so they also included tax benefits, child care

programs, and veterans’ benefits. When including additional programs, administrators seek those with eligibility

criteria that are 80 percent similar to that of already‐included programs to minimize the marginal burden on users

for data entry. The tool excludes some programs that require specific referrals or that target small populations.

Resource availability: Benefits San Francisco began as a screener and online application for SNAP and Medicaid.

Funded by a USDA grant, the tool focused on SNAP eligibility questions, but staff reported that the information

they requested in the SNAP application offered much of what they needed to process a Medicaid application, so

they included both. Later, when resources were available to expand the tool to create Benefits CalWIN, other

programs (TANF and disaster SNAP) were added.

Program complexity: Utah added one program at a time, starting with the programs with the simplest rules and

progressing to programs with more complicated rules (first TANF and child care, then SNAP and other financial

programs, and finally Medicaid and CHIP).

Where Should Data Be Stored, for How Long, and for Whom?

Web‐based tools can store clients’ data and make it accessible to agencies and partner organizations, to

clients, or to both. Storing data where staff and other stakeholders can access it may reduce workload

by eliminating redundant uploads or keystrokes (for example, a client entering all of his or her

application information, a caseworker retyping it, and then both of them reentering much of that

information when the client recertifies for benefits). Electronic data storage may allow client

information to be backed up more easily than would be possible with paper files (that is, electronic

application data may be stored in several secure places in an agency, while paper applications are more

easily misplaced or inadvertently destroyed). Storing data where clients can access it would make it

easier for them when they interact with the system in the future (for example, by pre‐populating fields),

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 7 
                             

                                 

                         

                         

                           

                       

                   

                   

                       

                       

                 

                         

                         

                         

           

         

                             

                           

                               

                           

                       

           

                             

                               

                               

         

                       

                                 

                           

                               

                                 

                                   

                         

                     

                                   

                                 

                             

but the secure user accounts and user identification numbers required may increase burden on program

staff and clients using the tool. Administrators also face decisions about where and how data are stored,

and for how long. In making these decisions, they typically consider the following:

	 Client experience. Clients may expect an online experience that is similar to purchasing a

product online, where they have an account from which their name, address, and other

data pre‐populates an order form and can be updated. Organizations that host tools

intended to reduce client burden may strive to offer online accounts.

	 Data security. User accounts, pre‐populated forms, and transfer of data force

administrators to weigh security and data quality against efficiency. Because clients’ data

must be secure, more resources are involved in developing tools that store data.

	 Regulatory requirements. Some benefit programs may have requirements about data

storage or confidentiality that are not consistent with rules for other programs. For

example, ACCESS NYC staff reported that school meal regulations require them to purge

data within 14 days of benefit determination; they reported that these regulations were

written before the conceptualization of electronic applications.

How Are Web‐Based Tools Built?

Successful web‐based tools are typically developed with the benefit of input from all sides: policy,

program, and technology staff. Policy and program staff contribute critical information on eligibility rules

and regulations, and technology staff must put in place systems and computer programs that operate on

that information. There are several options for putting the technology in place: designing and building

software from scratch, purchasing a commercial off‐the‐shelf (COTS) product, and transferring public

domain systems built elsewhere (Table 4).

From scratch. An agency or organization may design and implement the technology by relying on its

own staff or contracted experts to develop and configure the code. The main advantage to this

approach is that the tool’s layout and functions can be customized to agency, partner organization, or

applicant needs from the start.

Commercial Off‐the‐Shelf. COTS products are typically developed by businesses and are later configured

or customized by the vendor, the purchaser, or a third party. COTS products are often purchased via

license agreements. Two common options for COTS products are software products and software as a

service (SaaS). The former are applications that reside on the purchaser’s hardware in much the same

way as word processing software resides on a home computer. The latter are applications that reside on

the vendor’s hardware or systems and are available to users by subscription, in much the same way as

people log in to tax‐preparation software that is not installed on their computers.

Public Transfer. Public agencies may transfer public domain systems—technology that was developed

by another public agency with government funds and therefore is available to the public at no cost to

their own agency. Transfer systems must be reconfigured to meet the needs of the new agency; internal

staff or contractors, particularly those familiar with the system being transferred, can assist with the

reconfiguration.

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 8 
               

                         

                 

             

                     

         

                             

                       

                     

                     

                 

                       

   

                           

                 

                 

                     

             

                           

                       

               

                        

                         

                       

                     

             

             

                   

                   

                 

                   

                 

                 

                             

                       

             

                

                         

               

         

                             

                                 

                         

                                 

Table 4. Software Decisions for Select Web‐Based Tools

Effort

ACCESS NYC

Software Type

COTS product

Comments

Cúram product installed with systems integration (including addition of

city‐specific features) by Accenture in partnership with City Department

of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT). The

partnership with Accenture ran from 2005 to 2010, and DoITT has

overseen maintenance and upgrades since 2010.

Benefits CalWIN From scratch Developed by Nets to Ladders (a benefits software company) and NWN

Corporation (a private IT firm) specifically for the needs of San Francisco

County (before expansion to other counties in the state). HP developed

and now maintains the expanded version. Before building a tool from

scratch counties originally explored COTS systems but abandoned these

options because they wanted an interface that staff would see as more

client friendly.

BEN From scratch to

COTS

Originally developed by Nets to Ladders as their own product to

distribute to customers and license to organizations (including Single

Stop) working with low‐income populations. In 2009, Single Stop

purchased the exclusive rights to use, develop, and distribute BEN when

Nets to Ladders went out of business.

Delaware ASSIST Public transfer Originally developed in Pennsylvania as the state’s online tool (called

COMPASS) by Deloitte, and since transferred to other states to own and

operate without ongoing licensing costs. Integration services are

available from Deloitte for a fee and were used to develop ASSIST.

EBO From scratch Seedco began by purchasing HelpWorks, a COTS product, but learned it

could not be customized to the degree they wished. After seeking an

alternative COTS product and being deterred by the cost of installation

and customization, Seedco contracted with a private technology

consultant to custom design and build EBO.

Health‐e‐Arizona COTS, SaaS Health‐e‐Arizona is an implementation of the One‐e‐App technology

originally developed in California by Deloitte, now owned by the

California Healthcare Foundation and managed by nonprofit firm Social

Interest Solutions (SIS). SIS licenses the tool to states or localities and

provides customization and integration services. Users log in to the

web‐based system, hosted by SIS using cloud computing technology.

The Benefit Bank COTS, SaaS Developed and operated by the private policy and technology firm

Solutions for Progress, this tool is available to be customized for states

or communities as subscription‐based software for online benefit

screening and, where supported by public agencies, applications.

Utah Helps/myCase COTS product Cúram product, installed with systems integration first by IBM and then

by independent contractors in partnership with state IT staff.

What Are Some Considerations for Implementation?

Once the functions, programs, and technological setup of a web‐based tool are determined, the next

step is to install and disseminate it. This involves deploying the system (with some pilot testing) and

conducting marketing and outreach so that applicants, assisting organizations, and agency staff know

the tool is available. Maintenance is then necessary to ensure the tool stays current. If public agencies

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 9 
                               

                         

                           

                               

      

       

                                 

                                 

                             

                                 

       

                               

                                 

                                         

                                 

                                     

                         

                                   

                             

                           

                                     

                                 

                     

                   

     

                                 

                               

                               

   

                               

                                 

                           

                             

                             

                             

                             

                               

                     

do not host the tool themselves, they may be important partners throughout this process by providing

support for implementation and timely information on policy changes for tool maintenance. Public

agencies can also provide feedback on outcomes useful for evaluating the tool’s implementation and

ongoing utility (for instance, the number of applications submitted through the tool and how many of

them are approved).

Implementation Story: Benefits CalWIN

Deployment: As the Benefits San Francisco tool that was a precursor to Benefits CalWIN expanded to other

counties in the 18‐county CalWIN consortium, staff found it difficult to manage by consensus (across staff from

parallel agencies in multiple counties), particularly due to the fast‐paced nature of the tool’s ongoing development

and implementation. In hindsight, they suggest having a small group of key decision makers, with input at various

times from larger groups.

Outreach: When the online tool was first launched in San Francisco County, program administrators struggled to

balance marketing the tool to reach more clients with recognizing how increased volume would strain staff. Thus,

they held back on marketing and outreach so as not to overwhelm their limited staff. Some of the 18 counties in

the consortium did market the tool and did experience a substantial increase in applications. San Francisco and

other county staff believe they could reach many more people with marketing but are concerned they do not have

the staff to handle an increased volume of applications and process them timely.

Deployment

The benefit access tools in the case study initiatives were deployed in a variety of ways. Some tools

(Benefits CalWIN, Delaware ASSIST, EBO, BEN) were made available only in select locations before they

were distributed to other communities or counties. Other tools were widely introduced (ACCESS NYC,

Utah Helps) but were used with only a small subset of programs at first, with others added later. Still

other tools were launched as an assisted model and were later made available more widely online (OBB,

Health‐e‐Arizona). Regardless of the approach, implementation and operations were facilitated by

starting small and then building up programs, functions, or locations.

Implementation Story: OBB

Deployment: OBB began in 2006 as a benefit screener and application tool for 12 programs, initially requiring

submission of paper applications. By 2008 it expanded to include more than 20 programs, and electronic

submission of applications was possible. Originally an assisted‐only tool, OBB is now widely available online for

any user.

Outreach: The Ohio Association of Second Harvest Food Banks (OASHF), the Governor’s office, and the Ohio

Department of Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS) administer the tool in partnership. Together, they are able to

reach special populations through innovative approaches. For example, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)

staff and Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program (VITA) volunteers coordinated by OASHF offer services in

communities across the state. Specially trained staff offer assistance with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) applications in select locations. The Governor’s office has helped build

relationships with correctional facilities to serve prisoners’ families and the prisoners themselves as they are

released. Since 2009, OBB Express, a customized van with trained counselors, has been offering benefit application

and tax filing services throughout the state to reach rural areas.

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 10 
     

                             

                                     

                               

                                 

            

       

                                 

                                         

                                 

                                 

                                   

                                     

                                   

     

                             

                                   

                           

                                 

                             

                                 

                 

                 

                             

                           

                                 

                                  

   

                           

                             

                               

                               

                         

                          

   

                                 

                             

Marketing and Outreach

A web‐based tool will not improve access to public benefits unless low‐income individuals and families

know about it and use it. But no single message or method of outreach will reach all populations equally,

so different messages or delivery methods may be necessary. There may be drawbacks to doing too

much marketing too soon, such as increased volume of new applications before staff and the tool are

ready to receive them (see box).

Implementation Story: Single Stop/BEN

Deployment: In the beginning, Single Stop chose sites based primarily on the interests and goals of their funders

(who had connections in New York City and New Mexico). It began in New York City as an effort for trained

counselors to link clients with benefits by working with locations that already served them (such as One‐Stop

centers, correctional facilities, and food pantries). Single Stop purchased BEN as a tool to assist their counselors

with linking clients to multiple benefits and to support them through the application process. Single Stop trains new

counselors on the BEN software and program rules both virtually and in person, and offers a support hotline for

counselors. (Single Stop funds one counselor at each site, but individual sites may also chose to employ additional

staff as counselors.)

Outreach: Single Stop’s strategic plan now focuses on expanding into community colleges, aiming to provide

benefits and supports to students who are struggling to stay in school. This involves opening sites in community

college networks and identifying new locations through their partnership with the Association of Community

College Trustees. When Single Stop identifies a potential site, they begin by brokering a relationship with the

community college network’s chancellor. They assess the network’s interest, capacity, and level of need, also

checking to see whether they are duplicating existing services in the community. The national office supports the

new site’s publicity efforts with materials and technical assistance.

What Are the Cost Considerations and Potential Funding Sources?

The resources required to build and maintain a web‐based benefits access tool vary according to

function, size of population served, number of benefit programs included, complexity of program rules,

and how the technology is developed. Although some categories of costs are common to all tools, the

context in which a tool is implemented will greatly affect the cost. Funding sources will likely vary.

Startup Costs

Startup costs include the cost of hardware (servers, network equipment, or computers) and software

(for development, debugging, databases, and operations). Also included is the cost to put these items in

place. Software developers or integrators that are involved must be paid to design, code or build,

document, test (both internally and externally), and support the new tool. For tools that serve a

linguistically diverse population, translation costs may apply. Finally, some tools may necessitate the

hiring of new staff, and staff training will be required for all tools.

Ongoing Costs

Ongoing costs include the cost to maintain a tool and the systems associated with it. Business analysts,

program managers, developers, and database administrators may be involved in this work. They may be

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 11 
                                   

                             

                             

                               

          

   

                             

                       

                         

                               

                     

                         

                             

                                         

                             

                               

                             

                               

               

                 

  

   

   

      

      

  

      

        

      

      

   

                                      

                                     

                 

                           

         

                             

                                 

                                 

                             

internal staff or staff from a service purchased by an agency. There is also the cost of ongoing

operations. Resources are needed to host the tool and to provide ongoing training and expansion,

marketing, and staff management and support. Initiatives can control these costs to some extent. For

example, Access NYC calculates net present value to determine the costs and benefits of adding new

programs to the tool.

Funding Sources

The case study initiatives used a combination of public and private funds to support tool development

and maintenance (Table 5). Public funding streams included TANF, CHIP, and Medicaid operational

funds; SNAP and CHIPRA outreach dollars; child care and refugee‐assistance funding; and resources

from state or local general funds. For half of the case study initiatives, private‐sector and foundation

resources also supported the development, dissemination, or maintenance of tools. Some initiatives

(such as Health‐e‐Arizona) also create self‐sustaining revenue streams through licensing or other user

fees. Both public and private funds have challenges associated with them. Public funding streams often

support access to a single program (such as CHIP or SNAP) rather than the full array that may be part of

an effort, and single program funding may constrain the effort from reaching its full potential.

Foundation and private dollars may be more flexible, but availability can waver with the economy and

with foundation priorities. One creative way to support an initiative by combining private resources and

public dollars is to use AmeriCorps, VISTA, or VITA volunteers as trainers, outreach workers, or benefits

counselors, thus increasing staff while minimizing labor costs.

Table 5. Sources of Funding by Case Study Tools

Federal Program City/ Foundation/

Operational State County Federal Nonprofit Private Licensing/

Effort Funds Funds Funds Grants Grants Investment User Fees

ACCESS NYC X X

Benefits CalWIN X X

BENa

X X

Delaware ASSIST X X

EBO X X X X X

Health‐e‐Arizonab

X X X X

OBBa

X X X X

Utah Helps/myCase X X X

Note: For tools that operate in multiple locations, these funding sources may only apply to the case study location.

a Both BEN and The Benefit Bank began through the private efforts of technology and public policy firms, but their

dissemination and replication depend on funding from other sources.

b Foundation funding supported original development of One‐e‐App, while federal and state dollars supported implementation

of the tool in Arizona.

Conclusion

Web‐based tools offer the potential to expand access to new clients or traditionally underserved clients,

and may reduce the time or cost for clients, staff, or both to complete the application process.

Measuring the extent to which the tools described here improve access or reduce time or costs is

beyond the scope of this project, but the brief offers an overview of choices program administrators

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 12 
                               

                                 

                               

                                 

                                   

                             

                               

                     

                             

                               

                           

               

may face in designing web‐based tools if they have already determined to pursue that option. These

choices are often driven by the context in which a tool will be used. Financial resources, existing

infrastructure and technology, political will, and other factors vary by location, so what may be sensible

and successful for one community may not work in another. Thus, there is no simple prescription for

how to design and implement a web‐based tool well. In addition, very little data exist to assess the

relative success that various web‐based tools are having. In many public agencies, web‐based tools are

just one component of a larger initiative to streamline access that may include restructuring of business

process, policy changes, and technological enhancements (such as document imaging, call centers,

and/or updated eligibility determination systems). In private organizations, the tools are often part of a

larger strategy to increase access to benefits, which may also include outreach along with financial and

employment counseling. Particularly in these cases, teasing out the specific effects that web‐based tools

have on benefits access is a formidable challenge.

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 13